1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/14139/prepare-for-betrayal/

Prepare for Betrayal

October 4, 2010 by

The Tea Party, no matter how successful it is at the polls in November, will certainly betray the party of liberty. There are several reasons for this, but the fundamental one is intellectual. The Tea Party does not have a coherent view of liberty. FULL ARTICLE by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

{ 115 comments }

Amen Brother! October 4, 2010 at 8:18 am

Reform of the Central Government will not happen from within it. Libertarians need to focus on the state assemblies. The national govt is a creation of the states. The states can revoke the central government’s power to tax and create debt.

Paul in Lakeview October 4, 2010 at 9:43 am

Amen Brother!,

Indeed, reform of the central government won’t happen within it, but in what sense of the word “state” are, for examples, the State of Delaware, the State of New Hampshire, or the State of Illinois states? Not one of them is a sovereign political group, and, in fact, there has never been a sovereign state called Illinois. Thus they are no more than semiautonomous provinces. Your remark, shorn of the disfiguring influence of the Federalists, might read as follows:

Reform of the central government will not happen from within it, for it was designed to make such reform nearly as difficult as abolishing it. Libertarians need to focus on the assemblies of the semiautonomous provinces referred to incorrectly in the Constitution as states. (Bear in mind that some provinces subject to the power of the central government are not called states at all and as such are like second class citizens.) The national govt is not a creation of all its provinces, nor all the provinces called states, nor even most of the provinces called states, but rather a relatively small number of persons, all long sinced deceased, who pretended to represent twelve, yes, just twelve, organizations that might have merited the term “state” in September, 1787, but certainly not since the spring of 1789.

The provinces have no authority whatever to reject the central government’s power to tax and to accumulate debt, just as the colonial governments of British North America did not have authority over the crown or Parliament. In fact, a vicious war was concluded about 145 years ago to assert that very principle of obligatory submission, and that war was followed by a period of depredation in the southern provinces to reinforce that principle.

Libertarian jerry October 4, 2010 at 8:28 am

Voting in America today is an almost useless tactic for real change. The elitist powers behind the curtain have brought off the government and,to a large extent control all 3 branches .The majority of the electorate are receiving some kind of benefit from the state and will not give up those benefits. When I start seeing the people in the Tea Party movement(many of them older white people) carrying signs saying”Repeal the New Deal” and are prepared to start burning their Social Security and Medicaid cards then I will take these people seriously.

Franklin October 4, 2010 at 10:36 am

I think a few would hold those signs, but what of the money that has been forcibly expropriated from them all those years? Are they going to get it back?
Sort of the similar condundrum to the “illegal” immigrants.
Open borders seem the right thing to me. But what of the ones who played by the rules, paid their fees, studied for the test, managed their lives and the process over 5-10 years according to the requirements?
Do they get a refund check for all that?

J. Murray October 4, 2010 at 1:54 pm

It’s pointless talking about a refund check since it’s still going to come from the same place. Social Security and Medicare are going to have a large population who paid in a ton and get nothing in return. It’s an inevitable conclusion. It will happen whether it collapses on itself (the likely scenario) or is eliminated voluntarily (unlikely scenario).

In the end, there are no refunds as those who are getting refunded either have to steal it from someone else or end up paying themselves with bureaucratic loss through other taxes.

A true libertarian understands that Social Security and Medicare are not lock box promises or investment accounts but taxes. And those taxes are lost the second they come out of the paycheck. That’s what the older generation needs to do, especially those who were around to vote for the people who created the very programs that they think they should be reimbursed for.

Franklin October 4, 2010 at 2:23 pm

“A true libertarian understands….”
That’s the point, J., and precisely the point of my question. It’s not the true libertarian that needs convincing. You see, I agree with you and Phinn, who puts it quite bluntly but aptly. However, the other 99.99% believe there was a fund, there was insurance, they will pay you back.
Discuss the problem with the government believers. The best they will conjure will be, “Yuh, well, there’s no doubt the system needs fixing…..blah, blah, blah.”
You are overlooking the passion with which the opposition places in this “promise” that never was.
Heh, come to think of it, perhaps the best battle cry would indeed be, “You were lied to.”
The challenge we have is that the response shall be, “Well, maybe you’re right. So we need people in government who won’t lie.”
It’s worse than you imagine. Pffft….

Phinn October 4, 2010 at 7:05 pm

>>You are overlooking the passion with which the opposition places in this “promise” that never was.

I do not see it as “passion.” I see it as a willful decision to wrap oneself in a myth, a fantasy, a delusion.

People avoid reality because they find it to be uncomfortable. Because they perceive truth as unpleasant, even painful to the point of appearing to be intolerable. Because the truth is frightening to them.

In other words, people who choose to live entirely inside fantasies are cowards.

There’s no arguing with such people. There is no combination of words that will make them decide that their fantasies about government should be abandoned along with their comic books and GI Joe dolls and Star Wars bedsheets. Showing them reality only makes them either reject and attack you, or they turtle-up and ignore you.

The only way to get through to them is to live your life out here in the real world, in full acknowledgment of reality, and live well, and in that way to lead by example.

Stephen Grossman October 5, 2010 at 11:25 am

What, no Star Wars bedsheets in your Libertarian society?!

Phinn October 5, 2010 at 9:53 pm

In my vision of society, everyone gets the bedsheets he wants, but I still get to have an opinion about your choice of bedsheets.

Joe October 4, 2010 at 11:14 am

@Jerry,
I’m one of those ” old white people” that has attended Tea Party rallies. I am prepared to start burning my Social Security and Medicare cards if and when the government pays me back for all I put in. I guess I would start taking what you say seriously if you would stop paying into these programs.

Phinn October 4, 2010 at 12:39 pm

>>I am prepared to start burning my Social Security and Medicare cards if and when the government pays me back for all I put in.

You didn’t put money “in” to anything. It was taken from you, and then instantly consumed. It was invested in nothing.

You were lied to. There is no insurance. There is no fund to pay you back. There are no assets to return to you. I’m sorry this happened, but it did.

Why do I have to keep paying to cover the money you were swindled out of?

I would start taking what you say seriously if you would stop paying into these programs.

I would stop paying into these “programs” if the government would stop forcing me at gunpoint to pay.

Not a tax slave anymore October 4, 2010 at 6:44 pm

Why do I have to keep paying to cover the money you were swindled out of?

That’s easy. Because you haven’t any more guts to overthrow the criminals that swindled those older than you when they were swindled.

The best one can do is play the system until it crashes. Some work for cash. Others don’t work any more than they have to. And still others who can’t beat them join them (i.e. get an easy government job).

Who said it was better to give than receive?

Now go start the revolution my generation lost – possibly because acid trips don’t come true.

Phinn October 4, 2010 at 8:56 pm

I guess a better way to phrase my question is: “Why SHOULD I keep paying to cover the money you were swindled out of?”

I know why I DO pay — the threat of retaliation. It’s the same thing that has always been used to keep slaves in line: raw aggression combined with endless propaganda about how the slave owes the master his obedience.

What I want to hear from people like “Joe” is an answer to this question: On what ethical principle do you base your assertion that I must pay for your mistakes?

If you just admitted you were duped, that you fell for the lies, that you bought into the cozy fantasy that FDR and JBJ peddled, and now you need the money, then fine, I’ll help.

Don’t tell me I owe you. You have to ask.

When you wrap your argument in this self-righteous crap, and talk about how you are “owed,” about how deserving you are and how unfair it would be if you don’t get paid .. it makes me sick.

He doesn’t want to admit it, of course, but what “Joe” is really saying is that he feels entitled to rob others because he was once robbed.

Russ the Apostate October 4, 2010 at 9:10 pm

Phinn wrote:
“He doesn’t want to admit it, of course, but what “Joe” is really saying is that he feels entitled to rob others because he was once robbed.”

No, I think what Joe is saying is that since he had the money taken from him, he has a right to get it back from the people who took it from him, i.e. the government. This is simple justice, that anybody but an intellectual can understand. The only problem, as you rightly pointed out, is that the people who took his money no longer have it, and would have to rob other people to give it back to him.

Troy Doering October 5, 2010 at 3:35 am

We should rename it the Greatest Ponzi Shakedown.

J. Murray October 4, 2010 at 1:56 pm

A more apt question, Joe: why should *I* pay you back? The government doesn’t have money, it only has what it takes from someone else. Why should I pay even more in when I know that I will get nothing in return to repay you? Why do *I* owe you a return?

This falls under the incredibly hilarous sign I’ve seen at Tea Parties, and why I don’t respect Tea Partiers – “Keep your big government hands off my Medicare”.

Hahaha

Eric October 4, 2010 at 7:34 pm

The only answer anyone has had about SS in my lifetime was Harry Browne.

His answer was to have a Federal Government Fire Sale – buildings, monuments, interstate highways, even the National Parks and the best prospect of all – the Grand Canyon. Since the FEDs are broke, it’s time to go belly up and sell off the assets.

Now, depending on how much we can get, we can buy annuities for those on SS who are over say, 50, and let the rest out of the system. That was Harry’s prescription in his book: Government doesn’t work – which he wrote during his 1996 presidential campaign.

But first you have to elect someone like Harry – possibly Ron Paul could do the job. Otherwise, you’ll need a rather destructive war of rebellion to do the trick. And if you think you can win the war, look at what happened to the freedom fighters of the old south. Even if you win, you’ll likely have little left to sell off then. And you’re own homes will also likely be destroyed.

