Why do Neocons hate LewRockwell.com?

itshappening

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2007
Messages
12,355
Why Do the Neocons Hate LRC?

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

The other day, the Southern Poverty Law Center discovered a set of ideas that had to be stomped out of existence: anarcho-capitalism. That’s LewRockwell.com, of course. But the SPLC will have to get in line behind the rest of the neocons: the NY Times, the Washington Post, National Review, the Wall Street Journal, Commentary, the Weekly Standard, and the rest of the gang – none of them much like this site.

Is that a reason to despair, or crow? Well, let’s examine the neocons. As Ron Paul has pointed out, they call themselves “big-government conservatives” and “national greatness conservatives.” This bunch, which runs the Republican party, the conservative movement, and some of the left, too, has been Ron’s most vicious enemy. They know how close he is to LRC, and that he's said it's the “first site I read every morning.”

Neocons believe deeply in militarism, the corporate State, the police State, the welfare State, the national security State, permanent war, ultra-nationalism, central banking, global empire, and the “noble lie.” The noble lie, by the way, is any propaganda that helps foist their rule on us, and is therefore justified. In other words, they’re fascists.

And whom do the neocons hate the most? Whom do they feel most threatened by? Libertarians. Not the “libertarians” paid by the Koch Bros., who are effective allies of the neocons. But Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists, we who advocate Austrian economics, truth-telling history, and real freedom and property. We who understand that society does not need a set of despicable overlords, and that – in Murray Rothbard’s words – “the State is a gang of thieves writ large.” We who hold that the moral law applies across the board, and that one is not exempted from it by a government suit.

If something is wrong for you or me, it is also wrong for the cop, the soldier, the mayor, the governor, the general, the Fed chairman, the president. Theft does not become acceptable when they call it taxation, counterfeiting when they call it monetary policy, kidnapping when they call it the draft, mass murder when they call it foreign policy. We understand that it is never acceptable to wield violence nor the threat of violence against the innocent, whether by the mugger or the politician.

When it comes to that cabal of plutocrats and their henchmen known as Washington, DC, we do not salute . We do not consent to their dastardly deeds, nor their rule over us. And we never refer to the government as “we.”

So why is LRC in particular so hated by the neocons, the fascists, the commissars, the reich-wingers? Well, we only have to ask: what is the world center of anarcho-capitalism? What has turned more neocons into libertarians than anything else? What teaches the philosophy of freedom, real ecoomics, and truthful history to millions all over the world? What exposes everything from the Pentagon to Big Pharma, official historians to Keynesian economists? What is the largest circulation anarcho-capitalist publication in history? What, that is, makes the neocons spitting mad? Well, it’s LRC.

Ever since I turned my rolodex into an email list and then into a website, we’ve been making real progress, especially among the young, in this country and many others. You should see the moving and thrilling emails I get. People credit LRC with changing their lives. And that is what infuriates – and scares – the neocons. They want to shut LRC down.

So, what should we do about it? For you, as for me, there is only one answer: carry the intellectual fight into their homeland. Never despair. Never stop. Never give up. Never retreat. For we have the truth on our side. We have the great ideas.

I would be so grateful to have your help in telling the neocons: Get lost. Indeed, I can’t do it without you. Once a year I ask for your help in keeping this site not only on the air, but growing and more influential. Please, bug the neocons and all who want their boots on our necks. Help LRC make 2013 our most effective year for freedom since our founding in 1999.

The huge, centralized army of the bad guys appears to be winning. But our guerillas are driving them crazy. And guerrillas always beat big, centralized armies. As Ron Paul showed, the young are increasingly with us. The neocons are yesterday’s men.

Every dollar you send is a slap in the face to the arrogant enemies of liberty, to those who say, with Mussolini, “Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” If you know the State is our greatest enemy on earth, if you appreciate LRC as its opponent, if you support our fight, if you stand with us, if you want to be able to continue to read a new LRC 6 days a week, please make a generous gift. I would be so grateful.

http://lewrockwell.com/rockwell/neocons-hate-lrc204.html

-

I don't like it when their writers knock Rand or Amash who I think are doing the best they can but I have made a one time donation to them today via PayPal since I read it nearly every day and it's free and worthwhile.

I suggest everyone does the same if you can afford 10 or 20 bucks or whatever.
 
lew rockwell makes people think deeply even if they seldom agree with him
...and yes... crypto-fascists are often anti-intellectual and into a mob-o-cracy!
 
