About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 11:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I can see criticizing Strike-the-Root for publishing Bob Wallace's bigotted piece. However, that piece isn't at lewrockwell.com, and though some Bob Wallace posts are on LRC (eg. 'why I won't vote'), he's not even listed as an LRC columnist in the link given by your page. Why are 'Rockwellians' the target for something not even having to do with lewrockwell.com?


Post 1

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 12:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Why are 'Rockwellians' the target for something not even having to do with lewrockwell.com?"

Because we can never be too vigilant against LewRockwell.com.  We must guard against the possibility of opening our "minds" to the truth.  Nothing could be more important than keeping a firmly closed "mind" and a delusional foreign policy.

JR



Post 2

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 12:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Is there any evidence that the 'Bob_Wallace' who has only a few posts on the Strike-The-Root forum is the same person as the 'Bob Wallace' who has numerous columns on the Strike-The-Root website?

Post 3

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 2:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good question, Rick.

Is there any evidence that the Rick Pasotto who posted on Solo today is the same one who has posted on Solo before?

We all go by a name.

About Palmer's whistle-blowing, sure there is animosity. But actually he is doing LewRockwell.com a favor by helping with the housecleaning. The kind of bigotry promoted by Wallace and (to a lesser extent) Raimondo should not carry the endorsement of a think tank.

I sincerely believe the cause is bigger than the personality fights - and that truth is where you find it.

Edit - Just to be clear, I do not hold nor agree with some of the premises advanced by the majority of what I have read on that site, but also, many people I respect highly write there. At the very least, disagreement without bigotry is not too much to ask of an important think tank dedicated to freedom.

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 7/22, 2:50pm)


Post 4

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 7:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Aron, you said that Bob Wallace is not listed as a Rockwell columnist. But Tom Palmer wrote that he had been, and that his name is now absent.

Barbara

Post 5

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 8:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hans-Hermann Hoppe's appearances in a neo-Nazi periodical in Germany, while simultaneously on the masthead of an Institute named for a Jew who fled from the Nazis, is one of the most bizarre things ever.

Post 6

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 4:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

That's depressing. Adam. But unfortunately not unusual in many libertarian and conservative organizations.

Barbara

Post 7

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 7:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Apparently LRC cleared Bob out after Tom wrote the article, and Tom noted that after I had read his piece; darn dynamic nature of web pages. I've read the articles from the LRC 'think tank' pretty regularly for a year. It includes plenty of uninteresting or misguided pieces on christianity/catholicism/creationism, but I never saw anything touting racism.

As for whether to drop innocuous and valuable articles from someone who elsewhere did something offensive or irrational, I'm not sure what the right answer is. On the one hand I see how someone's credibility in general can be tarnished by bigotted statements or actions. On the other, I see the value of good statements in and of themselves despite the person; the most common case I encounter here is I value and defend Jefferson's powerful writings even though he owned slaves.


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 2:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I can see criticizing Strike-the-Root for publishing Bob Wallace's bigotted piece."

I can't see this either. Wallace said what he did in an open Strike-the-Root discussion forum, not in an article on the main page. I very much doubt that SOLO would want to be held responsible for all my comments in these discussions. The same principle should apply.

Post 9

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 9:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good point Anthony; I'd misread Tom's word 'posting' to mean Bob's comments were in a published article instead of a general discussion forum.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 10:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Interesting piece.

If the Bob Wallace who wrote the "racial categorization" material that was quoted is the same Bob Wallace who has previously written for LRC and whose articles are currently carried on a number of libertarian sites, he certainly won't be on my "pass on this link" list any more.

I'd even go so far as to say that, if the identification is correct, LewRockwell.Com should have been more careful in vetting whose writing it publishes.

On the other hand, Palmer's attempt to tar Justin Raimondo as an anti-semite is nauseating and reprehensible -- and the ham-handed way in which he did it (noting Raimondo's antiZionism and then trying to cobble together a connection between Raimondo and Wallace's ideas) indicates that he thinks his readers are idiots.

Tom Knapp

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 10:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aaron, understood. I find that it is a good idea to carefully read the words chosen in accusations directed at people, especially accusations that employ arguments that entail elements of the guilt-by-association principle. This is not to say that associations are meaningless. But, especially in journalism, the internet, and politics — realms where it is more than easy by a degree or two of separation to tie two people together who might have very different motives and goals — I believe it is especially important to be critical in examining criticism. Strike the Root, after all, has linked to articles on this very site. I think all that necessarily implies is that whoever did the linking found what they linked to worth linking to.

