For months, now, Reason magazine has been conducting a smear campaign against Ron Paul, and his supporters, and editor Matt Welch — eager to lose yet more subscribers — has recently unleashed a broader attack, not only on Paul, but on the libertarian heritage upheld by we here at Antiwar.com: the legacy of Murray N. Rothbard, who the ignorant and decidedly un-libertarian Welch accuses of being part of a “racist” cabal. A more disgusting smear has never been penned. Go here and behold how I tear this loser to shreds ….
Thanks to a commenter over at Reason, here’s a vintage quote from Welch:
“Welcome to War. Sounds like a strange and unpleasant thing to say, but these are strange and unpleasant times, requiring unusual responses. Like many of you, I am reading and hearing and watching too much about the wicked horror of Sept. 11, and finding it a challenge to keep track of how it is already changing our lives. The biggest question facing Americans and other decent people is how the civilized world and its strongest country should respond to this mass murder. I, for one, advocate a Global War to abolish terrorism. ”
Â
Thanks to liberranter for this notice about Reason's (ha ha ha) desperation.
It seems Reason has painted themselves into a corner. They have published some pretty knee-jerk things, which usually means unwillingness to keep an open-mind.
Libertarians might be interested in winning some elections. See:
http://spirituallibertarian.blogspot.com/
What a thing to behold when Raimondo gets the indignation working full tilt. Right on Justin! Right freaking on. Welch is shredded and rightly so. Please Mr. R, remind me to NEVER EVER get on your bad side. Yow-zers! The Raimondo pen is mightier than any ‘Reason’ sword.
Reason must be so desperate to retain subscribers that they’re continuing to send “free” issues of their hardcopy to those of us who have canceled our subscriptions or allowed them to lapse. My subscription expired last December, but I’ve continued to receive issues in the mail each month since then, despite having twice emailed and phoned the publisher to remind them of my subscription’s lapse. What a senseless waste of natural resources, since each issue has gone straight from my mailbox to the trash can.
Good for you! Mr. Welch’s ‘Reason’ hasn’t even gotten a target to home in on, just to realize that all terrorists, in-country as well as offshore, are on our U.S. tax dollars, and armed to the teeth with our misappropriated U.S. tax dollars, and the Americans who provide these (stolen!) tax dollars are being decimated as endorsed by political U.S. congresspersons to do away with dissent against it; condoned by university cretin discharged upon our American public by insane asylums which are nothing more than dysfunctional criminal institutions still mis-identified as universities to deceive our American civilians into thinking that these harebrained nests of vapid poisonous vipers mesmerized with idiosy and mediocrity are really called schools of higher learning! Good luck to you. -Al Koppel.
“…The Powerful Logic of Constant Interventionism.”—At best usually leads to serious trouble…and at worst, a protracted, brutal Military Occupation at $11 Million Dollars per hour…I mean Jesus Christ…Who is this little clown anyway? An apprentice William Krystal? Some kind of undergraduate Junior G-Man sent by Elliot Abrams spread rumors? Or one of PNAC’s Little Helpers?…Maybe The Campus Crusade for AIPAC? I don’t know but I do know he’s earned another forthcoming ass scorching a la Raimondo’s and Horton’s. That, or somebody oughta put him in the Marine Corps.
If Rothbard’s stance on war is like antiwar.com’s, that’s something to really be proud of.
His economics, well, that’s another matter.
Your link to A Geolibertarian FAQ, whew! I’m sorry, but Todd Altman is very selfish in refusing to share whatever it is he’s smoking – I’m sure we’d all enjoy a hit. That was some of the most convoluted “reasoning” that I’ve had to grit my teeth through in a long time. He is also guilty of theft: there is no way this guy can claim any sort of libertarian mantle. ‘Nuf said.
Don’t know the rag, and haven’t gone there yet.
If one inquires, “by we here”?–does one get on Raimondo’s bad side, or do you get a lollipop?
…Libertarians have this conviction: No Big States? No Big Wars; and while I think that flies in the collective face of human predatory nature, it is nonetheless an approach.
Follow the money, baby.
David Nott, Gillespie, and the rest have had to suck up to the big neo-con think tanks to enlarge their budgets. The money to publish Reason comes at a price: tow the pro-war, pro-Likudnik line and you can say whatever you want about any other issue.
