“Jews will always be ostracized because of their attempts to destroy every culture that admits them.”

Now, who could that quote be from?

Why, Lewrockwell.com contributor Bob Wallace*, of course:

Most “bigotry” is the act of noticing the truth.

Blacks are genetically intellectually inferior, always have been, always will be. Except for music and sports, they will always be on the bottom. They’ve never had a culture worthy of the name, never will.

Asians have an ages-old group mentality than I doubt can be eradicated. They have no creativity, and I doubt anything can be done about that, either.

There never was a Muslim Golden Age. Most of it consisted of stealing from Christians and Jews. Islam was, and always will be, an intellectually and morally dead obscenity. It is the worst thing that has happened to the world.

Jews will always be ostracized because of their attempts to destroy every culture that admits them.

Whites will always be on top, Asians right underneath them, Mexicans far below, and blacks right at the bottom.

Nearly everything in the world has been created by Western Christian civilization, especially in America since 1776.

Not really anything to add to that, I think, except to perhaps ponder on Mr. Wallace’s previous charges of cultural destruction levied at No-Treason.com. Does Mr. Wallace judge that NT is really a tool for the great Jew Conspiracy To Destroy Every Culture That Admits Them, or are we simply unwitting pawns in said Conspiracy’s machinations?

What do you think? Cast your vote in the No-Treason forum now, before filthy wetbacks and money-grubbing “neocons” destroy your culture!

* Update: Tom Palmer, in comments below, notes that Wallace has now been removed from the list of LRC contributors. An archive of some of Wallace’s columns can be found here.

173 thoughts on ““Jews will always be ostracized because of their attempts to destroy every culture that admits them.””

  1. Why are we Welsh always left out of these sweeping generalizations? We’ve done our best to destroy Western Christian Civilization,producing the National Health Service and Catherine Zeta-Jones as well– never so much as a “shout-out” from Mr. Wallace and his ilk.

  2. I must have been born into the Trifecta, then. My father’s line is German, my mother’s is Canadian (and by extension, all kindsa western European), and I was born here. And yet, I know gobs of individuals from other racial backgrounds that are better than I in many fields. What to do?

    That Wallace post may be the best (worst?) example I’ve seen in years of a sweeping generalization, outside openly racist forums. The non-caucasian individuals working for the company that employs me invalidate everything he’s said all on their own.

    “Asians aren’t creative.” I’m gasping here. Backlit bullshit like that is rare outside of government buildings.

  3. I have a question. Is this a lame attempt to paint those who are against open borders as racists? Are you trying to for instance smear Hoppe indirectly?

    I find this type of argumentation by innuendo very dubious. It certainly is a fallacious way to argue. If I find a racist (or racist by implication as you have done here) that is for open borders will you shut your trap. For instance, if I find someone who claims that something commonly considered to be racially offensive is not really about racism and that person is for open borders will you stop peddling this angle?

    Never fear though you can call anybody you want a racist in this country without fear of being found guilty of a crime. I understand the courts have held that calling someone a racist is merely an expression of opinion and not fact. I won’t be doing that though. I will be showing the person support something that is racist in nature and also supports open borders.

  4. “It certainly is a fallacious way to argue.”

    Agreed, the fact that a proponent of closed borders is a racist doesn’t advance any argument for open borders. But I don’t see that Lopez has so argued.

    I do see a troubling pattern at LRC.

  5. Oh, I think he has. In fact he links to this false tricotomy of a question:

    Question: Why Does No-Treason.com “believe the answer to everything is open borders”?
    1) No-Treason is a willing tool of the Secret Jew Conspiracy, as explicated by Bob Wallace
    2) No-Treason is an unwitting dupe of the Secret Jew Conspiracy, as explicated by Bob Wallace
    3) Lopez, Bob Wallace is a good man and fine human being, and you’re a “neocon” loser

    He’s been implying this all along. The only choices besides being for open borders are various racist positions.

    I am sure you are familiar with white lies. Let me explain something to you about deception with an example.
    Here’s a true sentence about my dog.
    “My dog has one leg and it can run just as fast as ever.”
    Now you are probably wondering how that can be. Well that’s simple. Since my dog has four legs it also has at least one leg. Now the kind of deception I am pulling here is one of omission. I am breaking the rule of “Be informative when speaking”.

    So I can be deceptive at the same time that everything I say is true. By being less than informative I hope the listener will jump to his own false conclusions. Thus if caught I can shift the blame to the listener.

    This is what Lopez does.

    Lopez keeps making posts/comments associating open borders opponents and racism. At least he attempts to do so. In two prior cases his token racist was not established only by innuendo. He is then leaving the reader to make the association. This is a form of withholding information in order to deceive. By only giving examples of racists (and presumed racists) as opponents to open borders he is trying to tar all opponents as racists.

    Hell, one of the commenters in his prior posts caught on to this line of reasoning (if you want to call it that) and commented on how Lopez is right and it is just about keeping out the brown skins (or some such remark).

    It’s a dispicable way of arguing. You associate the opposing view with a vile philosophy by providing a skewed sample of reality.

    I am sure you are familiar with this tactic as it is often used against libertarians. After all aren’t you for free markets just like Herbert Spencer, and all those “Social Darwinists”. After all isn’t that to quote Lopez “the real reason” you want laissez faire, so you can let people starve in the streets while you greedily maintain social institutions that maintain your privilege.

    I guess Lopez thinks this style of argumentation is cute. I think it’s a vile ad hominem attack. One accomplished by not being fully informative and then hoping the reader will jump to a false conclusion. Further hoping that other readers are not smart enough to catch on to this tactic. It’s not working.

    Finally, it’s vile because racism so taboo in our society that it can and does lead to people losing their job or even career. Even for using words as innocuous as niggardly.

  6. Macker:

    The only choices besides being for open borders are various racist positions.

    Hey, if you don’t vote you can’t complain.

    By only giving examples of racists (and presumed racists) as opponents to open borders he is trying to tar all opponents as racists.

    I’m pretty sure that I explicitly affirmed to Lawyer Kinsella, in comments here, that I didn’t judge that every opponent of open borders is a racist.

    And I don’t so judge.

    After all isn’t that to quote Lopez “the real reason” you want laissez faire, so you can let people starve in the streets while you greedily maintain social institutions that maintain your privilege.

    Macker, the problem is that to make that stick you need to come up with an actual quote from me about that. See, I can quote Wallace mouthing off about Jew conspiracies. You, on the other hand, can’t quote me about wanting to maintain my priviledges.

  7. Macker: I have a question. Is this a lame attempt to paint those who are against open borders as racists? Are you trying to for instance smear Hoppe indirectly?

    I believe the point is that Bob Wallace is a racist moron. This point is demonstrated by his statements to the effect of “Look at me, I am a racist moron. Here’s some unreconstructed anti-Semitism to go along with it, free of charge.”

    The connection with Hans-Hermann Hoppe exists, as far as I can tell, only in your fevered imagination.

    Macker: I guess Lopez thinks this style of argumentation is cute. I think it’s a vile ad hominem attack

    The fallacy of argumentum ad hominem is committed when, and only when, irrelevant information about the person holding a position is used to dismiss the position without argument. Quoting idiotic racist statements that Wallace made in order to demonstrate that Wallace is an idiotic racist is not an argumentum ad hominem. It’s a straightforward argument from empirical evidence.

    If Lopez were arguing, “Closed borders is a doctrine held by racists; therefore it is false” he would be using an ad hominem argument.

    But he’s not arguing that.

  8. Well, here’s hoping that Wallace could have his fondest wish of dying painfully from polio…after all, he wouldn’t want to benefit from “Jew science.”

    I guess that we’re going to be treated to “libertarian Nazism” next.

  9. How do we know that Bob wrote these things and it wasn’t just some neocon infiltrator impersonating him? I am starting to think that No-Treason has been infiltrated by PNAC, how else to you explain their obsessive hatred of Lew Rockwell based on few comments which might be construed as being non-PC (that blacks have lower IQs, that Jews destroy culture, etc. Sorry, but facts are facts, even in beltway left-libertarian land!)

  10. While we’re on the topic of racism, I was wondering if the mathematically inclined people around here could check out La Griffe’s site:

    http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/

    Much of the material there is rather unpleasant. But if the MATH is right, and the STATS are genuine, then there may be a real problem. Basically, I want someone to explain to me why La Griffe is full of shit.

  11. Yep. This would have ugly consequences, one of which being that Bob Wallace’s statements, while very crude, would be essentially correct.

  12. Statistics about groups aren’t terribly useful to those who judge each individual on his or her own merits. I would be amazed if the everage IQ of any two groups were exactly the same, and equally amazed if there weren’t huge overlap between the groups.

    Let’s say, for argument’s sake, though, that all the statistics on that site are true. Now, I’m interviewing someone who is [black, asian, whatever] for a technical job: do those statistics help me make a hiring decision? Would they even be useful, absent anti-discrimination laws, in pre-filtering interviewees based on their group membership? Or would doing so cost me quality candidates?

  13. Would they even be useful, absent anti-discrimination laws, in pre-filtering interviewees based on their group membership? Or would doing so cost me quality candidates?

    I doubt they would be very useful, but that’s not really the point; I think La Griffe just wants to discredit feminists and other groups fighting for diversity in workplace. On the other hand, if those statistics were true, it would probably result in a lot of irrational discrimination and violence against minorities, surely a negative consequence.

  14. >>Let’s say, for argument’s sake, though, that all the statistics on that site are true. Now, I’m interviewing someone who is [black, asian, whatever] for a technical job: do those statistics help me make a hiring decision? Would they even be useful, absent anti-discrimination laws, in pre-filtering interviewees based on their group membership? Or would doing so cost me quality candidates?

    The group statistics would indeed be useful, and in interesting and scary ways. Consider this scenario:

    Say you’re trying to hire the smartest guy possible for some position. You have three finalists, one black, one anglo-saxon white, and one Ashkenazi Jew, all of whom scored the same on IQ tests administered to them, say 160. Who should you hire?

    The answer is that you should hire the Jew. The reason is that IQ tests are not perfect, and some element of chance is involved. The black man scored 70 points above his racial group average of 90, the white man scored 55 points above his racial group average of 105, and the Jew scored 45 points above his racial group average of 115. Since the black man’s score is farther from the mean of his group, the odds of his high score being due to chance are greater. The reverse is true for the Jew. In fact, correction factors can be calculated based on the test accuracy and the group averages. La Griffe presents what he claims to be valid statistical methods for doing so on his site.

    Now, the better the individual testing methods available, the less relevant this effect is. But good testing is difficult and expensive, whereas race is often a large and obvious marker.

  15. >>On the other hand, if those statistics were true, it would probably result in a lot of irrational discrimination and violence against minorities, surely a negative consequence.

    This is the problem. It’s largely a problem caused by communitarian and statist thought. After all, if the goal is to improve the strength of the Culture and Society, we should clearly cleanse it of undesirable low-IQ elements, while sponsoring responsible breeding programs designed to maximize the number of high-IQ offspring available to fuel the next generation of Elite.

    As people who value individual liberty, personal freedom, and the dignity of individual humans, we should tell anyone who advocates the above to go fuck themselves, of course.

    That said, there is a tremendous opportunity for good if the statistics are true. If there are genetic IQ differences caused by race, then surely honest science could discover the mechanism. Clever genetic engineers could then team up with entreprenuers to develop and sell Smart Pills(tm). IQ could become yet another commodity one could buy, like gold or peanuts.

    That would be the cool way, the free market way, to deal with this information, assuming it is accurate.