Maybe you just need to wait for the system to die of its own weight first. It’s the people’s choice – except Americans don’t like to get themselves bloody – though they don’t mind seeing other people “over there” suffer.

Or maybe Americans can rip off some other country to pay for SS. It worked for the Romans – for a while.

R.P. McCosker October 4, 2010 at 9:47 pm

Eric wrote:

“[Harry Browne's] answer was to have a Federal Government Fire Sale – buildings, monuments, interstate highways, even the National Parks and the best prospect of all – the Grand Canyon. Since the FEDs are broke, it’s time to go belly up and sell off the assets.”

Hilarious. It reminds me of my sightseeing trip to the Washington Mall a few years ago. To make a long story short, I’ll just focus on the Supreme Court building, a vast and veritable palace. It’s blessed with a grand, statue-laden marble fountain like you’d find in Rome or Paris. The tour guide nonchalantly mentioned that until the early 1930s, this building didn’t exist: The Supreme Court just met in the same rooms where Congressional committees would meet (in the long-existing and palatial Capitol). But Chief Justice William Taft (a former president, if that’s significant here) crusaded for the Supreme Court to have its own palace — uh, building. Congress and the president didn’t disappoint: They generously spent the taxpayers extorted funds to give those oh-so-sacred robed politicians a palace of their own. (Also perhaps significantly, shortly thereafter the Court started granting the constitutionality of almost everything enacted under the New Deal.)

So I propose for first on the sales block the potentially very lucrative Supreme Court building. It would make a glorious office complex for all those lobbies and law firms that populate DC, working tirelessly to further fleece our wallets and freedom.

C. Rakish Spagaletto October 6, 2010 at 3:06 pm

Isn’t it illegal to sell stolen property?

C. Rakish Spagaletto October 6, 2010 at 3:07 pm

At one tea party event that I attended, one guy had two signs. One read: “Democracy, not socialism!” and the other “Keep your hands of my Social Security.”

weak stream October 4, 2010 at 6:29 pm

Bingo, Libertarian Jerry. I attended a few local Tea Party meetings and found that they have their own range of “sacred cows”. Uh, let’s see, the stock market, the real estate market, bailed out union positions, medicaid….(out of breath, now) social security….what else? The other thing I noticed was that the group consisted of mainly older folks with a small contingent of twenty somethings. My age group (I’m 43) were noticeably absent. I think the Gen X er’s are generally too enmeshed with the credit system and would like to see the current system persist at all costs. What nobody there realizes is that eventually the younger ones will realize that they are being pegged with paying out these various sacred cows. When the **** hits the fan and the younger group splits off I will come out and march with them. Thanks to Austrian economics and Libertarians from Lew Rock to Ron Paul, I’ve got lots to offer with respect to the solutions to these problems….. Cheers.

Tim Kern October 4, 2010 at 10:10 am

Jerry is right: the current de facto structure of our government prohibits any reduction in its power or reach. The fact that most Americans think we live in some kind of unlimited federalist democracy means that intervention and usurpation as the main functions of our rulers will continue to grow.

Let us also not forget: the passion in the opposition in 1994 didn’t come from Hillarycare. It came from Waco.

Alvin Lowi October 4, 2010 at 11:42 am

As Lew explains, the instant a social movement becomes a political campaign, it is inticed by the allure of political power, which is anathema to the social aims, and thereafter corrupted beyond redemption. It is politics itself that corrupts. This is the nature of the beast. Allusion to an elite conspiracy is only an acknowlegement that some clever people have been infected by an incurable disease. The conspiracy explains nothing. Politics is the problem whether libertarian, progressive, demogogic or totalitarian. Before he was infected, Harry Browne offered the key to success for the social movement — live free to the extent of your means and know-how and explain the basis of your succes to any and all curious. In the process, you will not be corrupted, coopted or thwarted and your modus operandi will be replicated and extended. That is the nature of freedom.

Daniel Kuehn October 4, 2010 at 12:37 pm

I coulda sworn I had a comment on here… hmmm….

Has Jeff Tucker shared any thoughts on this post with you yet, Lew?

Tyrone Dell October 4, 2010 at 12:50 pm
ElwoodPDowd October 4, 2010 at 12:52 pm

“the Tea Party, no matter how successful it is at the polls in November, will
certainly betray the party of liberty.” What party of liberty are you referring
to here? Certainly not the fascists of the austro-libertarian party.
Yours Truly, the heretic and poor lost soul, Sy Akhplart

Anthony October 4, 2010 at 7:23 pm

?????

Walt D. October 4, 2010 at 12:59 pm

The question I have is what will happen to California when the under the table bailouts stop? If the Republicans and Tea Party take control of the House, they can block funding. California will become insolvent. Will Texas want to bail out California? The first move in the revolution will be the bankruptcy of the ultra-socialist States.

Barry Loberfeld October 4, 2010 at 1:37 pm

“But just as with old-time conservatives, there are many issues on which the Tea Party tends toward inconsistency. The military and the issue of war is a major one.”

As long as being for a non-interventionist position will get you accused of “being in bed with the Left,” the Spite Right will be against it.

Harmonitarian October 4, 2010 at 1:55 pm

As brilliant as Lew is, he’s bought into the premise of there being one Tea Party, being of one mind and purpose. In reality there are many Tea Parties, of common and related minds and purpose, but still distributed and non-standardized individuals who rally on things they agree on, and respect and cherish each others’ varied conceptions of individual liberty.

When attending these rallies or being in public elsewhere, there’s only 3 groups of people you will meet. Collectivists, Libertarians, and Whiny Little Bitches. You’ll be talkin to someone at a tea party, at work, a bar, at the game, on vacation, whatever and you’ll realize which of the 3 they are.

A collectivist will soon bring up his church, his pride in being a Texan, Marine, Hell’s Angel, whatever and while he’s different from you, he’s tolerable and you can mostly coexist in harmony and deflect his sales pitch. He sees the world as aggregates, often with his being the best and deserving of state sanction, protection, and revenue donation.
The libertarian, will mainly talk about what he loves to do, will share his love of liberty with you, and hold either little or no opinions on what others do, or be of the mind that being gay, goth, smoker, gambler, heroin user, prostitute, polygamous, satanist, white supremist, misogynist, antisemite, married to his sister, dogmeat eater, whatever is not his thing, but not his problem either as long as no force, fraud, is used between two consenting adults. You can learn from these people, and find new ways to foster and avoid limiting liberty.

A WLB will fairly soon complain about some group victimizing him, owing him money, or needing to be eliminated all together through state force for the greater good.
A WLB is a biker who said cellphones in cars should be outlawed because he almost got hit by a driver on his phone. A WLB can not be near a smoker, it irritates him, his mother died of lung cancer, smokers cost all of us more money in medical costs. He’s a ironworker who wants immigrants forcibly deported and detained. He’s a doctor wants private businesses plundered for the nation’s healthcare needs.

A WLB says CEOs should be put in jail if they outsource jobs. A WLB wants to jail all crack heads, homeless, alcoholics, tax evaders, and fathers who can’t pay child support. A WLB hates Vegas, Teenagers, MardiGras, Tailgaters, girls with piercings, tattoos, and loose moral virtues. A WLB loves the war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on people who don’t wear seatbelts, the war on mothers who don’t put their 8 year olds in car seats and faithfully follow the FDA food pyramid.

A WLB calls the cops when his Mexican neighbors play loud Tejano music on their own sovereign property. A WLB loves his HOA, he votes to fine the Joneses for not getting approval to paint their house and install a satellite dish. A WLB loves it when the Health Department raids a second hand furniture store, and when vice raids a massage parlor. A WLB wants all businesses closed on Sunday and after 10pm. He wants payday loans, bars, and nearly all businesses banned from his suburb or city.
A WLB loves CSI. He get a boner watching them catching a criminal and fantasizes about reporting a county statute violator. He loves America’s Most Wanted. He loves TMZ, especially when celebrities get arrested and do time. He hates the good for being the good. He can’t comprehend that someone might enjoy snorting coke and being a hooker. That sometimes a 19 year old and 15 year old fall in love. That 12 year old girls can walk freely at night and curfews are immoral. That a black lady need not rent to a white or a man if she so chooses. That Zeke can park 10 cars in his own yard.

Don’t be a WLB. Compete like a man with anyone fairly and completely. Accept that there are many who are than you. If you are talking with a WLB, get up and politely move across the room. You can help a collectivist be more tolerant of other collectives, but a WLB must overcome his problem himself. At best, you will rearrange the aggregates of people he complains about.

By allowing everyone the chance to be the best they can in their own eyes, you maximize your own value. The key to America is diversification of labor. Part of this diversification is diverse pursuits of diverse lives, liberties, and happiness.

Nile October 4, 2010 at 5:15 pm

Amen. I especially like the insight about CSI. These shows that paint cops as noble defenders of the innocent against the wicked and the weird are disgusting. Sadly, most people consider them just as normal as a school teacher who manages to slip collectivist poison into all his lectures. If one tries to point out just how wrong and twisted these “little” things are, he’s painted as a weirdo himself, the sort that the good-guy cops should keep an eye on, in case he turns out to be a psychotic killer.Too many whiny little bitches in the world today. And they all get to vote. Though I’m not a big fan of elitist views of society, Hoppe’s included, it’s easy to see where they come from.

