Comments on: Generation Rothbard

By: Skye Stewart

Skye Stewart — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:34:18 +0000

Well, that was a pleasure to read! Thank you gentlemen

By: Michael Hardesty

Michael Hardesty — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:33:52 +0000

Left out “read” in my final sentence in Point Three,
after “Have you” it should have been there.
The point’s pretty obvious though.

By: Michael Hardesty

Michael Hardesty — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:47:39 +0000

1) Conspiracy does exist, most criminal law is based on conspiracy, an illicit action involving two or more people.
If the Government can use this concept to go after you,
why can’t you use it to go after them ?
So conspiracy is a fact recognized in law, not merely
a theory.
2) Most of what I have referred to you and unlike you,
I have provided copious references, has little to do with
conspiracy since the criminal actions of the US State
are open and well documented.
3) I saw Master Booeyfuckley’s 1969 interview with
Chomsky wherein Master Booeyfuckley threatened
to punch Chomsky in the mouth ! Guess what,
I wasn’t impressed and that was just the beginning
of Chomsky’s public political career. You can’t
even spell Chomsky’s name. Have you any of
his 20 plus books on US foreign policy ?
4) Since you haven’t read any of the revisionist
authors that I have cited, how would you know
that they were half-factual ??????????????????
That would still make them 50% more factual
than YOU.
You are a rightwing Know-Nothing.
5) You are PATHETIC.

By: Tripp DeMoss

Tripp DeMoss — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:10:06 +0000

You take up much space to spout a lot of conspiracy theories and half- factual conjecture. These historians are sidelined for a reason- revisionism is all about theories and putting certain facts together to create a thesis that promotes their viewpoint- now that you brought him up, Noam Choamsky is a great example. Check out him getting pwned by WFB Jr on youtube.

By: Michael Hardesty

Michael Hardesty — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:50:09 +0000

On my point two I left out “Europe” after Eastern and Central.” I apologize for the formatting problems. It
all looks ok when I post it. Anyway it’s very legible.

By: Michael Hardesty

Michael Hardesty — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:44:19 +0000