Post 12

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 12:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just a note about the removal of Wallace from the columnist list at LewRockwell.com: Not only did they take him off the list of columnists, but they apparently cleared out all his archived articles (over 200 of them) from their website.


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 3:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thomas L. Knapp:

"Palmer's attempt to tar Justin Raimondo as an anti-semite is nauseating and reprehensible -- and the ham-handed way in which he did it (noting Raimondo's antiZionism...." Give me a break. Ever since Stanisław Moczar discovered the simple algorithm for this (sed s/Jew/Zionist/g) every anti-Semite in the world has proclaimed himself to be just another honest anti-Zionist. One would have to be illiterate to miss the very-old-in-the-tooth theme of an all-reaching worldwide JewishZionist Conspiracy in nearly everything Justin Raimondo has written in recent years. No, SOLOHQ is not a good place for selling parcels in that particular fever-wamp.
(Edited by Adam Reed
on 7/24, 9:53pm)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 4:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

I happen to dislike anti-semites and anti-semitism intensely, and I'll go a long way to avoid the slightest association with either. For that reason, I did quite a bit of reading of, and about, Justin Raimondo a few years back in order to determine for myself whether or not he is an anti-semite.

I found not one iota of evidence that Raimondo is an anti-semite. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. I've never found a word he has written that treats Jews collectively at all, let alone negatively. I've never found a word that he has written that ascribes negative attributes to any person because that person is Jewish. I've never spoken with a single person who has alleged to have heard an anti-semitic word pass his lips. And, of the three books which I know him to have written, one is specifically and completely dedicated to lionizing a Jew (Murray Rothbard).

Raimondo is certainly an anti-Zionist. He is often an obsessive anti-Zionist, something for which I have at least once publicly taken him to task. But as far as I can tell, he has never transitioned from anti-Zionism to anti-semitism, as easy as it would be to do and as popular as it would be with those members of his audience who are anti-Zionist as part of a general anti-semitic mindset (of whom I assume there are some).

It is possible that I am in error here. If anyone can provide concrete evidence that Raimondo is an anti-semite, then I'll naturally reconsider my judgment of him. Palmer, however, didn't provide evidence -- he just resorted to a sleazy rhetorical sleight-of hand which, as I said, betrayed a very low appraisal of his readers' intelligence.

Tom Knapp

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 10:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thomas,

Recycling conspiracy theories with "Zionist" or "Israeli" substituted for "Jew" is a way to propagate anti-Semitism in a deniable manner. An obsession with Zionism on Raimondo's part - which even you have noticed - means singling out Israel for the universal faults of government in wartime. There are many states orders and orders of magnitude worse, so when one looks for motivations behind such an imbalance it is difficult to escape the obvious.

As for his being a disciple of Rothbard, that is hardly an obstacle. Look a Heidegger, or Goebbels - both of whom admired their Jewish mentors; this did not stop them from participating in the Nazi regime - and tell me again the two are exclusive.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 10:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

You write:

"An obsession with Zionism on Raimondo's part - which even you have noticed - means singling out Israel for the universal faults of government in wartime. There are many states orders and orders of magnitude worse, so when one looks for motivations behind such an imbalance it is difficult to escape the obvious."

First of all, I'll concede a particular point: Yes, when someone is vociferously anti-Zionist, to the point of seeing Israel behind all manner of ills (not to mention ignoring the reality of it situation vis a vis the "Palestinian" Arabs), anti-semitism is a reasonable explanation to put at the top of the list of possible motives.

The fact that it is not only a reasonable list-topper but an obvious one, however, does not mean that it is necessarily the correct one.

In my experience, "stealth" anti-semites always out themselves, somewhere, in some way. They can't help it -- sooner or later, there's going to be a slip of the pen or of the tongue.

With respect to Raimondo, I had reason a few years back to do the most thorough investigation I could of his views (it had to do with a fiduciary duty to a client). That investigation had to take place over a relatively short timeframe, but I did the best I could. And, as I said, I found not one iota of evidence that he is an anti-semite.

I don't necessarily start from a "presumption of innocence" where such things are concerned -- but, having investigated the matter and found no reason whatsoever to believe that he's an anti-semite other than the fact that he's anti-Zionist and anti-Israel (things which in and of themselves do not constitute anti-semitism), I'm not going to consider him one unless someone provides actual evidence that he is. My assumption at this point is that if such evidence existed, writers like Palmer would use it instead of resorting to rhetorical trickery to levy the accusation.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 10:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom,

I understand that you may come to different conclusions on the basis of more or different evidence. I do not approach individuals with a presumption of innocence - I consider a presumption of innocence part of the appropriate procedure for governments before applying punitive force, but in my private judgement I go by the preponderance of whatever evidence I have. In this case, I don't see anything - short of a credible, innocent explanation for Raimondo's obsession - that would change my judgement.