I'm not a neo-con and I no longer read LewRockwell.com everyday because they are just like TV media. They are not always "truth-telling history" writers. As a matter of fact they promote lies just like the regular media. The philosophy promoted by Rothbardians is not the philosophy of Classical Liberals. If they really did focus on telling the truth, if they actually did stick to the philosophy of Mises, then I would donate. Until they do, I'm not going to go there every day to get my news.
 
I'm not a neo-con and I no longer read LewRockwell.com everyday because they are just like TV media. They are not always "truth-telling history" writers. As a matter of fact they promote lies just like the regular media. The philosophy promoted by Rothbardians is not the philosophy of Classical Liberals. If they really did focus on telling the truth, if they actually did stick to the philosophy of Mises, then I would donate. Until they do, I'm not going to go there every day to get my news.
Pretty much this.
 
Lewrockwell.com is taking the fight to the neocons and the Federal Reserve who plunge us into senseless wars or in the Feds case enables the financing of them and what is effectively an empire and a very costly mistake. No one else calls them out as frequently or exposes them like LRC.

That's why I donated to them & hope others do the same.
 
Last edited:
I see so many "causes" and I've seen little results from any of them.

Curing cancer and diabetes would put a lot of huge buildings into disrepair and increase the unemployment rate. Curing "things" is not profitable.
 
Because it reminds them of how evil they act. They hate it because it reveals them not only onto themselves, but to all others who want to see.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much this.

Can you please elaborate? In what ways does LRC lie? Can you recommend some other worthwhile places to get dailly news and libertarian perspective?

The questions apply to anyone. Thanks for your time.
 
Can you please elaborate? In what ways does LRC lie? Can you recommend some other worthwhile places to get dailly news and libertarian perspective?

The questions apply to anyone. Thanks for your time.
Read a broad cross section of news and draw your own conclusions. I don't follow talking heads on TV nor do I follow talking head blogs on the net. Nobody tells me how to think or what to think about events in the world.
 
Don't know why neocons hate him or even if they do. I do know that it would appear that some would like to say they do though for whatever remedial social media effect it may create.
 
Last edited:
Can you please elaborate? In what ways does LRC lie? Can you recommend some other worthwhile places to get dailly news and libertarian perspective?

The questions apply to anyone. Thanks for your time.

Do you ever hear Lew Rockwell talk about how Ludwig von Mises believed, "National and governmental affairs are, it is true, more important than all other practical questions of ' human conduct, since the social order furnishes the foundation for everything else, and it is possible for each individual to prosper in the pursuit of his ends only in a society propitious for their attainment."?

I don't. All I ever read on LRC is anti-State hate.

Liberalism
Introduction
3. Rationalism
The organization of human society according to the pattern most suitable for the attainment of the ends in view is a quite prosaic and matter-of-fact question, not unlike, say, the construction of a railroad or the production of cloth or furniture. National and governmental affairs are, it is true, more important than all other practical questions of ' human conduct, since the social order furnishes the foundation for everything else, and it is possible for each individual to prosper in the pursuit of his ends only in a society propitious for their attainment. But however lofty may be the sphere in which political and social questions are placed, they still refer to matters that are subject to human control and must consequently be judged according to the canons of human reason. In such matters, no less than in all our other mundane affairs, mysticism is only an evil. Our powers of comprehension are very limited. We cannot hope ever to discover the ultimate and most profound secrets of the universe. But the fact that we can never fathom the meaning and purpose of our existence does not hinder us from taking precautions to avoid contagious diseases or from making use of the appropriate means to feed and clothe ourselves, nor should it deter us from organizing society in such a way that the earthly goals for which we strive can be most effectually attained. Even the state and the legal system, the government and its administration are not too lofty, too good, too grand, for us to bring them within the range of rational deliberation. Problems of social policy are problems of social technology, and their solution must be sought in the same ways and by the same means that are at our disposal in the solution of other technical problems: by rational reflection and by examination of the given conditions. All that man is and all that raises him above the animals he owes to his reason. Why should he forgo the use of reason just in the sphere of social policy and trust to vague and obscure feelings and impulses? - Ludwig von Mises
We ought to be having a rational discussion about "Liberalism, State, and Government" by Ludwig von Mises but they are all Rothbardians now focused on the Non-Aggression Principle.
 