You take up much space to say very little. Your verbiage is the hallmark of a bad writer.
1) The Nazis were only all over western Europe in response to the UK-Franco declaration of war against them for their
invasion of the German areas of Poland. The US was behind the worthless UK-Franco “guarantee” of Poland. See The Forced War by David L. Hoggan, Back Door To War by Charles Callan Tansill, Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace
by Harry Elmer Barnes (Ed.), The Unnecessary War:Churchill, Hitler and WW2 by Patrick J. Buchanan,
The Origins Of The Second World War by A.J.P. Taylor
and Getting Us Into War by Porter Sargent plus The New Dealers War by Thomas Fleming. Germany simply beat the Brits to the punch in taking over Norway and other states.
There was no master plan for world conquest nor even for general European conquest. FDR wanted the war because
by 1939 the New Deal had failed and his only chance of historical glory was to be a war President. David Irving’s
two volume (to date) Churchill’s War is also very useful in this regard. FDR had tried to bait the Germans into war in
the North Atlantic but they weren’t falling for it, hence the
back door in the Pacific. Tansill’s book is superb in this
regard as is George Morgenstern’s Pearl Harbor. There
is no doubt that FDR and Marshall set up Pearl Harbor
for the attack that they knew would bring about their much
desired war. Hitler stupidly thought his alliance with Japan
obliged him to declare war while Japan felt no such obligation
in regards to the Soviets, Germany’s main enemy.
2) Eastern & Central WAS controlled by the Soviets for half
a century PRECISELY AS A ENTIRELY PREDICTABLE
RESULT OF THE US-UK SPONSORED SECOND WORLD
WAR. And no that was not better than the German control,
it was much, much worse. In fact today the whole continent
is rapidly evolving into a police state where you can to prison
for “racism” or challenging the “holocaust.” No, that’s not an
improvement. As well as attempts by the EU to regulate
every aspect of economic and social life, another USSR.
3) NATO was never justified as Senator Taft said because there was never any Russian military threat to western Europe. They supported the Communist Parties in the west but they had no military ambitions, they were more than tied down in eastern-central Europe. NATO should have been abolished when the Warsaw Pact was. Twenty years ago.
4) Separation by the Atlantic and Pacific absolutely precluded
any military invasions or foreign takeovers. Missiles, yes,
but who started that with the utterly unjustified atomic bombings in Japan ? See Hiroshima:Assault On A Beaten
Foe by Harry Elmer Barnes in the May 10, 1958 issue of
National Review. Also Gar Alperowitz’s two huge works
on this subject. Japan had been trying to surrender for almost
a year, no US invasion was ever necessary as MacArthur,
Eisenhower and others noted. And in the end Japan did not
surrender unconditionally, they kept the Emperor.
Furthermore the US, typically, started the process by encircling the USSR with nuclear missiles and bases in Iran,
Turkey, Italy, etc. See The Cold War And Its Origins by D.F.
Fleming, particularly volume two, also The Free World Colosuss by David Horowitz (1965.)
5) There were no dangerous fascist movements in either Japan or Germany “a century” (!) before 1939. Where in the
hell do you get your “history” ????? And their nationalist
movements were no more dangerous than Chinese or Italian
nationalist movements in the century before WW2. France
actually started the 1870 war with Germany and lost.
These movements were of absolutely no danger to the US
BUT ever since the Monroe Doctrine the US has been very
dangerous to all of Latin America. As Noam Chomsky well
put it, if we were serious about a war on terror the first two
capitals to be bombed are Washington and Tel Aviv.
6) Germany let the Brits escape at Dunkirk as a face saving measure because Hitler was a notorious Anglophile and admirer of the British Empire. Even IF he had conquered
the UK THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER HE
WOULD HAVE ATTACKED THE USA. What for ? He had
no interest in a war with the UK or France. THEY wanted
war as did FDR. Again if you would just read what I have taken the trouble to recommend to you instead of recycling
endless war stupidities you might actually learn something.
7) Kissinger is a major war criminal. He is responsible for
hundreds of thousands of deaths in East Timor alone by giving aid to Indonesia and encouraging their invasion in
which they killed a third of the population. Kissinger is
responsible for thousands of deaths in Chile by backing
the fascist coup. Kissinger is responsible for half a million
deaths in Cambodia because of his and Nixon’s 1970
invasion which later brought the Khmer Rouge into power.
Kissinger is responsible for millions of deaths in Vietnam
by prolonging that war for seven more years. Kissinger is
responsible for the stupid US rule against talking to the PLO
which blighted our diplomacy for 15 years. No, that’s not
realism, that’s criminality.
Where did you get this stupid idea that anarcho-capitalism
is opposed to voluntary social contracts ? Read For A New
Liberty and The Ethics Of Liberty by Rothbard. Rothbard
never posited liberty in isolation from peace, justice and
other worthwhile goals. A very limited government would
be nice if we could ever find one but no such animal has
ever existed, not for very long anyway.
9) As far as taking ideology into account the so-called free
market democratic ideology of the UK and the US has never stopped them from being the world’s greatest military aggressors and imperialists since Rome and Genghis Khan.
Mao murdered 100 million Chinese but he was not a military
aggressor.