Edit: obviously something as terrible as CSI wouldn’t have gone unnoticed for long here: http://blog.mises.org/9295/that-creepy-eye/

Franklin October 4, 2010 at 5:28 pm

“…Collectivists, Libertarians, and Whiny Little Bitches…”
Maybe they’re employing the Big Tent strategy? :)
Nice post, by the way.

Troy Doering October 5, 2010 at 3:46 am

Very enjoyable Post.
WLB’s want everything they dislike to be illegal.

Bob Debevec October 4, 2010 at 2:17 pm

Nice piece, and I couldn’t agree more with the point. The system is stacked against the newcomer with new ideas that could actually work in fixing the system, or at the very least, that need to be publicly debated with the best of intentions. Case in point, I watched part of the Colorado govenor debate, which included 3 candidates – the Democrat, the sitting mayor of Denver; the Republican, a businessman with business ideas; and the American Constitution Party candidate, Tom Tancredo, who I later discovered (from YouTube) was a highly controversial former 5-term Republican congressman, bureaucrat, and presidential candidate, and who recently called for the impeachment of President Obama, among several other high profile and controverial anti-establishment statements he has made concerning radical Islam and illegal immigration. The most interesting part of the debate was not anything that was said, but watching the debate dynamics, as the Republican candidate talked very favorably of the “business development” capabilities of the democratic candidate, who leads in the polls, while attacking Tancredo, who is second, at every turn as the establishment candidate and career politician from Washington. I am not writing this in favor of Tancredo. Truth be told, he’s so controversial that I have a hard time separating fact from fiction (i.e. the media’s portrayal of his controversial positions). Any time FOX, CNBC, and CNN are on the same page, you have to wonder. I have seen enough on YouTube to know however that some of his statements have been so controversial that it doesn’t take much to spin a badly spoken observation, given his apparent loss of control when attacked, which one can easily consider a state of paranoia, into a horrible and hateful ideological blast from an angry and paranoid former Washington lifer. Even if Tancredo is speaking the truth, this is not the guy you want carrying the argument. He’s a lightning rod for controversy, and not in the good sense. But the fact remains that he is bringing forth the one troubling question that others in power have refused to ask in the honest and open manner in which it needs to be asked; the one troubling question that led to the tea party movement, and that many citizens are now asking perhaps for the first time in their life. That question — What is the federal government’s proper constitutional role in our society? The fact that Tancredo is second in the governor’s race, largely speaks to the concern that the common citizen has with a government that is growing in power every minute of every day. And the fact that the Republican candidate reached across the aisle to join hands with the Democratic candidate to attack Tancredo (instead of his usual nemesis, the Democrat) shows that the establishment fears the anti-establishment mood of the voter. This is only one race in which a similar fact pattern has emerged. There are others…Rand Paul in Kentucky, Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, Joe Miller in Alaska, etc. The fact is that the establishment will use all of its power and influence, on both sides of the aisle and beyond, to co-opt the best intentions of the tea party candidates. The choices simply stated will be: To stand on principal and be frozen out of government; or to compromise principal in an effort to work within government. This movement to beat back the federal government into its constitutional role, and to end the alternating reign of the party of big government and the other party of big government, will only succeed if the grass roots of the movement continues to grow and move forward in spite of the success or failure of its initial candidates.

Wildberry October 6, 2010 at 11:21 am

“This movement to beat back the federal government into its constitutional role, and to end the alternating reign of the party of big government and the other party of big government, will only succeed if the grass roots of the movement continues to grow and move forward in spite of the success or failure of its initial candidates.”

Very good. This is no sprint to the finish. Therefore we better be looking for legitimate grounds to join with others. That’s the way things grow and catch on.

Andrew October 4, 2010 at 2:56 pm

God bless you Lew! I wish to sincerely impart my gratitude for your constant supply of 100% on the ball articles, along with the outstanding work that the Mises institute and Lewrockwell.com are engaged in.

As a young scholar, I find your educational tools to be absolutely groundbreaking! The Mises online library is truly amazing. Also, pointing me in direction of the Khan Academy was something I am eternally grateful for.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

Logan October 4, 2010 at 4:15 pm

Ron Paul being the only politician who didn’t sell out to lots of statism is pure hyperbole. What about the German politician Richter?

Anthony October 4, 2010 at 7:36 pm

I agree, Logan…

I assume calling Ron Paul “the lone exception in all of human history” was a joke, but it may have been a little dry for new readers looking for an excuse to dismiss this site as a cult.

R.P. McCosker October 4, 2010 at 10:14 pm

Then there was the late Howard Buffett (R-NE).

J Cortez October 4, 2010 at 4:16 pm

When talking about government, “Prepare for Betrayal,” should be a such a recurring phrase you’d think people have learned by now.

Jim Eckland October 4, 2010 at 4:20 pm

It is amazing how many Libertarians get it wrong on Immigration. Eliminating incentives for coming here such as Welfare, free healthCare, Free PUBLIC EDUCATION, will go a long way….But…..but……but…
These are programs that still are in force today. Eliminate Welfare, Free Public Education and Healthcare, FIRST before you ease up on Immigration restrictions. Try getting people back to work first also….The problem is whenever you have giveaways..you must qualify for them…some information needs to be available to do so. How much and how close to a National I.D. will come to?

That’s what we need to debate.. how much information can we allow the Govt. to have.?

Jim Eckland

Bill D October 4, 2010 at 4:43 pm

While I agree in principal with the subject writing it fails to articulate the fundamental issue of our pending doom, the contrived depletion of our national assets and the associated sovereignty of our nation. The premise that a radical change of elected officials will cure all prevails. Nothing is farther from the truth. The obligatory position this country is in and compounding daily is systemic and in fact a supreme obligation to foreign powers that truly control our destiny. Until the time The Federal Reserve and its nefarious tentacles are cut from every aspect of America we remain encumbered by this organization and our debtors throughout the world: do you not believe those holding our debt is not influential in the decisions made behind closed doors?
Did you not notice what happened of late? Ron Paul introduced legislation requiring accountability by the Federal Reserve Bank. Not only was this initiative rejected, the entity the very object of this legislation gained more far-reaching power — – nobody seems to care! Is it because this monster is too big-time? If so, throw in the towel now: As sincere and noble as the efforts of good people may be nothing good can come as long as the rot from within continues to eat away at the very core of America.

Leon Haller October 4, 2010 at 6:00 pm

A depressing and utterly incorrect analysis, on so many points. I’m really losing respect for Rockwell very rapidly. It’s as though since Murray died, he has completely lost touch with reality. Let’s see. We should NOT be worried about bringing Muslims to the US? Would 9/11 have occurred without them (answer: no)? We should not recognize that immigration is a BIG GOVERNMENT program to dispossess and disempower the ONLY people who, in large numbers, support Constitutional government; namely, whites? We should allow Muslims to kill Westerners with impunity, and NOT strike back at them overseas? And how, exactly, Rockwell, do you expect there ever will be a return to a somewhat more limited, less socialist government (oh, and the fight of true men of the Right is against SOCIALISM, not “STATISM”), in your determinist/pessimist vision of American politics? The Tea Party is far too liberal, of course (especially on the immigration invasion), but it is the best phenomenon of my lifetime, and a harbinger of the coming Middle (white) American Revolution predicted by the late Sam Francis (remember him, Rockwell? You used to publish that genius in the RRR, back when you, too, were on the Right).

As Russell Kirk used to describe liberals, we may describe libertarians: “often clever, never wise”.

Enjoy your new leftist buddies, Rockwell, and continue the marginalization of the only aspect of libertarianism that does have value: the wertfrei economics of the Austrian School.

CGR October 4, 2010 at 6:50 pm

To the above, I honestly hope you reconsider your belief set. And you are right, men of the right do not fight against statism. As Lew pointed out, they take a “pick and choose” stance. Classical liberals, libertarians, liberty oriented people, whatever you may call them–theirs is the struggle against statism; theirs are the principled stances which lead them to defend people across all spectrums–the alcoholics, tax evaders, drug dealers, and the Joneses across the street (as Harmonitarian brilliantly pointed out). Furthermore, inherent in the fight against socialism is the fight against the involuntary collectivization of individuals. What is war but the involuntary collectivization of individuals?

Please, spend some more time on this website. I certainly learned alot.

Best Regards,

CGR

Semper Fiat October 5, 2010 at 4:14 am

If people must have an enemy, then I suppose I can agree to keep your ilk occupied by making friends with Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, and so on and uniting against the further spread of state sponsored muslim tyranny. It’s good to rotate the subject of your two minutes hate, it seems like progress to the short attention span crowd.
Never heard of a place called Whiteland. You’re nuts if you think you’ll be accepted as a full equal in Germany, France, England, and so on. A pale skin mongrel is no better than a dark skin one. Mongrels gotta have skills if they want to breed and succeed.
The common denominator of the tea party attendees is that they are the “haves” are no longer willing to be fed to the “have nots.” It’s not race. Maybe you are some kind of dailykos shill even.

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical forces beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.

Ayn Rand
http://alexpeak.com/twr/racism/

Leon Haller October 5, 2010 at 7:35 am

Your reply is beyond stupid. Race is real, a valid taxonomical category which strongly correlates with observed behaviors. For example, blacks everywhere on Earth exhibit disproportionately high levels of criminality. Does this mean than any individual black is a criminal? Obviously not. But social (especially demographic) policy must be based on the median traits of large statistical aggregates. Thus we know a priori, as it were, that allowing large numbers of blacks into a given community will lead to increased crime rates (as has happened in Maine, formerly all-white, but communistically ‘diversified’ in the 90s by having the Federal government impose Somali invader-colonizers on the state).

