New York Young Republicans attack Ron, Rand and Mises Institute

[TonySutton]

please break the link

 

[randall_s]

The Syrian war drum? Where do you read that? Personally, I think the best thing we could do in Syria would be to pack up and leave... fast.

Really fast.

Have you ever seen Dr. Zhivago? There were two sides - the Reds and the White. Reds obviously being Communist; Whites being the Czarists. Lenin and Stalin killed a lot of Whites following the war (and a lot of Communists), but it's not like they all disappeared. What happened to the Czar's bodyguard was that Trotsky made them an offer they couldn't refuse... work for him, or die.

This became what is known today as the GRU, or military intelligence. If you are familiar with the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, you'll remember that it was the GRU special ops, Spetsnaz, who bin Laden "defeated," making him a legend among the Arab mujaheddin. The GRU was the outfit that Whittaker Chambers worked for - you know, the spy who translated Bambi into English and went to trial against the slippery traitor Alger Hiss.

Though they worked for the Soviets, the GRU was always more like the Whites. And that is where Aleksandr Dugin's family works... in Russian military intelligence.

Anyway, I don't want to sound like a pedant, so I'll stop there.

 

[mczerone]

tl;dr version:

Rand Paul is just like his dad, who loved Rothbard. They don't believe in shooting people for being racist or using drugs.

Rothbard didn't like Reagan. William Buckley didn't really like Rothbard.

Mises Institute founded by Lew Rockwell, an anti-war activist who is alleged without proof to be the author of the newsletters. Lew's last name is the same as a murdered American Nazi.

Mises Institute implicated without evidence as a "Ron Paul think tank."

Mises Institute also employs DiLorenzo, who criticizes Lincoln. Suggests that DiLorenzo would have fired on Fort Sumter without evidence. Also Tom Woods. And Bob Murphy. And secession. And (the Russian expat) Yuri Maltsev. And Paul Gottfried, who criticized Reagan, Goldwater and Kirk.

Rand and Ron don't want to keep fighting the drug war. Rand admits pot usage.

Stormfront tried to support Ron. Nazis will put race aside if they can profit from the drug trade. Another reference to an unrelated Rockwell.

Rand Paul was recently embarrassed when it was revealed that one of his staff is a neo-Confederate. Jack Hunter.

Suggests that the Paul political sphere is just drug money laundering, without evidence.

"The Mises Institute, like Ron and Rand, has a powerful distaste for all American activity abroad. This goes so far as to suggest that America should not have gone to war in 1941. Ralph Raico has written extensively on the topic. As is typical for so-called “non-interventionists,” war is always America’s fault, and we’d be better to butt out. This recalls Ron Paul’s defense of Osama bin Laden’s demands in the 2007 Republican Presidential debate."

Ron doesn't want govt making war, but he personally took a gig with RT. Unrelated website linked. RT also works with Assange and broadcasts in Spanish and Arabic! And the Mises Institute prints articles in those languages, too!

And a complete non-sequitur to Atlas Shrugged.

Buckley said Rothbard could have preferred, morally, Khrushchev to Eisenhower, so Rothbard actually thought this, and thus the Mises Institute wants unregulated drug markets so that they can profit from the illegal drug trade to fund their neo-Nazi-racism.

Someone should start asking the right questions before 2016.

Response:

(1) Could a more racist person be writing this?

(2) Non-interventionists don't want the govt getting involved in other countries. Private persons are encouraged to trade and engage all people peacefully. Labeling both the govt and private people "America" is part of the big lie that these people have fallen into.

(3) It's possible to be anti-racist and anti-recreational drug use without wanting to put people in cages and threaten them, forcing them to change their behavior out of a sense of faux-authority over other people's lives.

(4) If the (hidden) thesis of this piece is right: "The Pauls and the Mises institute are racist neo-Nazis that profit from the trade of illegal drugs" - then the deregulation/legalization of drug markets would ruin their business and hurt their interests, not help it.