The war on terrorism is a large myth, a lie so big that all too many people cannot and refuse to see through. Iraq certainly is a PNAC project, could be that Afghanistan is too. It’s not about liberating people in the middle-east nor is it about fighting against terrorism, the last one being something that they for their imperialist agenda.
The War on Terrorism would have made a great metaphor. Using regular state military forces to fight it, however, is military insanity, and most flag officers know it. The real antiterrorist campaign is waged by police departments, diplomats, and the occasional SWAT team.
Israel has failed; the US has failed; and the Russians have fought the Chechens to a draw. This practice of using tanks, bombers, artillery etc. against terrorism needs to be stopped. The attrition suffered by our military forces weakens them for their deterrence functions in countries like Korea.
I have been a Reason subscriber for nearly 20 years. I voted for John Hospers and Toni Nathan 36 years ago. And every Libertarian Presidential candidate since then.
I am really not sure what Matt Welch’s problem is but someone hired him and someone can fire him. He clearly does not understand libertarian economics or foreign policy. Additionally, he has a personal animosity towards Ron Paul that is borderline psychotic. I really would like to know if they have ever met and if so, just what was said that turned Welch against him. Hating Ron Paul and saying he is not a REAL libertarian and that he is a racist homophobe is just silly.
I do not get it. Why put such a person in charge of Reason?
By the way my subscription runs out in May 2008 and I have been looking for ways to cut back my expenses and simplify my life, as well as lowering my stress level. Reason USED to be a way for me to relax my guard and just enjoy the new ideas coming in without being blindsided and upset by statist pabulum. No more. All it does is RAISE my anger level. I do not need the aggravation. If Welch explains himself or leaves, then I will continue my subscription.
To abolish Global Terrorism?? Wow, more reasons to lose more lives, time, and money. We are just getting bankrupt and that loser at REASON magazine don’t just understand. We rely on China to pay the war, the debt exceeds, and who gets the burden to pay it off? Taxpayers. We barely have enough money to sustain ourselves with food, bills, and gas, while this idiot advocates a full US police force on the world. Great, just what we need. More and more anti-American rhetoric, and these fools won’t even bother reading the Constitution. Screw them.
“Libertarianism is the true soul of conservatism”-R. Reagen.
Great article. Thanks.
As a libertarian — I voted for Andre Marrou twice when I was sixteen (so there DenisL!) I’ve always been a little concerned a large chuck of thw whole Lew Rockwell crew verged towards a racially biased point of view. Not because they are racists for the most part but mainly due to cultural ignorance misunderstanding and a real lack of empathy and emotional intelligence — a trait/fault which includes not only them but most of the political spectrum in this country. But then again since college I’ve always lived in an urban setting where whites like myself are the minority and I do yoga and stuff — I always feel torn between reason (or the new reason under Welch, etc.) and the hardliners at Lew Rockwell — I’d rather have a beer (or chai) with Matt Welsh but probably agree politically more with Lew. Having said that I consider Reason as it currently exists to be a solidly libertarian publication I wish was a little more anti-war but everybody has their faults…even Raimondo and Rothbard.
He’s dead right. If we kill everybody there wont be any more war. Good thinking!
To Welch’s credit, however, he did write an excellent book that exposes the myths surrounding McCain the “maverick.” Regardless of what he thinks about Ron Paul, we should applaud him at least for that. Click here to see him give a very informative talk about McCain’s imperial ideology:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1990964961683541224&q=%22matt+welch%22&total=41&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3
I told the libertarian party to kiss my a** months ago. The problem they have with Ron Paul is that he is a conservative. The libertarian party has become the LIBERALtarian party. Screw ’em, they can take their communist party and shove it. Every libertarian I have met is a former hippy that hasn’t grown up.
And the stupidest thing? The liberals that still believe the democratic party are going to stop the war.
Fools.
The only chance of me voting libertarian this year is if Bob Barr runs on that ticket. Then I will have two difficult choices: Write in Ron Paul or vote for Bob Barr. I have a feeling (a hope) that Bob Barr is smarter than to run as a liberltarian.