Man does not exist simply as an individual (as all non-white groups understand implicitly and explicitly). He possesses ethnic, racial, cultural, and other identities, and those frequently conflict with others. Immigration = Invasion. It is destructive of really existing liberty, which is a careful ethnocultural and politico-legal inheritance built up over centuries. You idiots, in your racially utopian delusions, are destroying the cultural foundations of American liberty in one generation.

I am intimately familiar with libertarianism. I reject it as dangerously naive, a threat, like liberalism, to the survival of the West.

mpolzkill October 5, 2010 at 7:49 am

That is awesome, thank you. Can you work on getting your Republican compatriots, “Wildberry”, and “Russ The Torture Advocate” to also disavow libertarianism?

http://blog.mises.org/14124/immigration/

Maybe just go over there and show your support for them, thanks again.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s04e08-chef-goes-nanners

Phinn October 5, 2010 at 7:49 am

>>You idiots, in your racially utopian delusions, are destroying the cultural foundations of American liberty in one generation.

Well, now I’m convinced! There’s nothing like calling people “idiots” to really win them over to your way of thinking, is there?

I have to ask: What do you really expect to accomplish by talking to us like this?

Your goal can’t be to actually convince anyone of anything. You are obviously accomplishing the exact opposite result — alienating, angering and distancing yourself from the very people whose support you claim to need in order to save Western civilization.

If that’s your true goal, you are failing at it, quite spectacularly.

So, what is your actual goal, then?

mpolzkill October 5, 2010 at 7:49 am

That is awesome, thank you. Can you work on getting your Republican compatriots, “Wildberry”, and “Russ The Torture Advocate” to also disavow libertarianism?

http://blog.mises.org/14124/immigration/

Maybe just go over there and show your support for them.

Wildberry October 5, 2010 at 5:21 pm

La la la la la la la……I can’t hear you……but thanks for the plug.

Fallon October 5, 2010 at 7:50 am

If you include taxation, conscription, compulsory schooling, unionism, corporatism, fiat currency and all other forms of interventionism and socialism as violations of human right, then your crime statistics become inverted. The white man is the taxonomic scourge of God’s Earth.

Leon Haller October 5, 2010 at 10:43 am

This statement is so embarrassingly dumb that you must be a leftwing plant. Even libertarians are not this stupid. The white man built this Earth, and nearly everything of value on it. Of course, libertarians usually know nothing of history, anthropology, really anything beyond economics.

Fallon October 5, 2010 at 10:58 am

I am not sure what you should look up first, “facetious” or “polylogism”. The latter Mises handles fantastically and it applies to you.

Perry Mason October 5, 2010 at 1:08 pm

Leon, no, he did not. And the indefinable “white man” is apparently the same that is destroying centuries of wealth through western governments. Fallon is 100% right, yet you blind yourself to it.

You have much to learn Leon and must stop the racialist hate against your fellow man. You entire view is a non-sequitur. And your clear desire to avoid engaging in dialogue makes you useless on this forum except as a very annoying and insulting distraction.

The “west”, whatever it means to you, has no divine right to exist. So stop advocating for restrictions on my freedom and the freedom of others because of your mental insecurity.

Phinn October 5, 2010 at 1:38 pm

When the non-whites engage in sporadic, small-scale crime (which is highly correlated to poverty and destruction of the family), it’s evidence of white ethnocultural superiority, but when whites engage in the systematic, wholesale destruction of civilization through the crimes of mercantilism, statism, fascism, corporatism and everything else that involves granting state power to banks, then libertarians are to blame for being insufficiently anti-immigration.

That makes perfect sense.

Fallon October 5, 2010 at 7:56 am

The one thing that I have read about Sam Francis that stays in my mind, while delving into the controversies of his ideas, is that his friends and colleagues all remarked that he was a gentlemen to the last. I bet Rothbard might reply to your bile with something like “I knew Sam Francis. And you are no Sam Francis.”

Leon Haller October 5, 2010 at 10:37 am

Actually, not at all. I knew Rothbard, and know very well several men who were very, very long term friends, colleagues and sponsors of Murray’s. He was not in the least the saintly caricature that some here make him out to be – at least in the PC sense of today’s libertarian children (and there are very few libertarians who are not children). Yes, he was a very good man, in all senses of ‘good’. He was also spectacularly un-PC (unlike you people – “free-market leftists”). I personally heard Murray rhetorically ask, in front of several people who are all living, “what exactly is wrong with white supremacy?” He went on to offer several reasons for thinking, first, that whites were a superior race, and second, that ceding political power to non-whites would be disastrous, both for the cause of liberty, as well as for American civilization. I then asked him if there was anything wrong with restricting non-white immigration, at least as long as we live under statism. Like the less consistent (but more famous) libertarian Milton Friedman, Murray did not think so, and in fact, expressed the opinion that immigrants should be kept out if they were “bums and freeloaders” (his phrase). (You might want to take a look at immigrant social services use in the US, net of taxes paid.) I gathered that he would not object to the American people imposing whatever immigration policy they might prefer.

And Sam Francis, a great and brilliant man like Murray, was not all that gentlemanly. He routinely used racist epithets, including in my presence on two occasions. His contempt for you cultural leftists (he really hated libertarians, incidentally) was boundless.

Fallon October 5, 2010 at 11:33 am

I appreciate your take on Francis and Rothbard. It would be awesome if you would formally write a piece about your interactions and estimations of Rothbard and Francis etc.

Your racialist and determinist views do not impinge on libertarianism (or refute free market theory). Nor would Rothbard’s– if he indeed held similar views (which you will have to provide more evidence for). I think Hoppe does a wonderful job in showing why personal values (conservative, liberal, racist, communal, individualist–you name it) that define a person will find their most purity after the non-aggression axiom becomes the base modus operandi. Granted, Hoppe and Walter Block argue over the pragmatics in reaching the goal, and over what to do now given the omnipresence of state power.

Your ideas lead you to legitimize the use of initial force against those you deem inferior. I am willing to let you hold those views and even act on them as long as you do not violate my equal right. However, there is the quagmire. Your views undermine the Golden Rule’s basis. So what then? I will not cede to your aggressions.

Do you want war?

Leon Haller October 5, 2010 at 10:40 am

Oh, but you’re right: I am no Sam Francis. You, however, are even less so.

Slim934 October 5, 2010 at 7:57 am

……is it?

Then please explain what “taxonomical category” one is when they are birthed by a split white and black couple. Black and Indian? White and Native American? German and Japanese? Have fun trying to engage in that sort of intellectual pretzel knotting.

“But social policy must be based on the median traits of large statistical aggregates”. WOW! What a statement to find on a comment thread on a Lew Rockwell article. Because clearly social policy of one kind or another did not lead to your “Somali invader-colonizer” debacle which you seem to be decrying. Strikes me as more than hypocritical to point out the damage of social policy and then propose to fix it by enacting your own little social policy subscriptions in its stead. You’re use of a priori is also remarkably incorrect from someone who claims to have a basic understanding of Austrian economics. I would suggest you re-read the first few chapters of human action to familiarize yourself with what is and is not a priori (i’ll give you a hint: using statistical aggregates to presume some future event is NOT a priori).

YOUR reply is the one that is beyond stupid. You agree that simply because an arbitrary collective shows some trait that you do not like, that it does not imply that all members of that collective will necessarily have that trait….but then you say we should act forcibly on that collective assuming that indeed each individual does. I’m sorry but why exactly should I buy into this bass-ackwards reasoning?

Leon Haller October 5, 2010 at 10:46 am

Your remarks are unintelligible. Try to express yourself more clearly, and then I will expose your inferior reasoning.

Tyrone Dell October 5, 2010 at 12:49 pm

lol.

Semper Fiat October 5, 2010 at 6:31 pm

You could be right. To me, the reply is subtle. It doesn’t necessarily conflict with anything you’ve said. You can at least agree the more times you meet an individual, the more insight you should be gaining about them, beyond their lineage and regionality. Primarily, I am more concerned about the minds I am surrounded by, not races, and find little use for primitive minds. Maybe everyone on this blog is a “white male” so what. Is their mind light grey and vacuous, or dark grey and full of powerful ideas?

I appreciate your comprehensive presentation. You’re certainly not alone in your views. I too would like protection from property violators, true criminals who initiate force against others, and for people who commit acts of destructive intolerance towards other peaceful people. To me, this requires actual labor and effort, not ethnologic shortcuts.

I also dispute we’re utopian. How many people do you know who say they vote independent. Who is the most influential of the independents, if not people like you meet hear.

Wildberry October 6, 2010 at 11:32 am

Leon,
You have some good points. It just goes to show, aggregation of ideas is just as misleading as aggregation of macroeconomic data to direct microeconomics. The gross generalizations being imposed on this discussion serve the same disservice.
It is not necessary for a person to see the same vision as another in all its glory and completeness in order to share a legitimate basis for cooperation in a limited sense. A better direction is preferable to sitting on your butt until everyone can agree on the “right” direction.
If you proceed from that point, you can build some mutual support, and it is not necessary to be aligned on every single issue. Being aligned with someone on one or two basic principles are sufficient for that limited support, because cooperation tends to fulfill common goals. Anything else, in my view, quickly becomes elitist. This is not a contest to see which elitists prevail.

