Posted on 10/05/2005 1:55:23 AM PDT by rdb3
In late September, as throngs of placard-wielding protestors were descending on the nation’s capital, Lew Rockwell, the nominally libertarian proprietor of the website LewRockwell.com, was holding forth at an anti-war rally convened by the far-left Alabama Peace and Justice Coalition (APJC).
That the APJC’s rallying cry – “Spend money for human needs, not war!” – was of questionable accordance with principled libertarianism’s aversion to government largesse, didn’t seem to phase Rockwell, who joined a roster of speakers with an altogether different view about the proper role of the federal government. “I was aware that I was a token non-leftist speaking to a largely leftist audience,” Rockwell later explained on his website. Nonetheless, he noted that, despite some political differences with the gathered crowd, his “speech seemed well received.”
And no wonder. With its foam-flecked denunciations of the United States for “the evil of imperialism, the immorality of enslaving a foreign people, the malice of colonialism, and the intolerable brutality of authoritarianism,” its paranoiac allusions to a dissent-crushing “state,” and its unelaborated call for “resistance,” Rockwell’s speech could have been given by any of the more literate ringleaders of the anti-war left.
It might be supposed that Rockwell’s base of operations, LewRockwell.com, a gathering ground for a querulous cult of libertarian-anarchist true-believers, would be less amenable to the APJC’s members. On the contrary, a left-wing extremist would find much to admire among the site’s standard fare. Rockwell describes it as “unapologetically idiosyncratic.” That is putting it mildly. Although occasionally plumping for some eccentric ventures—LewRockwell.com is an enthusiastic supporter of the cause of the Confederate South—the default mode of the site is unsubtle ant-Americanism clothed in the garb of “anti-state” libertarianism.
Certainly that’s Rockwell’s stock-in-trade. In the disturbed worldview of Rockwell and his ideology-blinkered acolytes, the U.S. government, far from representing the democratic consensus of the American people, is the world’s most oppressive regime. “We are talking about the greatest centralized power on the globe, the world's largest, most well-armed, and most dangerous government, the only government to have ever used nuclear weapons against civilians and the government that has invaded more countries than any other in modern times,” complained Rockwell in June of 2004. Rockwell was still stuck on that theme one year later, even going so far as to endorse the caricature of America as the avatar of the Evil Empire. “Americans need to face the reality that most of the world sees our nation as the new evil empire, and many people in the Gulf region are dedicated to making sure that the Iraq War is the last hurrah for American militarism,” he wrote in June of 2005. “How tragic to admit that the analogy is not entirely implausible.”
Rockwell’s underlings are even more candid about their contempt for the U.S. The American-led war in Iraq has afforded them the occasion to vent their hostility. For evidence, one need look no further than a December 2004 entry on LewRockwell.com’s blog by contributor Mike Rogers. In the course of cheering the terrorist holdouts in Fallujah, Rogers put up a picture of a bombed-out American tank. In case the message was too muddled, Rogers appended it with a caption: “A toast to the defeat of the evil empire - A prayer for the poor fallen souls.” One might have been forgiven for wondering whether the poor souls in question were American troops or the terrorist diehards responsible for their deaths.
More explicit still was LewRockwell.com columnist Karen Kwiatkowski. In a June 2005 column entitled “Unleashing the Resistance,” Kwiatkowski issued a blanket endorsement of the terrorist insurgency in Iraq. “They don’t understand everything that is happening, but most Iraqis have decided to pursue one or more of the countless paths of resistance to the state. All are qualified to resist. None are excluded.” Not only that at, but Kwiatkowski advised American opponents of U.S. foreign policy to take their cues from the insurgents: “We might take a lesson from the growing Iraqi insurgency and the response of that nation nearly destroyed by our pretext-laden invasion and the American neo-Jacobin possession of that country,” she wrote. Kwiatkowski declined to offer specifics. She noted, however, that “my gentle thoughts are increasingly turning to murder.”
In common with the more unhinged elements of the far left, LewRockwell.com is committed to propagating the notion that the U.S. is in the grip of a fascist government. Again, Rockwell himself is among the more ardent spokesmen for that view. His political opponents, he insists, are “fascisti,” while anyone with the temerity to voice support for American policies is dismissed as one of the “storm troopers of the regime.” As for the 62 million Americans who voted to reelect George W. Bush, they are—you guessed it—the proponents of “red-state fascism.” Lest such comments be dismissed as mere overheated sloganeering, Rockwell stresses that this “not just rhetoric.” Rather, Rockwell urges his readers “to recognize that fascism is a reality, not just a smear term.”