  16. TJ, if you could take “smart pills”, I don’t think anyone would want to wait for confirmation of racial differences before buying them. On the other hand they would, ironically, proably not be approved by the FDA for a long time.

  17. TJ:

    >>On the other hand, if those statistics were true, it would probably result in a lot of irrational discrimination and violence against minorities, surely a negative consequence.

    This is the problem. It’s largely a problem caused by communitarian and statist thought.

    And collectivsts are notoriously immune to reason – their crusades will continue whether these stats are true or false.

    But the fact is that it’s their agenda itself (collectivism) that’s faulty. And that’s all the argument that needs to be made, because even assuming that all of those stats are correct, it’s still none of their business who lives where.

    All of the graphs and charts and fevered denunciations can by blown out of the water with one question: “Who owns what?”

    That said, there is a tremendous opportunity for good if the statistics are true.

    Yes. Understanding reality is a good thing. *If* these stats are correct, *then* they improve our understanding, *despite* the fact that the aforesaid collectivists and statists will attempt to use them to advance their own agendas.

  18. Macker,

    “He’s been implying this all along. The only choices besides being for open borders are various racist positions.”

    It seemed clear to me that Lopez’s post was about Wallace, not all advocates of open borders.

    I’m pretty sure Lopez would agree that advocates of closed borders need not be racist and pointing out that Wallace is an idiot does not advance any argument for open porders.

  19. “How do we know that Bob wrote these things and it wasn’t just some neocon infiltrator impersonating him?”

    I considered the possibility the STR post might not be genuine or that it might be a joke. I think it’s real. If it’s not he’s free to say so.

  20. I wouldn’t agree. I can’t think of any non-bigoted arguments for closed borders.

    How is the argument that open borders exacerbate terrorism a bigoted argument? Or the argument that since different groups can never get along, they should be separated in order to make everybody happier? Those don’t seem like bigoted arguments.

  21. Ghertner:

    I wouldn’t agree. I can’t think of any non-bigoted arguments for closed borders.

    I specified “racist”, which is a subset of “bigotry”. For example, someone who only wanted law-abiding Americans inside the lines on the map wouldn’t be racist, but he would be a bigot.

    In any case, like Kennedy noted, I’m not really trying to advance any arguments for open borders, here.

  22. You’ll notice that there has been no denial on Mr. Wallace’s odd web site, despite multiple recent postings on other topics, and….he has been deleted from the lewrockwell.com site, as well as from their list of columnists, and…all of his columns are gone. Sounds like he spoke a bit more freely about their mutual interests than Lew Rockwell would have preferred.

  23. Tom G. Palmer: “Sounds like he spoke a bit more freely about their mutual interests than Lew Rockwell would have preferred.”

    Of course, the exact opposite of the above makes entirely more sense: Rockwell removed Wallace’s articles from his site due to the the scarcity of mutual interests. Palmer must think that, although Rockwell has written tens of thousands of words that put him on the fringes of public political discourse, he’s a shy man who would rather the world not know his opinions.

    It’s far easier for me to believe that Palmer is just out to get Rockwell for his own personal reasons. My guess is that the Cato folks are jealous of anybody with the slightest bit more intellectual integrity than they themselves can muster. Maybe it upsets Rupert. (Hey, making up baseless accusations is easy! Palmer’s not the pro I thought he was!)

  24. Bob Wallace was posting at lewrockwell for years, since 2003 at least. And they didn’t know his views until Tom Palmer pointed them out? Please. If that is actually the case, then they are morons. More likely, the knew his views and either agreed, or didn’t mind being associated with him. So they published him. After all, Lew Rockwell has published Joe Sobran, a Holocaust denier and anti-Semite, and has cited frequently Jared Taylor and Sam Francis.

    You can’t be that gullible, or naive.

  25. Palmer,

    “Sounds like he spoke a bit more freely about their mutual interests than Lew Rockwell would have preferred.”

    I don’t see how you can criticize LRC for punting Wallace. What reaction would satisfy you?

  26. Giesbrecht:

    Of course, the exact opposite of the above makes entirely more sense: Rockwell removed Wallace’s articles from his site due to the the scarcity of mutual interests.

    What, you’re saying that all of Wallace’s archived articles are suddenly, magically, no longer of interest to Lew Rockwell?

    That’s absurd on the face of it.

    The most likely explanation is that Wallace and his Jew-conspiracy craziness is simply too embarassing to have hanging around, now. This appears to be standard procedure at Lewrockwell.com: they even pulled a column by Hans-Hermann Hoppe after it “caused a lot of comment“.

  27. Kennedy: “I don’t see how you can criticize LRC for punting Wallace. What reaction would satisfy you?”

    Well, punting Wallace is for the best but the memory-hole treatment is not really an appropriate way to deal with embarrassing fascists. A public statement that they’d no longer be carrying Bob Wallace’s columns and the reasons for it would have been more honest.

    Stefan: “How is the argument that open borders exacerbate terrorism a bigoted argument? Or the argument that since different groups can never get along, they should be separated in order to make everybody happier? Those don’t seem like bigoted arguments.”

    Neither argument for immigration restrictions can succeed except on the presumption that it’s OK to use violent means to control the movement of individual foreigners, without any evidence of actual or threatened wrongdoing, in order to stop some vaguely-specified group of other foreigners from committing or threatening some vaguely-specified wrongdoing. That seems pretty bigoted to me. (It also usually requires some further forms of bigotry — e.g. the baseless idea that foreigners, as such, pose any greater threat to your safety than God-fearing Americans, or the similarly baseless idea that you can do whatever you like to innocent individual people in order to safeguard the Volkisch purity of your neighborhood. But even without these further premises, the position itself requires bigotry to justify itself.)

    But Lopez is right to point out that he specifically mentioned racism, not bigotry at large. The reasons you cited are examples of reasons that are bigoted but not racist.

  28. Post of an e-mail I sent to Tom Palmer. I think this addresses the issues here.

    Dear Mr. Palmer,

    It seems almost assured that every time I visit your blog, there will be a new smear of Lew Rockwell, Hans Hoppe, the LvMI, or all of the above…

    Regarding Raimondo, I fail to see how arguing that the state of Israel may have had knowledge about 9/11 and the London bombings is somehow “anti-semitic”. There is a lot to criticize about Israel, and voicing such criticism doesn’t make one an anti-Semite. I suppose, in your mind, the survivors of the attack by an Israel airplane on the USS Liberty are “anti-Semites”, according to you.

    Also, I’d suggest you get your lies and insinuations straight. You suggest that Justin Raimondo and Rockwell are anti-Semites, noting Raimondo’s views. Yet, in other places, you claim these people, and those at the LvMI worship Mises and Rothbard. Well, get it straight: either they’re anti-Semites, or they’re not. If you’re an anti-Semite – – with a very few exceptions — you aren’t going to have an extraordinarily high opinion of people who are Jewish.

    As for Mr. Wallace, I see no point in defending his views on homosexuals, blacks, Muslims, Asians, etc etc. Having never heard of Wallace before, I looked at a few of his articles on the LRC, I find nothing to be outraged about. While the writings on his website may be objectionable, that’s completely irrelevant to the LRC. Of course, it is entirely possible that I’m being extremely unfair to Wallace here, assuming that your accusations against him are true, and not just made up.

    I will note, however, that there is a difference between stating things that one believes are factual and hating the group one is talking about. There is also a difference between hating a certain group of people and actually wanting to (or) initiating aggression against them. It is quite possible to be a libertarian, yet still hate various groups.

    I’d also note that Lew Rockwell has Paul Craig Roberts columns on the LRC. That hardly means that he’s against free trade. There’s no reason not to publish a good article by someone with whom you may disagree on other areas. It’s also quite possible to publish articles you specifically disagree with (for good reason: debate, discussion), as the LvMI Blog did with Roberts’ articles against free trade, and as did the QJAE by publishing Bryan Caplan’s criticisms of Austrian economics. You continue to try to engage in the fallacy of guilt by association. All I can say is, so what?

    Sincerely,
    David J. Heinrich

  29. Response to those who argue that “if there’s nothing wrong with having Wallace’s comments on the LRC, why did Lew Remove them?”

    This fails to prove anything, and is hypocritical. It seems like you guys have a double-standard for Lew Rockwell: damned if he does remove the content (because this apparently proves that he had something to cover up), damned if he doesn’t remove the content (because this apparently “proves” that he accepts Wallace’s views espoused elsewhere).

    Why Mr. Rockwell deleted those articles is irrelevant. Perhaps it is an unfortunate consequence of individuals like Mr. Palmer who insist on engaging in logical fallacies of ad hominem and guilt by association.

    Thanks for Mr. Palmer’s insistent on vilely smearing Mr. Rockwell and the LRC, there is now less information/knowledge on the internet.

    I repeat that there was nothing particularly objectionable about the content of Wallace that was actually published on the LRC. So, why is it that, apparently according to some of you guys, Mr. Rockwell has to be the “thought and speech police” for anyone who publishes on the LRC?

    If Mr. Rockwell were to follow the nutty demands it seems some are making of him, he’d spend all his time making sure that no-one who posts on the LRC ever said anything objectionable elsewhere.

  30. It’s cute how David never mises an opportunity to critique everyone and anyone who dares critique L. Ron Rockwell and his committee of concerned citizens. Does he get paid directly by Lyndon LaRockwell to spam message boards? Or he is just hoping for a spot in the Revolutionary Cadre?

  31. Heinrich:

    Response to those who argue that “if there’s nothing wrong with having Wallace’s comments on the LRC, why did Lew Remove them?”

    Who, specifically now, is that quote from?

    Why Mr. Rockwell deleted those articles is irrelevant. Perhaps it is an unfortunate consequence of individuals like Mr. Palmer who insist on engaging in logical fallacies of ad hominem and guilt by association.

    What you’re saying is that Rockwell’s target audience isn’t bright enough to pick out logical fallacies, thus Rockwell is forced to pander to them.

    That’s real nice.

    Of course, it is entirely possible that I’m being extremely unfair to Wallace here, assuming that your accusations against him are true, and not just made up.

    An insinuation which is heavily supported by the stirring and vigorous defense that LRC and their fellow travellers have mounted. Right? Except, oops, Lew Rockwell has apparently shit-canned Wallace and not one person has spoken up in favor of Wallace’s Jew-conspiracy nutbaggery, or even done more than drop a backhanded hint that that quote isn’t genuine.

    Hell, even you “see no point in defending [Wallace’s] views”.

    What’s “entirely possible” is that you don’t really have any argument to make, or you’d have made it, already.

  32. Lopez,

    Nonsense. I simply said it was possible I was being unfair to Wallace because I haven’t bothered to research the validity of those quotes (you do know that anyone can post under any name online, right?). I’m not denying they’re genuine, just saying I haven’t done the research to show that they are. But assuming they are (which seems a reasonable assumption, as it would be a little far out for someone to go to the trouble of making them up to discredit Wallace)…

    Even assuming they are valid quotes, that still doesn’t mean that there’s anything wrong with the articles by Wallace that were on LRC. I looked at them. There was nothing wrong with them, unless you consider advocating peace and calling Che Guevara & Castro ruthless murderers “wrong”.

    PS: Also, I’m not saying that the LRC audience isn’t smart enough to pick out logical fallacies. I’m not making that kind of generalization. I’m saying that people here, and Tom G. Palmer in his slander-article about this on his blog, *are* engaging in logical fallacies. But, just because I can make that argument, doesn’t mean that such demagoguery is any less effective. If correctly pointing out logical fallacies and demagogeury were enough to make people stop believing in them, Al Sharpton would probably be a nobody. And the quote I started out with is paraphrased from JFK and Tom G. Palmer (e-mail).