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 11:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just my two cents. Opposing the State of Israel, or the United States, or the State of Iran, is not the same as being bigoted against Jews, Americans or Persians. They can, and often do, coincide: many people who hate the State of Israel do hate Jews, many people who hate the State in America do hate Americans, and many of those who hate the Iranian government do hate Muslim Persians.

As a libertarian, I despise all States, largely due — and, indeed, in most cases, primarily due — to what those States do to their "own" people. The State of Israel is not, by and large, in the interests of the Israelis. And the same applies to the States that rule Americans, Iranians, Iraqis and so forth.

The State of Israel is a militarist socialist State after all. Sure, it's not as bad as the worst States ever. But that it is socialist compared to most of Western Europe seems to me a fair assessment. Why do some libertarians hate, for example, the French government more than the Israeli government or British government? Beats me. I wish all States shrank down into oblivion. The Jews, French, Brits, Americans, Middle Eastern Muslims, and everyone else would be better off.

And no, I don't think that believing that individual Israelis have a right to life, liberty and property is the same as believing that a State has a right to exist. I admire the way the Israelis protect themselves, on an individual and community basis, arming themselves in schools and so on. But to the extent that their rulers employ coercion against them and innocent foreigners, those rulers are worth criticizing. Also, while other States are worse than Israel, Israel receives a lot in U.S. government foreign aid. For this reason, Americans have as much legitimate reason to spend much time criticizing Israeli government policy as they do in critiquing U.S. welfare policy.

Furthermore, I have hardly detected "an all-reaching worldwide" Jewish or even "Zionist Conspiracy in nearly everything Justin Raimondo has written in recent years." The majority of Raimondo's columns appear to be about the Iraq war, and other foreign policy issues. He does often focus on the relationships between the U.S. State and the Israeli State. He also does this in regard to other close allied States to the U.S. State, such as Uzbekistan. I doubt very much that he has a grudge against any of the people falsely represented and ruled by the thugs he criticizes. A libertarian, after all, tends to sympathize for the people being pushed around, taxed, and oppressed by the States they find worthy of special scrutiny. We are individualists, are we not? Why should we equate a people with the bureaucratic abstraction that monopolizes legalized aggressive violence in its neighborhood?

Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 12:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, if this thread is going to devolve into a discussion of Israel, Zionism and anti-semitism, I guess I can go there. My preferred method of doing so is to simply excerpt my uncompleted novel, The Halaunbrenner Grant. This kills two birds with one stone -- it gets my views across and also demonstrates why I have, at least for the moment, decided to forego writing fiction.

As far as background goes, the novel is about a foundation that concerns itself with hunting down Nazi war criminals (specifically Alois Brunner, one of Eichman's close lieutenants) and Arab terrorists, and the interaction of that foundation with a researcher who believes that there's still an existing connection between the two (there were certainly earlier ones via Nasser et al -- and Brunner, now in his 90s, was known and is still thought to be living in Damascus). In the vein, more or less, of The ODESSA File.

Here's the relevant (Warning! Didactic speech!) excerpt:

-----
"There are some things we need to get straight, Fred," he continued. "Your work is your own, and all I ask is that we get the first look at it. But it is part of a larger purpose. We don't screw around with meaningless things like non-disclosure agreements here, for the simple reason that an honest man doesn't need one and a dishonest man wouldn't abide by one. I'd like to tell you more about the Foundation, but I won't -- I can't -- until I have your word of honor that you'll respect our need for that information to remain secret."

Fred physically felt the other man's tension, mixed with his own. "I think I can give you that word," he replied. "But there's one thing I have to know up front. Is this a Mossad project?"

Alan stared across the table at him. "Would it make any difference if it was?" he asked.

"Yes," said Sorensen. "I deplore the reality of the Holocaust and of anti-Semitism since. I've done what I can to reveal and expose the realities and I have no regrets about that. But I'm just not a government type, if you know what I mean. They tend to take more than they give. And they tend to give a little, once, and then demand a lot, ever after."

Weiss stood abruptly, and for a moment Sorensen was sure that he was about to be roughed up and shown the door. Instead, to his astonishment, Weiss began to applaud loudly.

