What to think about breathing, Lew
Nov 28, 04 | 9:08 pm by John SabottaI am not very familiar with the recent election shenanigans in the Ukraine, but one thing is certain - I’ll never find out the truth about them over at Lew Rockwell’s Paleocreep Central. Why not? you may ask. Because (I reply, dear Karen agreeably snuggling next to me and whispering something in my ear about bunnies) of the mindless fashion in which True Blue Confederate Lew reaches his conclusions:
“Every neocon in the world is screaming the same line. No rational man could agree on that basis alone.”
ghly translated as “Whatever those pesky Jews are for, we’re against.”
In light of this, I’d very much like to see the “neocons” (whoever they are) come out in favor of oxygen. Then Lew would be obliged by his ideals to stop breathing. This would be a good thing.
One notes that Lew’s desire to never agree with the “neocons” involves him in a good deal of floundering as, torn between religio-political obscurantism and neo-hatred, he tries to find a third position. I have no idea, by the way, whether the “neocons” are all really “screaming” for one side or the other - Lew’s stupidity is so often based on believing his own lies that reading Paleocreep Central is like walking through a wilderness of funhouse mirrors, complete with spring-loaded papier-mache clown. (Bob Wallace) This deserves further investigation, but alas, dear Karen is becoming ever more importunate. Hey, that tickles!
November 28th, 2004 at Nov 28, 04 | 11:24 pm
You’ve figured out some of the Rockwellian logic. Congratulations! It’s a bit like working out the logic of “The Addams Family,” in which evil, pain, and suffering are replacements for good, pleasure, and flourishing; it quickly reaches a point at which it becomes incoherent.
November 29th, 2004 at Nov 29, 04 | 1:20 am
Or Bizarro World
November 29th, 2004 at Nov 29, 04 | 8:04 am
As I understand it, it’s about the worst-kept secret in the Ukraine that the US backs one and Russia backs the other. Why the neocons and CIA are so much more horribly evil than the Russian spy network is anyone’s guess, unless you buy into the commie notion that the US is always wrong.
November 29th, 2004 at Nov 29, 04 | 9:20 am
What’s possibly the funniest part is Rockwell using the phrase “stolen election” in perfect seriousness. “Anti-state, pro-market”: yeah, it says so right there on the box.
November 29th, 2004 at Nov 29, 04 | 11:44 am
comment here.
November 29th, 2004 at Nov 29, 04 | 3:02 pm
bush lied, war is bad, corporations rule the world, zionists rule the world, communists are ok if they are anti-war, libertarians are nazis if they are pro-war, the slaveholding south was a good state, lincoln was a fascist, neocons stole my lunch money, etc etc etc blah blah blah
November 29th, 2004 at Nov 29, 04 | 3:59 pm
So, if Lew automatically takes up opposition to the neocons, and if Sabotta automatically takes up opposition to Lew, does that make Sabotta a neocon? Or is he just a bitter old turd?
November 29th, 2004 at Nov 29, 04 | 3:59 pm
Seriously, if you’re going to lambast Lew for not taking a defensible position based on lack of real research, you should at least do a a little research of your own so as to avoid the same sin. Otherwise, you just look like an idiot.
P.S. 300 character limit? Sheesh.
November 30th, 2004 at Nov 30, 04 | 1:26 pm
“This could be roughly translated as “Whatever those pesky Jews are for, we’re against.”"
You mean those pesky old jews like Mises, Rothbard, Block, Kirzner etc?
Fact is that your “Paleos are anti-semites” line is PC claptrap and is a substitute for proper argument.
November 30th, 2004 at Nov 30, 04 | 2:40 pm
Julius is correct. Please name one person of Jewish ancestory who was an anti-semite (other than Hitler and Marx). Real libertarians know that Lew speaks for all of us and nobody dares question His Infinite wisdom. Rothbard said we are anti-war and THAT’S IT. OK? Get it you fucking neocon??????
November 30th, 2004 at Nov 30, 04 | 3:15 pm
>
So there are anti-semites who have jewish ancestry. So what?
Or are you saying that Mises, Rothbard, Block and Kirzner are/were all anti-semites?
Bonkers.
November 30th, 2004 at Nov 30, 04 | 6:00 pm
I said your point that jews couldn’t be anti-semites was full of shit. And I don’t like how you lump Mises and Kirzner in with those other two commie-friendly idiots who have worked with holocaust deniers.
November 30th, 2004 at Nov 30, 04 | 6:02 pm
To clarrify: Not sure if Rothbard/Block were/are anti-semites, but they had no problems working (and getting paid) by anti-semites. Mises and Kirzner were serious defenders of liberty. Rothbard/Block were vile clowns.