I really like Raimondo and I agree with the basic sentiment of his article at TTD, but this is a real turd of a polemic. The whole first half of it should be jettisoned.
Notice how, in today’s monkey see/do world, a mandatory component for up-the-ladder success is slavish devotion to certain political dictates:
– Support the war… anywhere (especially the pacification-by-horror project in the Islamic Middle East).
– Support any and all causes that absolutely will NOT attract retribution of any kind, while humbly intoning that your stance is risky, edgy resistance. For instance – actually be AGAINST racism. Breathtaking… huh? Repeat: bad whitey, baaad / stoop labor of color, goooood.
– Support Frankfurt School precepts and its hypocritical, latter-day derivatives (open them borders; bash “hate speech†– which is, really, any speech that Abe Foxman doesn’t like; get “greenâ€, bitch; did I mention bad whitey, baaad?)
– Corkscrewing backward in a double-reverse flip, support and uphold ALL the tenets of neoconservatism (paleoconservatives=Nazis; African-American activists, particularly those consorting with certain eloquent Presidential candidates=Nazis; anyone who doesn’t think… like… man, Israel is the VICTIM here=Nazis).
Matt Welch isn’t so much a phenomenon as an exemplar of how much America is accustomed to – even addicted to – startling contradiction and chicanery in its public discourse.
Justin, the idea that Reaason is running a “smear” campaign against Paul is stupid beyond belief. They put him on the friggin’ cover with a positive article for Chrisakes. To claim that then investigating what Paul published in his own newsletter is a “smear” is an abuse of the language. It is you who run smear campaigns Justin, all the time.
Callahan, you’re deluded. Calling Rothbard a “racist” isn’t a smear? And “investigtigating” what was in those newsletters means, what? Their interpretation of what was in the newsletters consisted of taking phrases out of context and citing them as evidence of “racism.” You need to go get your head examined.
And as far as “smearing” Rothbard by calling him a racist — did you read his writings to pen that autobiography, dude? Do you remember his piece on the Tutsis and Hutus? Here’s definition 1 of racism from dictionary.com:
“belief in or doctrine asserting racial differences in character, intelligence, etc. and the superiority of one race over another or others”
And that’s not the only article along those lines — he obviously thought there were racial — not social — differences in black-white intelligence. Rothbard wasn’t even a closet racist! He published his racism quite clearly and openly. Why do you now have a problem with calling his doctrines what they were? Are you disavowing his writings?
Did the newsletters have a negative affect on the Paul campaign? Yes. Should Rockwell have apologized for Rothbard’s or his own comments in the newsletters? Yes. Is the attack on Welch warranted? Yes.
Please cite a passage from any piece by Rothbard that you consider to be “racist,” please. Until then, stfu.
DenisL writes: “Additionally, he has a personal animosity towards Ron Paul that is borderline psychotic.”
And what does Welch write outside the mind of the delusional Denis:?
“Especially if, like me, you find Paul’s candidacy a refreshing injection of limited-government principle into the flabby carcass of a national GOP that has grown careless with power at home and abroad?”
Wow! That’s some psychotic animosity!
Gene,
You’ve seen the David Friedman article on wimps vs. boors? Rothbard was a boor, for sure, in that Hutu vs. Tutsi article, found here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard74.html
But that’s about it. To simply posit verifiable differences between certain racial groups is uncouth, but not erroneous. Technically speaking his words would conform to the definition of racism you put forth, but I believe the idea that these traits are immutable or that races are inherently incompatible ought to be the main concern, and Rothbard didn’t assert any such thing. After all, saying that “Asians do well in school” can be merely a statement of fact that in 2007, relatively speaking, they do quite well. But it would be racist, strictly speaking. If that be racism, we’re all guilty to some degree or another.
BTW, I’ve read your article on IQ and economic growth, and agree wholeheartedly. For those not familiar, it asserts that IQ does not determine economic growth, liberal institutions, etc.
Because Paul is relatively less revered by the beltway crowd than by the paleolibertarains, he’s believed to be not supported. It’s all a matter or perspective.
Raimondo is wrong on some of the particulars, but the general idea that Reason is milquetoast and too respectful of warmongers is spot on.