I'm not a neo-con and I no longer read LewRockwell.com everyday because they are just like TV media. They are not always "truth-telling history" writers. As a matter of fact they promote lies just like the regular media. The philosophy promoted by Rothbardians is not the philosophy of Classical Liberals. If they really did focus on telling the truth, if they actually did stick to the philosophy of Mises, then I would donate. Until they do, I'm not going to go there every day to get my news.

Pawlease. You're just butthurt over them exposing Lincoln, whom you have had a lifelong bias for because of some apparent family connection. Also, I don't suppose you care that Rothbard is one of the primary influences on Ron Paul. Nope, for you the philosophy achieved perfection with Locke. If it's so perfect than why did it so miserably fail? And WOULD PLEASE stop characterizing Mises as a philosopher? He was an ECONOMIST.

Oh, and please list these lies that LRC spreads.
 
Last edited:
Do you ever hear Lew Rockwell talk about how Ludwig von Mises believed, "National and governmental affairs are, it is true, more important than all other practical questions of ' human conduct, since the social order furnishes the foundation for everything else, and it is possible for each individual to prosper in the pursuit of his ends only in a society propitious for their attainment."?

I don't. All I ever read on LRC is anti-State hate.


We ought to be having a rational discussion about "Liberalism, State, and Government" by Ludwig von Mises but they are all Rothbardians now focused on the Non-Aggression Principle.

Can the "state" exist if it does not employ coercion and aggression to achieve its ends? If so, then why can't voluntary government coexist with Rothbardian non-aggression? I think LRC is being realistic when it characterizes the state as "legal monopoly on the use of force". Until the state and the government can be defined in other terms, then it should rightfully be identified for what it is.
 
Pawlease. You're just butthurt over them exposing Lincoln, whom you have had a lifelong bias for because of some apparent family connection. Also, I don't suppose you care that Rothbard is one of the primary influences on Ron Paul. Nope, for you the philosophy achieved perfection with Locke. If it's so perfect than why did it so miserably fail? And WOULD PLEASE stop characterizing Mises as a philosopher? He was an ECONOMIST.

Oh, and please list these lies that LRC spreads.
Hoppe's lies.
Mises was an anarchist... lie

DiLorenzo's lies.
"The American System" = "The Federal Reserve System" ... Lie
Lincoln did not want an audit of the bank. .. Lie
Lincoln was not morally opposed to slavery... Lie
Lincoln is responsible for the strong central government of today... Lie
Lincoln was responsible for the evils during "Reconstruction" ... Lie
His entire book, "The Real Lincoln" is so factually inaccurate it falsely portrays what the U.S. Constitution and our founding fathers did for liberating the common man.
 
Can the "state" exist if it does not employ coercion and aggression to achieve its ends? If so, then why can't voluntary government coexist with Rothbardian non-aggression? I think LRC is being realistic when it characterizes the state as "legal monopoly on the use of force". Until the state and the government can be defined in other terms, then it should rightfully be identified for what it is.

Read "Liberalism, State and Government" for yourself. Mises explains all your objections much better than I can.
 
Pawlease. You're just butthurt over them exposing Lincoln, whom you have had a lifelong bias for because of some apparent family connection. Also, I don't suppose you care that Rothbard is one of the primary influences on Ron Paul. Nope, for you the philosophy achieved perfection with Locke. If it's so perfect than why did it so miserably fail? And WOULD PLEASE stop characterizing Mises as a philosopher? He was an ECONOMIST.

Oh, and please list these lies that LRC spreads.
Exposing Lincoln? Really? That is just dumb. Anybody, who is literate, can read Lincoln's own words for themselves. Lincoln exposed himself. DiLorenzo lies about him, takes his quotes clear out of context, promotes his lies as if he is a scholar knowing full well most people are too lazy to read the source documents. DiLorenzo exposed him ... LOL... you got a bridge to sell?
 
Exposing Lincoln? Really? That is just dumb. Anybody, who is literate, can read Lincoln's own words for themselves. Lincoln exposed himself. DiLorenzo lies about him, takes his quotes clear out of context, promotes his lies as if he is a scholar knowing full well most people are too lazy to read the source documents. DiLorenzo exposed him ... LOL... you got a bridge to sell?