(5) "Someone should start asking the right questions before 2016." Yeah, and these guys will continue asking the wrong questions and making ludicrous accusations.

 

[Czolgosz]

This guy is well read and knowledgeable...and a laughably brainwashed cheerleading stooge.

Amazing how somebody can obtain so much knowledge and yet, he forces the puzzle pieces together in the wrong order.

A case study on this particular chimp would enlighten many fence sitters, me thinks.

 

[angelatc]

tl;dr version:





(5) "Someone should start asking the right questions before 2016." Yeah, and these guys will continue asking the wrong questions and making ludicrous accusations.

Yes, that's a very good point. What they mean is, "We'll ask the questions, and we don't really care about the answers you give. We'll also talk about people and ideas that have been dead for almost half a century instead of addressing the massive economic social, political and foreign policy failures that our wing of the party is absolutely responsible for. We don't have a single accomplishment to brag about, but we don't need one as long as we can control the conversation. And the best way to do that is by drumming up nationalism via war while calling people who don't want that war racists."

I really wish I could just go back to not being involved. These people are nothing but evil.

 

[randall_s]

See the thing is that Whittaker Chambers wrote the National Review book review of Atlas Shrugged. It does help to know something of Russia. You ever read Witness?

 

[mczerone]

See the thing is that Whittaker Chambers wrote the National Review book review of Atlas Shrugged. It does help to know something of Russia. You ever read Witness?

Your first sentence has nothing to do with anything. I don't care who that is.

And no, I've never read that book. I've also never finished Atlas Shrugged.

Do you care to make any positive claims about Ron or Rand Paul, the Mises institute, or Murray Rothbard? Those were the people/institution implicated in this article. Does Witness deal with them, or shed some light on their actions? Or are you just trying to macho-flash your book-reading-history to appeal to authority to prove that you are right without making any concise, rational, falsifiable claim?

 

[randall_s]

To be honest with you, I don't particularly care one way or the other about the liberty lobby, Paul, etc. I wish you my personal best. No need to get short.
I would recommend Witness. It's one of the best political books I've ever read. A spy thriller, but for real.

 

[Alpine]

The reason the democrats have done so well is that they brought many different groups into the party. The GOP can't afford to exclude the libertarians.

 

[Dianne]

New York and California are the worst two states in the Union.... Don't lose an ounce of sleep for anything they complain about ... I mean, frankly ..... Half of New York are illegals, who that idiot Bloomberg encouraged to come there... with full governmental benefits.. Now Bloomberg going to leave, just before New York declares bankrupty ... But Bloomburg got some nice blow jobs during his tenure.... he personally received lots of slave labor... housekeeping for 10.00 per day ...

New York idiots... California off the map ... when they keep re-electing Pelosi ... Let's forget these two states.... they deserve hurricanes and earthquakes.

 

[erowe1]

Such freedoms include, apparently, racial segregation at private institutions (they call this property rights)

The fact that this author can just throw this in there like that expecting people to be shocked, as if there's something obviously wrong with it, says a lot about him.

He's not any kind of conservative, including the WFB kind.

 

[randall_s]

I know the history of it. WFB opposed desegregation efforts, true. This was a matter of principle. But it's been 50 years, and we now know that desegregation has made the South more amicable to black-white relations than the North. I think we can learn from history, don't you?

It's one thing to have said it was a bad idea at the time. But to continue to say it when it's been how long, and when we know the results?

Being able to interpret history is the difference between a ideologue (troll) and a rational person.

 

[erowe1]

I know the history of it. WFB opposed desegregation efforts, true. This was a matter of principle. But it's been 50 years, and we now know that desegregation has made the South more amicable to black-white relations than the North. I think we can learn from history, don't you?

It's one thing to have said it was a bad idea at the time. But to continue to say it when it's been how long, and when we know the results?

Being able to interpret history is the difference between a ideologue (troll) and a rational person.

I don't accept your premise about the results. But for the sake of argument, say I did.