November 30th, 2004 at Nov 30, 04 | 7:19 pm
i’ll also cut you off and say that Rothbard was an OK economist - but doesn’t deserve his hero status from the Austrians since it was all Mises’ economic ideas. But as political leader and writer he was disasterous to liberty. same goes for his creepy followers.
November 30th, 2004 at Nov 30, 04 | 7:56 pm
That’s right. Rockwell does a good job following Rothbard’s footsteps. After all, who else would be running “Free Saddam” articles and defending slavery as a a utopian libertarian state? Only the Lincon cartel would want dictators in prision and slaves free.
November 30th, 2004 at Nov 30, 04 | 7:58 pm
As for the article, the problem is that Rockwell harms the libertarian cause by saying so much crap all the time.
November 30th, 2004 at Nov 30, 04 | 7:59 pm
If only he kept making fun of Darwinists, it was so much fun back then. But now all this stuff is a big no-no at the site, so it doesn’t turn off potential left lunnies that might be googling for bush+nazi.
November 30th, 2004 at Nov 30, 04 | 9:44 pm
Oh, good, I see we’re dredging up the old arguments. It’s good to see that we’re running around in circles, rather than working through the disagreements and moving forward. It’d be just awful if we did the adult thing, rather than piffling like children.
November 30th, 2004 at Nov 30, 04 | 9:46 pm
LRC doesn’t hate Jews or Blacks. When they write articles defending Saddam Hussein or chattel slavery, it is a demonstrative response against those advocates of state power, meant to remove the moral high ground those people supposedly occupy and deflating arguments for evermore state aggression.
November 30th, 2004 at Nov 30, 04 | 9:47 pm
There’s another factor in there, too: that while Saddam or 18th century slaveowners were morally culpable for their aggression, they did not represent us as does the American government claims to. Everything that the U.S. does, it does on my behalf, and therefore I am morally culpable.
November 30th, 2004 at Nov 30, 04 | 9:47 pm
The virtuous man examines his own faults first, and LRC does that marvelously. Try and remember that next time you try and assert that LRC worships communists or some other bunk.
P.S. This 300 char limit is killing me, John.
November 30th, 2004 at Nov 30, 04 | 10:13 pm
LRC doesn’t serve the cause of liberty by being a fanatic. Lincon is not pure evil. The South is not pure good. The only reason he’s defending a bastard like Saddam is to hurt his own political enemies, and that’s horrible.
November 30th, 2004 at Nov 30, 04 | 10:16 pm
The point I’m trying to get across is that to go as far as to defend Stalin’s agression on Finland and Poland just to make the US Gov look bad is so rotten even Chomsky would do it in a less insane way.
November 30th, 2004 at Nov 30, 04 | 10:33 pm
I’d like to see the links to the articles you’re referring to, so that I at least know what specific texts we’re arguing about.
December 1st, 2004 at Dec 01, 04 | 12:45 am
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1541
Here’s an example. If you was rooting for the Allies on the D-Day, you were just a court intellectual justifying the neocon cartel agression.
December 1st, 2004 at Dec 01, 04 | 12:46 am
About the preemptive defense he make on the text, Rothbard is not a communist, or a nazi. He’s an useful idiot. Or just a plain idiot, who knows.
December 1st, 2004 at Dec 01, 04 | 12:47 am
Or Was. Rockwell is. I mean, what cause is LRC.com really serving by using anti-american propaganda that Al-Jaazeera would reject? They even complement Micheal Moore. That’s as low as they get.
December 1st, 2004 at Dec 01, 04 | 3:10 am
Julius needs to be straightened out. Kirzner has no connection to the Lew Rockwell group. Mises is dead and rolling in his grave that his name is associated with pro-Confederate revisionist kooks. And Rothbard is also deceased, although he did have some connection to Rockwell during his lifetime.
December 1st, 2004 at Dec 01, 04 | 4:23 am
Aaron G: “…meant to remove the moral high ground…“
LRC lost the moral high ground a long time ago.
“Everything that the U.S. does, it does on my behalf, and therefore I am morally culpable.“
No it doesn’t, and no you aren’t.
December 1st, 2004 at Dec 01, 04 | 11:47 am
Tom
I didn’t mean to suggest that Kirzner or Mises are/were Paleos, though there are of course close links between the Mises Int and many LRC writers.
My point, generally, is that allegations of anti-semitism directed at LRC writers are just false; and are a poor substitute for argument.
December 1st, 2004 at Dec 01, 04 | 5:42 pm
” The only reason he’s defending a bastard like Saddam is to hurt his own political enemies, and that’s horrible.”
Yes - Rockwell is a dishonest Lenninist like his old crank-master Rothbard.
