48 thoughts on “Looks like we’re back…”

  1. Welcome back!…to, uh, your own home.

    Odd that today was the first time I’ve checked the blog in many months. I was wondering if the NT folks had written anything regarding the Ron Paul Newsletter Debacle, particularly since several people have pointed at Lew Rockwell as the mysterious ghost writer for the offending articles.

    It does look like lung has multiplied into the 3rd dimension, though. Congradulations!

  2. The text in question really doesn’t sound any more like Lew to me than it sounds like Ron Paul. A more likely scenario is that Lew was in charge of the newsletters and farmed out the writing to people who are still writing for him today. Read the article and comments by Knappster who thinks the writer may have been Gary North, Lew’s most prolific writer to this day.

    If that’s the case it doesn’t seem completly candid of Ron Paul, to say the least, to dismiss this as the work of a loose cannon from his staff considering his ongoing relationships with Rockwell and North.

    In these newsletters we may be looking at the alpha version of LewRockwell.Com.

  3. Like I said, I guess completely defunct isn’t what it used to be. Poor Beck.

    Ron Paul: One thing that’s interesting is how Lewrockwell.com reacts when they’re under fire. DeCoster and DiLorenzo are getting rather too shrill in their responses to the dirt that’s been dug up. Tom Knapp has noticed it too, he looks like he smells the blood in the water. Money quote:

    As someone who defended LRC/LvMI from those allegations [of racism]for a long time, I’m mortified to discover that I may have been very, very wrong.

    I suspect that he’s not the only movementarian feeling sick from the Kool-Aid. And let’s not forget Wendy McElroy, who links to and reproduces a piece claiming to expose the author’s name with minor commentray. For those who won’t click through: it’s Lew.

    Amusingly enough I saw this coming a year and a half ago:

    …if they can’t stand my attention (me: Mr. Nobody from Nowhere) how long are they gonna last in the outside world?

  4. Lopez said
    …if they can’t stand my attention (me: Mr. Nobody from Nowhere) how long are they gonna last in the outside world?

    That’s what team play gets you. I give credit to LRC and Mises when credit is due, but they’re are a tight knit lot, almost cultish, when it comes to criticizing ole Lew. I expect that Ron Paul’s normal consistency is compromised when it comes to dealing with the newsletter ghostwriting issue because he isn’t going to sacrifice his long term relationship with Rockwell and the Miseans for a race he knows he can’t win. Paul already sees himself ahead of the game. He’s got far more attention to plugging his beliefs and Austrian economics than he ever imagined he would. He knows his days in the Presidential debates and the big spotlight of the mainstream media are numbered. So why would he alienate his old friend Lew Rockwell by spilling the beans.

    I do like Ron Paul. He’s had my respect for many years. In spite of some inconsistencies, significant though they be, he seems to be far more honest and principled than most people walking around in a suit and tie. His good friend, Lew, however is not his match in those departments. If Ron Paul really hadn’t read the entries in question. And if, in fact, Rockwell was Paul’s editor and if Rockwell did enlist the services of someone like Gary North, then he should come clean instead of allowing his long time friend, Ron Paul, to be smeared by something Rockwell solicited and approved.

  5. Sabotta,

    McElroy is daintily holding her nose and sliding significant glances at Rockwell, but she fancies herself far too much of a lady to actually say who cut the cheese. In all fairness though, she doesn’t seem to be thinking straight anymore. Check out her subpoint 2) here. “Damning”? Not from a libertarian perspective, Wendy – it just means that LRC/LvMI are populated with racist idiots. Now that does make them a tad unmarketable as they’re the wrong kind of racists to get popular support, and so on the other hand maybe the taint to the movement is all ya really care about.

    These people’s contradictions are eating them whole.

  6. All of the people carefully sidestepping LRC and not outing Lew explicitly seem to be movement types with past associations with Lew and/or LvMI. The “beltway libertarians” are eating this shit up. (Some of them are paying lip service to the fate of Paul’s candidacy, but they’re snickering behind their hands.)

    Are they afraid of getting tarred with the same brush? McElroy’s LRC archives go back to 2000, and her association with them probably goes back farther. Can she really say that she knew nothing about what they were about?