We don't determine right and wrong by looking at something we think is a good result and then extrapolating back to say, "Well then we must have been right after all."

At any rate, if the label "conservative" is going to just keep expanding to embrace every increase in government that it once condemned, then it isn't a meaningful ideological label, and comparisons between conservatives of different ages would make no sense. Granted, in this sense, conservatives truly would be conservative, in the sense that whatever the status quo happened to be, that would be what they want to conserve. But the only sense in which Rand Paul would ever want to be considered a conservative would be in a much more noble sense than that.

 

[erowe1]

Knowing something myself about the KKK, the Nation of Islam, and the American Nazi Party (through research, of course), usually the fringes of any political movement find themselves involved in the drug trade. You can see another article on that site explaining the drug trade in the Middle East.

Do you have something against drug trade?

 

[randall_s]

Seeing as how the drug trade, particularly the cocaine trade, is behind so many massacres, genocides, and civil wars... yes, I do. I'd say those atrocities violate the natural rights of man, wouldn't you?

See the FARC in Rwanda, the Lebanese Civil War, the Nazi obsession with cocaine, and now the war in Syria. Not to mention that al Qaeda is now a major drug trafficker. See Hugo Chavez and now Maduro. See Correa in Ecuador. See Evo Morales in Bolivia. See Klaus Barbie

Am I being so crazy now?

 

[erowe1]

Seeing as how the drug trade, particularly the cocaine trade, is behind so many massacres, genocides, and civil wars... yes, I do. I'd say those atrocities violate the natural rights of man, wouldn't you?

See the FARC in Rwanda, the Lebanese Civil War, the Nazi obsession with cocaine, and now the war in Syria. Not to mention that al Qaeda is now a major drug trafficker. See Hugo Chavez and now Maduro. See Correa in Ecuador. See Evo Morales in Bolivia. See Klaus Barbie

Am I being so crazy now?

Yes, you're being crazy. This would be like blaming the violence of Al Capone on alcohol, and not prohibition. "No, we can't repeal prohibition! Look at all the violence the alcohol trade causes!"

 

[eleganz]

I don't see this as a big deal, just some douche at the top of the food chain of NY YR releasing bullshit.

A lot of YR I know are actually RP.

 

[randall_s]

As I said, the RP (Ron, Rand... makes no difference) movement is about legalizing narcotics, first and foremost. I've given you several horrific instances throughout history that were fueled by cocaine and the narcotics trade. Effect? Absolutely nothing. Why? It's counter your ideology.

The solution you propose is to legalize narcotics. But that's already been done, effectively in countless war zones and criminal states. None have sterling records, and most descend into mass murder.

Whittaker Chambers was correct. The Randians are just as coldly ideological as the Communists.

 

[erowe1]

As I said, the RP (Ron, Rand... makes no difference) movement is about legalizing narcotics, first and foremost. I've given you several horrific instances throughout history that were fueled by cocaine and the narcotics trade. Effect? Absolutely nothing. Why? It's counter your ideology.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't 100% of your examples of instances where drugs were NOT legalized? It's not counter our ideology at all.

And no, this is not about legalizing narcotics to me. That's far from a pet issue of mine. But it's still a black and white issue. The free market is a better answer to any drug problem than big government is.

 

[randall_s]

That depends on your definition of legal. It's illegal to jaywalk in most big cities, but everybody does it. Likewise, in Lebanon and in Syria, as in Nazi Germany, drugs were technically illegal. But just because the law remained on the books doesn't mean the law was enforced. So yes, effectively narcotics were completely legalized, if not encouraged. A destitute society that decides to (formally) legalize all drugs only gives all the hopeless souls a way to numb their boredom, their dull and drab lives.

You can see this quick write-up on al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, which recruits unemployed youths with the promise of cash and career advancement. Yeah I know this is pretty sick and depressing, but welcome to reality...

http://nyyrc.com/blog/2013/08/who-is-aqim/