Rockwell’s certitude about the essentially fascistic character of the Bush administration has prompted him to embrace an unlikely ally: the far left. The alliance is contracted unambiguously in a December 2004 column Rockwell penned for his website. In it, he urged his libertarian adherents to make common cause with the anti-war left. “In short, what we have alive in the US is an updated and Americanized fascism,” Rockwell explained. The solution, he added, “requires that we face the reality of the current threat forthrightly by extending more rhetorical tolerance leftward and less rightward. What is the most pressing and urgent threat to freedom that we face in our time? It is not from the left.”
In the ensuing months, Rockwell and his site began the migration into the territory of far left hysteria. By July of 2004, Rockwell had discovered a full-grown affection for the left. “I have this in common with NPR, Michael Moore, the Black Caucus, and assorted other grasping, complaining, anti-capitalist victim lobbies: a burning desire to see George Bush's fingers pried loose from the levers of power,” he wrote.
A convinced believer that the invasion of Afghanistan was “wholly unwarranted,” and that the American-led war to oust Saddam Hussein was “a malevolent hoax,” Rockwell unsurprisingly found much to appreciate about Moore’s conspiratorial documentary, Fahrenheit 9-11, calling it “must-see” movie. LewRockwell.com accordingly ran several flattering reviews of the film. One “conservative critique” of Fahrenheit congratulated Moore for portraying President Bush as “the figurehead of a murderous power elite.” Similarly, a comment on the site’s blog gleefully hailed Moore’s propagandistic assault on the Republican Party, raving that “[t]he film portrays The Party of Lincoln as it always has been: A cabal of money-and-power hungry political hacks enriching themselves through the auspices of the state…”
With the presidential election in the offing, Rockwell encouraged readers in a September 2004 column to “look left.” There they could “find fascinating war revisionism, courageous defenses of the innocently detained, principled stands for constitutional rights, well argued exposes of the high and mighty.” How any libertarian worthy of his name could justify defending the most fanatical enemies of civil liberties was not a question that violated Rockwell’s conscience. Instead, in words that would not have been out of place on the pages of the Nation, Rockwell sneered at the “supposedly rightist president who wages war, cuts taxes, and shovels other people’s money at corporate fatcats.”
Perhaps mindful that his relentless thumbs-up to the far left’s agenda could alienate libertarian supporters, Rockwell sought to allay their fears in a March 2005 column. Mistrust of the far left, he declared, was misguided. “I used to complain about the universities and their indoctrination of students in leftist theory,” Rockwell explained. “But these days, one has to be grateful that there are at least some pockets of resistance remaining.” So there would be no question about where he stood on an alliance with the left, Rockwell added, “I’m wary of all formal alliances but I do think libertarians need to be strategically flexible and entrepreneurial in finding intellectual allies, even if it means admitting that far better arguments are being made by CounterPunch than National Review.” A subhead that appeared in the column said it all: “Rethinking the Left, for Now”.
Seen against this background, the latest addition to the Lewrockwell.com clan—grieving mother turned anti-war left standard bearer Cindy Sheehan—should not be shocking. In September, the site gave space to an angry rant by Sheehan, in which she delivered herself of the view that the “aggression on Iraq is illegal, immoral and appallingly unnecessary,” and called on supporters to become “extremists.” Come November, Sheehan will be a prominent speaker at a benefit conference for LewRockwell.com. Among the subjects of discussion will be “The Camp Casey revolution and the tipping point for peace” and “How hurricanes and the ‘War on Terror’ embolden the US police state.” Less discussion, one presumes, will focus on how a supposedly libertarian website has become a willing dupe of the far left.
Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com
Lew Rockwell has no aversion whatsoever to printing trash from communists, fascists and even Nazi sympathizers (Noam Chomsky - look it up in Frontpage magazine for details) while completely refusing to identify the Marxist connections of these so-called writers.
There's no excuse not to ID communists and call them what they are.
At best he's a kook.
During my more sinister moods I believe him to be a Marxist plant roaming the net and perverting the concept of national self-defense.