  33. I’m saying that people here, and Tom G. Palmer in his slander-article about this on his blog, *are* engaging in logical fallacies.

    Which people, here? Who has engaged in which fallcies, with what post?

    Also, I’m not saying that the LRC audience isn’t smart enough to pick out logical fallacies. I’m not making that kind of generalization.

    Then what’s the point of this:

    Why Mr. Rockwell deleted those articles is irrelevant. Perhaps it is an unfortunate consequence of individuals like Mr. Palmer who insist on engaging in logical fallacies of ad hominem and guilt by association.

    If Rockwell deleted that content because Palmer was engaging in fallacious arguments (not that I’m stipulating that, mind), then it follows that Rockwell thinks that his target audience is susceptible to fallacious arguments. You certainly judge it at least possible that the LRC target audience can’t tell fact from fallacy, else you wouldn’t have written that paragraph.

  34. Heinrich,

    I don’t damn Rockwell for booting Wallace, nor even criticize him for it. I think it’s clear though that Rockwell does not share your sentiment that what Wallace writes on other sites is irrelevant to LRC. You were prepared to defend Lew’s continued publication of Wallace but Lew was not.

    And it’s plain stupid to blame Palmer or anyone here for the removal of Wallace’s articles from LRC – Lew is fully responsible for that.

  35. ” I haven’t bothered to research the validity of those quotes”

    Yeah, so much work to click on a hyperlink. You were too busy consuming Kool-Aid…

  36. X,

    That’s quite possibly the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. I suppose you think that everyone is who they claim to be on the internet, right? So, if someone posts something to a blog under the name “Murray N. Rothbard”, I guess that means he’s come back from the dead, then, right? Idiot.

  37. David Heinrich…if that’s who you REALLY are…

    “That’s quite possibly the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard”

    Likewise. And maybe you can explain to the class to why your guru Lew dumped Wallace then, if it wasn’t really Wallace who made the comments? And why hasn’t Wallace come out and said it wasn’t him, after it cost him his job was LRC?

    Or maybe you believe the neocons hacked into Wallace’s account? Or the zionists controlled his brainwaves and made him post those things? It’s elephants and turtles all the way down in your world, isn’t it?

    Enjoy your kool-aid. Or maybe you are not really David posting such nonsense and really a zionist wetback left-libertarian neocon imposter?

  38. X,

    No, you dimwitted idiot. I was suggesting that anyone can create an account on some forum under any name. When I originally wrote my e-mail to Palmer, that was *before* Wallace’s comments were removed from the LRC. That was why I acknowledged that I may have been unfair to Wallace. The point, of course, was irrelevant: my point was that Lew wasn’t doing anything wrong by hosting his articles. My point was to counter the vicious (guilt by association) suggestion that Rockwell was some kind of racist. I was also arguing against the ad hominems.

    Lopez,

    Non-sense. You’re over-generalizing. There may be some in the LRC audience who are going to be swayed by demagoguery. Perhaps Lew thought it just wasn’t worth putting up with Tom’s raging accusations of racism against him to keep Wallace’s articles on there.

    JFK,

    Thanks for clarifying your position. What I was trying to say is that Tom provided motivation for such an action, by his vicious attacks. I was and am highly critical of his attempts to insinuate that Rockwell is a racist, via the guilt-by-association argument.

  39. David (who might be a anti-rothbaridan imposter troll, nobody can be this stupid and culitst):

    You have no point, as everyone (including Lew) knew it really was Wallace.

    Lew also knew he was in the wrong, which is why he:

    1) dumped Wallace and

    2) went into “cover-up” mode by deleting his articles.

    Why did he cover it up?

    Because is showed yet another “curious association” with someone who makes offhand racist comments?

    Or do you maintain the comments were not racist?

    Keep beating Lew’s tom tom. I hope he pays you well.

  40. Non-sense. You’re over-generalizing. There may be some in the LRC audience who are going to be swayed by demagoguery. Perhaps Lew thought it just wasn’t worth putting up with Tom’s raging accusations of racism against him to keep Wallace’s articles on there.

    Why wouldn’t it be “worth it”, if his target audience could in fact tell fact from fallacy? If there was some sort of argument to make, why hasn’t anyone, including you, made it?

    Oh, and because you musta forgot the question:

    I’m saying that people here, and Tom G. Palmer in his slander-article about this on his blog, *are* engaging in logical fallacies.

    Which people, Heinrich? Who at No-Treason has engaged in which fallcies, with what post?

  41. X,

    Try using reason, for a change. It is ideas that are important, not the people espousing them.

    No matter what you say, you can’t escape the fact that:

    1. Saying Wallace is a racist is irrelevant to the substance of his articles. That is nothing other than an ad hominem. It is a valid personal criticism of him, but not a criticism of anything he’s written on the LRC.

    2. You are using “guilt by association”, another logical fallacy. Rockwell publishes essays by many people with whom he disagrees elsewhere, including Paul Craig Roberts and Noam Chomsky (who has a seething hatred of capitalism).

    3. None of this proves in any way that Lew is a racist. That is your idiotic insinuation, which could only be the result of incredible and infinite idiocy, as it is commonly known that Rockwell was very good friends with the late Murray Rothbard (who was Jewish), and is currently close associates with many Jewish economists.

    Apparently, however, on this forum, any nutty accusation of “racism” is accepted. The vicious Tom Palmer has no hesitation about calling a man who is friends with many Jewish people an anti-Semitic racist. Apparently, there is no claim so absurd that you can’t say it with a straight face. According to Palmer’s cadre, the Jewish people affiliated with the LvMI are all a bunch of self-hating anti-Semites, like Bobbby Fischer. Either that, or those there who aren’t Jewish are anti-Semites who befriend Jewish people.

    4. As I said in my e-mail to Palmer, I don’t and am not defending racist comments. For you to imply that maybe I would is just being a jackass.

    Quite amazingly, the multi-cultural “tolerant” attitude that many here claim to embrace — from which they can (rightly) say that we should be tolerant of different races, religions, sexual orientations, etc — are completely intolerant of racists, not only to the point of disagreeing with their views on race and condemning such as immoral, but to the point of saying that nothing they write (even if on other subjects, and worthwhile) should be published, and that anyone who in any way associates with them is a “racist”. I suppose if you listen to Wagner, you’re also an anti-Semite, right?

    As for why Rockwell took down his essays, I’d speculate it’s because of the demagoguery against the LRC initiated at Palmer’s site and continued here. Even though it is true that there’s nothing wrong with hosting those essays, and if the arguments against it are fallacy, there are alot of people who obviously cannot separate emotion from logic. Various individuals on this board (and I’m not saying everyone here falls into that category, only a few select people) prove that point.

  42. John Lopez,

    As for why Lew removed Wallace’s blogs, you’re acting like this is something that can objectively be determined. Remember? Subjective value and all? Maybe it was just too much of a pain, considering the flaming.

    As for people here engaging in fallacies, using guilt by association and ad hominem, there’s at least 2: Palmer and X.

  43. Heinrich,

    You say “Saying Wallace is a racist is irrelevant to the substance of his articles. That is nothing other than an ad hominem. It is a valid personal criticism of him, but not a criticism of anything he’s written on the LRC.”

    What about what Wallace wrote in this column?
    Link

    “Most of the foreign drivers were Russians, Ethiopians and Nigerians. I never had any problems with the Russians, most of whom worked hard and wanted to be Americans. But still, all of them drove wages down to the point where Americans fled. Even the Ethiopians were okay. The Nigerians, on the other hand � every one of them, � were liars and thieves. The ones I met didn’t seem to understand the wrongness of lying and stealing. When I started getting the Nigerian 419 email scams, the first thing I did was think, “It figures.”

    It’s not hard to see what Wallace was saying in that. And it was printed on LRC!

    Also, having Jewish friends does not refute a charge of anti-semitism. Wallace name-checked both Mises and Rothbard, but he still said those comments about Jews destroying culture. For a lot of racists and anti-Semites, there are those they consider “one of the good ones”. Doesn’t change their views though.

  44. Y,

    First, I’d like to thank you for the very civil response. Responding briefly…

    1. I don’t see how that quote is racist. He’s reflecting on his personal exerience. If all of the Nigerians he’s met are liars/thieves, why shouldn’t he say such? I don’t see how that comment, in and of itself, is racist. Nigeria is a very corrupt country, it’s not too difficult to believe such a thing. We shouldn’t close our eyes to reality, just because there happens to be some differences between the races and the sexes.

    99% of the prison population, and of those in the nuthouse, are men. Now, some people dismiss all this as meaningless. Morally, it is. Simply noting a difference between races and sexes doesn’t constitute a justification for violating their rights, or acting immorally. However, there are various practical applications, which may manifest themselves in private property (and would probably do so more, absent State-intervention). It is true that we can’t say that because 99% of the prison-population is male, 99% of the male population are criminals (by fiat-law).

    However, that doesn’t mean there is no relationship. See Bayes’ Law, which states that, in general:

    P(A|B) = P(A) * P(B|A) / P(B)

    which means “the probability of A given B equals the probability of A times the probability of B given A, divided by the probability of B”. Accounting for crooks and men, it would be:

    P(Crook|Male) = P(Crook) * P(Male|Crook) / P(Male)

    So, if we say that the probability that you’re a male, given that you’re a crook is 99%, and the probability that you’re a crook is 5%, and the probability that you’re a male is 50%, then:

    P(Crook|Male) = 0.01 * 0.99 / 0.5 = 1.98%
    P(Crook|Not Male) = 0.01 * 0.01 / 0.5 = 0.02%
    P(Crook|Male) / P(Crook|Not Male) = 99x

    These numbers are for illustrative purposes only, although I think they’re a good guess. From this, we can gleam a few things: (1) There is a rational basis for some discrimination, although it is not as great in magnitude as the political simpletons would suggest, or that racist nutcases suggest (as applied to other cases). (2) As you can intuitively guess from the fact that 99% of the prison population is male, 1% female, it is 99 times more likely that any given male you meet is a crook. (3) However, such does not mean, as demagogues seem to imply, that if 25% of the prison population is illegal aliens, 25% of illegal aliens are crooks.

    2. Having Jewish friends casts serious doubts on any claims that someone is anti-Semitic, especially if one has *many* such friends. Rockwell is such a person. Being Jewish makes claims of “anti-Semitism” almost things that can be rejected on their face.

    3. Nothing that Lew Rockwell has said suggests to me that he’s anti-Semitic. Contrarily, his love for property, freedom, and liberty suggests to me that he’s not.

    4. Having racist friends does not make one a racist. That’s guilt-by-association, and the reason it doesn’t work can be illustrated by this little example…You are friends with John, who is friends with Jack, who is friends with Jessica, who is friends with Sam, who is friends with Michael (who is a racist). If we accept the apparent arguments of racism-via-association, then Sam is a racist because Michael is a racist; thus, Jessica is a racist because same is a racist; Jack is a racists because Jessica is a racist; John a racist because Jack is a racist; and you are a racist because your friend Jack is a racist. Following this “reasoning”, it can easily be seen that everyone in the world (other that someone completely isolated from society) must necessarily be a racist. But that would render the term meaningless.

    And certainly, if the friends argument doesn’t hold, neither does the publishing association analogue hold.

    Also, I don’t see why it is so evil to be friends with a racist. Not all racists lynch blacks; in fact, I’d imagine the vast majority of racists are non-violent, despite their beliefs. So, why do these people — separate from all the other people who sin in their own ways, such as adultery, and various other non-violent sins — deserve to have no friends at all, and anyone who associates with them is assumed to have the same sins as they do?