Incidentally, do we try Susan Sontaag for the crime of racism for her “white people as cancer” charge (http://www.slate.com/id/2111506/)? No, because we recognize there was far more to her than THAT. And even if she were a strait up racist, it wouldn’t devalue her work in many respects. I could cite Marcus Garvey, etc.
I’m done rambling.
You know what? Rothbard’s words ARE racist. Anything white people say is racist. White people ARE racists. We leave trails of racist mucous when we skitter from garden rock to toadstool and back again. In fact, our racism is a kind of gas – hanging ether-like in the atmosphere and forming drooping ganglia that gel into tendrils of noxious, filmy snot like that under kindergarten desks and public phone booths.
(Yaaaawn…)
Know what, else? Asian people do better in school. For a moment, let’s pretend I’m Mexican so I can post the truth blamelessly. …See? It IS true: Asians are scholastic DYNAMOS! Now… I’m back to being white. We can all feel ashamed at listening to such racist spew.
I’m gonna say some mea culpas at Andrea Dworkin’s tomb.
Thanks for the link. Rothbard, I see, was also a crap writer, and historically illiterate. He knows little about Africa.
Where he had the germ of an original economic idea, the whole edifice has to be torn down and built up again carefully from the foundation.
Sorry about that.
I am sure that will win me a lot of friends “here”.
That’s all, folks. Ha-ha-ha-HAA-ha!
You know America has conquered the world when the only “popular” enemy its leaders can find is a loose affiliation of religious zealots half a world away with only small arms, suicide vests and box cutters as weapons.
“War on terrorism?” You’d save more American lives by investing equal resources in a “war on traffic fatalities.” But every expansive power in history has had to find some way to motivate its domestic populace to support foreign aggression and occupation. Terrorism seems to do the trick for early 21st century America.
Gene Callahan- What was racist abuot the article on rwanda? He talked abuot the differnces from two different BLACK peoples. It provided an explanation for the animus between the two groups. The whole article aimed to look at the underlying factors of the massacre, pinning the blame on western map drawers, not black people.
There was one presidential candidate with substantial grassroots support against the racist drug wars. If you didn’t support that candidate then you were a racist.
Matt Welch’s track record on the War on Terror wasn’t much better than Paul Wolfowitz’s. So why is he the editor of Reason Magazine? Simply, because he can be counted on to have neo-con instincts camoflouged in cosmotarian glasses.
If that is all we learn from this Raimondo/Welch blogwar then it has been wellw orth it.
Anyone who thinks Reason is libertarian just has to read some Michael Young articles. Anyone that has the audacity to call themselves libertarian while publishing articles right next to Michael Young has serious credibility issues. Reason is a affront to libertarians everywhere for publishing that warmongering facists filth. Seriously, go read some of his archived article at Reason. Look at his 5 year look back on the Iraq war….look what he was writing in 2002. Intellectually diishonest smears of “isolationist” and “anti-semite” are his option #1 and option #2 when any reasoned criticism of US foreign policy comes up.
It really makes you think that Operation Mockingbird is still in effect, a guy like that can’t just be a a mistake.
Balko is good though!
In early-90s New Orleans, I helped in the campaign against David Duke, and had a run-in with his skinhead goon-squad because of it; All this talk of his being supported by a “protest vote” is nonsense.The irony of the ethnic-Catholics of southern Louisiana voting for a klansman was a sign of their interests being trumped by their petty prejudeces. In Duke’s plan for a balkanization of the US, he had plans for the Cajuns to be sent to Maine, far away from the “white” people. Yet Cajuns voted for him in droves.
One of my (many) objections to the welfare-state is that it allows lowlifes like Duke to capitalize on legit resentment, and filter it through their own racial motivations.
Before you accuse me of being a REASONoid, I am a supporter of Paul; I was one of 2 carrying a Ron Paul sign in the entirety of the last Anti-War march in Chicago. I don’t concider his views to be those in the newsletters, anymore than I think Obama should be judged by the rantings of his pastor; and I certainly don’t see how his newsletters are any more racist than Bill Clinton’s “I’m-tough-on-crime” execution/sacrifice of a retarded black man.
To half-agree with you, Libertarians should condemn all forms of racial mob-violence, no matter what race is involved. We should be more consitant than the apologists for black violence on the left, of the bring-back-Jim-Crow types on the paleocon right.