December 1st, 2004 at Dec 01, 04 | 5:42 pm
But if you are going to be opening Lenninist “Popular Fronts” or “Vanguards” you should at least be successful. Instead LRC has maligned libertarianism even more than before.
December 2nd, 2004 at Dec 02, 04 | 4:59 am
Aaron G. :The virtuous man examines his own faults first, and LRC does that marvelously.“
…As Open Challenge to Rockwell, Hoppe, Kinsella, And The LRA clearly shows.
Right?
December 2nd, 2004 at Dec 02, 04 | 9:26 pm
Wow, this is truly sad.
I just found this place today. First impression to me is that it looks just as ignorantly combative as the DU, freerepublic and infinite other sites where the members play as tools working against their own interests by falling for the ole trap of divide and conquer.
December 2nd, 2004 at Dec 02, 04 | 9:28 pm
However flawed Lew’s opinions may be, they are far less damaging than all of the ad hominem attacks I observe here. In order for freedom to have a chance, it takes common ground to foster the ability to communicate. Instead I see pack behavior work to destroy such channels of communication.
December 2nd, 2004 at Dec 02, 04 | 9:29 pm
If you really want to help Lew see the light, challenge him with a well-reasoned argument. Name calling solves nothing.
December 2nd, 2004 at Dec 02, 04 | 9:52 pm
With which anti-semetic group has Walter Block worked?
December 3rd, 2004 at Dec 03, 04 | 3:28 am
NA: “If you really want to help Lew see the light, challenge him with a well-reasoned argument.“
There’ve been plenty of those presented to LRC, as a quick search of the site will show. The fact that LRC’ers choose to ignore them is their problem, not mine.
December 3rd, 2004 at Dec 03, 04 | 3:47 am
NA: “However flawed Lew’s opinions may be, they are far less damaging than all of the ad hominem attacks I observe here.“
Please cite the ad hominem attacks you reference.
December 3rd, 2004 at Dec 03, 04 | 9:23 am
Those aren’t ad hominem attacks. Those aren’t even attacks. Those are statements of fact. He did such things (ie, run “free saddam” articles, be anti-immigration and anti-state, etc). It’s funny because the immigration per se requires states, but whatever.
December 3rd, 2004 at Dec 03, 04 | 9:23 am
I mean, if there were no states, there would be no immigration. Makes you wonder. Maybe he’s anti-state only on the US.
December 3rd, 2004 at Dec 03, 04 | 3:11 pm
“Maybe he’s anti-state only on the US.”
YOU ARE GETTING IT.
December 3rd, 2004 at Dec 03, 04 | 6:18 pm
If you’re going to be anti-state, best you start at home.
December 3rd, 2004 at Dec 03, 04 | 6:25 pm
“If you’re going to be anti-state, best you start at home.”
Not if your efforts increase the power of even worse States. But anything for the Popular Libertarian Vanguard strategy thati s workign so shittyh the last 25 years!
December 3rd, 2004 at Dec 03, 04 | 9:15 pm
What’s this? We must have a keep our big state to prevent other, worse states? Hahaha, I smell a neocon. Maybe you and Sabotta can go join up at AEI to be Likudnik-bots.
December 3rd, 2004 at Dec 03, 04 | 9:27 pm
why do we have to keep a big state to destroy worse states? Are you for keeping a big state??? YOU must be a neocon.
December 3rd, 2004 at Dec 03, 04 | 9:28 pm
If you bring down the US state, something even worst will come on its place. Think french revolution. Think russian revolution. Not an american revolution.
December 3rd, 2004 at Dec 03, 04 | 9:44 pm
I’m not for keeping a big state, I thought that was clear. You, however, don’t want a reduction in the state if it will, and I quote, “increase the power of even worse States.” So whose the necon now? And who said anything about revolution, Dardanus? Not I.
December 4th, 2004 at Dec 04, 04 | 9:06 am
LRC.com, the anti-state site, said it. Kind of on-topic. But you made a good point: if there’s a zero-state-tolerance, is there a poing in limiting the power of the state, as the classical liberals want?
December 4th, 2004 at Dec 04, 04 | 9:08 am
Even some members of this blog seem to think that any state is bad. But that point of view poses a few complications. For once, is it a generic anti-state stance, or just the state of the US? How can someone be anti-state and anti-immigration?
December 4th, 2004 at Dec 04, 04 | 9:09 am
No-Treason is at least coherent with regards to immigration. But other questions remain. There’s no way to limite further growth of state power if no state at all is accepted. Either way there are problems for the libertarians.
December 4th, 2004 at Dec 04, 04 | 6:53 pm
Dardanus: “For once, is it a generic anti-state stance, …”
Yup.
“There’s no way to limite further growth of state power if no state at all is accepted.“
The Revolution Will Be All Business.
