Pathetic antics by a DC misanthrope from Facebook:
George Edwards Tom Palmer claims that Lew Rockwell is racist. Waiting for him to back up his claim.
4 hours ago · ·
Lew wrote truly racist newsletters (not denunciations of abuse of executive power by Abraham Lincoln, but really ugly stuff), put Ron Paul’s name on them, and sent them out. And then let Ron twist in the wind when they came to light. Not a good … See Morefriend, I’d say. And definitely a racist. If you want, there’s a lot more to find with just a few minutes of sleuthing. (Or you could even ask Lew. He used to describe himself as a “racialist.” Ask him about it sometime.)
I looked up the term racism and racialism up on wikipedia and I think the significant difference is that racialism doesn’t believe in a racial hierarchy where as racism does (i’m not exactly a scholar yet so Wikipedia counts). Lew certainly doesn’t self describe as a racist since he has denied the claim in the Reason article. Whether or not there is truth to it is a different story.
I do think that bringing up race when it is not necessary is a mistake and may point towards racism as the newsletters did, That seems to happen a lot though. In most statistics I read, medical or otherwise, the classes the statisticians use are broken into categories such as race, age, and gender. This tends to perpetuate racialism in all political debates.
I’m sure, however, that if Lew were a racist he wouldn’t let Will Grigg post on Lewrockwell.com or quote from Walter Williams so much. If he is trying to fool people then I guess his life will be that of one fighting against institutions that are responsible for some of the most atrocious racism. … See More
Things like this keep me up late at night reading through long posts on the internet and comment sections. I believe I have researched this enough over the 4 years i’ve known about the Mises Institute to decide firmly that Lew and his crew are not racist (though at least one ex-writer of lewrockwell.com is thoroughly racist and anti-semitic, guy named Bob something) but he was kicked of and an attempt to hide what he has written ensued.
On the chance that Lew did right the Ron Paul newsletters in question I think it was in bad taste but not enough for lifelong moral condemnation.
George, in D.C. it’s acceptable to describe the neocons as wonderful fellows you’d love to have dinner with, in spite of their advocacy of policies that lead to millions of deaths. However, someone who once met some guy who said an insensitive thing is to be denounced forever for p.c. thoughtcrime. Insensitivity gets you thrown out of polite society; war is a policy dispute you can discuss over drinks. Sick, really.
Lew is loved and admired far more than are his no-name detractors, and they hate this. When was the last time they were _greeted_ by a rousing standing ovation by a room of 1,000?
If Lew is so bad, what does that say about Bob Higgs, Ron Paul, Jacob Hornberger, Ralph Raico, Margit von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and the zillion other libertarians who have actually accomplished something and who deeply admire and appreciate Lew and his work?… See More
Incidentally, I don’t intend to continue this. Arguing with these types is like arguing with a bottle of ketchup. They (and I really mean one person in particular) are deeply envious of others’ success, and it shows. If they knew how much it showed, they’d be embarrassed. Good for them they’re too narcissistic to notice.
And a tip of the hat to a founder of the League of the South and author of the “Politically Incorrect Guide to American History” who has lent his personal credibility to the denial of Lew Rockwell’s racism (hey, racism is just about “some guy who said an insensitive thing”). I’ll not step down to Mr. Woods’s level of comparing one another’s YouTubes (this is a family site, after all). But when we think about envy, I’ll just quote from the letter he sent to my colleagues attempting to get me fired for criticizing an unsupported thesis in his last book: “Mind you, I do not care about Tom. My credentials are pretty good, both academically and as a libertarian. If I am writing bestselling books, lecturing all over the world, being greeted by thunderous standing ovations (I have the YouTubes to prove it), getting six-figure advances…” Sadly insecure, if you ask me. (And trying to get someone fired for criticizing your book. Now that’s sad.)
But I digress, George. The issue is racism and the contamination of the modern libertarian movement by segregationism, racism, nationalism, and all-round craziness (obsessing about the “Amero” and the non-existent “North American Union” as conspiracies against “American sovereignty” are examples). Rockwell opened the door to very creepy people (you mention Bob Wallace, who praised the aesthetics of the swastika on LewRockwell.com [ http://tonova.typepad.com/thesuddencurve/2005/01/a_dishonest_att.html : http://web.archive.org/web/20040405063428/www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace-arch.html ] But he’s hardly the only one. (Hoppe would be another; google his views on gay people, for example; not just his personal prejudices, but his belief that they should be “physically excluded from society.”)