"Bravo! Bravo! I knew from the moment I laid eyes on you that you were our sort, my boy!" Beaming, he sat once again and leaned forward, taking up his glass of wine, gulping a bit down and spilling the rest as he absently returned it to the table.

"I give you my word that neither I nor the Halaunbrenner Foundation are employed by the Mossad or the State of Israel," he said. "We've received limited cooperation from them -- after I had some well-placed friends lean hard on the right elbows -- and we occasionally provide them very specific information of a very limited scope.

"Early on, the Mossad sent a 'resident agent' to take charge of the Foundation. I showed him the door, and when he didn't get the message, I showed him my gun.

"The purpose of the Halaunbrenner Foundation is not to provide Israel or its functionaries with political advantage, nor is it to protect the existence of the Knesset or to provide justification for Israeli settlements in the West Bank, nor is it to lobby Washington for aid to Ariel Sharon and his cronies. The purpose of the Halaunbrenner Foundation is to defend Jews from those who would kill them and to retaliate against those who have done so ...

"On an individual basis. We aren't Israelis, we aren't Mossad agents and we aren't even, strictly speaking, Zionists. Is that good enough for you?"

Sorensen nodded, speechless, then had a gulp of wine himself before remembering what was expected of him.

"In that case, sir, you have my word of honor that whatever you have to tell me will remain between us."

"Actually, I guess I inadvertently revealed the most important part of it in my little diatribe," said Alan, "but I'll try to be a little more specific.

"Israel is a bad solution to a worse problem. Oh, I could make a fair argument on its behalf, but I'm an individualist, not a collectivist, as strange as that may seem given my self-identification with the Jewish people on the basis of my ancestry.

"I'm not a religious Jew. I don't keep kosher -- that's a good Italian sausage cooking in the sauce over there -- I don't attend synagogue, I don't observe the Sabbath.

"I'm not a Zionist. I don't see anything particularly sacred about the land in Palestine and I'll laugh in the face of anyone who tries to tell me that the way to solve a problem is to create yet another government. As a matter of fact, as best I can tell, governments have been at the root of the problem since the beginning.

"It was the German government that built the camps for the Jews. It's the Arab governments that exploit the 'Palestinian' Arabs to perpetuate their forever war on the Jews.

"Take it all the way back to Samuel. He tried to warn us about the nature of kings, but we didn't want any of his guff -- we demanded a yoke on all our necks."

He paused. "Let's get another bottle of wine out and get dinner on the table. The bread should be ready and I don't want the pasta to get cold."

Half an hour later, the three had finished gorging on spaghetti and garlic bread and were halfway through the second bottle of wine. Alan wiped his face with a napkin, then leaned forward and took off as if he'd never interrupted himself.

"I'm a Jew by ancestry, but more importantly I'm a Jew by choice. After the Babylonian captivity, the Greek and Roman occupations and 2,000 years of diaspora, pogrom and ghettoization -- all at the hands of government -- we got Hitler, the camps, and six million dead. That's a powerful incentive for banding together for self-defense.

"You did a wonderful paper on the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Those Jews weren't jammed together in the ghetto because they wanted to be. Some of them were religious. Some of them were atheists. Some of them were Zionists, some were Communists and some of them just wanted to be left the hell alone.

"But Hitler and his thugs wouldn't leave them alone, and the end result was that they had to work together to resist and to survive, or at least to pass on the lesson that if you won't stand up for yourself, no one else is going to stand up for you.

"There are two conflicts in the Middle East. One is between the Israeli government and the Arab governments. The other is between five million individual Jews and an unknown number of individuals who want to murder them.

"The former conflict exacerbates the latter. Government, by its very nature, is incapable of caring for the needs of five million individuals. It is structured to care for itself. It does things wholesale. A 'Palestinian' Arab throws a rock and the IDF moves in with tanks and levels a whole neighborhood. Then people wonder why the argument escalates.

"Our approach -- my approach -- is retail, not wholesale. If you're a Jew-killer, I want to kill you first if possible, later if that's the only way.

"The purpose of the Halaunbrenner Foundation is to identify Jew-killers and kill them, or at least give others the information necessary to do so. One at a time, ten at a time -- but never nine Jew-killers and one innocent. That's the government way."
-----

On re-reading that, I have to say that I am probably more pro-Israel than the speaker at this point. As a matter of fact, I'm hoping to learn enough Hebrew and get in good enough shape to get over one summer on a volunteer program that Israel runs, where fat old civilians like me do three months in the Civil Guard so that reservists can be freed up for active IDF duty.

Tom Knapp

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.