webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

lew rockwell

---

NTBCW neo nazi lincoln jbs

no merri

DENIAL

SEE ROTHBARD

MISES INST FOUNDER

MIKE BENZ BROWNSTONE BLAKE MASTERS

NEO-CONFED DILORENZO

DOCTORS DISASTER

---

gmail alert

The 'Climate Change' Danger - LewRockwell

Lew Rockwell

Epstein thinks that the danger from global warming has been exaggerated, but though he presents extensive evidence in support of this, his main ...

lewRockwell.comANTI-STATE•ANTI-WAR•PRO-MARKET

The “Climate Change” Danger

By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

September 22, 2025

Donate

The Left constantly subjects us to propaganda about the alleged danger posed by “climate change” or “global warming.” They assure us that we must “follow the science,” which, it is claimed, has proved that the rise in global temperatures caused by fossil fuels, which emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, will soon result in catastrophe unless we “green” the economy. Under brain-dead “President” Joe Biden, extensive steps were taken towards “greening.” Fortunately, Donald Trump has rolled back some of these steps, but the constant barrage of the Left is a continuing menace.The Politically Incorr...Morano, MarcBest Price: $8.67Buy New $14.99(as of 05:10 UTC - Details)

The Left reacts with horror to any attempt to question “climate change.” They say that skeptics should be denied their right of free speech, just as they called for the suppression of those who warned of the dangers of Covid vaccinations, who it turned out were entirely correct. Noam Chomsky has said that Trump’s efforts in his first term to end “greening” made him a worse war criminal than Hitler.

One problem many people have is that they find it difficult to evaluate the alleged evidence offered by scientists who claim that “climate change” poses a dire threat, but in his remarkable book Fossil Future (Portfolio2022), Alex Epstein changed the terms of the debate about the danger of “global warming” and the alleged need to take drastic action in response to this. The opponents either question the evidence that disaster impends or argue that the threat can be handled without revamping the economy.

Epstein thinks that the danger from global warming has been exaggerated, but though he presents extensive evidence in support of this, his main contribution lies elsewhere. He argues that modern civilization depends on fossil fuels and that far from curtailing their use, we need to spread them to the impoverished parts of the world. So great are the benefits from using the fuels that only a true “end of the world” nightmare caused by CO2 emission could require that we shift to other energy sources, and despite the alarmists’ caterwauling, this nightmare is most unlikely to occur. Moreover, Epstein holds that the benefits of fossil fuels are so obvious that only a defect in thinking could have induced people to ignore them. He is a philosopher as well as an energy economist, and he expertly identifies the false thought pattern that has led to our current confusions.

Epstein says, “Whenever we hear about what the ‘experts’ think, we need to keep in mind that most of us have no direct access to what most expert researchers in the field think. We are being told what experts think through a system of institutions and people…. Understanding how this system, which I call our ‘knowledge system,’ works and how it can go wrong is the key to being able to spot when what we’re told the ‘experts’ think is very wrong—about fossil fuels or anything else.”

On the issue of energy, Epstein argues that the system has gone very wrong, indeed, owing to the fact that its leading lights are in the grip of a philosophy that views human beings as an upsetting intrusion on the earth: through their feverish pursuit of growth, people have interfered with the “delicate balance” of nature. Having done so, people must repent and “green” the economy, though some experts opine that it would be better to get rid of us altogether. Concerning this bizarre philosophy, Epstein remarks: “Why does our knowledge system always expect extreme negative impacts from cost-efficient energy’s side-effects and always expect that we will be unable to master these impacts? Because of a false assumption that leads anyone holding it to expect that all forms of significant impact on nature will inevitably be self-destructive. I call this the ‘delicate nurturer’ assumption … [which is] that Earth, absent human impact, exists in an optimal, nurturing ‘delicate balance’ that is as stable, sufficient, and safe as we can hope to expect.”

:{:{You might be inclined to object that scientific findings deal with facts, not philosophies: if “climate scientists” predict that continued global warming will have dire consequences, don’t we have to judge their arguments strictly as they stand, without regard to their proponents’ views about the proper place of human beings, however repellent we may find these views? Epstein responds that predictions are far different from claims about what has happened in the past, which can often, though not always, be assessed objectively.}:

Climate predictions are for the most part highly speculative, and the antihuman ideology of the “catastrophists,” as Epstein calls the climate alarmists, should incline us to view what they say with doubt, all the more so if they have wrongly predicted catastrophes in the past. “Such predictions [about climate] necessarily rely on highly complex science and models that are difficult for non-researchers to assess … it is both far easier and highly informative to assess our knowledge system’s, including designated experts’, track record of climate prediction” (the “designated experts” are those whom the system treats as authoritative).