    Are they afraid of being the first past the post? Not too many people want to pick a fight with LRC’s in-house attack dogs.

    Are they afraid of damaging the movement? Maybe they all think LRC has the potential to do more good than harm if Lew would just ‘fess up, take responsibility, and put this behind us so we can all heal. So to speak.

    Also the overwhelming majority of movement types lack a principled center. If they’ve hitched their political/emotional wagon to Ron Paul, outing Lew is like knocking their own wheels off. They’ll have to ease themselves into it: maybe all this wink-wink nudge-nudge is woofing(*).

    (*) For those of a different socioeconomic background, “woofing” refers to someone speaking in a progressively more aggressive manner towards another in order to get themselves prepared for physical violence.

  7. John, McElroy is certainly saying that she does know who wrote the newsletters.

    The only thing I can figure is that some are afraid of being trashed by Friends Of Ol’ Lew for the rest of their lives. Lew’s army is pretty big and higly motivated.

    Still…that’s pretty lame.

  8. The only thing I can figure is that some are afraid of being trashed by Friends Of Ol’ Lew for the rest of their lives.

    …And maybe Lawyer Kinsella wouldn’t be quite as willing to send threatening letters on McElroy’s behalf if the recipient was Rockwell: harder to face down arguments when you don’t have a buddy with a pet lawyer on a chain.

    Rockwell’s Army is motivated and aggressive but not particularly deep. DiLorenzo, DeCoster, Epstein, and Kinsella are all prominent and loud Rockwellians but have all gotten publicly beat the fuck down by NT. There isn’t any reason why anyone else couldn’t do the same except for the fact that most others care about their reps in libertarian circles.

    It’s lame but the movement and rational evangelism is all they’ve got, and the obvious consensus is that on balance LRC/LvMI help the movement more than they hurt it. Those that are truly sickened yet prominent might contemplate going after LRC but most of them need positive feedback from allies, and none of them outweigh Rockwell on those balance scales. So they all know going in that they are going to be ostracized from their movement. And the mainstream (“beltway”) libertarians aren’t going to have them either, as they carry the stench of Auburn on them. They’ll be effectively alone and even if they win, all they’ll have done is damage their own movement.

    Bottom line: movement types can’t achieve their goals by exposing LRC.

    So where do they go from there? Can’t associate with LRC but can’t disassociate, can’t slam Lew or support him, can’t disavow Paul but can’t defend him. Can’t smash your movement and then have it, too. So they gently try to prod Rockwell or make anonymous statements and hope that Lew will fix everything, somehow.

    “That’s what team play gets you”.

  9. … the stench of Auburn…

    I attended a Roderick Long seminar on libertarian ethics a few years back that was held on the LvMI campus. Other than the nerdly tingle of being able to speak with a few dozen people about politics and economics who didn’t need half an hour so I could explain my fundamentals, it never felt weird or unpleasant. Occasionally, in my group of younger attendees, the problematic association with the Gary Norths in the movement would be brought up, as would the issue of a Ron Paul operating within the framework of a growing body of anarchist literature.

    I hate to hear blanket condemnations of the organization. There is some ugly ideological deadweight that needs to be released, but I still respect their essential mission.

  10. lung can release their ideological deadweight.

    with massive gamma ray bombardment

    it will also set them on fire, a little. maybe more than a little.

    paleoskellytons!

  11. Charles,

    It’s no condemnation, it’s an analysis.

    The “stench” in this case is in perceptions, both from other wonks and from the public. The beltway crowd is going to think awful hard about opening their arms to anyone with a multi-year association with LRC/LvMI. The reason is that if they did so they’d become vulnerable to charges of being and/or harboring racist cranks. Just like LRC is.

    I think this perceived stench is real and I think that the people wink-nudging about Lew are taking it into account in their decisions to not openly break with him. This perceived stench isn’t rational, but that doesn’t matter because nobody involved (not LRC/LvMI, not the beltway crowd, not the anonymous hinters, not the mass of voters they’re all after) is either.

    The charge of LRC harboring racist cranks is an easy one to make because, well, they do in fact harbor racist cranks. What nobody involved cares about (or even dares ask) is what that means.

  12. “There is some ugly ideological deadweight that needs to be released, ..

