I Get Press Releases

Like this one.

APPLETON, WIS. — April 4, 2008 — Congressman Ron Paul has endorsed The John Birch Society in a statement received from his office this week.  His statement also congratulates the Society on being “a great patriotic organization” now in its 50th year.

John McManus, president of JBS, responded, “We graciously accept Dr. Paul’s endorsement.  He continues to demonstrate what an elected official should be doing … obeying the Constitution.  We thank him for his continuous commitment to protect the freedoms of all Americans.  There’s a reason why he consistently rates toward the top of the Freedom Index, our Congressional scorecard rating legislators’ votes published twice a year in The New American magazine.”

Dr. Paul stated, “The John Birch Society is a great patriotic organization featuring an educational program solidly based on constitutional principles. I congratulate the Society in this, its 50th year. I wish them continued success and endorse their untiring efforts to foster ‘less government, more responsibility … and with God’s help … a better world.’”

The Paul-Birch connection is no secret. At the RP New Hampshire headquarters, I saw plenty of New Americans sitting around, with volunteers flipping them open to positive articles about Paul. (I never saw any given to prospective voters, even though I assumed that was what they were there for.) When Chris Caldwell asked him about the JBS in 2007, Paul laughed it off.

“Oh, my goodness, the John Birch Society!” he said in mock horror. “Is that bad? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They’re generally well educated, and they understand the Constitution. I don’t know how many positions they would have that I don’t agree with. Because they’re real strict constitutionalists, they don’t like the war, they’re hard-money people...”

Still... is Paul really still trying to max out the anti-McCain protest vote? Why's he doing stuff like this?

Cue paleolibertarian writers ineffectively attacking me in 3,2,1...

Comments

javier | April 4, 2008, 4:24pm | #

what exactly is the john birch society????

Bingo | April 4, 2008, 4:27pm | #

The John Birch Society is anti-totalitarian, particularly anti-Socialist, anti-Communist, and leans libertarian. It generally seeks to limit the powers of government and strenuously defends what it sees as the original intention of the U.S. Constitution, rooted in Judeo-Christian principles.

So they are paleos with a foreign policy?

Jesse Walker | April 4, 2008, 4:27pm | #

Paul was on the masthead of The New American back in the '80s, so I've always assumed he was a full-fledged member of the JBS.

Deus X. Nihilo | April 4, 2008, 4:29pm | #

"Cue paleolibertarian writers ineffectively attacking me in 3,2,1..."

They're so "ineffective" you feel compelled to mention them.

JM | April 4, 2008, 4:30pm | #

I don't see why Reason is weirded out by the JBS? What's so bad about them? Wouldn't shock me if someone affiliated with them at some point in time has said something offensive, but then again what organization hasn't had that happen.

javier | April 4, 2008, 4:31pm | #

sounds like an interesting group from what I read on wiki. Why is bad to be associated with them

Shannon Love | April 4, 2008, 4:31pm | #

Still... is Paul really still trying to max out the anti-McCain protest vote? Why's he doing stuff like this?

I imagine he is cutting his losses and shoring up his base.

Knowing he won't play a further role in the Republican party this year he has reverted to piecing together his coalition of libertarians and extremist paleoconservatives.

joe | April 4, 2008, 4:32pm | #

I saw plenty of New Americans sitting around...

Is that some kind of cosmo term for illegals?

Daze | April 4, 2008, 4:35pm | #

This is just a cover story, designed to conceal the fact that Ron Paul is a conscious, dedicated agent of the world Islamist conspiracy.

joe | April 4, 2008, 4:35pm | #

Well, I was feelin' sad and feelin' blue,
I didn't know what in the world I was gonna do,
Them Communists they wus comin' around,
They wus in the air,
They wus on the ground.
They wouldn't gimme no peace. . .

So I run down most hurriedly
And joined up with the John Birch Society,
I got me a secret membership card
And started off a-walkin' down the road.
Yee-hoo, I'm a real John Bircher now!
Look out you Commies!

Now we all agree with Hitlers' views,
Although he killed six million Jews.
It don't matter too much that he was a Fascist,
At least you can't say he was a Communist!
That's to say like if you got a cold you take a shot of malaria.