December 4th, 2004 at Dec 04, 04 | 9:09 pm
Dardanus:
The illogicality of what you say, just hurts.
Small states are not like vaccinations that will keep you safe from the big nasty ones. They are the disease itself. Just at an earlier stage.
December 5th, 2004 at Dec 05, 04 | 6:29 pm
I’m not saying that they are or aren’t, Julius. But there’s simply absolutely zero prospect of a “state-free” region anywhere on Earth, or, even, on the universe. Even antartica has and the stars belong to states. So, short of the Kingdom of Heaven, libertarians have no where too run.
December 5th, 2004 at Dec 05, 04 | 6:30 pm
Hayek used to say the same as you, but the fact is that it didn’t generate a totalitarian socialism. It already should have. It will probably stay on a mixed position, sort of social democracy, regardless of the countries official ideology.
December 5th, 2004 at Dec 05, 04 | 6:31 pm
The brazilian gov’t is a mix of pragamatic “neoliberal” economics and old school communist guerrila and terrorism. They work togheter, and no one seems to mind. An arm of the “Worker’s” party, the Landless Movement, frequently invades public buildings.
December 5th, 2004 at Dec 05, 04 | 6:33 pm
Brazil is a case to be studied. The government is completly weak to defend itself from leftist agression, or the society from common criminals. But it tries to rule everyone and everything. A stupid congressman is proposing a law banning people from naming pets after people. Seriously.
December 5th, 2004 at Dec 05, 04 | 6:35 pm
But it didn’t become a totalitarian nations. It will prob. fluctuate on a semi-socialist interventionist state. Just like, alas, China and the US. Totalitarian states give some freedom, not because they like it, but because society don’t work without it. It’s a deadlock situation.
December 5th, 2004 at Dec 05, 04 | 6:36 pm
I don’t know if the best course of action is to try to limit the powers of the state, or reject any practical action whatsoever and just complain about how the state is evil, with no practical plan on how to actually do something about it.
December 5th, 2004 at Dec 05, 04 | 6:37 pm
If you don’t accept a smaller state, and a no-state situation is impossible, than what? Maybe the former sucks, but the later seems to be the case.
December 5th, 2004 at Dec 05, 04 | 6:42 pm
Communists don’t actually plan for a new totalitarian soviet state. They simply want total power, and will give enought economic freedom for capitalism to work, while reducing political freedoms. Bad as it may sound, think: what current political group is not trying to do the exact same thing?
December 6th, 2004 at Dec 06, 04 | 4:12 am
One last thing… My point was that No-Treason is coherent on its stance. It’s against the state, and so it’s not against immigration. LRC seems to be for a policy that can only be acrhived by heavy state itervention, which is incompatible with anarcho-capitalism.
December 6th, 2004 at Dec 06, 04 | 4:33 am
D.,
That appears to be the case. Peaceful white seperatism could be achieved without government, but LRC doesn’t endorse that.
December 6th, 2004 at Dec 06, 04 | 2:48 pm
hayek was a neocon
December 7th, 2004 at Dec 07, 04 | 1:04 pm
Dardanus
I think Kinsella answered your point well in a piece he wrote (can’t find URL - sorry). There will always be murder but that doesn’t mean that it is pointless being against murder. Ditto States.
December 7th, 2004 at Dec 07, 04 | 1:12 pm
I don’t say that all States must become totalitarian. But there’s no denying that government tends to grow; and it is hard to see why a minimal State would be exempt. If so, minimal statism is just as “impossible” as anarchism. So why prefer minarchism?
December 8th, 2004 at Dec 08, 04 | 4:32 am
Let me respond you with this. We should be fighting for LESS state. It’s better than fight for MORE state. If we do reeeeealy well, it will be minimal, and then we might even end the whole thing. Like the murder analogy, if we can’t get ride of it, we try to reduce it and be against it.
December 8th, 2004 at Dec 08, 04 | 4:34 am
So, yeah, we should fight the state by reducing and limiting it, if we can’t end it. But we should be fully aware it doesn’t really work out, and yet I don’t know any better alternative at this point.
December 8th, 2004 at Dec 08, 04 | 1:25 pm
Dardanus is a neocon
December 9th, 2004 at Dec 09, 04 | 2:23 am
Neocons are for limiting the power of the State? Since when? BTW, check this: http://www.freestateproject.org What does NT has to say about this project?
December 9th, 2004 at Dec 09, 04 | 3:54 am
The FSP? As big of a flop as the LP, for all the same reasons.
December 9th, 2004 at Dec 09, 04 | 2:44 pm
Neocons are pro-war, like evil neocon Hayek and Mises. Rothbard is the only real libertarian and Lew is His prophet.