Leon Haller October 7, 2010 at 6:45 am

Wildberry (et al):

Let me reduce everything to the simplest denominator: Liberty. Liberty is not the greatest political good to me, but I will make it so here for argument’s sake. A bunch of morons (there is no other word, excepting ‘lunatics’) on this (and any other libertarian) thread actually think that there is something inimical to freedom in regulating immigration. They are especially horrified when I recommend that we KEEP OUT ALL non-white immigrants (that in itself proves a leftist psychological orientation).

So let’s be simple. Obama is the single greatest threat to both economic prosperity and the long term survival of liberty in the US perhaps in US history. He is undeniably the furthest socialist/Left President. Who elected him (and no, I did not vote for the nearly as awful McCain; I wrote in Ron Paul)? BO’s electoral margin of victory was provided by post-1965 immigrants and their adult descendants (aka “minorities”). If we had had zero immigration since 1965 McCain would be President – and the Congress would be permanently GOP.

The ONLY racial group in America who even slightly supports liberty is whites. This is a fact (I hope no idiot here denies it, because then the debate is over, and I will have won). Party ID is a rough proxy for gauging commitment to liberty understood to be rooted in property rights (the Rothbard position). EVERY minority group is heavily Democratic, in ID and actual voting. Disappointing as the GOP invariably is, the Democrats today are pure evil (even from a libertarian perspective). So why do idiot libertarians want to increase Democrat numbers by admitting vast hordes of non-white immigrants??!! What insanity – to put ideology ahead or reality!!!!

Diversity is the health of the State. Idiot libertarians might come to understand this after whites have been transformed into a politically powerless minority, and whose new non-white, non-American masters grant them precious little liberty at all.

Craig October 4, 2010 at 6:52 pm

On immigration, the Tea Party ethos favors national IDs and draconian impositions on businesses rather than market solutions like cutting welfare.

How can he know that?

Look, no one to the right of Obama has tried to portray tea partiers as capital “L” Libertarians. Is Rockwell worried that you purists will be lulled into joining the conservative dark side?

Bruce Koerber October 4, 2010 at 7:10 pm

True: “Ron Paul being the lone exception in all of human history.”

How many people on this planet truly understand that laissez-faire is the only uncorrupt system of the expression of prosperous human action?

publius October 5, 2010 at 9:34 am

Tea Parties are amorphous and diverse — the multifaceted, ever evolving results of “human action.” Bottom up, not top down! Statist, collectivist Obamite/Soros/MSM drones misunderstand that Tea Party truism: they fume and stamp their feet, demanding a monolithic national Tea Party agenda, accountability (and target). But to see so many Mises & Hayek readers/disciples misunderstand Tea Party decentralization and genteel anarchy is surprising. To want Tea Party “coherency” or predict “betrayal” misses the mark. Most TPers simply want smaller fed gummint, lower taxes, more personal liberty; less Hamilton, more Madison & Jefferson. Tea Partyists are John Galts in the voting booth with a pitchfork, soccer moms reading/loving the Constitution and American history. But Tallahassee is neither Miami nor Auburn. And things change. Bottom up, atomistic, decentralized, unforeseeable human action. Cheers.

Bow October 5, 2010 at 10:47 am

I have been and continue to be a loyal reader and ardent fan of Lew Rockwell (here it comes), but he is wrong as are mostly all who replied to his article. Sure Mr. Rockwell made what at first glance may pass for accurate assunptions (or perhaps) observations, but they are shallow and remindful of opinions expressed daily by so called experts in the MSM, television, newspapers and now the web blogosphere.

The teapartiers are all of the things mentioned in L. Rockwells article but it is not confined to two groups.
The teaparty movement truly represents the essence of the American people, who at long last are showing their anger, frustration, guilt, disgust, fear, despair, desperation and enormous love of America and her Constitution. It is also true that they are human beings and therefore imperfect and prone to become less so, but, does that mean that their efforts should be demeaned or discontinued, not as long as a single spark of liberty is still burning within the soul of any man.

While you critics squable over what you consider an imperfect group or movement, “The Homer Simpson’s” of America are trying to save their country (and I suppose yours also) from certain and absolute destruction. The freedom and liberty of Americans was not won at the ballot box. The Jihad by the progressives against freedom and liberty will never end and so the fight to keep America free and secure from tyranny must continue. If The critics of the teaparty and other patriotic groups are waiting for the perfect group or candidate to appear, they will never play a active or meaningful role in the salvation and restoration of America, because there are and never has been such a party, group or individual in the entire history of mankind. It is an impossibilty for any group (comprised of more than 1 person) to have exactly the same opinions, thoughts, goals or ethics, therefor it is only important for a group to share a common, core belief and objective, all else need only be similar,relative views .

Tyrone Dell October 5, 2010 at 1:20 pm

The entire point of Rockwell’s article was that there isn’t a single common core belief. The objective is to overthrow the existing status quo — but to replace it with what? Even your beloved Teapartiers can’t agree on that.

Understand that the Teaparty movement is nothing but a mass movement of discontented Middle Americans. It is futile to judge the legitimacy of the Teaparty movement by the truth of its doctrine and the feasibility of its promises — why? because there is no concrete and consistent doctrine. What has to be judged is its collective organization for quick and total absorption of the frustrated. Eric Hoffer points out that in order to be effective, a doctrine must not be understood, but has to be believed in; because we can be absolutely certain only about things we do not understand. Thats all the Teaparty is; its simply a means by which disgruntled Americans (from my observations ex-Republicans and wannabe-Libertarians) can vent out their frustration.

The Teaparty doctrine does not exist. It is a phantom.

Try rereading the article again.
But slowly this time.

Wildberry October 5, 2010 at 4:38 pm

Tyrone wrote:
“The objective is to overthrow the existing status quo — but to replace it with what? Even your beloved Teapartiers can’t agree on that.”

I disagree with both points. First the objective is not to overthrow the status quo in a literal sense, if that includes the concept and ideal of a free America. It is only necessary dismantle certain, specific aspects of the status quo. Defining what to target first is a little tricky. However, I can imagine what the impact of three things might be:
1) Repeal the 17th Amendment, making state government far more influential at the Federal level, and local politics meaningful.
2) Kill the Fed and return to a form of hard money and full-reserve banking.
3) Roll back every subsidy, preferential tax code and monopolistic power granted by federal legislation, and keep going until the federal government is a mere ghost of its current size.

If those things were done (can you imagine?) and nothing else, would it be necessary to dismantle every vestige of the Constitution, the electoral process and to give restitution to very person harmed throughout history?.

I don’t think so. Things would be better and more consistent with many of the things most on this site would agree are right and true.

Second, you can’t resist putting the label of “Teaparty” on something, denigrating “them” with the sarcastic “your beloved”, and then criticizing “them” against your own expectations of what they should be able to do. That makes “them” a straw man, right?
The concept of micro-level human action does not preclude an analysis or observation at the macro level. When applied to markets, certain patterns or tends can be detected; Common threads of collective behavior. For example, we can say that a specific product is “selling well”. However, we cannot go the other way and say that based on the aggregate data, we “understand” the market, and therefore can prescribe beneficial interventions.
I think this applies well to your approach here. These are people. Part of my own self agrees with the general sentiment being expressed. But that does not mean I could be soul mates with any one particular person randomly pulled from the crowd. It is likely in that event our differences would become more apparent. That’s OK. I can still join them in the belief that we are taxed enough already, that government is too big and intrusive, and that the whole mess needs to be rolled back considerably. That’s enough to get started. If that proved to be a positive experience for most of us, we might create an opportunity to build on that limited success.
What’s wrong with that? In my view, nothing is wrong, and I like the idea of reversing the negative trend of contemporary times to give us the time and space to do even more.

Tyrone Dell October 5, 2010 at 5:30 pm

I’m literally copy-and-pasting from the Rockwell article since apparently it wasn’t read.

“You might as well know right now, however, that the Tea Party, no matter how successful it is at the polls in November, will certainly betray the party of liberty. There are several reasons for this, but the fundamental one is intellectual. The Tea Party does not have a coherent view of liberty. Its activists tend to be good on specific economic issues like taxes, spending, stimulus, and healthcare. They worry about government intervention in these areas and can talk a good game.

But just as with old-time conservatives, there are many issues on which the Tea Party tends toward inconsistency. The military and the issue of war is a major one. Many have bought into the line that the greatest threat this country faces domestically is the influx of adherents of Islam; in international politics, they tend to favor belligerence toward any regime that is not a captive of US political control.”

Emphasis mine.

Wildberry October 5, 2010 at 6:26 pm

Tyrone,
Easy buddy… No call to get all snippety. I read the piece, and I read your post and responded to it. In case you missed it, here’s my point:
“Its activists tend to be good on specific economic issues like taxes, spending, stimulus, and healthcare. They worry about government intervention in these areas and can talk a good game.”
So, why not take what you can get? We all have shortcomings in some areas and strengths in others. Why not support those things you can agree with and show a little forgiveness for the rest. Then you can start your own “movement” that picks up the slack and if I can find something to agree with you on, I’ll support you, we can all live happily ever after.
Doesn’t that feel good?