Well, I wus lookin' everywhere for them gol-darned Reds.
I got up in the mornin' 'n' looked under my bed,
Looked in the sink, behind the door,
Looked in the glove compartment of my car.
Couldn't find 'em . . .

I wus lookin' high an' low for them Reds everywhere,
I wus lookin' in the sink an' underneath the chair.
I looked way up my chimney hole,
I even looked deep inside my toilet bowl.
They got away . . .

Well, I wus sittin' home alone an' started to sweat,
Figured they wus in my T.V. set.
Peeked behind the picture frame,
Got a shock from my feet, hittin' right up in the brain.
Them Reds caused it!
I know they did . . . them hard-core ones.

Well, I quit my job so I could work alone,
Then I changed my name to Sherlock Holmes.
Followed some clues from my detective bag
And discovered they wus red stripes on the American flag!
That ol' Betty Ross . . .

Well, I investigated all the books in the library,
Ninety percent of 'em gotta be burned away.
I investigated all the people that I knowed,
Ninety-eight percent of them gotta go.
The other two percent are fellow Birchers . . . just like me.

Now Eisenhower, he's a Russian spy,
Lincoln, Jefferson and that Roosevelt guy.
To my knowledge there's just one man
That's really a true American: George Lincoln Rockwell.
I know for a fact he hates Commies cus he picketed the movie Exodus.

Well, I fin'ly started thinkin' straight
When I run outa things to investigate.
Couldn't imagine doin' anything else,
So now I'm sittin' home investigatin' myself!
Hope I don't find out anything . . . hmm, great God!

joe | April 4, 2008, 4:37pm | #

The John Birch Society - not someone associated with them, but an statement put out by the society - states that Dwight Eisenhower was "a conscious agend of the international Communist conspiracy."

Not a dupe. Not a guy with bad policies. A mole actively working to advance communism.

Weirdos.

Kolohe | April 4, 2008, 4:38pm | #

"Why is bad to be associated with them?"

Because they disagreed when a judge told some people that a little black girl could go to the same school as a little white girl.

They may have changed their minds since then, however.

Timothy | April 4, 2008, 4:39pm | #

What's so bad about them?

Um...maybe some of this stuff:

During the 1960s, The John Birch Society opposed aspects of the Civil Rights Movement because of concerns that the movement had a number of Communists in important positions and because they suspected that it was backed and supported by the American Communist Party. The John Birch Society opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the belief that it was in violation of the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution and overstepped the rights of individual states to make laws regarding Civil Rights.

The John Birch Society is against a unified "one world government", and has an illegal immigration reduction view on immigration reform. It has opposed the United Nations, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the FTAA, and other free-trade agreements with other nations, believing them to be destructive to American principles, the economy, freedom and national sovereignty.

Timothy | April 4, 2008, 4:39pm | #

That's from the Wikipedia, so handfull of salt and all, but yeah....

Gimme Back My Dog | April 4, 2008, 4:42pm | #

John Birch? Is this some fucking joke? I hate to play libertarianer-than-thou but how can anyone call themselves libertarian and support these guys?

Shannon Love | April 4, 2008, 4:42pm | #

Bingo,

So they are paleos with a foreign policy?

Not exactly.

The John Birch society viewed the conflict between liberal-democracy and Communism as primarily a conflict between Christianity and satanism disguised as atheism. Any other political considerations were largely secondary. They were wildly conspiratorial accusing everyone of disagreed with them about anything, such as Eisenhower. of being a communist. They didn't show much respect for the Constitution when it came to rooting out communist.

They had their heyday in late 50's after the Red Scare. Even then they were a noisy but marginal group. After that, they mostly served as a bugaboo for Leftist who accused anyone worried about communism as thinking just like the John Birch society.

John Markley | April 4, 2008, 4:43pm | #

Actually, history of wacky conspiracy-mongering notwithstanding, the modern Birchers are pretty good- some strong libertarian leanings, certainly more than you see from many other paleocon groups. They're hardly perfect from a libertarian standpoint, but not something to be ashamed of associating with, either.

Plus, they earned a lot of points with me when Sean Hannity called them a "liberal" organization.

javier | April 4, 2008, 4:46pm | #

The John Birch Society opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the belief that it was in violation of the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution and overstepped the rights of individual states to make laws regarding Civil Rights.

oh thats right! If you oppose the civil rights act, it is not OK to have an intelligent discussion, it just means you're a racist.