    Fine Charles, but by whom? Wouldn’t that ultimately be Lew himself, the patron of the deadweight? You think it’s there against his better judgement?

  13. Even though I’m a paleo that doesn’t believe in objective rights/morality, I’m still glad to see you back. Folks like Kinsella and DiLorenzo can really be dicks sometimes and I’m pleased you’re around to give ’em hell.

  14. I’ve learned, while observing politicized “traditional” Catholics, not to put much stock in the sincerity of their faith (or their actual respect for tradition, for that matter.)

    Although it is amusing to see the phoney “race realist Christians” (Lawrence Auster) and actual Nazis (Charlie Prince) argue over who is a better racist creep. (For the record, Prince is obviously correct, and has with great skill argued himself right inside the Gates of Hell.) Or whatever it is those swine are arguing about. It’s almost as amusing as an letters exchange in the racialist “Occidental Review” in which the internal tensions of the Axis were reenacted – Italian-surnamed racialists asserting their position as “white Europeans” and German-surnamed racialists objecting.

    Mr. TGGP does not seem to share these disgusting hobbies, even though he thoughtfully links to them in a display that makes his blog a genuinely diverse Chamber of Horrors. From the Hu-man Ro-bots (markII) at “Overcoming Bias” to some lunatic at “Hoover’s Hog” who claims that giving birth to a child is a violation of that child’s right not to be born, the view is uniformly dismal.

    A lot of this is the result simply of nerds trying to be “clear minded” and “rational”. This is bad,as lung would say. Nerds should stick to shaking their test tubes and wiring their circuits or whatever it is they do. Keep inventing shit, nerds, and stop fillng up blogs with rubbishy “philosophy” and “politics.”

  15. What more, really, needs to be said?
    It has actually been my experience that the paleos tend to me much more into natural rights while other libertarians are inclined to utilitarianism and atheist skepticism. I can’t recall anyone but me endorsing emotivism/Stirnerism at the Mises blog! One of the things that makes No Treason interesting is that you take the purist deontological (but not Objectivist) anarchist angle that I usually associate with the paleos but you love to attack them. I think some of you endorsed the Iraq war though, which annoys me more than the creepiest Lew Rockwell has to offer.

    It’s almost as amusing as an letters exchange in the racialist “Occidental Review” in which the internal tensions of the Axis were reenacted – Italian-surnamed racialists asserting their position as “white Europeans” and German-surnamed racialists objecting.
    Got a link? I also wonder if they were northern italian or southern italian. I’ve heard that the fascist party in Italy tends to get a lot more support in the north and frequently mocks the south by saying “Garibaldi didn’t unite Italy, he divided Africa”. Part of my interest in “human-biodiversity realism” is the smashing of Platonic essentialism that disputes over clinal variation help illustrate.

    Mr. TGGP does not seem to share these disgusting hobbies, even though he thoughtfully links to them in a display that makes his blog a genuinely diverse Chamber of Horrors.
    Why, thank you. I’m a comparative neophyte next to the Hog (I was introduced to Robert Lindsay through him, for example) but I try.

    From the Hu-man Ro-bots (markII) at “Overcoming Bias”
    A commenter from there, Hopefully Anonymous, has unfortunately not updated his blog in a while, but it should be noted that he makes the contributors at OB seem like hillbilly hippies in comparison. In his most recent post he speculated that some people are more like robots than people and should be treated as such, but other commenters and I can’t figure out how that makes any difference.

    some lunatic at “Hoover’s Hog” who claims that giving birth to a child is a violation of that child’s right not to be born, the view is uniformly dismal.
    It’s actually “The Hoover Hog”, referring to the nickname for armadillo during the Great Depression. I thought Chip Smith put forth a quite interesting case that I summarized here. The Rothbardian right he is protecting is not directly the one “not to be born” but not to be harmed, which is the inevitable result of birth. As an egoist, I disregard any objections of the unborn or on their behalf and if I so choose would have no qualms bringing them into this world for my own purposes. I wonder how you would answer Mr. Smith’s case other than a simple argument from incredulity.

    as lung would say
    Who is this lung and how did it originate? I’ve seen some pictures but I still don’t understand.

