Idiot On Strike
Jun 09, 05 | 11:48 am by John SabottaThis hilarious threat from Rockwellite idiot Marcus Epstein, in defense of noted paleocreeps Thomas Woods, Thomas DiLorenzo and the so-called “League of the South”: (Emphasis mine)
As for Mr. Mueller’s laughing at the idea that “The League does not believe that the role of government is to use its members’ children as cannon fodder.” Yes the confederacy (reluctantly) drafted people to fight when it was invaded. But the LOS has been consistently antiwar since its inception and advocates non-violent means, so how is that statement untrue?
I am strongly considering applying to UNC law school, and all this slander makes me hesitant to apply. I’d suggest stopping it, less you alienate more potential students.
Oh, noes! M. Epstein is in danger of becoming dangerously alienated! (Soon he will starts glowing green and listening to horrible Grateful Dead music with hippies in the woods, like all aliens do.) It should be noted that Epstein’s fit of terminal huffiness was in response to this brilliant, near wordless bit of photo-textual juxtaposition. Mad libertine propz to Eric Muller at IsThatLegal.org! (Even if, alas, he is a lawyer.)
June 9th, 2005 at Jun 09, 05 | 7:42 pm
Plantation farming with Negro slaves?
June 9th, 2005 at Jun 09, 05 | 8:04 pm
Oh no! A talentless cartoonist who thinks naked women wreslting is art just called Marcus Epstein an idiot! Considering the source, it’s practically a compliment.
And I don’t see how placing a quote about not using children as cannon fodder next to a picture of LOS’s Civil War Reenacting is damning. Maybe if LOS opened up an Army Recruitment office, you’d have some sort of connection. Better luck next time.
Also, with the second picture. Washington and Jefferson were militia members, they also were advocates of piece and prosperity through defense of property rights. Not sure how that’s damning by comparing LOS to them.
Good try Sabotta, stick to your shitty drawings and your pointless affectation with bad art. You know, your strengths.
Oh, and Eric Muller isn’t a libertarian, and neither are you. He’s as statist as they come, and you’re, well, a screwball.
June 9th, 2005 at Jun 09, 05 | 8:26 pm
I’m an advocate of everyone getting a piece. And prosperity.
June 10th, 2005 at Jun 10, 05 | 6:41 am
Plus you are a neocon and your mamma wears army boots. You should be purged from the cadre.
June 11th, 2005 at Jun 11, 05 | 12:31 pm
While the Man from Sabotta already knows this…
If you really want to see the true reductio of DiLorenzo and Woods’s position, try reading this, an HONEST defense of slavery:
http://docsouth.unc.edu/fitzhugh…ghcan/ menu.html
Here’s the summary:
The Richmond publisher A. Morris printed Cannibals All! Or, Slaves without Masters in 1857. Endeavoring in the preface “to treat the subjects of Liberty and Slavery in a more rigidly analytical manner,” Fitzhugh charts productive classical and historical accounts of slavery and cites the Bible as evidence. Referencing the French proletariat, various Gypsy peoples, and the Irish peasantry as groups oppressed under capitalism, Fitzhugh likewise presents the poor working and factory class conditions in England as evidence that the southern institution of slavery, modeled after a pre-capitalist, feudal society, is economically justifiable. Furthermore, he argues capitalism, as practiced in Europe and the North, produces a form of moral cannibalism, replicating the master/slave dichotomy by turning capitalists (or the professional class) into masters and free laborers into exploited slaves. Within a capitalist society, the very labor and skill extracted in pursuit of profit enslaves these workers, leaving them far more disenfranchised than their slave counterparts. Specifying capitalismâ s many “evils,” Fitzhugh notes that it encourages falsehood and hypocrisy, impedes scientific modifications of supply to meet demand, demeans laborâ s value and nobility, and results in the greater impoverishment of already poor peoples while augmenting the wealth of the affluent.
According to Fitzhugh, under the humane code of southern paternalism in which masters labor on behalf of their enslaved workers, African American slavesâ unlike those miserable participants in free laborâ s “White Slave Trade”â are happy and free. They enjoy those comforts and necessities granted them under a mutually beneficial, supportive system and community. To address the charge that slavery results in immorality, namely through illicit sexual liaisons, Fitzhugh suggests that contact between the ignorant and the more enlightened acts as a natural form of education. Despite the obviously specious and racist tendencies of Fitzhughâ s arguments, more recent critical scholarship has reexamined his works and their critique of modern capitalismâ s industrialized, mechanized society in relation to Marxism and its theoretical offshoots.
—–
Fitzhugh may be a statist creep, but he is intellectually honest and consistent in his defense of Southronic Slavery, unlike Woods and DiLorenzo. The one thing I agree with Lincoln on is his desire for the advocates of slavery to fully experience the wonderful friuts of said system for themselves, -personally.-
June 11th, 2005 at Jun 11, 05 | 12:43 pm
Oops, here is the correct URL for Fitzhugh:
http://docsouth.unc.edu/fitzhughcan/menu.html
June 20th, 2005 at Jun 20, 05 | 5:19 pm
To begin with, I happen to be a fan of the Grateful Dead, and lots of other hippie music, though it is not because I feel alienated by Prof. Mueller. In retrospect, that may have not been the ideal word choice as i I did not mean alienated in the hippie, marxist sense.
Rather, as someone with non-mainstream political views, I will personally say that I found the political correctness, particularly in the many classes I took on the Civil War and the South, sometimes a bit trying, as I’m sure all of you have with some classes. At the very least, the majority of my professors refrained from the guilt by association smears and misrepresentations that Prof. Mueller did. When I go to law school, I don’t see anything wrong with not wanting to repeat that experience anymore than necessary, so if Mueller is representative of UNC faculty, it would make me think twice before attending such schools. As a potential applicant to that school, I think mentioning my concern gave my comments some more weight. Perhaps they didn’t, but I figured they are worth making.