Well, You Asked | April 4, 2008, 4:47pm | #

What's so bad about them?

The unbohemian poor and the petty bourgeoisie are not fit for public display. They're also not politically useful to the left. But that's surely a coincidence, since cosmotarians are just really awesome libertarians.

Warren | April 4, 2008, 4:47pm | #

Before Newslettergate the JBS was of no consequence. Like Paul said, Birchers aren't dangerous. They mostly want what libertarians want. They read, they care about the Constitution. The only thing that I can't agree with policy wise is their staunch unwillingness to enter into any kind of treaty with other countries.

Basically they are conspiracists, worried about the UNs black helicopters and such. So while you might worry about them being a bunch of moonbats feeding off their own paranoia, most of what they're afraid of is too much power being concentrated into too few hands, so most of what they're calling for sounds pretty libertarian.

But when you throw all the Truthers, and White Supremists in together, you've got a real crazypants problem that needs to be addressed before you cozy up with the fringe.

Jesse Walker | April 4, 2008, 4:48pm | #

Timothy: My understanding of the Birch position on the civil rights movement is that they thought both the protesters and the KKK counterprotesters were part of a Communist plot to foment a race war.

They have a pretty standard paleo platform, maybe 80% libertarian. But they're prone to excessive conspiracy theorizing.

Travis | April 4, 2008, 4:51pm | #

I voted for Ron Paul and still consider him probably the best Representative in congress, but the John Birch Society he's fucking nuts.

Kolohe | April 4, 2008, 4:52pm | #

inteligent discussion of civil rights act-

bad precedent for federalism, and possibly bad law, but asshole southerners brought it upon themselves, for drinking from the New Deal fountain, then crying 'state's rights' when they didn't want the black man thinking he was the equal of the white man. (see also: 1861)

Thanks a lot South, you wankers!

Bingo | April 4, 2008, 4:54pm | #

Thanks Shannon, that explains why there is so much Christian rhetoric on their site.

Wackos that are pretty good in terms of libertarian outlook, but still wackos.

Fluffy | April 4, 2008, 4:54pm | #

OK, but how many of those "flouridation in our water is a conspiracy" guys are really still around?

I don't see anything in Timothy's quote that puts them beyond the pale. They're more isolationist than me, but that's not an indefensible view. The "precious bodily fluids" stuff is what I always thought was the problem with them, but I thought that was decades ago.

After all, William F. Buckley opposed the Civil Rights Act, too, and he was supposedly a respectable person.

javier | April 4, 2008, 4:55pm | #

I am not a conspiracy theorist but I really don't mind them. In the next 100 years if they even get one thing right then they are worth having around.

Jennifer | April 4, 2008, 4:55pm | #

How mortifying. Thank God it's raining because otherwise I might overcompensate by doing something thoroughly embarrassing like setting fire to an American flag doused in patchouli oil whilst screaming "Guaranteed national income for everybody you selfish fucks!" and then I'd be doubly mortified once I came to my senses.

Fluffy | April 4, 2008, 4:59pm | #

You know, I spent a lot of time this week thinking to myself, "Gosh, why do these guys have such a problem with Reason?"

Now I'm starting to think maybe some of it's because occasionally you like to wiggle your ass in their faces for fun.

Colin | April 4, 2008, 5:02pm | #

Yes, a great patriotic organization that hates Blacks and Jews. A great patriotic organization that accused Eisenhower of being a Soviet spy. A great patriotic organization that believed putting flouride in the water supply was a conspiracy to turn us all into communists.

Ken Shultz | April 4, 2008, 5:05pm | #

Tom Metzger was once a member of the John Birch Society.

It's like I said when someone pointed out that there were Ron Paul ads over at Storm*****. When I see people like that jump on a bandwagon, I jump the fuck off. I'll figure out exactly why later--all I need to know is that they got on the bandwagon and then I jump the fuck off.

The John Birch Society is kinda like that for me too. There's some old folksy wisdom that goes something like, "Anybody who [hates communists] that much can't be all bad." That old saying in that form--I think it's bullshit.

There's another old saying about how, "If you can't say something nice about somebody..." Well the truth is, I was never on the Ron Paul bandwagon, and I'd like to thank Dr. Paul for making glad about that all over again.