Russ the Apostate October 5, 2010 at 4:52 pm

I think most of the Tea Party’s momentum is from the problems with the economy, and if the economy gets back on track, the Tea Party will more or less go away. This is similar to the “anti-war” movement in the ’70s. It wasn’t really an “anti-war” movement, so much as an anti-draft movement that was being manipulated by Commies in an attempt to make it more than it was. Once the threat, that young people would be sent to a country they didn’t care about to fight and possibly die, was eliminated, the “anti-war” movement fizzled out, much to the chagrin of the hardcore lefties. I think similar things are being done to the Tea Party movement. Both the Palins and Becks, and some libertarian types, are trying to latch onto the energy of the movement, and redirect it in the direction they want it to go. But if the economy gets back on track, most people won’t have the time for politics. They will be too busy trying to make money to cushion the blow of the next economic crisis.

Wildberry October 5, 2010 at 5:15 pm

Russ,
My instincts tell me you are probably right. However this likely momentary upwelling of a segment of the voting public need not be anything other than it is. It is an opportunity to gauge where we are and to support or reject the message. It will likely burn out at some point and fade back into the backgroud. But things will not be exactly as they were before, either.
I support the concept of smaller government, so in that sense, I’m a Teapartier. In other respects I might be something else.

The fundamental problem with any “movement” living up to grand expectations always comes back to the point that as an electorate, we are pretty uneducated and lazy, and take way too much for granted. Career politicians and the interests they represent tend to run with that as an advantage and opportunity to further their own collective self-interests.

So, imagining a movement that rises to our higher expectations of real change would require education and social cooperation over generations. That’s just too much for most “instant gratification” types to accept, so they distract themselves with the superficial issues on the margins, as we have recently discussed.

There were some articles published recently in the Examiner about the Green Iron Triangle, about how integrated those with a vested financial interest in the “greening of America” have become so tightly integrated with non-profits, public education, lawyers, politicians and corporations. It’s a cohesive, coordinated effort that has been put in place over the past couple of decades that makes me realize just how far away we are from that type of political effectiveness. But, that’s the game, and we just don’t compete on that level.
A quick survey of the interaction on this blog is one good indicator of why not.

newson October 5, 2010 at 10:34 pm

the “anti-war” movement’s passing is not mourned by the pinkos alone, however. some from the conservative wing, like me, rather like isolationism.

Russ the Apostate October 5, 2010 at 11:13 pm

Yeah, I know. I have mixed feelings about that era. I definitely don’t favor people being forced into slavery to protect freedom. Talk about irony. And even people being forced to pay for such wars is not so cool. But then again, look at the other side of the ledger in SE Asia. What was it, 2 million dead in Cambodia due to Pol Pot? I think that anti-communists had something going for their side, too, even if they went about things the wrong way.

newson October 5, 2010 at 11:30 pm

flight, the only practical solution for many of the oppressed, is barred for many by border or emigration obstacles. oops, wrong blog.

Fallon October 6, 2010 at 12:31 am

Although under considerable debate, there are credible historians asserting that the years of US bombing Cambodia helped win over the peasantry for Brother #1 and the Organization.

Wildberry October 5, 2010 at 4:12 pm

Bow,
I don’t know about other things that you think, but this is enough for me to count you in. I share the sentiments you have expressed here. Doing something positive is better than standing on the sidelines and criticizing others for their imperfections.
Imperfect is good enough. We’ve had 250,000 years to get it perfect, but obviously were not there yet. Therefore tolerance of some imperfections is a necessary ingredient of cooperation in the long haul (should we still have one).
If we start with the premise that we are humans who find themselves at this particular time planted in a place called America, and could acknowledge all of the things we do agree upon, proceeding from that point, it would be a long, long time before we have to agree on whether ancap or something else is the ultimate accomplishment for society.
However, unless we find the basis to join with others in the effort to counterbalance what is clearly wrong in the world and America today, we will likely never have the opportunity to reach those higher goals.
So, I think we need to demonstrate a little tolerance and humility. Let’s search for common ground. Let’s join with others until the weight of our influence overwhelms the opposition to what we hold as fundamentally wrong.
It is not necessary that every effort achieve its ultimate goals. To fail to do so is not a betrayal. Any effort in the right direction is welcome, and we would be better off to learn to cooperate and lend a hand.
I seldom see this attitude come through in many of the posts here, brilliance of mind notwithstanding.

Tyrone Dell October 5, 2010 at 5:21 pm

I refer you to Murray Rothbard: http://mises.org/daily/1709

Some interesting things to note:
1. He asks if libertarians refuse to hold aloft the banner of the pure principle, of the ultimate goal, who will? Now, you may do and think what you wish, but the LvMI is holding aloft this banner of pure principle. Needless to say, as the Teapartiers are more akin to the hippie “anti-war” movement mentioned in Russ’s post, the Teaparty is nowhere near as pure or as effective as you would like to think.

2. Even Rothbard in 1973 saw things in the conservative movement that I highlighed in my previous post. Here’s an excerpt from the link I posted incase you refuse to read it:

“In fact, one of the reasons that the conservative opposition to collectivism has been so weak is that conservatism, by its very nature, offers not a consistent political philosophy but only a ‘practical’ defense of the existing status quo, enshrined as embodiments of the American ‘tradition.’ Yet, as statism grows and accretes, it becomes, by definition, increasingly entrenched and therefore ‘traditional’; conservatism can then find no intellectual weapons to accomplish its overthrow.”

Russ the Apostate October 5, 2010 at 7:17 pm

Tyrone Dell wrote:
“Needless to say, as the Teapartiers are more akin to the hippie “anti-war” movement mentioned in Russ’s post, the Teaparty is nowhere near as pure or as effective as you would like to think.”

My last point was rushed, and I realize that I left a lot implied. Just to clarify, one of my points in that post is that the Tea Party does have one central core belief. That message is, “It’s the economy, stupid!” In other words, they want a decent economy back. (Granted, they have different ideas about how to go about that, but so do libertarians.)

I do agree that, other than that, the Tea Party doesn’t have much of a coherent philosophy. Since it’s comprised of instinctive libertarians, social conservatives, neo-cons, and middle-of-the-road “third-way” populists, how could it? But another point of my last post that I probably wasn’t very clear about was that, just like the Communist Party got some mileage out of the anti-draft movement, libertarians can get some mileage out of the Tea Party movement, if they but try. But the window of opportunity won’t stay open forever. Once the economy comes back, if it does, then the window will close.

Wildberry October 5, 2010 at 6:52 pm

“Needless to say, as the Teapartiers are more akin to the hippie “anti-war” movement mentioned in Russ’s post, the Teaparty is nowhere near as pure or as effective as you would like to think.”

Where did you get that I thought something you are calling “Teapartiers” are pure and effective? I just said I agree with some of the message that “they” espouse. I’m glad they are out there, and I will embrace anything positive that comes out of it. Exactly how “purple” does the banner have to be? Open up and live a little.

2. Even Rothbard in 1973 saw things in the conservative movement that I highlighed in my previous post. Here’s an excerpt from the link I posted incase you refuse to read it:”

OUCH! But thanks for pulling the chapter and verse.
OK, I’m a big fan of Rothbard, but I don’t buy everything he’s written lock, stock and barrel. I try to be an independent thinker, and test the application of a position against the specific facts at issue. It’s more fun that way and kind ‘a keeps things fresh and real.
“In fact, one of the reasons that the conservative opposition to collectivism has been so weak is that conservatism, by its very nature, offers not a consistent political philosophy but only a ‘practical’ defense of the existing status quo, enshrined as embodiments of the American ‘tradition.’ Yet, as statism grows and accretes, it becomes, by definition, increasingly entrenched and therefore ‘traditional’; conservatism can then find no intellectual weapons to accomplish its overthrow.”

So, in the context of the Teaparty, which I think is what we are talking about, and not “conservatism” as it existed when Murray was writing this, what is a “conservative”?
I believe government is too large and intrusive. Therefore I support those who call for smaller government. I think you do too, so does that make you a conservative?
It is not necessary for me to define how small is small enough. Any reduction is welcome. I will not reject someone’s efforts just because they don’t want it to be as small as I do.
This is not Match.com where I need to make sure I’m matched with all 14 points of compatibility. Any reason to cooperate for common benefit is good enough. I’m not looking to get married, just to be a good neighbor, and by extension a good citizen, and leave things better than I found them. I prefer to believe that people who would describe themselves as a Teapartiers basically have that motivation too. That, and getting pretty damn pissed about being screwed every way but loose.

Martin OB October 5, 2010 at 8:40 pm

I tend to like Lew Rockwell’s posts, but I also have some issues with this one.

“But just as with old-time conservatives, there are many issues on which the Tea Party tends toward inconsistency. The military and the issue of war is a major one. Many have bought into the line that the greatest threat this country faces domestically is the influx of adherents of Islam; in international politics, they tend to favor belligerence toward any regime that is not a captive of US political control.”

And are they so wrong? More Muslims means more Islamic fundamentalists, which means more Islamic terrorists. Besides, all Western countries are democracies, remember? Hello, majority rule. Europe is sacrificing free speech along with all the other freedoms in the altar of political correctness, and almost the only eloquent denouncers of this fact are atheist left-wing types who saw the writing on the wall (I’m thinking of Pat Condell). Now we are seeing some political reaction. Everyone is bemoaning the rise of right-wing extremism and xenophobia. Well, what did you expect? Islamic theocracies are some of the most obnoxious totalitarian regimes you can imagine, and these people really want to bring them (back) to Europe. People are scared and rightly so. Libertarianism does have good answers for those fears, but on this topic I think they should take a Hoppean perspective.