I just don’t know any paleocons who want Jim-Crow type laws. All the racist I’ve ever known have been in favor of the drug war. The are well represented in the neo-con right and amongst anti-Obama Democrats.
Racist also tend to be in favor of the current SS system since it most harshly taxes those with back breaking low income jobs who tend to die around the age of 60, while being of most benefit to upper income folks with great medical care and easy jobs who tend to live into their 70’s, 80’s or 90’s.
Lots of racist refuse to look into the evidence that the CIA imports drugs into this country.
Former Chief of NIST Fire Science Division.
Dr Quintere, calls for a independent review of WTC 7.
He says the NIST review needs to be made public and a new investigation needs to be done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TGtV39iipQ
Justin, there is a major error in your interpretation of the January 1992 Rothbard “manifesto” cited by Welch. You indicate that he is conflating “a speech Rothbard gave to the John Randolph Club” and link to . However, Welch is referring to . And this is obvious because you claim that “he never quotes more than a single word or isolated phrase of Rothbard’s”, but he precisely starts by quoting “Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment” (admittedly leaving out the rest of Rothbard’s sentence, namely, “subject of course to liability when they are in error”). You’ll also notice that “Right-Wing Populism” talks much more about David Duke than “A Strategy for the Right.”
1) “Gene Callahan- What was racist abuot the article on rwanda? He talked abuot the differnces from two different BLACK peoples.”
Sigh. He holds that an important difference between the two groups is an ingrained difference in intelligence. See definition of racism above.
2) “To simply posit verifiable differences between certain racial groups is uncouth, but not erroneous. Technically speaking his words would conform to the definition of racism you put forth…”
That was a definition THE DICTIONARY put forth. I didn’t say that Rothbard was a malevolent racist, or even that his racist views were incorrect — maybe he was right, I don’t know — only that it’s not a “smear” to note he held some racist views.
3) I just read Welch on Reason saying he’s more likely to write in Ron Paul than to vote for a major party candidate this year. Wow, that sure is some mild “psychotic animosity” Welch has towards Paul.
Oh, and folks, digging up quotes from well before Welch came to Reason is not very good evidence for what his views are NOW. Some of us experience intellectual growth on occasion, you know.
Also, see “Race! That Murray Book,” where, as I recall — my copy is not beside me at the moment — Rothbard advises paleos that they must not be afraid to point out that blacks are less intelligent than whites.
Now, folks, that is a racist idea. (See definition above.) You may think it is correct, but that means you think some racist ideas are correct, not that it’s not racist. It’s funny how many defenders of Rothbard react to someone pointing this material out by saying “Rothbard was not a racist! And anyway, blacks ARE less intelligent than whites!” I.e., Rothbard was not a racist, but anyway he was right if he was.
Racist? Who knows. Everyone seems to have their own standard.
But it is a libelous generalization, and I say it is just as grave as being racist. One can’t point at 100 black people and say they are all dumb just as one can’t point at 100 white people and say they are all smart. This is beyond obvious (I would hope).
Now, while I agree with much of what I’ve so far read of Rothbard, some of what he’s written does paint him as a total dickwad, with or without context. From his “Right-Wing Populism” essay, for example, we have the quote that has been bandied about, “Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment.” Uh, no. That was written in 1992, and currently we have an out of control “Police Class”, which is to say a bunch of roided-out goons who have somehow gotten the impression (coincidentally and conveniently with the ever-increasing usurpation of power by King George) that they are above the law. For someone who ostensibly believes in individual freedom and abhors state power, as Murray Rothbard purports to, this is a pretty unintelligible argument. Especially since the caveat (“…subject of course to liability when they are in error”) is such a convenient washing of the hands. What liability do any cops face when they taser someone to death, as has happened way too many times over the past few years? The police unions usually make sure these jack-asses never face any sort of liability., let alone justice.
Let’s say a guy is running from the cops and they catch him and beat his ass (“instant punishment”). Well, what did he do? Let’s say he beat and robbed an old lady. Well, I’d say that son-bitch deserved to get beat. But I’ve seen too many videos of literally innocent bystanders at protests being clubbed bloody by the cops when they’re given the order to rampage. Instant punishment? For what? In any event, whether the suspect is guilty or not, the job description of cops entails peace-keeping and law enforcement; they are not judges, they are not jurists, and they are not executioners.