Yeah right. That's why there's been no scholarly refutation of his work. :rolleyes:

Really, it's so pathetic having to read your endless twaddle. You just ignore the countless times facts having been given to you and continue to repeat the same baseless claims. But in the final analysis it beggars belief that you would be such a staunch defender of a man who was so obviously an opponent of your precious 'classical liberalism'.
 
Yeah right. That's why there's been no scholarly refutation of his work. :rolleyes:

While I do not agree with everything Brandt writes, his scholarly refutation of DiLorenzo's, "The Real Lincoln" is at least honest,
Shattering the Truth: The Slandering of Abraham Lincoln
Dennis W. Brandt (Author)

"DiLorenzo's books and Internet posts arguably have made him the most famous Lincolnphobe in history, yet the academic world largely dismisses him along with other South-was-right evangelicals. That is a mistake. Ultralibertarians and neo-Confederate voices have united to sing Hallelujah! at his every historical misstep, and the list of converts is growing." - Dennis W. Brandt

DiLorenzo is making people in the liberty movement look like a bunch of illiterate dummies who won't do their history homework and will not abide by the rules of ethics. Taking quotes out-of-context and promoting them as if they accurately portray the intended meaning is what DiLorenzo does throughout "The Real Lincoln", and it is unethical writing. The point being, if you wish to know the truth about Lincoln, read his words, his letters, and his legislation. Lincoln's own words are documented for posterity.

Really, it's so pathetic having to read your endless twaddle. You just ignore the countless times facts having been given to you and continue to repeat the same baseless claims. But in the final analysis it beggars belief that you would be such a staunch defender of a man who was so obviously an opponent of your precious 'classical liberalism'.

You don't HAVE to read my posts.

Lincoln was not a perfect defender of Classical Liberalism, that is true, but he was much more closely aligned to Classical Liberalism than Rothbard by a long shot. Mises himself rejected anarchy and so did Lincoln because he lived during a time of anarchy. Lincoln admired the works of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson (until he ended the banks), Taylor, and many other presidents. Lincoln loved the free country formed by the U.S. Constitution and would have abided by it strictly if the South would not have fired upon Fort Sumter. He said that and he had a life long history of honoring his word.

"Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism." - Ludwig von Mises
Maybe Rothbard didn't read "Liberalism" by Mises, or maybe he just rejected it because, according to green73, Mises wasn't a "philosopher." Which begs the question: If Mises was not a philosopher, then why would they name a philosophy institution after him?

But I digress. Lincoln knew what anarchy was like first hand,

"I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill omen amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions in lieu of the sober judgment of courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice." - A. Lincoln (1837)
 
Last edited:
While I do not agree with everything Brandt writes, his scholarly refutation of DiLorenzo's, "The Real Lincoln" is at least honest,
Shattering the Truth: The Slandering of Abraham Lincoln
Dennis W. Brandt (Author)



DiLorenzo is making people in the liberty movement look like a bunch of illiterate dummies who won't do their history homework and will not abide by the rules of ethics. Taking quotes out-of-context and promoting them as if they accurately portray the intended meaning is what DiLorenzo does throughout "The Real Lincoln", and it is unethical writing. The point being, if you wish to know the truth about Lincoln, read his words, his letters, and his legislation. Lincoln's own words are documented for posterity.



You don't HAVE to read my posts.

Lincoln was not a perfect defender of Classical Liberalism, that is true, but he was much more closely aligned to Classical Liberalism than Rothbard by a long shot. Mises himself rejected anarchy and so did Lincoln because he lived during a time of anarchy. Lincoln admired the works of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson (until he ended the banks), Taylor, and many other presidents. Lincoln loved the free country formed by the U.S. Constitution and would have abided by it strictly if the South would not have fired upon Fort Sumter. He said that and he had a life long history of honoring his word.


Maybe Rothbard didn't read "Liberalism" by Mises, or maybe he just rejected it because, according to green73, Mises wasn't a "philosopher." Which begs the question: If Mises was not a philosopher, then why would they name a philosophy institution after him?

But I digress. Lincoln knew what anarchy was like first hand,

this, Lincoln has been getting a bad rap by libertarians who fail to put things into their proper context. the real enemy of liberty is FDR: devaluing our money and locking up American citizens into concentration camps. a foreign policy of mass murder (Haiti) if J Edgar Hoover had an equivalent in the oval office it would be FDR
 
Back
Top