Another point is about war. Yes, I’m against war and warmongering, at least against war as currently conceived, where innocent people are killed just because they are on the wrong side of a border. But let’s face it, even the most libertarian society will need weapons, police and an army; and they must be as strong as needed. Sure, they may be private, voluntary, peace-loving groups providing a service under free competition, whatever, but they must be there. If a neighboring country launches an attack, the army must invade this country and pick its king, tyrant or president as if it were a common criminal, just like police would do. Civilians should never be targeted, and the utmost care should go into avoiding accidental civilian casualties. If they do happen, it should be taken as seriously as if bystanders are killed in a police action. But, killing a civilian by accident is never remotely comparable to doing it on purpose, as many on the left often say or imply. This is just basic justice, decency and common sense. Peace should be preferred, but not at any price. You understand this at the individual level, when we are talking about violent burglars. The same should apply to violent foreign leaders, with all the caveats about the innocents.

Police and the army are coercive and illegitimate, allright, but it doesn’t follow that every single thing they do is one hundred percent wrong, or that the service they provide is not needed. I think most libertarians here can agree on this, but many of them sometimes speak as if they don’t, or at least that’s my impression.

newson October 5, 2010 at 11:20 pm

to martin ob:
which came first, militant islam or american/european politicking in the arab world?

Martin OB October 6, 2010 at 6:50 am

newson,

That’s easy: Militant Islam. Have you heard of Al-Andalus? Remember, it came before the Crusades.

More to the point, I guess you mean modern Islamic terrorism. Well, I don’t care. European and American polilticians got involved in foreign affairs, so European and American civilians must pay with their lives.. is that the reasoning? That’s one of the leftie attitudes I hate, and I hate it when libertarians seem to buy into it. Reallly, think of it. If you find a bunch of crazy dangerous burglars in your house, do you accept they have a right to do as their please with your property and life, just because they are angry with the mayor of your city?

I know where you are coming from, and I mostly agree that governments use war as an excuse to increase their power, but take a step back and think how this may sound to someone who is not familiar with your reasoning. Oh, yes, the terrorist is the victim; hey, blame your government. Muslims are angry, they want to kill us? Well, they have their reasons. Let them do as they please.

Also, American foreign policy is pretty awful, but most of it has been taking sides, not just attacking all foreigners. Many people hate America for its foreign policy, but many others love it for its help. Sometimes America has been critized for staying out of a conflict for too long. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Islamic fundamentalists don’t hate America and Europe for their freedom, but they don’t hate them for their evil deeds either. They hate them for their power. They would do much, much worse things if they could. It hurts their pride that non-Muslim countries rule the world. They want their empire back.

Vinegar Davis Hanson October 6, 2010 at 7:43 am

Keep up the good work sonny. The human struggle is always a replay of the Great Struggle of Antiquity– like Athens vs. Sparta. Never mind this grandiose vision of a modern market order overtaking politics or this silly notion of “blowback”. Market is a historical cultural product dependent on the political order and especially one geared for war against external enemies. Don’t get me wrong, I like the market. I also like Bach. But first things first. We, as the inheritors of the great flame of Democracy and Freedom from the Greeks, must fight against the Enemy that was as was then, and is Now. Sure, we make mistakes, but better us than Them. Now its the Muslims. It is us or them! Us or them!

Fallon October 6, 2010 at 7:48 am

You are not Vinegar Davis Hanson, fool.

Phinn October 6, 2010 at 8:00 am

>>I know where you are coming from, and I mostly agree that governments use war as an excuse to increase their power, but take a step back and think how this may sound to someone who is not familiar with your reasoning. Oh, yes, the terrorist is the victim; hey, blame your government. Muslims are angry, they want to kill us? Well, they have their reasons. Let them do as they please.

Actually, I would not tell people who are unfamiliar with my reasoning that “governments use war to increase their power.” It’s more serious than that.

I would put it like this: You know the war that the government wants you to support? It’s not against the declared enemy. The war is against YOU. The target is YOU. The government contrives wars against some enemy, someone somewhere (and anyone will do), in order to justify their continued war against YOU. The objective is to get you to pay and pay and pay, for life.

And, even if terrorists were a real threat to middle America, more of a threat than, say, driving a car, do you really think that paying for hundreds of military bases around the world and aircraft carrier groups and supersonic jets and teenagers riding around ghettos in armored Humvees are going to solve that problem? How is a multi-trllion dollar military, building missiles and drones and long-range bombers, going to stop one or two guys who are determined to load a backpack with homemade explosives and leave it in a movie theater?

Give that question two seconds of thought, please.

Martin OB October 6, 2010 at 10:35 am

Phinn,


I would put it like this: You know the war that the government wants you to support? It’s not against the declared enemy. The war is against YOU. The target is YOU. The government contrives wars against some enemy, someone somewhere (and anyone will do), in order to justify their continued war against YOU. The objective is to get you to pay and pay and pay, for life.

If you put it like that, they won’t buy it. To be honest, I don’t buy it either. The enemy is real, and today it’s Islamic terrorism; ask the 9-11 victims, or the ones from Madrid and London, or (God forbid!) Israel, who are also innocent civilians, whatever the crimes of their government are.

Look, the second war on Irak was more than a mistake, it was probably a criminal act by G.W. Bush; most people wordlwide agree on that. Maybe the Afganistan war could have been avoided, and in any case, permanent U.S. troops in foreign countries are probably counter-productive, I can agree on that. But that’s a long shot from saying that any kind of pressure on foreign governments, or taking sides in any foreign conflict is always a mistake or a crime, just because it will make some people angry, or just because the army is run by the US government. Private armies would also do that if necessary. Would it be necessary? We don’t know.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for less intervention in foreign affairs. Let Islamic fundamentalists have their brutal theocracies, and let Western countries have their free and open societies. Just don’t try to mix them, it won’t work.

newson October 6, 2010 at 9:58 am

seems like the western colonial powers started meddling in the middle east first, and islamic terrorism occurred subsequently. should give pause for thought.

i’m not even going to start comparing whose empire is the nicer one – how could one even begin to measure?

Martin OB October 6, 2010 at 11:04 am

newson,
If you want to compare, you could start by looking at how they treat women, gays and lesbians, religious minorities (including atheists) or anyone who disagrees with their narrow views on topics like sexual morality. Hint: Burqas, sexual mutilation, flogging, stoning , hanging, honor killing, ritual rape. Now, what do Islamists in the West complain about? Hey, they are also oppressed; they can’t engage in all those activities!

newson October 6, 2010 at 5:29 pm

yes, the occidental empire treats its own citizens quite nicely by comparison. but as far as dropping napalm, phosphorus, tnt on foreign citizens, the west is the best. stoning versus fragmentation bombs, i know which is more efficient, just not which is more brutal.

Martin OB October 6, 2010 at 6:47 pm

I’ll put it this way: How would you feel safer, as an Arab civilian under U.S. troops custody, or as a Jewish-American civilian captured by Islamic terrorists? Ask Nick Berg. Agreed, you are not completely safe in any case, but will you tell me with a straight face the odds are comparable?

Soldiers at least are expected to treat civilians humanely. Western people mourn and complain when their armies kill children abroad by mistake. Arabs celebrate in the streets when terrorists do it on purpose.What would you say of U.S. soldiers who target children and behead civilian prisoners? Islamic societies are backwards, brutal and sick, both with their own people and with foreigners from countries they consider their enemies. Just ask them; they love to learn how scared Westerners are, they dream of how one day they will submit to Islam, either by threat or through “the power of the womb”. Silly, self-hating, decadent Western society. Wake up, already.

newson October 7, 2010 at 4:44 am

what about an arab handed over to some rendition service by the nice american soldier? who’s the bad guy here? maybe the torturer is less despicable than his western collaborator, who also wants to keep his image pristine.

how many western politicians lose sleep over children killed by their soldiers? madeleine albright was prepared to accept infant mortality rises under the iraq embargo. half a million? relax, they’re only arabs. only when the public gets some really appalling footage do some political crocodile tears get shed. camera “on”!

Tyrone Dell October 6, 2010 at 8:00 pm

1. Stop using the words Muslim and Arab as synonyms. They’re not.

2. What are your thoughts on Muslim Libertarians? Muslim Anarcho-Capitalists? Arab Libertarians? Arab Anarcho-Capitalists?

Martin OB October 6, 2010 at 9:46 pm

Tyrone,

Agreed, they are not synonyms, but obviously there’s a high correlation. The most violent Islamic protesters are usually from Arabic countries or communities, and that’s why I said “Arabs”. Of course, it’s not all Arabs or all Muslims who do that.

Now, to answer your question, I have nothing against Arabs or Muslims, whether they are Anarcho-Capitalist or not, as long as they are not threatening to impose a Muslim theocracy in the West. The thing is, where are those “secular Muslims” who accept, say, blasphemy, homosexuality and apostasy just as patiently as Christians do? Either there are preciously few of them, or they are too scared of the radical majority.