Some former paleolibertarian FReepers used to argue that it was unconstitutional for us to have a standing army. In fact, one of those world-class idiots said that our Marines, airmen, sailors, and soldiers were on welfare! Why? Just because they were in the military and their salary came from Uncle Sam.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
The US Military is exactly the logical extension of this.
In re the socialism charge against the military. This subject has always held great fascination for me since I was a teenager. I heard it "way" back then given where I was raised.
To a point, the charge is correct; but its a stretch. Yes, the military does have to have what appears to be a socialistic "flavor" in order to have "unit cohesion". And yes, we do pay taxes to pay those in the military to defend us.
When I hear that argument in the here-and-now, I usually ask the "spewer" to tell me what defense of me -- those on the public dole are providing -- how do any of these defend or further my liberties and freedoms.
They get upset, and want to change the subject.
I compare a homeless person getting benefits from Uncle Sam to the military (defending my liberties) -- and they get hysterical that I would dare compare the two.
This tells me, how little thought is involved in what they spew about the military being "socialist". lol.
I haven't heard a single story about anyone on the dole going down to New Orleans to help out, have you?
Libertarians have "big gun" envy, and Socialists have "envy" of everyone and everything, period.
That was exactly one of those idiot's argument! I'm not playing.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
In the late 70s, I came across a book which I found useful: The Art of Selfishness (originally authored in 1977)
Good book in re interpersonal relationships and life scope. Principles taken to the large level have far more merit and usefulness than the Libertarian philosophy encompasses. IMHO, of course. There's constructive selfishness, and then there's "stuck on stupid".
George Bush is President. He has nominated Harriet Miers. The "trust me/check out my record" issue is one that mostly Libertarian (or leaning, thereof) are having a hard time with.
The left is railing about cronynism. When in fact, the President is rightfully exercising the options which go with his position.
When D-Carole Mosely-Braun, IL, with her "manager" were "nailed" with fraud (embezzlement), former President Clinton gave her the ambassadorship to New Zealand. Did the left "utter"? Not a word.
Conversely, libertarians did. They were livid, alongside Republicans and conservatives.
It's sad to see the Libertarians taking this perspective on the WOT; they've only undercut their own philosophy. But perhaps, since there is actual thinking going on within the Libertarian party (at times).. perhaps they are hoping to begin encouraging the libbies to think more, hate less.
Just a thought..
One thing I have seen, is that many of the Libertarians hold about the same view as the hard core Liberals except for markets, in which they want no restrictions.
Libertarians are often libertines without the hedonistic commitment.
Of course what idiot libertatians ignore is that their precious militias were based upon conscription, too.
Not legal conscription. Social conscription. If you got a reputation as a shirker you were an outcast for life. Who wanted to be "coward of the county" ? When your father and brothers are arming themselves, what are you going to do ? Develop a head cold ?
One must first realize that the term "libertarian" has been completely corrupted by the political party of the same name. However, let's take a look at the dictionary definition of the word...
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.
While I admit that this type of politics is not commonly practiced in Washington these days, it could become a very viable, self-sustaining political movement. Maybe I'm overly optimistic and hopeful, but I feel that the Republican Liberty Caucus and Mike Pence's RSC are positioning themselves to make great strides in the next decade or so, and to finally put today's big-government school of thought to a rest.
I saw few people shaking heads when freepers were probably the leading oppoonents of Clinton's use of big guns in Kosovo to bring "the rule of law." Heck, those freeper peaceniks opposed the war even while the troops were engaged!!! Had Al Gore been prez on 9-11 most probably would have continued their antiwar approach. Unlike the partisan freeper peaceniks, libertarians are models of consistency.
jmc813 wrote:
Maybe I'm overly optimistic and hopeful, but I feel that the Republican Liberty Caucus and Mike Pence's RSC are positioning themselves to make great strides in the next decade or so, and to finally put today's big-government school of thought to a rest.
REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/721810/posts
Man, I'm feelin' the love in this thread.
I'm sorry, WHO joined the enemy a long time ago?