George, I do know quite a few neocons, leftists, social democrats, conservatives, and others who disagree with me. I do not consider myself a bad person for talking with them, rather than thundering at them. Thundering is not generally my style, but I’m not sure how my YouTubes compare to Woods’s. And I don’t care to find out, either. 😉 … See More
People who are concerned about their reputations should be careful about their associations. You’ve made it clear that you’re not a racist and are, at the least, uncomfortable with it. Good for you.
OK, George, I’m jumping back in! Yes, I wrote the Politically Incorrect Guide, and I went to a secessionist meeting 16 years ago. That’s much worse than advocating war, even though our friend is on record saying he thinks the neocons make delightful dinner companions.
Incidentally, the non-p.c. libertarian world by and large likes the Politically Incorrect Guide. Or am I supposed to tell Bettina Bien Greaves that she’s a terribly insensitive racist for saying all high schoolers should read it? Ha!
But it is seriously narcissistic to think I could or would try to get someone “fired” for criticizing my book (on grounds that actual business cycle theorists laughed at, I might add). I wanted to let Alex Chafuen, a friend, know what he was dealing with in a guy like Palmer who gratuitously picks fights…. See More
Again, even if the worst accusations about Lew from the emotional hypochondriacs were true, this is an offense on the order of 0.00000000001% as bad as supporting the war in Iraq, which our friend would not excommunicate someone for. Kill all you want, but watch your tongue!
Now, now, Tom. Let’s check your research skills…. where am I “on record saying [I think] the neocons make delightful dinner companions”? Let’s see… if it’s “on record” you should be able to find the record! (You won’t, as I’ve never said such a thing. I did attend lunch once with Charles Krauthammer, but I don’t recall ever writing about it. He’s often wrong, but rarely uninteresting. And, lessee…I debated Bill Kristol on the Patriot Act. But we didn’t have dinner together.) So, are you research skills as good as Tom DiLorenzo’s? http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=79 If so, let’s see where I’m on record saying that. Please!
And I note that you’ve effectively caved on the racism issue by diverting attention to whether I think “the neocons make delightful dinner companions.” (I guess it would depend on the person.) By the way, Tom, do you agree with Lew Rockwell (using his title with the Ludwig von Mises Institute) that video cameras should be banned, because they record crimes by the police against black people?
IT’S SAFE STREETS VERSUS URBAN TERROR; IN THE ‘50S, RAMPANT CRIME DIDN’T EXIST BECAUSE OFFENDERS FEARED WHAT THE POLICE WOULD DO…. See More
March 10, 1991
Los Angeles Times, Sunday edition
By LLEWELLYN H. ROCKWELL
If you offer a small boy one candy bar now or 10 tomorrow, he’ll grab the one. That’s because children have what economists call a “high time preference.” They want it, and they want it now. The future is a haze.
The punishing of children must take this into account. One good whack on the bottom can have an effect. A threat about no TV all next year will not.
As we grow older, this changes. We care more, and think more, about the future. In fact, this is the very process of maturation. We plan, save, invest and put off today’s gratification until tomorrow.
But street criminals, as economist Murray N. Rothbard points out, have the time preference of depraved infants. The prospect of a jail sentence 12 months from now has virtually no effect.
As recently as the 1950s — when street crime was not rampant in America — the police always operated on this principle: No matter the vagaries of the court system, a mugger or rapist knew he faced a trouncing — proportionate to the offense and the offender — in the back of the paddy wagon, and maybe even a repeat performance at the station house. As a result, criminals were terrified of the cops, and our streets were safe.
Today’s criminals know that they probably won’t be convicted, and that if the are, they face a short sentence — someday. The result is city terrorism, though we are seldom shown videos of old people being mugged, women being raped, gangs shooting drivers at random or store clerks having their throats slit.
What we do see, over and over again, is the tape of some Los Angeles-area cops giving the what-for to an ex-con. It is not a pleasant sight, of course; neither is cancer surgery.
Did they hit him too many times? Sure, but that’s not the issue: It’s safe streets versus urban terror, and why we have moved from one to the other.
Liberals talk about banning guns. As a libertarian, I can’t agree. I am, however, beginning to wonder about video cameras.
Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, an economics think tank in Auburn, Ala.
Have a nice day, Tom
But George, this is all a fight for principle! We must root out “racism,” even if we have to dig back to 1991 and ignore years and years of anti-police material on the LRC blog and website to do it.