One of these “experts,” Michael Mann, famed for his controversial “hockey stick” graph, is weighed in the balance and found wanting: “Designated expert Michael Mann has written: ‘We probably already exceed the [planet’s] carrying capacity by a factor of eight.’” It is unlikely that someone with this opinion will be eager to suggest policies that promote human welfare, and the same holds true of the notorious Paul Ehrlich, who has many times wrongly predicted disaster but whose oracular status nevertheless remains undiminished. Mann, by the way, is one of those who wants to suppress and even imprison climate skeptics. Why listen to them?}:

If the designated experts were not blinded by partisan passion, what would they see? The answer, Epstein says, is that Nature untouched by man is no “delicate balance” but rather an ever-dynamic, often hostile place. To survive and flourish in it, we must specialize in what we produce and use powerful machines in doing so. Such machines immensely multiply our natural energy and enable us to master the environment to our advantage. Only the fossil fuels— viz., coal, oil, and natural gas—can be used to produce these machines in a cost-efficient way. Wind and solar power are paltry by comparison. Hydroelectric and nuclear power fare rather better, but even they are no match for the fossil fuels, and furthermore, fossil fuels are often required to produce and implement the other forms of energy.

:{:{The Truth about Energy...Corsi Ph.D., Jerome R.Best Price: $10.35Buy New $17.98(as of 11:36 UTC - Details)}:

Epstein says about the fossil fuels: “Contrary to our anti-impact, anti-energy knowledge system these are not trivial benefits that are already overwhelmed by fossil fuels’ negative side-effects on the livability of our world—they are fundamental to the livability of our world. The current benefit of the world’s massive use of ultra-cost-effective fossil fuel energy is a radical increase in the productive ability of billions of people—via ultra-cost-effective fossil-fueled machine labor and the enormous amount of mental labor it frees up, along with fossil fuel materials—that makes the world unnaturally livable, i.e., conducive to human flourishing.”}:

:{:{It is here that the primary source of the book’s originality lies, together with the author’s cogent analysis of the conflicting opinions’ philosophical underpinnings. Other critics of the global catastrophists propose palliative measures to cope with what they deem a much lesser threat than their opponents envision; they suggest, for example, a shift to nuclear power and the limitation of such pollution as remains through “cap and trade,” a carbon tax, and the like.}:

Epstein, by contrast, is uncompromising. Not only does he want to maintain the use of fossil fuels; he relishes the prospect of the extended use of these fuels, particularly in poor areas of the world, where people without this resource languish. “Since 1980, the percentage of humanity living on less than $2 a day has gone from 42 percent to under 10 percent today. This wondrous development is the result of increasing and expanding productivity, which is driven by the increasing and expanding use of fossil-fueled machine labor and the enormous amount of mental labor it frees up. But there is still far more progress to be had…. Expanding fossil fuel use will enable everyone, especially the world’s poorest people, to become more productive and prosperous.”}:

:{:{But has Epstein dismissed the perils of untoward climate changes too quickly? Don’t floods that result from a rise in temperature pose real dangers, for example? Epstein responds by again appealing to the benefits of technology, made possible by fossil fuels. Technology enables us to achieve what Epstein calls “climate mastery.” He cites in this connection a telling statistic. Despite the temperature rise that occurred in the twentieth century, deaths from climate have sharply decreased.}:

“In reality, dangerous temperatures—which overwhelmingly come from too much cold, not too much heat—are a smaller danger than ever thanks to two forces: fossil-fueled climate mastery and modestly warming temperatures…. Before human beings had fossil-fueled machines to master dangerous climates, they were overwhelmed by natural temperature dangers, both heat and (especially) cold…. Heat-related deaths are a much bigger problem in the unempowered world today, which is yet another reason why empowerment is a moral imperative.”}:

Let’s do everything we can to stop the “climate change” fanatics from destroying our economy!

The Best of Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. He is the author of Against the State and Against the Left. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

Previous article by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.: Are Tariffs Good for American Workers?

no lnx lib curr

The Bastards of Mont Pèlerin

Hayek's Bastards should serve as a reminder to the defenders of Hayek and neoliberalism generally to be vigilant in differentiating themselves from the far right figures and groups that have attempted to graft onto what they defend.

Gary T. Gunnels

The Bastards of Mont Pèlerin

July 16 2025

Quinn Slobodian’s Hayek’s Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ, and the Capitalism of the Far Right (2025) is an exploration of the ideological intersections between neoliberalism, far-right politics, and pseudoscientific racism. Slobodian argues that a distorted offshoot of Friedrich Hayek’s economic philosophy has been hijacked by far-right thinkers to create an ideological matrix that fuses free-market absolutism with ethnonationalism and racial hierarchies based upon IQ. He then attempts to connect these to the politics of figures like Donald Trump today. I aim to evaluate Slobodian’s arguments, focusing on the major figures and institutions he identifies as central to this ideological synthesis.

Slobodian’s central thesis is that Hayek’s intellectual edifice, rooted in his arguments for spontaneous order and market mechanisms, has been warped by a group of unwanted “bastards” into a justification for a racially hierarchical social order. A “new fusionism” as he calls it—a play on the “old fusionism” associated with Bill Buckley Jr. Slobodian contends that while Hayek’s ideas weren’t inherently racist, they've been co-opted by figures who have twisted his emphasis on competition and its alleged advantages to legitimize ethnonationalism, restrictive immigration policies, and pseudoscientific claims about racial superiority. The three thematic pillars of the book are race, IQ, and gold. All three are used as defenses against any sort of ameliorative politics. And they form the basis for what he calls the “three hards” meant to keep progressive politics at bay: hardwired human nature, hard borders, and hard money.

Behind the scenes of much of Slobodian’s analysis is Hayek’s so-called “savanna story” (a phrase which Hayek admittedly never used), a just-so story about our species’ ancestors that attempts to use culture in a Lamarckian sense to explain modern human differences. To Hayek certain cultures were simply better at overcoming our small band communitarianism as our species formed larger polities. For Hayek this explains the modern differences between cultures and states. This story, Slobodian argues, is used to naturalize modern inequalities in ways that we can do little about as a matter of policy. In turn certain far-right thinkers invoked the savanna story to argue that humans are biologically predisposed towards inequality, thereby justifying policies like closed borders or racially homogeneous communities as natural extensions of market-driven choices.

The book’s cast of characters and institutions forms the backbone of Slobodian’s case. Murray Rothbard, a pioneer of anarcho-capitalism, and someone who aligned with Hayek’s concept of spontaneous order, is a primary example. In particular Slobodian focuses on Rothbard’s “paleolibertarian” turn in the 1990s, when he forged alliances with various cultural conservatives and ethno-nationalists. Through writings in the Rothbard-Rockwell Report Rothbard defended cultural homogeneity, a shift that Slobodian argues helped lay the groundwork for a synthesis of free-market absolutism and ethnonationalism. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a disciple of Rothbard, is a similar figure. Hoppe’s concept of private, contract-based societies that could exclude individuals based on cultural or racial criteria (“covenant communities”) is of particular importance to Slobodian’s analysis. It’s a sort of Hayekian spontaneous order towards xenophobic ends that justifies exclusionary communities that prioritizes homogeneity over more universal values.

:{:{The Ludwig von Mises Institute, founded by Lew Rockwell (a paleoconservative with a long history of using racial resentment as a political strategy) and closely associated with Rothbard, is a key institution that also disseminated these ideas. Slobodian points to the institute’s conferences and publications, such as The Mises Review, as having provided a platform for thinkers like Hoppe and Rockwell to advance their ideas. It’s also not the only hub for libertarian thought that has overlapped into far-right discourse.}:

Similar critiques are made of the Mont Pèlerin Society (a highly influential invitation-only free market organization that has shaped much of global economic policy since its inception by Hayek and likeminded classical liberals in 1947 through its network of Nobel prize winning economists, government advisors, and scholars) and the Institute for Humane Studies, both of which have hosted or flirted with a number of ethno-nationalists, “race realists,” and the like. As an ex-libertarian I was a bit shocked by the number of hard-right figures the Mont Pèlerin Society in particular found comfortable inviting to its meetings, especially given its outsized role in legitimizing neoliberal thought and the prominent positions of its members. }:

:{:{This gets to one of the book's greatest strengths: Slobodian's careful mapping of the intellectual networks that form far right politics of the Cold War and post-Cold War eras. For example, Slobodian shows how figures like Charles Murray (a Mont Pèlerin Society member) and Peter Brimelow became central nodes in a broader ecosystem of societies and think tanks that fused market fundamentalism with biological determinism.}:

:{:{Murray, whose work The Bell Curve provided pseudoscientific justification for racial hierarchies through IQ testing, proved particularly attractive to neoliberals seeking to counter civil rights advances because it offered a seemingly objective, data-driven rationale for opposing state efforts to promote equality in an almost Malthusian sense. Murray and his allies could advocate for pure market solutions while claiming to be above racial politics, envisaging a sort of meritocratic “neurocaste,” (Slobodian's word) based upon IQ.}:

Peter Brimelow, a founder of the white nationalist website VDare and author of Alien Nation, explicitly connected immigration restriction to preserving American economic and cultural superiority and free market economics. Slobodian demonstrates that both had significant influence on the formation of the alt-right.}:}:

:{:{What all of this suggests is that Hayek's "savanna story" provided an intellectual framework (a “blank check” as Slobodian calls it) that far-right thinkers subsequently appropriated and distorted for their exclusionary agendas, despite Hayek's own intentions. Hayek’s philosophy, whatever else one might think of it, was explicitly universalist and cosmopolitan in its defense of individual liberty and open markets. The far-right thinkers that Slobodian examines, by contrast, prioritized group identity and exclusion from the start. In this sense their engagement with Hayek’s work appears as much opportunistic as foundational.}:

They were seizing upon elements of Hayek’s work that they could twist towards their own ends as much as they were deriving their worldview from Hayek’s principles. This doesn’t mean that Slobodian didn’t find some cringe-inducing racist-adjacent comments by Hayek over the years. Hayek’s remarks about “un-domesticated barbarians” and their unwillingness to accept the “discipline” required of a free market society at a 1976 lecture is highly reminiscent of nineteenth century attitudes towards colonized or enslaved people that merely reinforced unequal social relationships rooted in nothing more than coercion. }:

Slobodian adeptly shows how the far right, much like previous generations of pseudoscientific racists, misused evolutionary biology to lend scientific legitimacy to their ideologies. Indeed, when figures within the Mises Institute or Mont Pèlerin Society circles draw on discredited race science to justify social inequalities that surely has something to say about the nature of what neoliberalism will tolerate in its defense of free market economics. This broader historical outlook underscores the dangers of pseudoscience in legitimizing discriminatory and bigoted ideologies. Still, this approach has its limitations. While it effectively captures the far right’s tendency to invoke evolutionary metaphors, it, as Slobodian admits at the start, is only one part of the story of how we got here.

Slobodian’s effort to squeeze gold in the narrative is to this reviewer a bit clunky. But it does serve the purpose of demonstrating just how committed far right thinkers were to a certain set of ideas about the state (especially a democratic one) and its role in society. The advocacy for "hard money" became a vehicle for opposing democratic governance and social programs (that were pointless because of natural hierarchies in the first place) that required the flexibility of a fiat currency. That goldbugs and other hard money advocates became part of an alt-right coalition is understandable from this perspective. Hard money meant a so-called natural economic restraint on the government in its efforts to pursue redistributive policies.

What can be said of all of this? First, Slobodian focuses a great deal on a number of minor figures. Individuals like Hoppe (and there are quite a few of them in the book) are frankly marginal compared to more mainstream libertarian or conservative thinkers. This risks giving readers an incomplete understanding of how libertarian and neoliberal thought actually developed and gained prominence over time. As a reader I want to understand just how close a connection existed between these minor figures and some of the larger personalities in the movement. That connection could have been drawn a bit more tightly. Still, given the frequent involvement of these minor characters in the cornerstone institutions of the movement, there is merit to Slobodian’s approach.

Not that all were minor characters. Slobodian doesn't ignore individuals like Milton Friedman, whom he quotes as viewing the Americans with Disabilities Act as a sort of coercive “paternalism” that merely expanded statism at the expense of a laissez-faire social order. This frankly callous and tone-deaf dismissal of disability rights surprised me and it makes me wonder what other views by Friedman I may have missed.

:{:{Also, notwithstanding the excellent research that is the heart of the book, Slobodian’s portrayal of Hayek as an accidental progenitor of far-right ideologies is difficult to prove. There is something of a speculative bridge one has to make to go from Hayek’s abstract principles about spontaneous order to the concrete policies of ethno-nationalists. A deeper set of connections needs to be made in order to make this bridge more concrete. That Slobodian focuses so much on intellectual history comes at a cost. Surely there is more going on here in the formation of the alt-right than this.}:

If we think of the alt-right in its broadest scope as a largely online phenomenon based upon white identity politics, and as a loose connection of groups and people opposed to concepts like multiculturalism and feminism, then a larger discussion of how forerunners of the alt-right that Slobodian identifies (like the paleoconservatives or the European New Right) meshed with this new movement seems in order. Slobodian does make a nod to this from time to time, but he could have been more explicit. }:

:{:{Hayek’s Bastards resonates with historical examples of pseudoscience-supported racism, such as the American eugenics movement’s advocacy for forced sterilizations. Slobodian thus underscores the enduring danger of pseudoscience in legitimizing racism and inequality. Of course Slobodian’s work has faced significant criticism from a number of libertarian and neoliberal reviewers of the book (I won't wade into these here), however, I would argue that these largely miss the point.}:

The book should serve as a reminder to Hayek's defenders—and libertarians and neoliberals more generally—to be vigilant in differentiating themselves from the far right figures and groups that have attempted to graft onto what they defend. That a lot of the mainstream organizations in the neoliberal movement chose to invite racist crackpots to their conferences and soirées is exactly the opposite of that, and is merely summoning the sort of confluences that Slobodian discusses in his book. Libertarians could use this opportunity to more forcefully articulate how genuine free market principles are incompatible with racial determinism.}:

In conclusion, Slobodian effectively highlights the far right’s misuse of evolutionary theory (and IQ), and his analysis of figures like Rothbard, Hoppe, Murray, and Brimelow, as well as institutions like the Mises Institute and the Mont Pèlerin Society, provides a compelling portrait of an ideological undercurrent that has gained visibility in recent years. But his attempt to tie these figures directly to Hayek’s legacy is less convincing, as it relies on a set of speculative connections that need more heft. This isn't to suggest that Slobodian is wrong, just that he needs to demonstrate his claims more concretely. Ultimately, I believe that Slobodian is attempting to provide us with a cautionary tale about how theories of human development, when stripped of ethical moorings, can support exclusionary and oppressive ends.

Author

Gary T. Gunnels

---

---

Mises Daily

Why I Am an Anarcho-Capitalist

Tags:Entrepreneurship,Free Markets

12/04/2013•Mises Daily•Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

Print this page

A great many people — more than ever, probably — describe themselves as supporters of the free market today, in spite of the unrelenting propaganda against it. And that’s great. Those statements of support, however, are followed by the inevitable but: but we need government to provide physical security and dispute resolution, the most critical services of all.

random

poitical Theatre](https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/)

==

rational wiki

Llewellyn Harrison "Lew" Rockwell, Jr. (born 1944) is a libertarian writer, activist, and founder and former president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (he stepped down as president in 2009 but remains as a chairman). Despite a less than sterling record of confronting racism and the downright dubious company he keeps, no one has yet had the audacity to call him a white supremacist and let him know his so-called praxeology "solution" for fixing the economy is basically fascism with bad bow ties instead of jackboots.

Contents [hide]

Politics

Rockwell is a hardline libertarian who often attacks the Cato-types as "Beltway libertarians" (and he in return is often derided as not a true libertarian). He was a close associate of Murray Rothbard, which should explain things. The slogan of his website, lewrockwell.com, is "anti-state, anti-war, pro-market," and he means it. Any deviation is seen as a betrayal of the libertarian movement. Rockwell is stuck in the unenviable position of being part of a movement associated with libertine morality and being a social conservative. Because Rockwell supports policies that would let people smoke doobies while screwing hookers, but actually opposes these acts, he coined the term "paleo-libertarian" to distance himself from the rest of the movement. Rockwell defines his brand of libertarianism:

“”Paleolibertarianism

holds with Lord Acton that liberty is the highest political end of man,

and that all forms of government intervention -- economic, cultural,

social, international -- amount to an attack on prosperity, morals, and

bourgeois civilization itself, and thus must be opposed at all levels

and without compromise. It is "paleo" because of its genesis in... [the]

interwar Old Right that opposed the New Deal and favored the Old

Republic of property rights, freedom of association, and radical

political decentralization. Just as important, paleolibertarianism

predates the politicization of libertarianism...Instead of principle,

the neo-libertarians give us political alliances; instead of

intellectually robust ideas, they give us marketable platitudes. What's

more, paleolibertarianism distinguishes itself from left-libertarianism

because it has made its peace with religion as the bedrock of liberty,

property, and the natural order.[1]

There is a heavy overlap between writers at Rockwell's site and the von Mises Institute, so you'll get a lot of recycled material. There's some actual Austrian economists like Tom DiLorenzo, Walter Block, and Peter Schiff (of course) writing there, so the site is rife with gold buggery. There's massive amounts of legal history (real and pseudo), much of it dealing with Constitutional originalism. They also hate Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt (along with almost all 20th century Presidents aside from Warren G. Harding), and Alexander Hamilton.

The (sometimes) good stuff

Rockwell promotes such vehement opposition to war he puts to shame even the moonbats. Cindy Sheehan was even once a regular writer for his website.[2] The site frequently features writing critical of the militarism rampant in U.S. culture, a position once mainstream among left-wingers in the wake of the Vietnam War but since left-of-center progressives dropped the ball on this issue back in the 80s to early 90s in favor of trying to out-right the right in ritual military/veteran worship, at least give Rockwell credit where credit is due for trying to out-left the left in opposing it.

Anti-war writings — including such topics as counter-recruitment usually associated with the pacifist left — and related opposition to security theater and other aspects of the "war on terror" are the main topic of several regular writers on the site such as Laurence Vance,[3] Butler Shaffer,[4] and Becky Akers.[5]

This even extends to criticism of U.S. involvement in the American Civil War and World War II, areas where even the left is hesitant to venture. However, proving the old adage[6] that putting principle over reality in every case no matter what can still lead into batshit crazy territory, they sometimes run articles by Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorists[7] and neo-Confederates.[8]

Koch Industries and anyone associated with or funded by them are considered the arch-nemesis of True Libertarianism by Rockwell, so the site runs a lot of criticism of the Kochs. This is just acontinuation of the old feud between Ed Crane and Murray Rothbard that had its roots in Ed Clark's 1980 presidential campaign on the Libertarian Party ticket[9], but it means Rockwell may on the one hand make common cause with left-progressives in publishing criticism of the "Kochtopus", and on the other hand allow this feud to override other issues. His libertarian ecumenism may include all manner of paleoconservatives and remnants of the New Left, but it does not include the Cato Institute or Reason.

The site also takes the usual libertarian positions in favor of the legalization of marijuana and drugs, civil liberties, and against police abuses and incarceration and surveillance overkill by the state. This is unfortunately mixed with a cranky social conservatism in which one may find anti-abortion, homophobic, or anti-porn views; indeed, the site's opposition to body scanners in U.S. airports emphasizes the "pornography" angle rather than strictly opposing them on civil liberties principles alone. Also, the anti-police brutality stance the site takes today was not always the case as anyone familiar with the old Rothbard-Rockwell Report days knows[10]. Give them credit for evolving on that issue. One hopes they will one day similarly evolve out of their woo-promotion and tendency to pal around with neo-Confederates and Christian dominionists.

Woo promotion and other dubiousness

Rockwell might be something like an inverse Arianna Huffington, promoting all kinds of woo generally associated with wingnuttery instead of moonbattery. Rockwell's site is a hotbed of global warming denialism, and his writers really love the "environmentalists are racists" trope (possibly a case of weapons-grade projection there).[11] Rockwell also loves his paleo diet, raw milk, barefoot running, and coconut oil. He often runs articles by the seriously suspect Joe Mercola and other alties promoting these and other various snake oils.[12] The site has also featured some articles on AIDS denialism.[13] He has also favored the elimination of drunk driving laws, claiming that they persecute people solely for having a particular chemical in their bloodstream.

The site is also a platform for religious zealots like Gary North. Rockwell himself is a Catholic, but allows batshit crazy Christian Dominionists like North to write for his site. This includes support for creationism or "criticisms" of evolution (depending on the columnist).[14]

[edit] Ron Paul newsletters

The kerfuffle over Ron Paul's racist newsletters led to accusations that Rockwell had ghost-written the newsletters. Rockwell dismissed this as a smear by his political enemies. Here is one take from The Economist:

“”Mr

Rockwell denied authorship to Jamie Kirchick, the reporter whose New

Republic article published earlier this week reignited controversy over

the newsletters. But both Mr Rockwell (who attacked the New Republic

article on his site) and Mr Tucker refused to discuss the matter with

Democracy in America. ("Look at Mises.org," Mr Tucker told me, "I'm

willing to take any responsibility for anything up there, OK?")

According to Wirkman Virkkala, formerly the managing editor of the

libertarian monthly Liberty, the racist and survivalist elements that

appeared in the newsletter were part of a deliberate "paleolibertarian"

strategy, "a last gasp effort to try class hatred after the miserable

showing of Ron Paul’s 1988 presidential effort." It is impossible now to

prove individual authorship of any particular item in the newsletter,

but it is equally impossible to believe that Mr Rockwell did not know of

and approve what was going into the newsletter.[15]

Reason also notes that other Libertarian Party insiders were aware of the intentional use of Southern strategy-style tactics in the Rockwell-Rothbard "paleolibertarian" campaign.[16] Rothbard and Rockwell became supporters of Pat Buchanan in an attempt to build a populist-libertarian coalition in the early '90s until they decided Buchanan wasn't free market enough for them.[17] Former Paul staffer Eric Dondero has claimed that Paul wrote about half of the newsletters' content while Rockwell ghostwrote most of the rest of it.[18] Some of Rockwell's writers have been found to have written openly racist material for other sites and publications as well and he seemed to have some admiration for the late Sam Francis, a well-known white supremacist and member of the Council of Conservative Citizens.[19][20] His Neo-Confederate Mises Institute buddies Thomas DiLorenzo and Thomas Woods often cross-post to his site. All of this put together is a little more than a tad suspicious.

But where else can you find columns tying together the Federal Reserve and the rap music giving kids the brain damage as the primary causes of what's wrong with the world today?[21]

[edit] The cherry on top

Despite claiming to support freedom of association, free markets and voluntarism, Rockwell, like his former pal Rothbard, is for closed borders.[22] Apparently Rockwell didn't get the memo that stance makes it impossible to actually have his ideal anarcho-capitalist society or being taken seriously when claiming to advocate for such things. Actually consistent libertarians, such as Kevin Carson, have attempted to relay that memo to Rockwell though.[23]

[edit] External links

[edit] Footnotes

  1. ↑ Libertapedia entry for Paleolibertarianism
  2. ↑ No, really. Here's the archive of her columns
  3. ↑ Laurence Vance archive
  4. ↑ Butler Shaffer archive
  5. ↑ Becky Akers archive
  6. ↑ Okay, so it's not old or an adage, but it should be.
  7. ↑ Such as this one by Robert B. Stinnett hyping his book.
  8. ↑ Here's a real doozie: "The Yankee Problem in America" by Clyde Wilson.
  9. ↑ A topic already covered to death in most histories of the libertarian movement. For the most detail see Brian Doherty, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern Libertarian Movement, PublicAffairs, 2007; and Justin Raimondo, An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard, Prometheus Books, 2000
  10. ↑ Rothbard's all-time career low
  11. ↑ See Global Warming is a Fraud and Environmentalism is Racism
  12. ↑ Mercola peddling his quackery: 7 Reasons to Eat More Saturated Fats. Yum!
  13. ↑ Articles promoting Peter Duesberg, among other quacks.
  14. ↑ Here's their take on the FSM: Toto takes on the Flying Spaghetti Monster
  15. ↑ The Rockwell Files, The Economist
  16. ↑ Who wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?, Reason
  17. ↑ The Roots of Rand Paul's Civil Rights Resentment, Salon
  18. ↑ Who Wrote the Ron Paul Newsletters? Ed Brayton
  19. ↑ Racism and bigotry delivered courtesy of Lew Rockwell, Tom G. Palmer
  20. ↑ What's wriggling under the Rock(well)?
  21. ↑ Social Decay and the Federal Reserve
  22. ↑ https://www.mises.org/library/open-borders-are-assault-private-property
  23. ↑ https://c4ss.org/content/41552

Categories:

==

wiki fluff (nice pix)

Llewellyn Harrison "Lew" Rockwell, Jr. (born July 1, 1944) is an American libertarian author and editor, self-professed anarcho-capitalist,[1] a promoter of the Austrian School of economics, and founder and chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Contents

Life and career

Rockwell was born in Boston, Massachusetts in 1944.

After college, Rockwell worked at Arlington House publishers and became acquainted with the works of Ludwig von Mises.[2]

In the mid-1970s Rockwell worked at Hillsdale College in fundraising and public relations.[2]

Rockwell met Murray Rothbard in 1975 and credits Rothbard with convincing him to reject statism completely.[2]

Work for Ron Paul

Further information: Ron Paul

Rockwell was Ron Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982[3][4] and was a consultant to Paul's 1988 Libertarian Party campaign for President of the United States.[5] He was vice-chair of the exploratory committee for Paul's run for the 1992 Republican Party nomination for president.[6]

Ludwig von Mises Institute

Part of a series on
Libertarianism
Origins[show]
Concepts[show]
Schools[show]
People[show]
Aspects[show]
Related topics[show]

Further information: Ludwig von Mises Institute

In 1982, Rockwell founded the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama and is currently its Chairman of the Board.[7]

The Mises Institute published Rockwell's Speaking of Liberty, an anthology of editorials which were originally published on his website, along with transcripts from some of his speaking engagements.

Paleolibertarianism

Further information: Paleolibertarianism

In 1985, Rockwell was named a contributing editor to Conservative Digest.[8] During the 1990s Rothbard, Rockwell and others described their views as paleolibertarian to emphasize their commitment to cultural conservatism, even as they continued to hold anti-statist beliefs.[9] In a 2007 interview Rockwell revealed he no longer considered himself a "paleolibertarian" and was "happy with the term libertarian." He explained "the term paleolibertarian became confused because of its association with paleoconservative, so it came to mean some sort of socially conservative libertarian, which wasn't the point at all...."[10]

LewRockwell.com

Main article: LewRockwell.com

Rockwell's website, LewRockwell.com, formed in 1999, features articles and blog entries by a number of columnists and writers. Its motto is "anti-war, anti-state, pro-market".[11] There also is a weekly podcast called the Lew Rockwell Show.[12] As of May 2013 LRC was in the top 10,000 websites worldwide.[13] LewRockwell.com publishes a variety of articles opposing war and imperialism, questioning United States participation in World War II, opposing "economic fascism" and supporting Austrian economics and secessionism.[14]

Ron Paul newsletters

Further information: Ron Paul newsletters

Reason magazine reported Rockwell was a founding officer and former Vice President at Ron Paul & Associates[15] which was one of the publishers of a variety of political and investment-oriented newsletters bearing Paul's name.[16][17]

In January 2008, during Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign, James Kirchick of the New Republic uncovered a collection of Ron Paul newsletters and alleged that they "reveal decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays."[17][18] For instance, one issue of a newsletter described African-Americans as "animals",[17] another asserted that 95% of them were criminals,[19] and another approved of the slogan "Sodomy = Death" and said homosexuals suffering from HIV/AIDS "enjoy the pity and attention that comes with being sick".[17]

Kirchick noted that most of the articles contained no bylines.[17] Numerous sources alleged that Rockwell had ghostwritten the controversial newsletters;[20] Rockwell is listed as "contributing editor" on physical copies of some newsletters[21][22] and listed as sole Editor of the May 1988 "Ron Paul investment Newsletter".[23] Reason magazine reported that "a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists – including some still close to Paul" had identified Rockwell as the "chief ghostwriter" of the newsletters,[15] as did former Ron Paul Chief of Staff (1981–1985) John W. Robbins.[24]

Rockwell admitted to Kirchick that he was "involved in the promotion" of the newsletters and wrote the subscription letters but denied ghostwriting the articles. He said there were "seven or eight freelancers involved at various stages" of the newsletter's history and indicated another individual who had "left in unfortunate circumstances", but whom he did not identify, was in charge of editing and publishing the newsletters.[25] Ron Paul himself repudiated the newsletters' content and said he was not involved in the daily operations of the newsletters or saw much of their content until years later.[20] In 2011 Paul's spokesperson Jesse Benton said that Paul had "taken moral responsibility because they appeared under his name and slipped through under his watch".[26]

Other activities and views

Rockwell was closely associated with anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard until Rothbard's death in 1995. Rockwell's political ideology, like Rothbard's in his later years, combines a form of anarcho-capitalism with cultural conservatism and he identifies with the Austrian School of economics. In politics, he advocates federalist concepts as a means of promoting freedom from central government and secession for the same political decentralist reasons. Rockwell has called environmentalism "[a]n ideology as pitiless and Messianic as Marxism."[27]

Rockwell is also Vice President of the Center for Libertarian Studies in Burlingame, California.

Books

Author

Editor

Notes

1.

  1. Rockwell, L. H., Jr. (1990). "An anti-environmentalist manifesto." From The Right, Quarterly II, 1(6), 1. (newsletter of Patrick J. Buchanan), p. 1; Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. Rockwell's Anti-Environmentalist Manifesto, May 1, 2000 version published by Lewrockwell.com

Further reading

External links

Categories:

The Ludwig von Mises Institute describes itself as "the research and educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics".

The Mises Institute "works to advance the Austrian School of economics and the Misesian tradition, and, in application, defends the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive."[1]

Contents

History

The Ludwig von Mises Institute was established in October 1982 in Auburn, Alabama, by Llewellyn (Lew) H. Rockwell, Jr., who was it's President until 2009, and remains its Chairman. Douglas E. French became the Institute's President in 2009.

Personnel

As of June 2011 [2]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Llewellyn_H._Rockwell,_Jr.

  1. Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. is a "former congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul and founder and chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, is an opponent of the state, its wars and its socialism.

"A student and colleague of Murray N. Rothbard, he is the editor of six books, most recently The Irrepressible Rothbard and Speaking of Liberty. For more on Rockwell, see his interview in Spintech Magazine. Also read his interview in the Slovakian magazine, OS as well as his interview in FrontPageMag." [1]

Resources and articles

Related Sourcewatch articles

References

1.

  1. About, Lewrockwell.com, accessed June 24, 2009.

Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity About, organizational web page, accessed May 5 2013.

==