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/009033.html
No, you definitely are NOT welcome here. Rockwellian troll zotted. Did you march in the terrorist supporting communist parade too? How many of our soldiers will die in Iraq thanks to you anti-American pro-terrorist protesters giving aid and comfort to the enemy? How many innocent Iraqi citizens will die for your groups misguided treasonous actions? Why should your giving aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime NOT be classified as treason? If I was sitting on the jury when you guys are charged, you would be swinging with your pal Saddam!
Look up useful idiot in the dictionary, troll. That's right. Describes you perfectly. Get off the phone, MORON!
Imagine! Cutting taxes. Oh the horror!
These guys have gone off the deep end.
libertarians are models of consistency.
Maybe so, but I'm not always sure what they are "models of consistency" for or about outside their ideology as a political theory group.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Revising and extending my remarks.
Why do I call these guys traitors? Well, we recently had the opportunity to witness up close and personal the communist led International Answer and Code PinkO people in action in Crawford and DC. I can tell you first hand that these slimy creeps are the real deal. Socialists, Marxists, Communists, punk anarchists, leftist revolutionaries, you name it.
America haters. Baby killers. They are absolutely in love with every slimeball communist/terrorist/tin-pot dictator in the world. They hate our way of life, hate our freedom and want no limits on the depths of their depravity. That's why they hate God and hate our constitution. No limits means NO limits.
They cannot wait to dissolve our constitution, our borders and our national sovereignty and make us subservient to some global socialistic power. Star-crossed communist utopians dancing, spitting and cussing in the streets. It was a real sight to behold.
Slimy, filthy, foulmouthed creeps. The same kind of long-haired weirdo hippy freaks that slimed us in the 60's. In fact many of them were resurrected hippies. Aging old communist farts trying to relive the glory days when they brought America to her knees and forced her to surrender to the Vietnam communists after having defeated them in battle.
Thank you Walter Cronkite. Puke!.
They hate America. Hate our troops. They are afraid that we're gonna win this war and bring peace and constitutional democracies to the Middle East. Can't have that. Spreading freedom would destroy their plans for global communism. They desperately want America to lose this war and the next one (which will be fought here at home if we do lose this one).
And now we learn here today that Lew Rockwell is part of this filthy traitorous movement. I knew that he and Buchanan and many of the paleocons had long ago gone over the edge with their hate Bush campaigns, and that they sympathized with the French, German, Russian, Iraqi axis against America, but I didn't know how far they would go.
Marching with communists in our nation's capital? Protesting at Army/Navy hospitals in full view of our recovering wounded servicemen? Parading in the streets with white crosses and makeshift coffins, spitting on the memory of our fallen heroes that fought and died for our country? Giving aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime? How low can you go?
How can this be called anything but treason?
If this is what the Rockwells and Buchanans and their followers want and believe, if they want to align themselves and protest against America and march arm-in-arm with their America hating communist comrades during wartime then they're nothing but traitors themselves and should own up to it.
And the rest of us should recognize them for what they are and treat them accordingly.
What do you think of "paleoconservatarians"? ;-)
Come on. Agreeing with a particular group of leftists on a particular issue does in no way make one a leftist. Sure, I don't support the war in Iraq, but can anyone here accuse me of being a leftist and back it up? No.
Have we really reached the point in this country when people are considered traitors merely for holding a certain political ideology? Most of the Founding Fathers would be considered traitors today by neocon standards.
Can you actually say that America is clearly in a better position after the past 60 years of global military interventionism than we would be had we not gotten involved in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq twice, Iran, Central and South America,... et al ??
Of course the above is a hypothetical question, but I fail to see the logic of those in the pro-war right who contend that preemptive wars, or those which are not fought out of necessity of self defense, can ever solve our problems.
Ultimately, the whole issue hangs on whether or not the United States has the legitimate right to act as "world policeman" in some sort of impossible effort to defend all those people who are being persecuted or slaughtered. (Why do so many of the people we want to protect seem to live near large oil reserves?)
Perhaps you could illustrate the wisdom of our current policy which has our military spread around the globe in well over 100 countries, yet fails to secure our borders and coasts through which terrorists arrive daily.
While I am not here to defend or reject Pat Buchanan, Lew Rockwell, or anyone else's ideas besides my own, I do think that some of the hatred in the Muslim world derives from American presence in their lands.
Remember once upon a time when Patriots named Washington and Jefferson fought the British in order to expel foreign occupiers who thought they knew best how the colonists ought to live in spite of their wishes for self-determination?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.