It’s all a great big fight for principle here in D.C. That’s what we’re about. We’ll smear Ron Paul, say I told you so, and then, when we discover he’s still popular, we’ll sheepishly invite him to speak!… See More
It has absolutely nothing to do with our billionaire donor’s hatreds and priorities. Nothing at all. It’s all principle, baby!
Tell me, is Bob Higgs a reprobate, too? Is Bettina?
Anyway, our narcissist friend spends all day scanning the web for his name, so it’s not unusual for him to take this much time on something like this. So go ahead, friend, have the last word. I considered reproducing the whole letter I wrote to Alex, along with the part our friends edited out in the ellipsis, to put the quoted passage back in context. But I’ve said more than enough to smash this whole stupid line of thought.
Kill all you want, but watch your tongue! Maybe that can be the new TGP motto.
… See MoreBut I’ll leave it for you, George, and other thoughtful people to consider whether perhaps the quite well documented racism of Lew Rockwell, which is not just a matter of off-color or tasteless ethnic jokes (“watch your tongue”), but of active promotion of racist collectivism and cultism, is a project with which you would wish to be associated. Good night!
If our friend really believed his own b.s., he would never have spoken at the same Cato event with me in 2007. He would have refused on moral grounds. It’s all an act. Their donor hates Lew, hates the Mises Institute, and hates Ron Paul. TGP will not try to deny this, because he knows it can be easily shown. By an amazing coincidence, people on the receiving end of this funding magically share the same petty hatreds.
I’ll wait to hear if Walter Williams is attacked anytime soon, or if Steve Horwitz is attacked for his recent report on the economic crisis, which employs the _exact_ line of Austrian argument — and I mean EXACT — that TGP called me a “religious” (as in, impervious to evidence) Austrian for advocating…. See More
Remember, it’s all a fight for principle, George. So expect those denunciations of Williams and Horwitz any day now. Any day….
What kind of person does that?
I’m a big fan of giving the benefit of the doubt but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Rockwell is not a racist.
I’m sorry Dr. Palmer, but you don’t make the case for Rockwell being a racist. All the evidence is too questionable. Rockwell would be the most impractical racist. … See More
What scares me is that I could be labeled a racist by you because I am don’t blindly believe mis-characterizations about a person that are on par with Ann Coulter mis truths.
As far as Doctor Woods goes, I certainly believe secession would work as a good check on the Federal government. I’m guessing Woods was younger than I am now when he went to that meeting. If I heard about a new group forming that advocated secession I would likely give it a try. If it turned out to be motivated by racism then I would leave. I believe that’s what Dr. Woods did.
What Hoppe says about homosexuality is certainly wrong (homosexuality is not a sin, first of all, and I don’t think it is realistic at all to expect market forces to push them out of society). I believe he was talking more along the lines of rapists, or that “society” could be a small group of bigots (bigots being my word, not his). Maybe I assume too much.
(Hoppe would be another; google his views on gay people, for example; not just his personal prejudices, but his belief that they should be “physically excluded from society.”)
I guess one could find an utterance which can be twisted to say that but I would rather look at the deeds. Watch out Hans, there’s one sneaking up on you over your left shoulder!!!
And what were they doing in Turkey prompting this openly gay libertarian to reply to Prof. Hoppe: “Thank you for inviting me, I’m having the best time of my life so far”.
Oh snap, htmal writing skills fail. Here’s the left shoulder again!
Just in case the blog software dislikes links to pictures: http://propertyandfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/pfs-group-2008-05.JPG
Is he racist? Are you racist? These fears make it difficult to talk about race at all. Are there not legitimate differences between races? If race A is better suited for activity A, does that make race A superior overall? What if race A tends to be better suited for basketball… if any representative of race A declares this, or pokes fun at race B, shall we character assassinate that person? What we have is a state of fear among one race, that is so petrified of racism it cannot even look itself objectively without scattering in fear. Meanwhile we ask everyone to look very hard for racism – and when you look hard enough for anything, you will find it. What if sometimes statements which are controversial among the current taboos happen to have a grain of truth to them? Does the taboo outweigh the grain of truth to such extent that we must character assassinate the speaker? How abotu slight character defamation – more equitable? I’m frankly tired of the racial obsession. I think it’s narcissistic in general, and defeatist in the end. If you want to say something about my race, say it, defend it, and I’ll focus on it – not on you.