So I don’t care what other things Rothbard said, f**k him. He’s a hypocrite. Maybe he changed his views later on in life, I don’t know. He’s not around anymore to perhaps affirm or retract that statement, so we must go on the words he’s left behind.
Justin, you write: “Welch falsely claims that Murray Rothbard held up David Duke as an “exemplarâ€â€” an outright lie… neither Rothbard, Paul, or Lew Rockwell held up Duke as an “exemplar†of anything but demagoguery and racial collectivism.”
Yes Welch said Rothbard held Duke up as an “exemplar of right-wing populism” — notice your sneaky deletion of the whole context! — and look what we find in Rothbard’s article, in which he cites Duke as — an exemplar of right-wing populism:
“It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke’s current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians; lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites: what’s wrong with any of that?”
Hey, he really likes the guy! I don’t see a peep in anywhere in the whole article about demagoguery or racial collectivism, but a lot about how Duke was bringing excitement back into Louisiana politics and Rothbard’s glee about how he was shaking up the establishment. No one with an IQ above 80 could doubt that this was a strongly pro-Duke article.
Justin, GIVEN THAT YOU WROTE A BIOGRAPHY OF ROTHBARD, you really must have known all this, and you were obviously just lying to discredit Welch. You really out to apologize to Welch for your smear campaign against him.
Slivovitz is a strong, colourless alcoholic beverage primarily made of distilled fermented plum juice though, similar to Irish poteen, it is often home-distilled out of a variety of source materials, up to and including grass and other organic material. It is similar to brandy and sometimes called plum brandy in English and is one of the drinks known in the Balkans as rakia. The alcohol content can vary from 25-70% by volume, but most store-bought varieties are 40–45%.
It is the national drink of Serbia and made in most of the Slavic Balkan states, where about 70% of plum production (average 424,300 tonnes per year (FAO 1991–2001) goes into slivovitz. Export producers in Serbia such as Imperia, STEFAN NEMANJA Flores and Stara Sokolova generally age their sljivovica between 5 – 12 years in oak barrels. In the Falcon Region of Serbia, the tradition of growing and processing plums always had the highest priority. Plums are eaten fresh, dried for the winter and used for making jam but 80% of the plum crops are used for producing sljivovica. Today, the drink is viewed with great pride by the household producer whereas in the past it was also the basis of economic wealth. At a time when money was not reliable and banks were either in trouble or non existent, sljivovica was a means for a people to save for the future. A well aged sljivovica would increase in quality and value.
Slivovitz is a traditional digestif for Ashkenazi Jews in Eastern Europe; since it is made from plums and (unlike many distilled liquors) does not involve fermenting grain, it is considered kosher for passover.
Rakia is supposed to be drunk from special small glasses (0.3 to 0.5 dl). It is often drunk warm, sometimes even heated (sugar is caramelized in a pan before the rakia is added) for better effect.
Pardon–from wikipedia s.v. Slivovitz.
In his smear over at Taki’s Drawers, Raimondo writes:
“And I have to say that, having been a reader of Reason since the beginning, I can recall no sympathy for King and his cause while he was still alive…”
Justin was there! He remembers it all well! The disdain Reason had for King while he was still alive.
Except King died in April 1968, and the first issue of Reason was May 1968.
Justin, it’s pretty east to “tear this loser to shreds” when you get to just make s**t up.
But I will say, SOMEONE’s article IS getting torn to shreds!
“individuals, ethnic groups, and races differ among themselves in intelligence and in many other traits, and that intelligence, as well as less controversial traits of temperament, are in large part hereditary,” p. 383, The Irrepressible Rothbard.
Good enough, Justin? Am I allowed to un-stfu now?
“Individuals and ethnic groups have no differences amongst themselves. The DNA in each of the 46 human chromosomes is exactly identical in all individuals.”
the un-racist Gene Callahan
Smartass employs the aforementioned, “It’s wicked to say Rothbard had racist views and anyway racism is true!” defense.