    5. Finally, getting to the issue of defining “racist”. Racist is a word that necessarily has negative connotations; it is immediately understood that racism is immoral. However, several definitions of racism — belief in differences in abilities between the races, discrimination based on races — do not necessarily make one immoral. It is quite possible to believe that there are differences in the abilities of different races without being immora: Why is this inherently evil? It is also quite possible, and reasonable, to discriminate on the basis of race, without being immoral; this constitutes an exercise of property rights, and it is rational to avoid higher risks. I’d propose that racism be defined as a real *hatred* of different races, or also a real “contempt” of different races.

    I am almost sure that these comments will induce some to call me a racist.

  45. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. The Wallace quote is only a watered down version of what he said at STR.

    That we know that Wallace is a racist puts whatever he says on LRC under a microscope.

    Why stop at your defense of the collectivist ideology of racism though? Just go as far as Wallace did and tell us about why the Jews are so different from us that they need to be viewed with suspicion or why blacks are inherently inferior to us good-bred white people? Your heroes at LRC cover the entire spectrum of race views, from Wallace to Gottfried to Marcus Epstein to Joe Sobran, just join in since you’re so keen on defending it.

    Having racist friends and coddling those views might not make you a racist, but it doesn’t make you look good in any light.

    By the way David, you can get off your crucifix now, no one cares.

  46. As for the thing about Jewish friends, it doesn’t mean anything. Just look at Wallace, he said that some of the Ethiopians he knew were okay but it didn’t change his race views at all. Sobran was friends with Rothbard but he still spoke for a Holocaust Revisionist center (he went there for all the great arguments being made for anarcho-capitalism, right David?) I have seen friendships that have been complete facades and I’ve seen anti-Semites spout nonsense that would make Nazis proud but don’t have a problem with taking their kids to a Jewish doctor or having a Jewish accountant do their taxes.

  47. Y,

    Perhaps my compliments to you were given too hastily…

    You start off with non-sense right away. The phrase, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” is a bunch of humbug reasoning from fallacy. IF A THEN B does not imply IF B THEN A. This is logic 101. You obviously have little understanding of logic or probability. Apparently, you’re one of those types who is going to suggest that any investigation or discussion of differences among racial groups somehow makes one a “racist”.

    Exploring the differences between the races makes ones a “racist”. Questioning how many Jews were actually murdered by the Nazi’s makes one an “anti-Semite”, and other such non-sense. This kind of hogwash confuses a pursuit of factual knowledge with an argument of morality. Simply because someone doubts that as many people were murdered as official statistics say, hardly means one is saying that such murder is ok, or that Hitler wasn’t evil, or any other such thing. Nor is it calling the survivors of the Nazi Holocaust “liars”. It is not victims who compile the number of people murdered, but historians and statisticians.

    I’ve presented a calm, rational argument, and you’ve responded with more non-sense, in an apparently insatiable attempt to smear Rockwell.

    The smearing of Joseph Sobran is simply atrocious. What Sobran is “guilty” of, apparently, is correctly noting that Hitler was only one of the mass-murderers of this past century. In fact, this century could very well be described as one continual holocaust, in which States have murdered 200,000,000 people. The more accurate term (used by Rummel) would be “democide”.

  48. “Well, punting Wallace is for the best but the memory-hole treatment is not really an appropriate way to deal with embarrassing fascists. A public statement that they’d no longer be carrying Bob Wallace’s columns and the reasons for it would have been more honest.”

    I have seldom read more idiotic comments in my short life.

  49. “Tom Palmer” wrote: “You’ll notice that there has been no denial on Mr. Wallace’s odd web site, despite multiple recent postings on other topics, and….he has been deleted from the lewrockwell.com site, as well as from their list of columnists, and…all of his columns are gone. Sounds like he spoke a bit more freely about their mutual interests than Lew Rockwell would have preferred.”

    Well, this clearly, falsely, maliciously, perversly insinuates Mr. Rockwell is a racist. This is despicable. Rather than reply to this drek, it’s fun instead to link to the Palmer Periscope post, “Will the REAL Tom Palmer Please Stand Up?” and the older things written by Tommy boy that are quite interesting:

    The Mises Institute has just put back issues of The Libertarian Forum online. See the article Will the REAL Tom Palmer Please Stand Up? (p. 7 of the August, 1982 issue). Seems like they had him pegged long ago. Now his bizarre, monomaniacal vendetta against all things Rothbard (including Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute) makes a bit more sense. Now we see where Palmer, a former Rothbardian, decided to become Crane’s hit-man. Hehh hehh. It is reminiscent of Star Wars III, when Anakin joins the dark side.

    Check out Palmer’s letter in defense of Rothbard and other anarchists, Hoopla over Israel. Man, our boy was a firecracker way back when. He criticizes the neo-conservatives and Edith Efron for their “mutual hoopla over the socialist, militarist, religious state of Israel” denounces Israel as a “theocratic state” and implies that it would be ironic for “advocate of ‘reason, science, technology, individualism,’ etc.” to want to send money to defend Israel.

    Wow. I betcha if Tommy heard someone talking like that nowadays, they’d be relegated to his “Fever Swamp.” Chuckle chuckle…..

    Here’s another gem by Palmer, from 1976: Toward a Libertarian Movement (critiquing “right-wing opportunism” and gradualism, oh my!), a response to a Robert Poole article in Reason; and see Poole’s 1977 reply, and Palmer’s response, The Fallacy of Gradualism: A Reply.

    Funny–in Poole’s reply, he gives as an example of reasonable gradualism, the idea of not simply advocating the outright abolition of social security–but that critics of social security need to “suggest” some kind of “transition program for dealing humanely with the millions of people now dependent on Social Security and the millions who have paid into it for decades, expecting to receive benefits.” Poole critiques the idea that we should “simply say tbat Social Security is morally wrong, economically inefficient, potentially bankrupt, and ought to be abolished.”

    Presumably this kind of Social Security gradualism–some kind of “humane” and “workable” transition program–was the kind of thing Poole would favor, and that he presumed Palmer would not. Heh heh.

    In Palmer’s little reply, he writes:

    one of the most important steps toward our goal is to “Create” more libertarians. We must expand our rank or be doomed to failure. How would this be brought about if our broad-based political arm, the Libertarian Party, were to be emasculated and reduced to proposing crank schemes for enlarging the diameter of government fire hoses (thereby saving taxpayer’s dollars) and turning government enterprises over to Bell Telephone via statist grants of monopoly? Not only does this have no relation to the market, but it will never get off the ground. How far did the cranky Friedmanite voucher plan, backed by forces considerably more powerful than the Libertarian Party, ever go? It was swiftly laid to rest, and justly so. Also, I would like to ask an embarrassing question. When has this scheme of creeping conservatism ever worked? Did the American revolutionaries demand private collection of English taxes? No. In fact, such tax collectors were the objects of intense popular hatred. Their homes were pulled down by patriots inflamed by a passion for liberty and a desire to escape the depredations of the English monarchy.

    […] Poole […] wants to climb into the sack with the ruling class and the State before we have any power whatsoever to change its actions.

    […] Poole challenges me to come up with a “plan” to help those who have been bamboozled by the statist sleight of hand known as social security. Despite the fact that Poole himself offers no such plan, I accept his challenge. Roger MacBride’s campaign book, A New Dawn for America, proposed that government assests be sold off to compensate claim holders who have been robbed of their earnings (note that this is not financed through further State plunder) and that, as an immediate and (“non-negotiable”) minimal step, all persons 60 years of age or older be exempted from all taxes. If Poole can come up with another idea, I’d like to hear about it. As is typical of Poole’s shoddy and superficial research in other areas (e.g., tax rates in local communities) he bas no understanding of the enormity of present social security liabilities. At the present time they stand at well over 3 trillion dollars [NSK: and this was back in 1977, ha ha] . No plan, no matter how humanitarian we may be, there is nothing that can save the social security system (by this I mean fully compensate tbme who have been cheated and robbed). It is bankrupt financially as well as morally. If Poole thinks that a private company will want to take over a program with no assets and over $3 trillion in liabilities, I suggest that he read David Hume and J. S. Mill on miracles.

    Poole’s rebuttal is a significantiy more “soft core” defense of gradualism than his Reason editorial or his Cut Local Taxes. It is no less incorrect, however. If we follow Poole, we will go the route of the classical liberals, though with one important ditference. For many years the best of the liberals kept their principles at the fore, and achieved remarkable success. Poole going further, would rob us of our principles before we had a It was when the gradualists gained ascendancy within liberalism that the liberal movement faltered and collapsed. Poole, going further, would rob us of our principles before we had a chance to appreciable influence at all. We would then become an insignificant oddity in the history of political movements. At best, our example would serve to warn libertarians of the distant future of the dangers of compromise. [Some emphasis added]

    So…
    Palmer here is bashing libertarian gradualism, opportunism, creeping conservatism, social security “transitions,” Friedman’s voucher ideas… Wow, Tom, sounds like the kind of people you now villify as Fever Swampers! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

    I suppose Palmer could disavow his earlier stuff, on the grounds that he’s matured (does that mean he used to be an anti-semite?, ha ha); or that Rothbard really wrote these pieces “for” Palmer (Palmer does seem to ape Rothbard’s style a lot, like Randians do top Rand–Observe: all the em dashes–and italics. Blank out.). But in the latter case, wow, how dishonest is it of Palmer to take credit for others’ writing. So I doubt he’ll claim this. Ha ha ha hahahahahahah

  50. Kennedy the unrepentant gadfly spake: “I do see a troubling pattern at LRC.”

    Well, if I were prone to melodrama, which I’m not, I would echo that I see a “troubling” pattern at the Not-Reason site: petty pettifogging gadfly morons sniping libelously out of misplaced pride at their betters. This is one reason the minimum wage and maximum hour laws ought to be repealed. Keeps malcontents and no-accounts (no offense, Lopez) out of trouble. Idle hands are the devil’s workshop, you know.

  51. Awww, Stephan, you’re being too harsh. Maybe the free market allows us more time to do things like argue libertarian philosophy online. Or, we could all be brains in a vat somewhere. I dunno.

    – Josh, probably a brain in a vat

  52. “Tom Palmer” wrote: “You’ll notice that there has been no denial on Mr. Wallace’s odd web site, despite multiple recent postings on other topics, and….he has been deleted from the lewrockwell.com site, as well as from their list of columnists, and…all of his columns are gone. Sounds like he spoke a bit more freely about their mutual interests than Lew Rockwell would have preferred.”

    Well, this clearly, falsely, maliciously, perversly insinuates Mr. Rockwell is a racist. This is despicable. Rather than reply to this drek, it’s fun instead to link to the Palmer Periscope post, “Will the REAL Tom Palmer Please Stand Up?” and the older things written by Tommy boy that are quite interesting! HA ha ha!

  53. 1) Jews can be anti-semites. And 2) David has not made a single assertion that Lew does NOT associate with racists and anti-semites. That is what we are saying David, if you can get it through your thick cultist skull: All we are doing is pointing out is that Lew associates with racists and anti-semites. You can’t even deny that, which makes me wonder what you are doing here (other than trying to bang Lew’s tom toms).

  54. X,

    Thanks for delving into deeper and deeper lunacy…yes, all of the Jews at the LvMI with whom Rockwell is good friends are self-hating anti-Semites. Any other ridiculous charges you want to suggest? When did you get out of the nuthouse again? The simple fact is that it is pretty good evidence that someone *isn’t* an anti-Semite if they have Jewish friends, because friendship is a two-way thing. It’s not clear what you’re doing other than pursuing a vicious slander-campaign spear-headed by Tom Palmer. The intent is, as demonstrated by a long history on NT and TomGPalmer.com, is to insinuate the Lew Rockwell is a racist.

    Why exactly is it so atrocious to post good articles discussing the atrocities of the State? There was nothing particularly objectionable about Wallace’s articles on the LRC (except, of course, to Statists: are you a Statist?) The claim that “everything he said should be under a microscope” because of his comments elsewhere is non-sense. Perhaps for the purposes of judging *him*, but not for the purposes of judging Rockwell or the LRC. The question there is, how did his articles stand on their own? Perhaps some of those here are simply sour because Wallace derided you as dimwits.

    Seems like there’s some nutty “Straussians” here. Even though the formerly available work of Wallace, and the work of Joseph Sobran, on the LRC obviously and clearly supports freedom, property, and is opposed to the State, there is really a “secret meaning” to those articles, which only the select few (namely, Tom Palmer, X, Y, and others here) can discern.

    If Murray Rothbard followed the highly paranoid, highly exclusionist, and snobbish view of who he could associate with that is espoused here, he hardly would have associated with anyone.

  55. X,

    Btw, do you listen to Wagner? Do you think that anyone who listens to Wagner has something to be ashamed of; or that anyone who would put his music on their website has something to be ashamed of?

    Your paranoid PC-attitude prevents you from discerning clearly separate things. It is possible to praise someone’s written articles on the LRC, while condemning their work elsewhere. It is possible to praise Jefferson’s *general* thoughts on freedom and liberty, while criticizing him for his personal hypocrisy in keeping slaves.

  56. (Sigh, why even bother with this flat-earther…?)

    David: I would not want to personally associate with Wagner at a political level. His policial views were filthy nonsense. Nor would I publish him or (especially) any of his crackpot racist ideas. And I would be suspicious of anyone who published his anti-semitism and shared his politics. So what’s next kiddo? Will you keep touting the Party Line for the Cadre?

    PS: I know you really believe there are “neocon PC left-libertarian zionist straussian boogermen” out there who are out to get you,, but I am not one of them. Your tinfoil hat is out of tune.

  57. PPPS: If you define “statist” as someone who doesn’t tout the Rockwell Party Line, then I suppose I am a “statist” along with a neoconzionistyankee… or whatever else the Rothbardians define this minute as the most recent “party enemy.”

    Trust me, I am not losing sleep over it.

  58. X, I don’t think Lew “associates” with anti-semites or racists. I would assume that most of us–you, me, Tom Palmer, Kennedy–KNOW and sometimes interact with, maybe even are loose friends or assocaites or colleagues, or family members of, people who have views that are to some degree racist and bigoted, however. Who among us does not have a brother in law or uncle or grandma or co-worker or neighbor who probably thinks gays are going to burn in hell, etc.? Who cares?

  59. Stephan Kinsella:

    True/false — Lew Rockwell published Bob Wallace

    True/false — Bob Wallace holds racist views

    True/false — Lew Rockwell published Bob Wallace’s racist views

    True/false — Publishing inplies professional and/or political association

    Just keep spinning! Maybe someday the Kultish Kadre will honor you for your undying loyalty and blatent dishonesty!

  60. X,

    Again, your nutty paranoid outlook prevents you from comprehending the most simple of things. You can obviously read and understand English, so you don’t have any excuse, and are just being deceptive.

    I didn’t say “publish Wagner’s thoughts on politics”…I said put his *MUSIC* (which is among the best in the Classical genre) online. I said that very clearly. You then intentionally engaged in misrepresentation of what I said.

    Of course, I was saying that to illustrate a point, which you — because you’re such an oblivious PC type — completely missed, or are pretending to miss. It is possible to publish and praise someone on some of their views, while condemning them on their other views. The person who quotes Jefferson on freedom, liberty, and suspicion of government isn’t saying that he condones keeping slaves. Likewise, publishing someone’s articles — in which he supports freedom and property, and criticizes the State — doesn’t mean endorsing any of their other views.

    But you’re too busy frothing over being politically correct to understand that.

    Perhaps you should engage in a campaign to burn all of those EVIL classical compositions by Wagner. There clearly *must* be some hidden secret racist meaning behind his music, because (after all), his political writings were racist. And while you’re at it, you probably should hang in efficacy anyone who admits to the dire sin of listening to Wagner.

  61. “True/false — Lew Rockwell published Bob Wallace”

    as far as I know.

    “True/false — Bob Wallace holds racist views”

    I am not sure. I am cautious about libelling people. And not interested enough to research it to come to a firm opinion. Who cares? I thought we were all supposed to be individualists? What matters are one’s own views.

    “True/false — Lew Rockwell published Bob Wallace’s racist views”

    NOt that I am aware of.

    “True/false — Publishing inplies professional and/or political association”

    No, I woudln’t say that. Many people publihs articles by people they don’t agree with or don’t even hve a professional or political association with.

    What’s it matter anyway? This guilt by association is just absurd. You are nothing but a loser. Go back to your job at Starbucks.

  62. Music = Political Views?

    Or do Political Views = Political Views?

    But then again, I am not sure what color the sky is on your world (it’s usually blue here).

  63. ” And not interested enough to research it to come to a firm opinion.”

    Did you even BOTHER to read the quotes from Wallace in the original post or the links above? This “faux ignorence” is tiring. Grow a set and defend Wallace’s quotes or Lew’s association with Wallace…because pretending neither exist is just lame.

    Publishing implies association. Just as the name “Stephan Kinsella” implies a typing-impaired asshole.

  64. X,

    You have proven yourself to be of no moral character what-so-ever, and have engaged in flagrantly deceptive tactics. That you can do such with a straight face on a board where all prior comments are right above new comments is simply amazing.

    I repeat, I *originally* said: Putting the music of Wagner on one’s website doesn’t mean one has to endorse any of Wagner’s views on politics. I also said one doesn’t have to condone Jefferson’s personal hypocrisy on slavery to applaud his writings on freedom and limited government. You then engaged in the nasty tactic of responding to something I *didn’t* say, ranting about how you wouldn’t publish Wagner’s political views. This, of course, is not what I was talking about, and completely misses my point. You thus show yourself to be a jackass.

    The point is that one doesn’t have to agree with Wagner’s thoughts on politics to love his music. One doesn’t have to agree with Jefferson holding slaves to applaud his writings on freedim/limited government. Nor does one have to condone an author’s every writing in publishing (or applauding) specific works of his. Publishing work by an author does not in any way imply condoning his writings elsewhere.

    And as Kinsella notes, *publishing* someone’s work doesn’t necessarily mean condoning it. I suppose you’d call those who are currently publishing *Mein Kampf* Nazis? On the LRC, there are many interesting articles, some of which are arguing things in contradiction of one-another; obviously, it is logically impossible for Rockwell to agree with everyone who posts there, as there are conflicting views. The LvMI has published papers by Bryan Caplan criticizing Austrian Economics — obviously, no-one affiliated with the LvMI agrees with that.

    Rockwell also publishes articles by Paul Craig Roberts. That doesn’t mean Rockwell is against free trade.

  65. 1) Wangers music had no political content. ZILCH. So your example fails on its face.

    2) My point would stand if Lew published an article by Jefferson which had racist content. Besides, it would still be the truth that publishing Jefferson is publishing someone who obviously endorsed slavery (but Jefferson is a stupid example, see point #4).

    3) Lew associates with someone who is anti-trade, just as he assocaites with racists. I don’t personally find this as disgusting and vile as associating with known racists and anti-semites (I disagree but understand anti-trade viewpoints, while racism is inherently ugly and collectivist.)

    4) Publishing a book written by a dead person is different than publishing a column by a living person in a political publication. You can’t associate with the dead. Imagine if No Treason published a column by Bill Kristol or Fred Barnes – are you telling me this wouldn’t be a relevent association?

  66. I love how it’s sweep everything under the rug but defend the concept of racism and the fact that the views are held by some. Classic “I didn’t do it, but if I did, there’s nothing wrong with it” defense. No one has the balls to come out and say “Sorry, but we were wrong about that piss poor writer Bob Wallace. His simple-minded views and shoddy writing should not reflect on the overall quality of our own or our scholarship.”

    Also, those of you constantly playing the guilt by association card (the Napoleon Dynamite reject and the balding lawyer with the Palmer fixation), do you even realize that the guilt by association fallacy only pertains to ideas being wrong based on the people who hold them? It doesn’t pertain to your wacky view of them, that a person’s reputation should not be called into question because of the people they hang around. Just look it up for yourselves, or I’ll do it for you

    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association

    You would be right in saying that because Bob Wallace held incredibly racist views (an issue that you seem to be dancing around), that it does not automatically discredit open border libertarianism. However, crying out that the people who Lew associates with and publishes doesn’t reflect on his personal choices isn’t covered in the fallacy. You would probably be defending LRC if Lew published an article by Stalin Zombie if it succintly decried the war in Iraq by saying that just because Lew chooses to publish people of different opinions or backgrounds doesn’t make him the same, which is true, but doesn’t change the fact that it reflects incredibly badly on him. LRC attracts a lot of the fringe element, and as long as it coddles it, we’ll be there to shine the light on it. Just face up about Wallace instead of continuing to defend him, he’s already run his reputation through the mud.

  67. X,

    Wow, what amazing intolerance, from the crowd harping on Hoppe for asserting the right of property owners to discriminate.

    1. Yes, it is true that Wagner’s music has no political content. And Wallace’s articles on the LRC have no racist content.

    2. Lew hasn’t published anything with racist content that I’ve seen. The few trite examples some here have pointed out constitute nothing more than the personal experience of authors. If (for example), every Nigerian that one has met is a cheat/thief, then that’s simply a factual observation. If Lew published something by Jefferson, that hardly constitutes condoning slavery. So what if someone publishes something by Jefferson, who condoned slavery? That doesn’t mean they’re supporting slavery.

    3. It is quite interesting that you lump in all of these various groups. Anti free-traders (by definition) want to use violent force to prevent free trade. That constitutes a rights violation. While some racists want to (and advocate) using violent force to do crimes unto the targets of their racism, *not* all of them do. It may be immoral to hold such views, but I hardly equate that with advocating (or using) aggression.

    4. The different between publishing the living and the dead only becomes relevant when you subscribe to the fallicious view of guilt by association.

    You don’t necessarily condone the views of those you publish, even if they’re alive. Look at all the nutty books out there, which are published by mainstream corporations. I mean, you’ve got nutty stuff like Scientology.

    It is not “who” you publish, so much as “what” you publish that matters; and even that doesn’t necessarily mean anything about your views.

    Finally, as Kinsella has noted, we all know and associate with bigots. So what? There are alot of people who think homosexuals are evil and are going to burn in hell. There’s people who hate Blacks, Jews, women, and every other group you could imagine. That hardly means that anyone who befriends such a person is acting in a vile manner. Talk about complete intolerance.

  68. Y,

    The nutcases on this blog and Tom Palmer’s blog are the only ones frothing over this stuff. The guilt by association is acting like the author of an article somehow reflects on its quality.

    As for reflecting on someone personally, that’s just your paranoia. Bob Wallace isn’t David Duke, ok? He hasn’t aggressed against anyone. Yes, he holds immoral views, and that is wrong. Does that mean he’s a completely unworthy person, of no redemption, and that anyone who shows any hospitality towards him is evil? No. Nonsense.

    Even more intolerant than the “racists” is people like yourself.

  69. If I must be intolerant to reject the view that �Jews will always be ostracized because of their attempts to destroy every culture that admits them.� and reject the idea that it’s bad form to associate and publish people who air this view, then let me be intolerant! That’s the wonderful thing about individualism isn’t it? That you can make your own independent judgments and associations about people. Lew can associate with the fringe element all he wants, doesn’t mean that we’re going to tolerate it, because as individuals, we find these people unsavory for their collectivist racialism.

    Next time on LRC! “The Libertarian Benefit of Separating the Races”. Maybe we’ll hear another spirited argument about how we right-libertarians can better use state power to thwart those dastardly left-libertarians (whatever the hell a left-libertarian is) that are always lurking in the shadows, preying on poor race-baiting columnists at LRC who are only doing everything in their power to show that libertarians are not whackjobs but principled respectable people. Associating with racists just comes with the territory. Just as long as they don’t support the war in Iraq, any outdated view they have that might make us look really bad, they’re free to have, until they start talking too freely, then we’ll take away their column and sweep the whole thing under the rug.

  70. 1. What about this Wallace column?

    Link

    2. Racists use personal experiance. So what? They are still racist. And it would be relelvent if he published someone alive today who had pro-slavery views (although maybe a few of his Confederate compadres qualify).

    3. I could give a crap about your “non-agression/agression” Rothbardian orthodoxy. That’s your religious problem. But it’s still clear that racism is vile and irrational.

    4. I never said “Lew condones racism,” you retard. I said he associaties with them (maybe you just made a Freudian slip).And I was talking about publications, not books. And we are also taking about “what” along with “who” (see #1 above). Nor am I talking about “befriending,” try actually reading what I wrote, as I am talking about publishing the colums of living people and how this implies association.

  71. It’s clear to me that David J. Heinrich has no problem associating with known racists and anti-semites. He is cool with it. OK, David we understand.

  72. It’s all for the greater cause of Libertarian Heaven, X. See, in order for a truly free world, we need to have a Remnant filled with those with race views, because hidden inside of it is the secret libertarian truths that will set us free. We won’t be free until we crush all the leftlibertarianneoconservativetrotskyists that are constantly threatening us.

  73. Y: After the Revolution, does one get 42 virgins when you reach Libertopia? Will the rivers overflow with milk and honey? Will the Cadre be able to gloat over the infidel and the damned (Lincoln, Leo Strauss, etc)?

  74. X,

    1. Link broken and I hardly trust anything you say regarding sources, since you regard simple recollections of experience as racist, if they would happen to suggest (to the normal person) something negative about one race.

    2. You again miss the point, as usual. You dimwits here are looking at his racist comments elsewhere, and using that to try to micro-analyze everything he said on LRC to find some hidden racist meaning. This is tripe. It’s even more tripe because my *original point* was that there was nothing wrong/bad about his articles that I’d read on the LRC. If a good idea (or analysis) comes from a person with some immoral beliefs, that doesn’t mean it should necessarily be dumped.

    3. Whether you care about the NAA or not is irrelevant, but if you don’t, then you shouldn’t call yourself a libertarian. I’d imagine that you think it’s ok to initiate aggression agains those who you think are racists, even if they haven’t ever aggressed against anyone else. In your dimwitted mind, a white racist who doesn’t use violence against anyone is apparently better than a black criminal who steals from or robs people. That’s your own personal value-scale, and it says something about you (namely, that in your mind, “thoughtcrime” is obviously a very serious offense). My point, however, is that even if someone is a racist, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’ve harmed anyone.

    4. No, you never said Lew condones racism. You’re just trying to insinuate it.

  75. Why aren’t people upset about the fact that Strike the Root carries Wallace? Personally, I like both sites, but I detect a double standard here.

  76. Actually Mr. Lopez I think it is you who needs a new gig.

    I wouldn’t object to you outing racists and bigots if you didn’t try to tie it to other issues and people. It’s obvious this is what you are doing and many people pick up on it and run with it. As an example your co-bloggers comment about seeing a disturbing trend at LRC.

    I disagree with a lot of stuff over at LRC and the only disturbing trend I see is that he publishes a lot of wacked out articles, none which I saw were racist.

    I think you proved my point of you trying to smear instead of argue when you state: “I specified “racist”, which is a subset of “bigotry”. For example, someone who only wanted law-abiding Americans inside the lines on the map wouldn’t be racist, but he would be a bigot.”

    Your belief comes through loud and clear from this and your prior posts. This is exactly what I find objectionable.

    I don’t thimk most people draw the fine distinctions you do anyway. If you ask most people “Is someone who is bigoted against blacks a racist?” they would say “yes”.

    Here’s the definition in American Heritage:
    “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”

    So someone who is bigoted against someone on account of race would be a racist. Whereas, someone who is bigoted against other people because of politics would not neccessarily be.

    Since your posts have had do with only two subjects race and homosexuality, the bigots in question, opponents of open borders, would be either racists or homophobes. That is according to you.

    Let me remind you that one could be for open borders for racist reasons also. You might just prefer your own race and culture to the race of the country you’ve immigrated to. One way to get more of your preferred kind into the country is to call for open borders. Such racists would naturally call for open borders in their adopted country but would not breach the issue in their country of origin. They might even think that discrimantory laws are fine in the country where their race predominates. La Raza comes to mind.

  77. I said a while back that, instead of sending Bob Wallace’s columns at LRC down the memory hole, a more honest way to deal with the situation would have been to leave the old columns up, and put up a note to the effect that LRC would no longer be carrying his columns for whatever reasons Lew has for not wanting to carry his columns anymore. Kinsella replied:

    Kinsella: “I have seldom read more idiotic comments in my short life.”

    The cheap shot reply would be to ask whether these comments were really more idiotic than “Jews will always be ostracized because of their attempts to destroy every culture that admits them.”

    The higher ground reply would be to point out that Lew apparently thought that Wallace’s idiocy was embarassing enough to justify no longer carrying his columns. Given that this is the case, I wonder whether Kinsella really thinks that simply erasing the record of the old columns, without comment or explanation, is really the most honest way of dealing with the situation. For myself, I know that I don’t see much to admire in giving your past mistakes that sort of Disappearing Commisar treatment.

  78. Macker:

    I wouldn’t object to you outing racists and bigots if you didn’t try to tie it to other issues and people. It’s obvious this is what you are doing and many people pick up on it and run with it. As an example your co-bloggers comment about seeing a disturbing trend at LRC.

    Well, we have examples documented here of Lewrockwell.com columnists using male homosexuality as a pejorative, praising crypto-Nazi Jared Taylor, blathering about Jew conspiracies, and lauding Confederate slaveholders and tyrants. I personally see a trend there that’s somewhat distasteful.

    Maybe you just see it all as coincidence?

    I think you proved my point of you trying to smear instead of argue when you state: “I specified “racist”, which is a subset of “bigotry”. For example, someone who only wanted law-abiding Americans inside the lines on the map wouldn’t be racist, but he would be a bigot.”

    Think again:

    Here’s the definition in American Heritage:
    “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”

    Why wouldn’t that hypothetical person I proposed be a bigot, even according to your own definition?

    That’s right, no reason why not.

    Your belief comes through loud and clear from this and your prior posts. This is exactly what I find objectionable.

    “You can protect your delicate sensibilities by turning the fuck away” — Cy Tolliver, Deadwood

    Let me remind you that one could be for open borders for racist reasons also.

    One could, but I’m not.

  79. Heinrich:

    As for why Lew removed Wallace’s blogs, you’re acting like this is something that can objectively be determined.

    Well, it could be objectively determined. Someone could email Lew about the matter, and see what response he gave. What I said was that the embarassment at being associated with Wallace was the most likely explanation, not that it was the explanation.

    Maybe you’re right, and Rockwell has been getting a deal of negative feedback over the matter, enought to can Wallace. It actually wouldn’t shock me if in fact there wasn’t too much embarassment over this at LRC, but rather a sense that they needed to toss Wallace over the side for the good of their movement.

    I think that it’s embarassment, of course, because I’m charitable that way: I think that Lew Rockwell would indeed be embarassed to be publishing someone who espouses Jew conspiracy lunacy. But maybe he wouldn’t be embarassed: maybe, as you posit, it’s simply too much trouble to deal with the negative feedback from same.

  80. Curious:

    Why aren’t people upset about the fact that Strike the Root carries Wallace? Personally, I like both sites, but I detect a double standard here.

    I’m not upset that LRC or STR carries (or carried) Wallace. Those aren’t my sites, and the operators of same can do as they please.

    I do judge Wallace’s Jew-conspiracy ravings fit for ridicule.

  81. anonymous Mr. X says,

    “3. I could give a crap about your “non-agression/agression” Rothbardian orthodoxy. That’s your religious problem. But it’s still clear that racism is vile and irrational.”

    Funny, this confused soul has a firm moral view about racism, yet dismisses another moral view (about aggresion) with a wave of the hand, as if it’s “merely religious”. What a confused hypocrite.

    “4. I never said “Lew condones racism,” you retard. I said he associaties with them (maybe you just made a Freudian slip).And I was talking about publications, not books. And we are also taking about “what” along with “who” (see #1 above). Nor am I talking about “befriending,” try actually reading what I wrote, as I am talking about publishing the colums of living people and how this implies association.”

    What is your grand theory of Association again? I missed it.

  82. Sabotta: “Macker, Heinrich, Kinsella and Wallace are dirty swine. It’s as simple as that.”

    Hey Sabotta–make mine a double-tall latte.

    Rad Geek:

    I said a while back that, instead of sending Bob Wallace’s columns at LRC down the memory hole, a more honest way to deal with the situation would have been to leave the old columns up, and put up a note to the effect that LRC would no longer be carrying his columns for whatever reasons Lew has for not wanting to carry his columns anymore. Kinsella replied:

    “Kinsella: “I have seldom read more idiotic comments in my short life.””

    The cheap shot reply would be to ask whether these comments were really more idiotic than “Jews will always be ostracized because of their attempts to destroy every culture that admits them.”

    The higher ground reply would be to point out that Lew apparently thought that Wallace’s idiocy was embarassing enough to justify no longer carrying his columns. Given that this is the case, I wonder whether Kinsella really thinks that simply erasing the record of the old columns, without comment or explanation, is really the most honest way of dealing with the situation. For myself, I know that I don’t see much to admire in giving your past mistakes that sort of Disappearing Commisar treatment.

    the “more honest way” to “deal with the situation”? What the hell are you jabbering about. You sound like an idiot Randroid, but that insults the Randroids. Blah blah blah, who are you, the hall monitor? Going around announcing your opinions on how others ought to run their websites? You sould like a loser loon, dude. Make mine a no-fat double cappucino.

  83. In fact, I assume drunkeness (possibly overindulgence in Clint H’s so-called “sharing drink”) on your part is responsible for this line in your smarmy little Wikipedia entry, Lawyer Kinsella:

    “and is adjunct sholar of the Mises Institute”

    Yes, you claim persons unknown put up that entry, Lawyer Kinsella, but that “sholar” gives the game away, don’t it?

    “I’m not just (hic) a lawyer, goddammit – Ima sholar too, an’ don’ you for- for- fergot it, neither!”
    (Slips, falls face first in own vomit.)

  84. “dismisses another moral view (about aggresion)”

    No, he dismissed your crooked orthodoxy with a wave of his hand.

    (…as if it even needed that to come crumbling down)

    I am not sure what bothers me the most about the Krazy Kultish Kadre over at Lew Rotton…their sheer dishonesty or their amateurish attempts at “hardcore” Leninism.

    I wanted to be wowed by their insults, faux outrage and condemnations. Instead I got the usual whines about “PCneocons,” distilled slave morality and the threats to be purged as an “official libertarian” by the true-believing comrades. Yawn. Old parlor tricks. I’ve seen tougher responses from a bowl of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese.

  85. Mr. Kennedy:

    There is a Bob Wallace Archive over at Strike the Root. Bearing in mind that the racist comments where made at Strike the Root, it really is showing something, that the LRC-smear are present from the beginning, while the Strike the Root-angle appears as a side-remark after 100 comments – even though Lopez says, that he is not after either of the websites.

  86. I happen to think I am indeed not notable enough to have an entry. So what?

    Doesn’t wikipedia have rules you are breaking by saying this, like WPoint? As I understand them, they say that you can’t put an article up just to prove a point or show an inconsistency viz a viz Tom Palmer’s article.

  87. Well thanks a lot Lopez!

    I linked to this article at the Blank Out Times, and all of a sudden I’m being flooded with whacko anti-semites, KKKers and “anti-race mixers” traffic from a charming site called “little geneva”

    Just what I need… a bunch of crack pots who rant and rave about “DA JOOS… DA EVIL JOOS” sniffing around the hundred acre woods.

    Now maybe they will read about the Pooh Conspiracy, and lumped us in with the Elders of Zion ravings and they’ll hunt me, Eeyore, Tigger and Heffalump down and burn crosses in front of Mr.Sander’s home, smash up our pooh-sticks, and graffitti swastikas on the damn bridge.

    Bah!

  88. Stefan — “‘I happen to think I am indeed not notable enough to have an entry. So what?

    “Doesn’t wikipedia have rules you are breaking by saying this, like WPoint? As I understand them, they say that you can’t put an article up just to prove a point or show an inconsistency viz a viz Tom Palmer’s article.”

    1. Maybe. If so, who cares.
    2. Not necessarily. Just b/c I don’t agree with their own notability standards is not any violation of the rules. Anyway, I never said I was notable. I never voted “keep” on my own entry, did I?

  89. Yes you did.

    “Because of my obvious bias, I had previous cast no vote, but Splash informs me it’s my right to vote to keep, so, I vote keep, while acknowledging my vested interest.”

  90. Oh, right, I did. Thanks for the reminder. A bit unsettling of you to be such a pettifogging cyberstalker. But thanks for caring.

    Let me put it this way, then. Just b/c by my own standards I know I’m not notable, doesn’t mean that Wiki’s standards are different from mine. Who am I to gainsay them? Who am I to judge? Who … am… I?

  91. Lopez,

    You say, “Why wouldn’t that hypothetical person I proposed be a bigot, even according to your own definition?”

    Because you proposed a straw man position of “wanting only law abiding americans” inside the borders is not held by anyone. Someone who doesn’t exist can’t be a bigot.

    Hypothetically, if we are making things up, then someone could want that and not be a bigot. After all law abiding americans covers every ethnic group on the planet. He might not be to sharp when it comes to economics and might just want to keep latecomers out. I can imagine all sorts of other reasons too.

    I think several of you here are intolerant bigots. You have certain notions and anyone who doesn’t agree with you 100% is evil. There is a very broad spectrum of reasons for being against open borders. There is also a broad spectrum of positions to arrive at given these positions.

    I really don’t see a problem with not allowing avowed Nazis to move in the USA, nor someone who submits totally to a philosophy that holds they have the right to kill people who oppose their beliefs. I believe it is simple self defense to keep such people out.

    Nor do I believe it is your right to set up a haven for such people next to my property just because you own the property next door. You can no more do it than to engage in other dangerous activities like storing nuclear weapons there. It’s not because I don’t think you have a right to have nukes either. It’s because you are endangering me.

    I’ve looked very carefully at Libertarianism/Anarchy philosophy and there are holes in all the versions I’ve seen. I am not going to be for open borders simply because you think you’ve deduced the moral position and then you wish to bully me into it.

  92. Lopez,

    “I’m not upset that LRC or STR carries (or carried) Wallace. Those aren’t my sites, and the operators of same can do as they please.”

    Since you and I are both contributors to Strike The Root it’s fair to ask how we feel about being associated with Wallace through STR.

    For myself, I’m not worried about it. One reason is that STR doesn’t have the same kind of monolithic editorial focus as LRC. And I’d submit articles to LRC too if there was any prospect of getting them accepted.

  93. Brian Macker,

    As a hardcore ancap/libertarian, I think you’re dismissing the theory (or at least various combinations of it) rather hastily.

    1. Hoppe argues that restrictions on immigration are allowable under libertarian theory, especially from a private-property (propertarian) society.

    2. He also argues that community covenants could set up rules.

    3. Walter Block makes an argument for the nuclear thing/insane jihad neighbors type thing as well. He considers it sort of like, “does something *necessarily* imply aggression”; that is, would a reasonable person conceive of any use for something other than for aggression? Take atomic bombs: no reasonable use for them other than aggression (although atomic missiles is another story, at least if they can launch into space [meteorites]).

    4. Both this and the community covenant could address your concerns about your neighbor endangering you by having nutcases move in.

    5. Regarding deducing some moral position and then bullying you into it: I’d argue that isn’t what the non-aggression axiom is about. Rather, it’s about not letting others bully you.

  94. JTK:

    Since you and I are both contributors to Strike The Root it’s fair to ask how we feel about being associated with Wallace through STR.

    It doesn’t bother me at all.

    One reason is that STR doesn’t have the same kind of monolithic editorial focus as LRC.

    That’s quite right. STR has published some things that I have a huge amount of disagreement with, but they aren’t at all shy about publishing point and counterpoint.

  95. Kennedy, “For myself, I’m not worried about it. One reason is that STR doesn’t have the same kind of monolithic editorial focus as LRC.”

    So… in your mind, if someone has a monolithic editorial focus (whatever that means), then they “should not” let someone like Bob Wallace write there. But if they do not have a monolithic editorial focuse, you are “not worried about” them publishing Wallace. And apparently there is nothing wrong with having a non-monolithic editorial focus.

    Where is the rule book, Kennedy? Do you just make this shit up as you go along?

    And Lew has an amazing diversity of people write for him. The thought that it’s monolithic is incorrect and unsupportable.

  96. Macker:

    You say, “Why wouldn’t that hypothetical person I proposed be a bigot, even according to your own definition?”

    Because you proposed a straw man position of “wanting only law abiding americans” inside the borders is not held by anyone. Someone who doesn’t exist can’t be a bigot.

    Um, you understand what a “hypothetical” is, right? Honest to God, I can’t tell whether you’re being deliberately obtuse in order to bait me, or you’re really that dense.

    Fuck, this is Libertarian Girl redux.

    Any-hoo: “bigotry” was pretty fairly nailed down by Rad Geek in here. As you can see (or not) that term fits perfectly well with the hypothetical I posed earlier. It may or may not fit within your “spectrum”.

  97. Mr. Sanders:

    Well thanks a lot Lopez!

    I linked to this article at the Blank Out Times, and all of a sudden I’m being flooded with whacko anti-semites, KKKers and “anti-race mixers” traffic from a charming site called “little geneva”…

    Attention advertisers: you too can enjoy this choice demographic!

    It is funny they didn’t link to here, even though I’m on record defending white seperatism.

  98. I really don’t see a problem with not allowing avowed Nazis to move in the USA, nor someone who submits totally to a philosophy that holds they have the right to kill people who oppose their beliefs. I believe it is simple self defense to keep such people out.

    Ironically, you accuse Lopez of creating a straw man only to beg the question a few lines later with this response. How would you determine who “submits totally” to a philosophy that says they can kill people who oppose them? What magical feature would distinguish a bin Laden from a gardener in the immigrant pool wanting to come to America? The answer is–there is none, and in practice I’m guessing you would want to use race, sex, religion, or national origin, which are the various racist positions alluded to above. In other words, there is no way to keep bad aggressors out to the extent you would want without also keeping a lot of non-aggressors out as well, and since the latter involves hurting innocent people, the argument fails.

  99. Heinrich,

    “The smearing of Joseph Sobran is simply atrocious. What Sobran is “guilty” of, apparently, is correctly noting that Hitler was only one of the mass-murderers of this past century.”

    Who told you that?

    You demonstrate a profound ignorance of the complaints leveled against Sobran. If you’d care to know what they are you could begin by reading this balanced piece wherein William F. Buckley explains how he came to decide that his close friend’s obsession with jews was professionally indefensible.

  100. Stefan,

    See my posts on Bayesian methadology above. There *is* something we can say about the probability that a would-be Muslim immigrant is a terrorist, based on data about the fraction of immigrants who are Muslim,

    P(Terrorist|Muslim) = P(Terrorist) * P(Muslim|Terrrorist) / P(Muslim)

    We can then compare this probability (let’s say it’s 0.1%) to the probability that an Irish immigrant is a terrorist (say 0.05%). We can apply an appropriate degree of greater discrimination (that is, how thoroughly we review the application) accordingly. Of course, this is very simplistic, and we can also look at a whole host of other factors aside from race, including origin, religion, sex, age, and so-on and so-forth.

    If you’re for restricted immigration, this would be of use. I’d argue that you don’t use it to reject all Muslims (because the probability you’re a terrorist if you’re Muslim is still very low), but rather to apply more resources to screening them when accepting them as immigrants, relative to the resources employed screening non-Muslim immigrants. This isn’t some abhorent racist thing; this is simply common sense. The reality is, of the world-wide population of terrorists, a very small percentage of them are (let’s say) French, and a larger percentage of them are Muslim.

    The same thing could also be of use in *private* discrimination, if only the State would ever respect property rights and allow airports, restaurant owners, and other places of business to decide how to run their own property.

    PS: For those saying there aren’t any pro-immigration articles on LRC, do a search from LRC’s website for immigration. The 2nd article that shows up, by Anthony Gregory, is critical of cracking down on immigration.

  101. Heinrich,

    Here’s a helpful quote from Sobran:

    Not that the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad. But they are successful, and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when it’s highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism.

    What do you think about the “Jewish control of the major media” and their “furtive racial superpatriotism”?

  102. JT Kennedy,

    I don’t make absolute statements about and entire race; nor can I, from my knowledge, even make rough generalizations (aside from a few luminaries and from some tell-tale signs [e.g., -stein] I can’t tell a Jewish last name from a non-Jewish last name; nor can I, like some, tell if a person is Jewish by looking at them [unless they’re wearing that hat]).

    So, I can’t comment on these kinds of statements, except to say that they certainly don’t apply to every Jewish person, and that they are broad generalizations. If a lot of media-companies are owned by people who are Jewish, this generalization is true; I doubt all of them are, although I don’t know any percentages.

    Moving beyond Sobran’s broad generalizations, I agree with the substance of his comment. Anyone who is critical of Israel is utterly destroyed. Charges of anti-Semitism are dropped on a dime. I brought up the USS Liberty on Tom Palmer’s blog, and was immediately called “Herr Heinrich” (intended as an insult to me, but also an insult to those in Germany, implying that there’s something wrong with the prefix “Herr”), accused of being a Hitlerite, and an anti-Semite. After that summary dismissal, the person went off on a rant about how Israel would thrive for a thousand years, or some other such State-worshipping drivel.

  103. JT Kennedy,

    You don’t have to love the idea of immigration to say the State shouldn’t ban it, anymore than you have to love the idea of infidelity to say the State shouldn’t ban it.

    Libertarianism isn’t about, “do I like activity X”. It’s about “is it permissible to ban activity X, and punish it or prevent it by the use of coercive force?”

    –Dave H.

  104. Heinrich,

    Moving beyond Sobran’s broad generalizations,…

    Do you see how such generalizations go beyond claiming Hitler was not the only mass murderer in history?