    Nerds should stick to shaking their test tubes and wiring their circuits or whatever it is they do.
    I thought nobody accepted Eichmann’s excuse when he talked about just doing his job and ignoring the larger issue.

    stop fillng up blogs with rubbishy “philosophy” and “politics.”
    I too have a distaste for philosophy and politics, but I enjoy talking smack about them. I really liked the site againstpolitics.com which is why I mirrored it. I think philosophy/ethics is nonsense as well, which I have argued at Overcoming Bias. The Against Politics site is also sort of against ethical philosophy (no, they aren’t Rorty fans) but I think their name is still good.

  16. After some reflection, I should like to stress that TGGP seems free of the pathologies seen above. Still, posting that one does not believe in “objective morality” does make you sound like a villian from a sixties spy movie, complete with monocle and cat. “Ah yes, Mr. Bond, a few million people may die when I deploy my solar orbiting discombobulator, but I am not restrained by what lesser men style ‘objective morality'”

    One wonders if a lot of the people who take this position romantically consider themselves Blofeld and Dr. No, not quite realising that their ‘philosophy’ is shared by car thieves and people who roll drunks in alleyways. (And Dale Franks.)

    Overcoming Bias is also not pathological – just intensely annoying.

  17. My guess is that most of the non-fictional characters you are thinking of do believe in morality but are hypocrites. Then again, I’ve never cared for guilt-by-association so I shouldn’t have a problem saying things like “I agree with a lot of Timothy McVeigh’s beliefs”. To me it’s not romantic, just taking Hume’s is-ought distinction, the naturalistic/moralistic fallacy and Occam’s Razor seriously and realizing there are no detectable “moral facts” or “normative truths”. I suppose Stirner is enjoyably whimsical though.

  18. tggp, alone in the spooky old missile silo, asks a question:

    “Who is this lung and how did it originate? I’ve seen some pictures but I still don’t understand.”

    lung is america’s most adorable strategic weapon. lung is a product of trw! lung was deployed in 1959.

    maybe lung is older.

    once upon a time “that which has no end” asked “the book” for workers and the book said “I give you 22 workers, namely the 22 letters that are in me and give to each his own” and the 22 letters made the first lung who serves that which has no end and whose name lung knows but does not say.

    no one knows what lung really is.

  19. Note to TGGP

    The hilarious recapitulation of inter-Axis politics can be found here –

    http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol2no2/rm-teg.html

    There was a good reason why the Italian Army kept working on their fortifications facing Germany even during the ill-fated period of the “Pact of Steel.”

    Another interesting episode in the inspiring history of inter-Axis relations can be found here –

    http://www.geocities.com/dutcheastindies/shanghai.html

    …concerning the very sudden change in Japanese attitudes after the Italian capitulation.

  20. Virtue Triumphant (aka C.H.) provides a thought experiment:

    Imagine if Wittgenstein and Ayn Rand met to balance the budget by making a secret Beanie Baby, hoarding it multiple times by moving it from pocket to pocket, then declaring it the rarest and most collectable Beanie Baby on earth through sheer force of will and Egoism,creating a Secondary Market of One. Later, when they found neither shopkeepers nor revenue collectors willaccept shares of Â¢apeu¢hin (the Beanie Baby is a capuchin monkey wearing a cape embroidered with currency symbols) for existing debts, they would fume and fret and then blame Ron Paul.

  21. I am perfectly willing to listen to you talk about ‘objective morality’ as soon as you demonstrate its existence. As morality is defined by societal and cultural precedent, and as such is necessarily subjective, that’s going to take some doing.

    There are objective *ethics*, though. We call the study of those ethics ‘physics’.

  22. It’s like a 1964 John W. Campbell Analog editorial has permanently embedded itself in the brains of every Goddamned engineering and science nerd in the country and caused them to spew out this endless garbage about morality being relative and all that. (Throw in the word “evolutionary” for extra added nerd points) I guess “memetics” does have some utility if you are only discussing fundamentally subhuman creatures.

    Well, no it doesn’t. It’s still just a inept fraud. But the “subhuman” part still is (as a idiot liberal Democrat science nerd former friend of mine used to put it) a useful model.

Leave a Reply

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