By: Tripp DeMoss

Tripp DeMoss — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:27:18 +0000

Calling me ignorant- guess that’s the new catchphrase of old right revisionists or whatever. These revisionists are just as “narrow minded” as I am if we’re going to use such a paradigm. What I have read from history is the impact of culture and its development in international relations- some on the “old-right” forgo what I think is a wonderfully applicable reasoning behind diplomacy that is realism and default straight to complete, unabashed isolationism. You give me a list of books to read about revisionist history, and yet all these people can bring to the forefront of the debate is what went wrong with the implementation of policy or in the case of Murray Rothbard his continuous thesis that liberty morally should be pursued at all ends, even at the point of the death of the state completely, almost using a linear cross supplying of Kant’s deontology. While this is fine in civilized discourse about the philosophy of liberty, and even of “rightist” thinking, it has little practical implications considering the rather “narrow minded” view it takes of human nature, particularly its affects on state actors. You confuse me for being some sort of an imperialist post-refined neo-conservative, and yet what I really am is a libertarian realist. I’m not a fan of what we did in the Philippine Insurrection, nor in the Korean or Vietnam wars. In bringing up the “unecessary war” thesis, revisionists including most recently Pat Buchanan don’t take in to account the inevitable danger of fascist and especially rabid nationalist movements in Germany that had been in formulation for a century prior to Roosevelt “baiting” Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor. I am even more inclined to think that the Pacific theatre was a little less necessary in the long run for the national interest than combatting Nazism’s control over the entire European continent. Such a thing could never have been abided with- I would dismiss you as a nut to say that Europe controlled by the Third Reich or the USSR would be preferable to the one we have today, imperfect as it may be. Isolationists don’t seem to take ideology into account either in surveying the dangerous capabilities of certain regimes when compounded with sophisticated technology, munitions, and soldiers. Seperation by the Atlantic ocean can only get you so far. How do I justify this with being a libertarian? Think about this- I’m not an advocate of anarcho-capitalism, necessarily, because I don’t think our natural rights can be accessed without some sort of a social contract to protect the rule of law. In order to protect such a contract, and thereby to protect our rights, we need a military capable of protecting the citizens from having their rights taken away by an outside actor. For example, it is reasonable to think that just as one can theorize that if we had let Germany take Poland and fight Russia, there would have been no war, so too can I think that if Germany had won the Battle of Britain, an eventual attack on the United States mainland would have been in order. Fascist regimes on the magnitude of Nazi Germany could not have lived in diplomatic peace with the United States because it is antithetical to the nature of such regimes to do so. Furthermore, don’t tell me what I can’t call myself just because I’m not a devout follower of isolationism- I’m probably a bigger believer in unrestrained free markets and personal liberty than a lot of these Burkean whigs. How that fits is simply that we can disagree about history and theorize different directions events could have gone in from the Texan War of Independence onwards- but as of this moment, I think it’s safe to say that we need a re-invigorated Kissingerian realism in foreign policy, and liberty at home. Forget even the Iraq War- when have I ever called for invasion of Iran, or even a continued presence in Iraq? Not once. You need to learn the difference between realists and neo-cons, evidently. Kissinger’s Diplomacy would be a good start.

By: Michael Hardesty

Michael Hardesty — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:58:13 +0000

In my last line I left out the word “believe” before “the Hearst fables about 1898.” The US intervention there was an incredible amalgamtion of big lies. Obviously the US blew up the Maine to get into the war to steal the Spanish colonies
as part of “our Christian effort to civilize our little brown brothers” as McKinley put it. We ended up killing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos after we doublecrossed them and decided to keep the Islands for half a century. Riggenbach goes into this as does Howard Zinn in A People’s History Of
The United States. The US iron hand in Cuba eventually lead
to Castro and Puerto Rico is still a colony to this day.
Murray Rothbard’s 1965 essay Left and Right:The Prospects
For Liberty is one of the more original works of thought ever
done in purely political philosophy. Rand may have been a greater philosopher qua philosopher but she was a dunce in
both history and political theory. People like Tripp are emblematic of the mentalities that call into rightist trash shows like Miller, Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, O’Reilly
and a few mislabeled “libertarians” of the JohnBoy Hospers
variety. Hospers was a cold warrior and anti-Arab and anti-libertarian and anti-Objectivist to the core. He unbelievably
endorsed the Cheney ticket in 04. Tripp, go to ihr.org and
download the Revisionist Bibliography. Start reading James J.
Martin, Harry Elmer Barnes, Murray Rothbard, John T. Flynn,
D.F. Fleming. The radical right neoconman, David Horowitz,
actually wrote a great book, The Free World Colossus, in 1965. He boiled down the essence of Fleming’s massive two volume work with full credit to Fleming. If it hadn’t been for the Vietnam War protesters and the revisionist historians we never would have rid ourselves of the draft, the most heinous invasion of individual rights. Yes, Tripp, that was worse than
seatbelt regulations or welfare checks. Rand finally came out
against the draft BUT never mentioned the four million Indochinese victims of US Imperialism. We have a very bloody statist history and it’s high time that the Tripps of the
world wake up and start educating their narrow minds.