    It doesn’t occur to you to sharply criticize such writing, does it? No, of course not, because you’re a team player and your captain picked Sobran for the team.

    …I agree with the substance of his comment. Anyone who is critical of Israel is utterly destroyed.

    Sobran and Buchanan for instance?

    I guess utter destruction ain’t what it used to be.

  105. JT Kennedy,

    Maybe “utterly destroyed” is an overkill; but I remember all the ruckus about Pat Buchannon being critical of Israel. Anyone who is critical of Israel, who (rightly) claims that Hitler wasn’t the greatest evil of the 20th century (see Uncle Joe Stalin and his forgiven holocaust), who doesn’t think that Germans who had nothing to do with the holocaust should be ashamed or made to pay for it, etc, is immediately accused of being an anti-Semite and all that follows.

    On what basis would I “sharply criticize” Sobran’s writing? Should I project a criticism out of my own ignorance of the matter which he discusses (the percentage of the media owned by Jews) to blast him? If I thought it was hateful, I would criticize that; but I don’t see how it’s hateful. If I thought it was incorrect factually, I’d criticize that, but such is not a moral criticism (unless someone *intentionally* misrepresents facts and you’re calling him on that).

  106. David, if you don’t see what Sobran said as being hateful, I’m just not sure what to say to you. It’s quite clear to me. Maybe you should read between the lines a bit.

  107. Kinsella,

    “Who among us does not have a brother in law or uncle or grandma or co-worker or neighbor who probably thinks gays are going to burn in hell, etc.?

    And who among us hasn’t featured hundreds of articles by the likes of Bob Wallace?

    Wallace isn’t just somebody Lew has an incidental relationship with, he’s has been a mainstay at LRC.

  108. I always found it funny how internal disagreement is almost forbidden on LRC. So many disappearing blog posts, disappearing columns, and you never see the spirited debates when the columnists disagreed on an issue anymore. It’s silly looking at it now, with all the mutual backslapping and nodding in agreement.

    Then again, birds of a feather…

  109. I also love how Heinrich and Kinsella keep coming back for more, which is only giving further legitimacy and acknowledgement to No Treason. I just imagine them as the obsessive types, constantly scanning blogs for a note of disagreement or a bad word about their precious institutions, which needs to be immediately responded to. Provoking them is half the fun really, since hiding behind an anonymous moniker does nothing to hurt a non-existant reputation.

    At least Kinsella admits he likes sinking to this level, for the most part, even if he does like to keep on showing off his “credentials”.

    Then again, I’m just a chattering punk, so what do I know?

  110. If you’re for restricted immigration, this would be of use

    I guess it’s good I’m not for restricted immigration then; seriously, however, I think this misses the point. By your own admission most people coming to this country are not violent terrorists, and those types of people are not exactly as vocal as you seem to think they are about their intentions (“Will the real bin Laden please stand up?”). Ergo, border controls that have any effect at all will necessarily have to involve attacking peaceful travelers. In your own words,

    Libertarianism isn’t about, “do I like activity X”. It’s about “is it permissible to ban activity X, and punish it or prevent it by the use of coercive force?”

    which I heartily agree with. I don’t think most immigrants are coming here to violate our rights, and you don’t either. Given this, the question I would put to you is, is it permissible to punish immigration by the coercive use of force?

  111. The Kennedyesque one writes: “Wallace isn’t just somebody Lew has an incidental relationship with, he’s has been a mainstay at LRC.”

    JTK, why don’t you just go ahead and lay out on the table your Grand Theory of Guilt by Association, instead of teasing us by making us try to infer and induce your underlying principles?

    Y: “I also love how Heinrich and Kinsella keep coming back for more, which is only giving further legitimacy and acknowledgement to No Treason.”

    No Treason needs … legitimacy? And it gets it … from me? Umm… thanks?

    “I just imagine them as the obsessive types, constantly scanning blogs for a note of disagreement or a bad word about their precious institutions, which needs to be immediately responded to.”

    Yeah, man, I’m a real stick up the ass, man, and I obey orders good, man! I’m the hatchet man, don’t ya know? I enjoy consorting with losers from time to time, what can I say.

    “At least Kinsella admits he likes sinking to this level, for the most part, even if he does like to keep on showing off his “credentials”.”

    Why do I show off my credentials to you? As Ayn Rand wrote:

    “Why do you use the word ‘selfishness’ to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean?” To those who ask it, my answer is: “For the reason that makes you afraid of it.”

    Or as Judy Tenuda said, “Suffaahh, Pope, SUFFAAHHH!”

  112. Kinsella,

    I want you to post comments here under just your real name from now on.

    JTK, why don’t you just go ahead and lay out on the table your Grand Theory of Guilt by Association, instead of teasing us by making us try to infer and induce your underlying principles?

    I draw conclusions about Lew from the writers and sites he promotes. I’m sure Lew’s fans would like to treat Wallace as a special individual case but I see plenty at LRC that’s very much along the same lines – the fetish for the Confederacy as well as racist and bigoted arguments against immigration and an affection for racist sites like VDARE.

    This is not universal at LRC, there are many writers at LRC who don’t partake of any of these vices, but it does have a substantial presence at LRC which many recognize. And the only one who can ultimately be responsible for that substantial presence is Lew.

    And I draw conclusions about the nature of the larger Rockwell community when it’s members make nary a peep when one of Lew’s most prolific writers is disappeared after outing himself as a racist and anti-semite. I’ve yet to see any of you take Wallace to task for his remarks, the most I’ve seen is “I’m not gonna defend that…”. Swell. But that’s it? Move along citizen, the show’s over?

    The silence is instructive. It certainly doesn’t mean everyone at LRC is like Wallace. But it’s a cultish silence.

    I don’t believe that everyone at LRC just now figured out that Wallace was a bigot. We’ve pointed it out on several occasions. Yet none took any public issue with him at LRC.

  113. Heinrich,

    If you’re an anti-Semite – – with a very few exceptions — you aren’t going to have an extraordinarily high opinion of people who are Jewish.

    Bobby Fischer seems to have an extraordinarily high opinion of Bobby Fischer.

    And come to think of it Bob Wallace seems to have a high opinion of Murray Rothbard and several other jews. Does that mean the man who wrote “Jews will always be ostracized because of their attempts to destroy every culture that admits them” is not an anti-semite?

  114. “JTK, why don’t you just go ahead and lay out on the table your Grand Theory of Guilt by Association, instead of teasing us by making us try to infer and induce your underlying principles?”

    I figured out a short time back, that “guilt by association” as spoken by people who consort with, sanction and promote bigots and bigotry, is actually a code-phrase that means

    “You aren’t allowed to judge me!”

    Been having some fun with this same thing over at Blank Out Times. There’s this crazy ass bitch whose been making gruntings over the idea that “Canada needs institutions to lock up the Indian activists and apologists” and also proposing that Canada needs to recreate government run residential schools for indian children.

    When I have asked some so-called Libertarians why they promote this woman, and her blog they respond with this “guilt by association” crapola… that it would not be right to ostracize or shun somebody simply for expressing “unpopular ideas”.

    I don’t get it. I really don’t. It baffles me that this kind of thing allows to grow and fester in libertarian circles because damn few people are willing to say “Shut your pie-hole. Your proposals are disgusting”.

    Well, in the very least you got Lew Rockwell to punt Bob “The white man will always be on top” Wallace down. I’ve yet to see a similar kind of reaction to this sort of behavior in Canada.

  115. Yo, “Show Off” Kinsella: you look like a Hollyweird ditz showing her ass to paperazzi and then complaining when photos hit the front page. “Cyberstalker”. (hah) Lemme guess: Karen passed you that word written in lipstick between shoots of her on her bike and her with a rifle.

    You’re a judy-boy, but at least you’re hysterical about it.

  116. Kinsella,

    I’m making a special case of you because I judge that you’re trying to be disruptive. I don’t think the requirement I’ve placed on you is onerous.

    Post here under the name Stephan Kinsella, not Stephan K.

    As for general commenting guidelines:

    Nyms are acceptable but sock puppets are not. If you’ve posted under your real name you should continue to do so. If you’re posting under a nym you should stick to one. If you’ve been posting as a nym and want to switch permanently to posting under your real name that’s fine, but otherwise nobody should be posting under multiple identities. Nobody should choose a nym which would likely be confused with another regular.

  117. The moron apologists for Wallace should go read THE NATURE OF PREJUDICE by Gordon W. Allport, which has an excellent discussion of the “Good Individual Jew” [‘Negro’, ‘Indian,’…] vs. “Filthy Jewry” aspect of racial bigotry.

  118. Several of your more cowardly posters use fake names, like Stefan, T.J. Madison, Edwin Bear, etc.

    Well Stephan Kinsella (if that’s who you really are), perhaps you should think about which of us is a chickenhawk on immigration before throwing stones.

  119. Hey, when dastardly left-libertarians are running around in the shadows and constantly opposing you in every form and on every issue, you have to take a closed borders stance and ally yourself with people of dubious reputations.

    They’re not tainted by left-libertarianism, the silent and unknown killer.

  120. Nyms are acceptable but sock puppets are not. If you’ve posted under your real name you should continue to do so. If you’re posting under a nym you should stick to one.

    lung has a sock puppet!

  121. lungs are another special case, they are all welcome to blog and comment here.

    I wouldn’t even want to contemplate the consequences to someone who masqueraded as a lung though…

    That would be out of my hands.

  122. By the way, here’s Bob Wallace in his own words about the matter:

    Here’s what happened: I occasionally post outrageous comments at various sites, wondering what kind of response I’ll get. Call it bait. I have found out you have to push the envelope to get a truthful response from people. So I pushed it.

    This time, finally, I got a response, and woo hoo was it one! One person in particular, a leftwing PC narcissistic homosexual named Tom Palmer (who styles himself a libertarian, but isn’t) took my comments and sent them all over the Internet to God knows who.

  123. So, Wallace freely acknowledges he’s a troll. Stop feeding him! As if the racist lunacy was insufficient.

    Couple lessons from this waste of pixels. ‘Thin’ libertarianism, divorced from broader liberal context, is easily wedded to the crudest nationalism. Also, DON’T FEED THE TROLL (applicable to Kinsella also, despite sporadic near-lucidity).

    Whole thread feeds Wallace’s narcissism. I’d nuke it.

  124. SMALL PEOPLE TRY TO MAKE THEMSELVES LOOK BIG BY MAKING OTHERS LOOK SMALL!!!!! I AM ALMOST CERTAIN THAT YOU ALL AND YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS ARE POOR OR LOW MIDDLE CLASS UNHAPPY INDIVIDUALS WHO FEEL LIKE LOSERS. STOP TRYING TO PROMOTE HATE AND START PROMOTING LOVE. JESUS SAID TO LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. OBVIOUSLY YOU DON’T LOVE YOURSELF!!!!

    TAKE THE TIME AND ENERGY YOU ARE SPENDING ON HATING AND DEGRADING OTHERS TO BETTER YOURSELF!!!!!

  125. “123 Says:

    July 22nd, 2005 at Jul 22, 05 | 11:34 pm
    Bob Wallace was posting at lewrockwell for years, since 2003 at least. And they didn’t know his views until Tom Palmer pointed them out? Please. If that is actually the case, then they are morons. More likely, the knew his views and either agreed, or didn’t mind being associated with him. So they published him. After all, Lew Rockwell has published Joe Sobran, a Holocaust denier and anti-Semite, and has cited frequently Jared Taylor and Sam Francis.”

    It is beyond outrageous to call Joseph Sobran a “holocaust denier”. He has never done any such thing.

Leave a Reply

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