I don’t know why you ask about libertarian Muslims. If they believe they have a holy duty to expand Islam by whatever means they can, including force, or they believe “sinners” should be punished no matter where they live, then I would hesitate to call them libertarians, and in any case they are no allies to secular Western libertarians. If they are more moderate, then they can be considered allies. But this does not mean that ALL Muslims, Christians, Jews and Atheists can or should live together. Some will find the way to get along, some will not. Some Muslims will want their Islamic cities or counties, some Christians will want their Christian areas, and so on.

Let everyone pick who they want as neighbors, by mutual consent. Separation is the most effective source of peace known to mankind, and Western politically-correct rhetoric of multiculturalism and melting pots , with the corresponding legislation, is killing it. Democracy is making the outcome even more obvious. That’s what I’m worried about.

newson October 7, 2010 at 4:45 am

all terrorists!

newson October 7, 2010 at 4:48 am
Leon Haller October 7, 2010 at 6:25 am

This newson idiot is a real leftist – as are most here. I’m saddened but not surprised at the sociological failure of Murray’s (and, formerly, Lew’s) paleolibertarianism. It was a good try, even if I disagree about first principles (as well as pragmatically, living, as I, but few here, do, in the actual world). I’ve always thought the “modal” libertarian was basically a leftist who understood economics (but nothing else). That was Murray’s view, too. Apparently, Lew has decided to stop fighting this reality that most libertarians are on the Left, and embrace those same raceless and cultureless fools he used to mock. So sad, especially if Austrian Econ gets associated by serious conservatives with this race-traitor and pacifist garbage, and accordingly dismissed. Austrian econ will be a vital part of America’s eventual renewal; libertarianism will continue to be consigned to the weirdo bins.

newson October 7, 2010 at 9:18 am

easy to confuse anti-zionism for pacifism and leftism i guess.

Fun with Racists October 7, 2010 at 8:53 pm

Look up polylogism yet, Haller?

So nice to see that you admit Jews into the Superior Race. Or was it the other way around? Maybe you forget how the WASPs treated German-Americans during WWI and II.
Let’s not forget the Irish. Or does that ‘not apply’ here? eh heh

So who is in and who is out?

Catholics are OK now? Wow. Do you recall why the Protestant Establishment imposed compulsory public schooling? And that your buddies in the KKK were all for it?

Who appointed you Tsar of What Shall Be Considered White?

Now, if culture is genetically determined, and there is such a thing as White Culture, and further, Western White Civilization is the highest one yet achieved, then you should be worried. Not because of the invading darkies. It is that your time is over. You will go the way of the Neanderthal, culturally speaking (too).

Why? Asians are phrenologically superior. But maybe they will have mercy on you, if mercy is indeed what the new highest civilization will entail.

So yes, defend against the African and darky who are inferior to whites; accept the semitics- but only the Jews- not Palestinians etc, and if Jews, preferably German or Russian. Ignore the hundreds of other Jewish nationalities and genetic mixtures. But finally, since Asians are superior and pre-destined for higher civilization, go prostrate yourself at their feet and acquiesce in whatever they want. Since whatever it is, at least you know its better.

But wait, how can any of this really be known? Whites are in a position to Asians like humans are to gods. Inferior whites do not have the same consciousness or rationality as gods. Oh well, history may have you end up like Neanderthals, dying out miserably in the worst parts of the world anyway. Probably not even valuable as pets to the new superiors.

But blacks will remain valuable to Asians because… Asians love sports. And that is what blacks are good for. So sorry whites, the non-whites will be here long after you are gone.

Martin OB October 7, 2010 at 10:03 am

newson,

Interesting article. It doesn’t undermine any of my points. I like it when Rothbard points out that not all wars and not all states are equally evil, that’s precisely one of the things I’m saying. Then, he takes sides against Israel in the Middle East conflict. Fair enough. I don’t agree with all of his remarks (more below), but anyway, my points are:

_ Murdering innocent civilians, killing children on purpose, not by accident, is evil, no matter what their government does or did.

_ Militant Islam is older than the European, American or Jewish aggression. Islam is and always was a proselytizing religion.

_ The most brutal aspects of Arabic society and culture (I say “Arabic” because many of those customs are not intrinsic to Islam) have been there long before any of the modern conflicts with the West. There’s no reason to think they will change their customs just because they are in peace with Western countries. These views are clearly incompatible with modern (Enlightenment) Western values.

_ Whatever its origin, Islamic terrorism is out of control. Solving the Middle East conflict will not end it. Giving in to the terrorists’ demands will only embolden them. They won’t settle for anything less than worldwide Islamic supremacy.

As for Rothbard’s article, I’d like to point out the following:

_ He says “world Zionism was being promised a land most emphatically not its own.” . That’s a typical case of question-begging. If the ownership of the land were just a hard fact, there would be no conflict. The ancestors of modern Jews were driven out of Palestine by force . It was a long time ago, but that’s how it happened. It was not their choice to leave. That’s not to say the Zionists are right, but they also have some valid arguments.

_ He says “There is no inherent enmity or conflict between Arab and Jew. In the great centuries of Arab civilization in North Africa and Spain, Jews took a happy and prominent part – in contrast to their ongoing persecution by the fanatics of the Christian West.” That’s another myth which is now slowly falling apart .

newson October 7, 2010 at 8:10 pm

thanks for your respectful post. i’m inclined to agree with you regarding rothbard’s comments on spain. i do not idealize islamic culture in any sense, let alone the islamic regimes, just to be quite clear.

Beefcake the Mighty October 7, 2010 at 9:38 pm

For a brilliant take on the balance between libertarianism and racial realities (including recognition of the fact that while Islam is wholly incompatible with the traditions of the West, the war in Mesopotamia must be completely rejected), I cannot recommend enough The Last Ditch:

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/

newson October 8, 2010 at 7:56 pm

to beekcake the mighty:
thanks, i’ll have a look. you, in turn, might find this of interest:
http://bit.ly/bNFiXs
now i am beginning to understand why perhaps bodrum, turkey wouldn’t be such a bad place after all to set up a libertarian foundation.

Beefcake the Mighty October 8, 2010 at 8:51 pm

Thanks newson, fascinating stuff there. Re. The Last Ditch, here’s a sample of the great commentary:

“I’m not too exercised by the Ground Zero Mosque in particular, but I do have an answer for the liberals and other establishmentarians who impatiently ask opponents of the project how far away from Ground Zero the thing should be built. My thought is, at least three thousand miles.”

and then

“Veteran readers of TLD wouldn’t be surprised to see me also answer “at least three thousand miles” if anyone were to ask me how far the military of the U.S. Empire should stay away from Mohammedan countries.
For that matter, I’d like to see the legions stay at least three thousand miles away from our own country.”

at the Stop and Think section of the website.

newson October 8, 2010 at 9:08 pm

i liked the last ditch’s obituaries on sobran. lvmi’s, whilst affectionate, carefully made no mention of a certain line of inquiry that finished his career. it’s a bit disappointing, frankly.

Walt D. October 8, 2010 at 10:49 pm

Lew:
” The ancestors of modern Jews were driven out of Palestine by force . It was a long time ago, but that’s how it happened. It was not their choice to leave. That’s not to say the Zionists are right, but they also have some valid arguments.”
How should we apply the libertarian idea of homesteading here?

newson October 8, 2010 at 11:06 pm

careful. you may finish in the oubliette with talk like that.

Iain October 8, 2010 at 9:35 pm

Yes Spain was great unless you weren’t a Muslim, then you were an institutionalized second-class citizen. The incredibly scary thing is that this, along with China, are the example my liberal professors admire and preach.

Ohhh Henry October 8, 2010 at 11:51 pm

Institutionalized second-class citizens and imposed a head tax, eh? Sounds evil. A more enlightened regime would have tortured unbelievers, confiscated their property and expelled them.

There are numerous records of the opinion of ordinary Spaniards of the time that “the Inquisition was devised simply to rob people. “They were burnt only for the money they had,’ a resident of Cuenca averred. “They burn only the well-off,” said another. In 1504 an accused stated, “only the rich were burnt.” …In 1484…Catalina de Zamora was accused of asserting that “this Inquisition that the fathers are carrying out is as much for taking property from the conversos as for defending the faith. “It is the goods that are the heretics.” This saying passed into common usage in Spain. In 1524 a treasurer informed Charles V that his predessor had received ten million ducats from the conversos, but the figure is unverified. In 1592 an inquisitor admitted that most of the fifty women he arrested were rich.

I’m not praising, justifying or defending any of the actions of the Islamic government of Al-Andalus – I’m sure they were a bunch of lying, thieving, murdering bastards – like all governments. But if you think that whatever that particular government did to people 500 years ago has anything to do with what the US government should do to Muslims, or Jews or anybody at all, then please give your head a shake.

Martin OB October 9, 2010 at 12:33 pm

My main point was not that Muslim domination was particularly cruel. My point is that it was indeed Muslim DOMINATION, not an valid example peaceful coexistence. The Koran allows Muslims to let Jews and Christians keep their religion, as long as it is clear who is the boss (dhimmitude), but not to coexist and respect them as equals in a secular society, to tolerate their “sins” , much less to accept the fate of Muslims as a powerless minority without making plans of conquest. That would go against the duty of Jihad. Also, “idolaters” or atheists would never be tolerated.

Fallon October 9, 2010 at 2:00 pm

But like the Bible or the Constitution, the Qu’ran may be said to mean almost anything in the hands of those that have already decided for political vs. economic action.

Reflex October 11, 2010 at 12:44 am

More context on medieval Spain and the Jews:
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/deadlyenemy.htm

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: