The Roberts Crack Up Continues

Paul Craig Roberts' public breakdown continues. On his latest path down the deep end he theorizes President Bush will explode a nuclear weapon near U.S. soil and blame it on Iran to start a nuclear war:

It is obvious that Bush intends to attack Iran and that he will use every means to bring war about.

Yet, Bush has no conventional means of waging war with Iran. His bloodthirsty neoconservatives have prepared plans for nuking Iran. However, an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran would leave the US, already regarded as a pariah nation, totally isolated.

Readers, whose thinking runs ahead of that of most of us, tell me that another 9/11 event will prepare the ground for a nuclear attack on Iran. Some readers say that Bush, or Israel as in Israel’s highly provocative attack on the Jericho jail and kidnapping of prisoners with American complicity, will provoke a second attack on the US. Others say that Bush or the neoconservatives working with some "black opts" group will orchestrate the attack.

One of the more extraordinary suggestions is that a low yield, perhaps tactical, nuclear weapon will be exploded some distance out from a US port. Death and destruction will be minimized, but fear and hysteria will be maximized. Americans will be told that the ship bearing the weapon was discovered and intercepted just in time, thanks to Bush’s illegal spying program, and that Iran is to blame. A more powerful wave of fear and outrage will again bind the American people to Bush, and the US media will not report the rest of the world’s doubts of the explanation.

Roberts asks, "Reads like a Michael Crichton plot, doesn’t it?" Someone get that guy out of the library. I'm all for reading but not if it makes you delusional.

Add this to his belief the NSA is spying on Democrats and reporters and blackmailing them. Oh, I shouldn't forget Roberts theorizing the no-fly list will soon be used to keep Congressmen from voting.

"Paul Craig Roberts and the Certifiable Right" [via Marquette Warrior]

Paul Craig Roberts Has Lost It

Former Reagan official Paul Craig Roberts has gone over the deep end and dove head first into a pool of Bush-bashing kool-aid. He thinks (without a shread of evidence) that the NSA terrorist spying was on media and Democrats. That information is now being used to blackmail both. He writes,

The years of illegal spying have given the Bush administration power over the media and the opposition. Journalists and Democratic politicians don't want to have their adulterous affairs broadcast over television or to see their favorite online porn sites revealed in headlines in the local press with their names attached. Only people willing to risk such disclosures can stand up for the country.

It gets better. Roberts even thinks the no-fly list is a political weapon:

How long before members of the opposition party, should there be one, find that they cannot return to Washington for important votes, because they have been placed on the no-fly list? What oversight does Congress or a panel of federal judges exercise over the list to make sure there are valid reasons for placing people on the list?

I think I just witnessed a mental breakdown in written form. Someone get Mr. Roberts his slippers and a teddy bear.

"My Epiphany"

Weather Control

Anarchist-libertarian professor and New Orleans resident Walter Block doesn't want you to donate to the Red Cross. Fine, there's plenty of other charities who are doing good in the disaster areas. However, Block prefers you donate to the Libertarian Parties of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama as well as give to the Mises Institute. I like the Mises Institute as much as any good Austrian-sympathizing economist, but Anarchy Lew Rockwell for sure won't use the funds to feed and clothe the needy. His work promoting free enterprise is important, but there is a time and a place. Just when I think a paleo can't get any stranger Block then thinks the government is getting in the way of private firms finding ways to control the weather:

The point is, if we the people had vastly more money at our disposal than we do now, thanks to government profligacy with our funds, we would be able to donate some of it to the not-for-profit sector to engage in research and development for weather control.

Someone was drinking too much absinthe before evacuating the Big Easy.

"Then Katrina Came"

Ingratitude

Someone remind me after the election to make Paleowatch more than a once-in-a-lunar-eclipse thing. By way of SCSUScholars I found a Anarchy Lew Rockwell rant. To those libertarians supporting President Bush Anarchy Lew writes,

that is no argument for believing in the system, or ceasing to try to find a way out of it. To love one's captors and appreciate their favors is a psychosis, but one that gains a mass following in the weeks before a presidential election.

It amazes me that a man who lives a life where he's free and even paid to promote anarchism (without ever saying it) isn't the least bit grateful of the blessings he has.

Anarchy Lew seeks an anarcho-capitalist "paradise," one where government doesn't exist. That, my friends, is the state of nature. It's one where life is brutish and short. We had an example of just such a state when Saddam's government melted away. I'm fairly confident residents there weren't clamoring for that environment to remain.

"The Myth of a Kerry Calamity"

Founding Coup?

My eyes popped open, and the first word to come out of my mouth was, "Wow," when I read this brief on Gary North's newest book. Here's what shocked me:

The book’s thesis is, even for me, controversial. I provide 400+ pages of evidence that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was in fact an illegal coup d’état. The participants knew this. This is why they took a lifetime oath of secrecy, walked upstairs to the second floor of the State House (so that eavesdroppers could not report what was going on), closed the doors, and hammered out the design for a replacement government. Newspaper reporters were excluded.

These men had been authorized by Congress and by several state legislatures only to revise the Articles of Confederation (1781), but not replace them. Knowing full well that they planned to replace the Articles with a new form of government, the leaders of the Convention nevertheless agreed to the terms laid down by the state legislatures, and then went off to Philadelphia to begin the first stage of a political revolution.

I'm granting that North has much more knowledge of that time period than I. However, I know one thing that harms his thesis: the states had to ratify the new constitution. If it was a coup, it was the most democratic coup in world history. Since I've dealt with these paleos before, I expect North's defenders to enlighten me on how I'm wrong.

"Conspiracy in Philadelphia"

Spitting on Tillman's Grave

With all the hard work I've been doing following the Dean and Kerry campaigns (stop snickering) Paleowatch has suffered dearly. That changed today when PunchtheBag led me to this LewRockwell.com Blog post that's mildly sympathetic to Pat Tillman's death. It's in response to this vile post almost cheering Tillman's death. The writer, Karen De Coster, stays on her vicious streak by claiming the ex-NFL player was practically brainwashed into becoming an Army Ranger. According to De Coster, who has the superpower of reading people's minds, anyone of some notariety who backs the war is just a "war-worshiper" who sells death:

Yes, he [Tillman] got up from his Lazy-Boy and put his life on the line, however, this just goes to show that the picture that has been painted, of military/war worshipping, has worked, and it has lured young men like Tillman into believing that, yes, war and military and conquest is a good and necesssary thing, and that fighting for The Regime is the right thing to do. As a reader reminded me, look at Tiger Woods, who just recently spent "spring camp" at a military base, playing soldier for a few days, posing beside military armaments and the like. Someone posted that on the LRC blog I believe? This is the image that is being conveyed. This is how a government sells a bloody, murderous war, not unlike the old, pre-media days, with Bing Crosby and Bob Hope hawking war bonds as the "patriotic" thing to do.

The more these paleos talk, the more they marginalize themselves. If De Coster does what she did the last time I got under her collar, expect some highly charged response and comments.

Crisp-ity, Crunch-ity

Steven Taylor's latest Toast-o-meter is up.

Volokh Thrashes Roberts

There isn't anything for me to add. Just read Eugene Volokh's public thrashing of Paul Craig Roberts.

Anarchy Lew is Off His Rocker

PunchtheBag found a real doozy from my favorite anarchist, Lew Rockwell. It seems Saddam wasn't that bad since he ran a "non-Islamic regime, and protected the Christians." In Anarchy Lew's twisted morality human suffering by the state is not as bad as long as the Christians are protected. As long as Muslims are the subject of brutal oppression it's all right to turn a blind eye and deaf ear. Now, that's not to say oppression justifies a U.S. invasion. It doesn't. It isn't a necessary nor sufficient condition. What we have seen from Anarchy Lew a bit of ugly non-Christian bigotry along with some factual errors (see PunchtheBag's post). It's a remark like this that makes me glad his ilk doesn't join the mainstream Right in our common fight for liberty and smaller government. They can stay on the sidelines and away from us non-bigots.

At least fellow weblogger, Bill Barnwell was happy Saddam was captured.

"Worse than Nebuchadnezzar"

Libertarian Fisking

Technically, I wouldn't consider Harry Browne a paleolibertarian. However, this violent fisking was inspired by a Steve of Norway post that linked to my post responding to the paleo ruckus earlier this week. It may be two parts removed, but it's close enough, and Browne's foreign policy makes Duck, M.D.'s seem imperialistic.

For what it's worth, like Steve, I'm also on the Loompanics mailing list. I also recently gave some money to Free-Market.net. Since they're owned by ISIL, they sent me a membership card, making me a "card-carrying libertarian." If they only knew I was a "warmonger" bent on American imperialism. Although I don't believe ISIL has an organizational position on the Iraq War.

"Why I Will Never Vote Libertarian Ever Again"

"Why I'm Not a Big L-ibertarian"

On Paleos

With all the traffic I got for my spot-on take on Rockwellians, I had to dig out the post where I tell the world why the word "Anarchy" always precedes Lew Rockwell's name on TAM. I've been critical of Anarchy Lew Rockwell's take on politics for years. Here's what I wrote back in 2000 (when I was in the weblogging Dark Ages hand coding posts to an Angelfire account):

I'm so tired of Lew Rockwell's rhetoric. He's a proud and able defender of the free market, but when it comes to talking politics, I'm sick of his bashing. He already wants to hate GW's administration before he even beats AlGore or implements one policy. He calls Dick Cheney a "mouthpiece for the military-industrial complex." I guess I'm a mouthpiece too because I support a strengthening of the U.S. military after the defunding and demoralization of eight years of Clinton/Gore. Rockwell then calls the Bush/Cheney ticket "an all-oil ticket, one with a history of war-making and war-profiteering." He also offers some silly conspiracy theory about the real reason for going to war against Iraq.

Bash, bash, bash, bash, bash is all Rockwell is able to do. He yaps about limited government, but never mentions what government should do. For Rockwell, it's either a perfect libertarian state (that the Founding Fathers may not have wanted) or Leviathan. While the U.S. is a Nanny State, we still enjoy one of the most free societies in human history. Rockwell only calls for the end of government functions and never offers any transitional stages to get to that final stage. What Rockwell is is an anarchist who can't seem to come out of the closet. Being an anarchist is fine. It's a wrong-headed, but valid political stance. I just wish he would be honest about his stance. Until Rockwell writes or says something to refute my premise, I will refer to him as "Anarchy Lew."

PunchtheBag skewered the Rockwellians and in return, Libertarian Jackass lived up to his name by linking to a hate-filled video for a song called "I Hate Republians."

Karen De Coster was observant enough to know that TAM is an original "Paleo-watcher," maybe the original. However, I do not hate Anarchy Lew Rockwell. In college in the mid-90s, I was graced with receiving copies of the Mises Institute's Free Market newsletter, and loved the stuff. I didn't agree with everything in it then or now, but it was refreshingly radical. My problem isn't with Anarchy Lew's economics, it's with his hidden-in-the-closet anarchism. She then goes on to claim that "Mr. Rockwell needs to be schooled by Mr. Hackbarth if Lew wants to really learn about Rothbard. Uh huh." I said nothing of the sort in this post.

Throughout De Coster's post is the air of snobbery. She knows the Truth devined by Murray Rothbard and other libertarian thinkers. I don't need to attack or defend Rothbard. He wrote more than De Coster and I could ever write. It's just that any opposition to her (and her fellow Paleolibertarians') worldview is treated with so much derision. I'm "simplistic, vapid, uninformed." Her snobish tone about my occasional Paleowatch posts (which are about responding to wacky Paleos, thus the name) and her not actually reading many of my posts feels as though the words "simplistic, vapid, uninformed" are better applied to her. And who cares what TAM's Alexa ranking is? I TAM was only about generating traffic, then it would have been abandoned long ago.

This attitude proves PunchtheBag's arguement that Paleos have nothing constructive to offer the American body politic. There are people like Robert Prather and myself who are fans of the thinking of Mises and Hayek. Together, Paleos and other members of the Right could work together on issues they agree with to fight back against Leviathan. We libertarian sympathizers might even be pursuaded that anarcho-capitalism is a realistic, non-utopian political program. But Paleos like De Coster brush us aside for not being pure enough. The only ones smiling are the socialists--of both parties, to steal Hayek's phrase--who have that much less opposition to their plans of bigger and bigger government.

Out of Touch with Reality

Professor Bainbridge has discovered this wacked-out statement from one of the paleolibertarians writing for Mises Blog:

However, I'll never understand the leaners and their support of hegemony, war, and false phraseology such as the "war on terrorism." That's the stuff that separates the wheat from the chaff, and ultimately, freedom from chains.

Bainbridge responds:

I'll concede that I'm still not sure the Iraq War was a good idea, but how can you call the war on terror "false phraseology"? Did she sleep through 9/11?

I'm guessing in the author's mind the United States' interventionist foreign policy brought on those horrible attacks. The War on Terrorism (a very imprecise term rather than "false phraseology") then is an effort to clean up the mess while at the same time growing the state. I'm also guessing that the author's solution to the Islamist threat is simply to bring all our troops home and hope the rest of world would simply want to trade freely with the U.S. Seeing how apart from reality this view is is obvious.

Remember, even though this writing is written under Ludwig von Mises' name, it may not truly represent his beliefs. What this thinking does represent is Murray Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism. This point is reinforce by this post from Robert Prather.

TMLutas agrees with the author about false phraseology but acknowledges "there is an honest and proper case to be made in the practical world for the policies that are grouped under the War on Terror and which can be supported on libertarian grounds."

"The Mises Bloggers are Stark Raving Nuts"

False Advertising

While being a leader of the Paleolibertarian movement, Anarchy Lew Rockwell is quite the misleading advertiser. In response to David Brooks' column on the GOP as the nation's governing party, he writes,

But did Bill Buckley really invent conservatism in the early 1950s? As Murray Rothbard pointed out, this is propaganda intended to send the Old Right down the memory hole, and to convince Americans that conservatism means bombs and central planning. In other words, Buckley is a neocon.

But the Old Right, born in opposition to FDR's New Deal and drive to war, still lives, thanks largely to Rothbard.

Anarchy Lew makes it appear Rothbard was just a Buchanan-type small government conservative. In fact, he was very radical. He was a full-blown anarchist, but you wouldn't know that from Anarchy Lew's brief post.

"The Republican Mega-State" [via PunchtheBag]

What!?!

It's been way too long since I had a Paleowatch post. But thanks to PunchTheBag I found one hell of a "what!?!" item to post on. Anarchy Lew Rockwell may be pretty good with economics, but when it comes to speculating on foreign affairs he comes off as extremely goofy.

"Bush I Revisionism"

Justin Raimondo, Come Back Anytime

I haven't had a good Paleowatch post in a long time, but thanks to a visit from Mr. Antiwar.com himself, Justin Raimondo I've been inspired.

It seems a bored Mr. Raimondo was cruising the Net and found this post on antiwar marching and his attack on Andrew Sullivan. He couldn't help responding to my remark that "next time I'm feeling ill, Dr. Raimondo will be the first Net writer I'll call for a diagnosis."

Next time you're feeling ill? Buddy, you ARE ill. Keep watching us paleos: we're watching you Likudniks, too....

Justin must be have forgotten to get a pack of cigarettes. Or he's trying to quit. Either way it sounds like he's having a major nic fit. However, I will humor myself and respond to this troll-like remark.

Next time you're feeling ill? Buddy, you ARE ill.

Dr. Raimondo is at it again, diagnosing from afar. He must have really took Newt Gingrich's idea of telemedicine to heart. He thinks Sullivan has some AIDS-induced mental disorder, and I'm just plain "ill." What skill. Forget writing diatribes a few times a week, Raimondo should go on Oprah or get his own television show opposite Dr. Phil. Where did Dr. Raimondo get his medical degree anyway? Was it a reputable school here in the states or some fly-by-night quack operation running out of a beach resort in the Grand Caymans?

Keep watching us paleos: we're watching you Likudniks, too....

Fellow war supporters, you better be updating your copies of Ad-aware to make sure Raimondo and his ilk do not have spy-ware monitoring what we read e-mail to our Vast Neo-Con Conspiracy (I'm having that trademarked). It sounds paranoid, and we really shouldn't be very worried. Come on. Do you actually think people that look like this and who drone on and on about Israel controlling U.S. foreign policy are capable of serious computer cracking? Raimondo looks more likely to be caught with mounds and mounds of child porn than cracking into computers.

Then there's the reference to "Likudniks." When it comes to a (relatively) free country being attacked by terrorists from a neighbor who have many ties to leaders of that area then I'll back the attacked country. I'll support an Israel that doesn't deserve to have its citizens be targets for homicide bombs no matter how many examples Palestinian sympathizers offer of Israeli oppression. This isn't a question of liking Jews over Arabs. If the tables were turned and Palestinians were being targeted by Israeli terrorists, I guess I'd be an "Arafat-nik." If Arafat and the Palestinian Authority was serious and/or had the capability to destroy Hamas and Islamic Jihad peace would have a better chance. That doesn't make me some Jew-lover. It makes me someone who knows who are the instigators and the victims instead of clouding one's judgement with quasi-anti-semitism.

Justin buddy, if you want engage in a serious debate I'll use the words of American hero Todd Beamer, "Let's roll!"

P.S. This isn't the first time Raimondo has gone after minor webloggers. Last year, he went after Fredrik Norman. Fredrik is interning at AEI, a think tank filled with neo-cons. *Gasp* Raimondo's conspiracy theories just might be right.

Raimondo Sees No Distinctions

Justin Raimondo compares Israel's building of wall between itself and Palestine with the Soviet's building the Berlin Wall, then goes on to compare Israeli actions to defend itself against terrorists with Nazi efforts to wipe out Jews. Disgusting.

"Mr. Sharon, Tear Down that Wall!" [via Liberty & Power]

WWII Bad Guy

In a perfectly sensible article on the economy William Anderson had to go off on a tangent about World War II:

One hopes that the Bush Administration does not seek to emulate FDR, although, like Roosevelt, this administration has forced through huge increases in government expenditures and with the recent Medicare bill, has dumped a gargantuan unfunded liability upon U.S. taxpayers. (At least FDR did not send the armed forces all over the world – at least during the 1930s. In the 1940s he helped launch the biggest and most destructive war in world history.) [emphasis mine]

Note that Anderson fails to mention that Germany started the war with its invasion of Poland, and Japan brought in the U.S. with its attack on Pearl Harbor. In his world, the U.S. was the bad guy. Uncle Sam was the reason millions died and entire nations were shattered. Tell a few million free Europeans and Japanese how horrible the U.S. was in WWII.

"Recovery or Boomlet?"

NR, CIA Front?

That's what Thomas DiLorenzo kinda claims with his critique of NRO's pledge drive.

He also claims The New Yorker and Harper's make money. If that's the case, then why is Harper's owned by a non-profit foundation? As for The New Yorker, last year, it earned a profit for the first time in 17 years. DiLorenzo is flat-out wrong.

DiLorenzo is also calling the kettle black. I highly doubt [Anarchy] LewRockwell.com is a profit-making enterprise. I also know for sure the Mises Institute is an operation funded "entirely by voluntary contributions, from individuals, businesses, and foundations."

TAM is always interested in keeping up with the latest conspiracies. If you know about this supposed NR-CIA link, leave a comment.

Paleo-Marxist Conspiracy and Secession

I must do more Paleowatches. That way I can give you more wacky nuggets like Jim Grichar's economic explanation for Big Business wanting a one-world government. He offers no evidence that this is the case. He just offers a list of reasons why Big Business would support a one-world state. Ironically, for being a rabid free marketer (he is writing on Anarchy Lew's weblog), his analysis is awfully Marxian where economics determines politics.

Then there's Marcus Epstein's comment on the Free State Project. It's skeptical about it. Instead of having limited government-types use the democratic process to shrink government, he prefers secession. Yeah, it seemed to work for a few states back in the 1860s.

Mises Weblog

The Ludwig von Mises Institute now has a weblog. Good for them. The more the merrier. It will be another outlet for Anarchy Lew Rockwell and his gang of Paleolibertarians to spout off useful material for Paleowatch. I want more criticism of government actions without useful alternatives. I want more Confederate sympathizing. I want more rabid Bush bashing.

This is not to say I'll disagree with everything they write. I won't. I'll be very sympathetic to their economic posts (Mises is my second favorite economist next to Hayek). It's just that I've never been able to determine what Anarchy Lew would want government to do. His criticism is endless, but even the namesake of his think tank didn't reject government in its entirety.