By: Michael Hardesty

Michael Hardesty — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:36:02 +0000

Tripp, you again show your utter ignorance of history by failing to deal with any specifics that I bring up and being forced to resort to the lowest form of humor, sarcasm. The main reason why the state has expanded in the 20th and 21st centuries is war and the threat of war. You would greatly benefit by reading Why American History Is Not What They Say:An Introduction To Revisionism by Jeff Riggenbach, available from Amazon. He goes into all of our many wars and shows that none of them from 1812 on were justified and that even much of the Revolutionary War folklore is historically inaccurate. One third of the population had to flee from Washington’s terror tactics to Canada and Hamilton was an avowed Big Government statist from the get-go.
In terms of both expenditures in a quantitative sense and
the quality of war statism both world wars and the cold war greatly overshadow any and all “progressive” reforms from
Wilson. In the early 60s we were still spending over 70%
for war and war related activities including the space program, CIA, etc. Only under Nixon did the non-defense
part of the budget actually briefly overtake the defense
(so-called) portion. The ultimate cost of just the Iraq War
is going to be three trillion, the “Patriot” Act is far more
intrusive of individual rights than any welfare legislation.
We have no need for any large “national defense” establishment and frankly the military is the most statist,
most collectivist, most communist, most socialist and most
fascist part of the whole government. Pentagon welfare is simply state welfarism on a massive scale that dwarfs everything but social security and medicare. The interest payments on the national debt are the third largest part of the budget and before WW2 & the Cold War they were insignificant. Neocons like you are literal Know-Nothings, you mindlessly swallow every line from FDR forward on
US interventions. Read For A New Liberty by Murray Rothbard and The Cold War And Its Origins, 2 volumes,
by D.F. Fleming. The US started the Cold War by supporting
fascist regimes in Greece, Turkey, China and South Korea
and encircling the USSR with missiles. Stalin ONLY was in
east Europe as a result of the defeat of Germany, that was
the main result of that “good war.” See Buchanan’s The
Unnecessary War for a debunking of WW2. NATO never should have existed as Taft noted and at least should have been abolished when the Warsaw Pact was. You are like
Rand where she allegedly said the 1950s tax rate of 80%
was justified because it was for defense ! Defense is as much a weasel collectivist term as public welfare. If you
don’t like paleocons go write for The Weekly Standard or
Commentary. As far as Zionism goes, AIPAC boasts that
it can get 400 Members of the House and 95 Senators to
sign ANYTHING on Israel it wants. That doesn’t sound like
a conspiracy to me but unbridled, arrogant power.
Foreign policy impacts on our statism at least as much or
more than domestic policy. It requires an enormous amount
of government and taxation to support an Empire.
You are no libertarian and please stop trying to fly under false colors.
You actually the Hearst fables about 1898 ??????????!!!!!!!!

By: Tripp DeMoss

Tripp DeMoss — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:28:31 +0000

And the aliens were actually the ones to cause the USS Maine to explode, thus causing a huge Zionist conspiracy to open up an empire in the old Spanish holdings in the Carribean and the Phillippines. And THEN, the military industrial complex secretly asserted itself by ghost writing the Zimmerman telegram, thus causing our involvement in the Great War.
It’s such typical pseudo/paleo conservative trope to say we should have stayed out of every war since the Revolution, or even that we shouldn’t have rebelled from England. I never said I was a “conservative” either in this erudite post-modern Front Porch Burkean whig mold nor in the mold of, well, whatever. I consider myself a neo-libertarian. If your worldview is informed like mine you’d find it’s a lot more complex to answer foreign policy questions than to supply naive platitudes like “it’s not our fight” to every question. I don’t know how more ignorant that could be of the nature of world actors be they nation states or otherwise. As for economics and social issues, I don’t think any of us really disagree on that. If the one resource state expenditures focused on was providing for our national defense, that’d be fine with me. People here seem to forget the bigger problems than disagreements over international relations theory- specifically, the radical expansion of our social democratic state here. One points to a canard when one says that the “warfare state” whatever that is is the reason for big government here- the real reason is progressivism, started in the late 19th century with the regulation of interstate commerce and so on.