Ken Shultz | April 4, 2008, 5:06pm | #

And for all you Ron Paul supporters out there, I think you should take the one about the road to hell being paved with good intentions to heart.

Seriously. It's not about you.

The Democratic Republican | April 4, 2008, 5:10pm | #

The other part of the motto that is a problem is the thing about understanding the Constitution "rooted in Judeo-Christian values"

Being a Christian, I'm not opposed to those values, but from the JBS, that can mean any number of things that would make Huckabee look like he was from San Francisco.

Citizen Nothing | April 4, 2008, 5:13pm | #

I actually love being a part of a movement that includes some hippies and Birchers, Rockwell and Crain, Raimondo and Welch. (Note that I didn't include Dondaro.)
I think the second photo in this old Onion story is a hoot: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/l_a_efficiency_chosen_as_site_of

The Democratic Republican | April 4, 2008, 5:14pm | #

Picking up where Ken left off:

reason posted recently to an interview with W. Buckley where he described how he and Barry Goldwater and some others consciously set out to separate the JBS from the conservative movement. So these guys, with their backs completely against the wall, thought it was a good idea to get rid of those lunatics, and now Dr. Paul thinks it's a good idea to bring them back in?

If that's really the case, then a person has to really wonder what Dr. Paul really thinks he's doing and why it is he has repeatedly allowed himself to be used by those who want to mainstream their bullshit ideas.

I wouldn't have taken it personally if thousands of people like me hadn't been duped into sending money to somebody that would have made Lew Rockwell Secretary of State. Caveat emptor....

The Democratic Republican | April 4, 2008, 5:15pm | #

Citizen Nothing | April 4, 2008, 5:13pm | #

I actually love being a part of a movement that includes some hippies and Birchers, Rockwell and Crain, Raimondo and Welch. (Note that I didn't include Dondaro.)

I think what I'm saying and others have been saying is that the Birchers and truthers are NOT part of the libertarian movement and should not be considered to be so. The differences between Raimondo and Welch are just not on the same level.

shrike | April 4, 2008, 5:15pm | #

"rooted in Judeo-Christian values" = code language for a Judge Roy Moore type "Bible is higher authority than US Constitution" mentality.

matth | April 4, 2008, 5:16pm | #

Fluffy, a year or so ago either Bennington or Brattleboro Vermont tried to get fluoride in their municipal water supply. There was lots of good scientific discussion about the merits. And a shocking number of people coming out of the woodwork saying it was a conspiracy to reduce our will to resist or something.

Give a Truther an inch, and he'll latch onto every half-baked conspiricy theory ever proposed.

Citizen Nothing | April 4, 2008, 5:18pm | #

DR - Don't get me wrong. I don't support the JBS. I just think that some individual JBSers and truthers, as wacky and misguided as they may be, are really fellow travelers at heart.

alan | April 4, 2008, 5:23pm | #

Their past may have some embarrassing aspects to it, and the conspiracy stuff touches on the deep end*, I don't believe it is any kookier either the dispensationalist evangelicals like Hagee, or the National Greatness freaks of the Weekly Standard.


*some cosmos are way too touchy about 'conspiracies', Austrian theories concerning fractional reserve banking do not equate to standing on a street corner yelling about the Bilderberg, Ms. Postrel. I hope you don't feint if you ever get a hold of James Grant's Money of the Mind .

Colonel_Angus | April 4, 2008, 5:26pm | #

What the fuck is this paleo cosmo shit. They sound like retarded buzz words that only came up after that newsletter waste of time. Every time I read them I want to stab someone.

Kevin Houston | April 4, 2008, 5:27pm | #

Well everyone knows the JBS are tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists who thought that the US government had full fore-knowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and did nothing to prevent it (some go so far as to say actively abetted by sending the main defense force away from the island.)

... Oh wait, they were right about that one(read "day of deceit")

Well then, everyone knows the JBS are a bunch af racists (never mind their membership was open to all in a time when most organizations weren't) who opposed the Civil-rights act on the grounds it was a violation of the 9th and 10th amendments, a violation of private property rights, and was more about special-rights, than equal rights.

... Oh wait, they were correct about that one too. (the civil rights act is now the basis of state-sponsored discrimination in universities, housing loans, and in one particular case in Florida, even used to justify a white woman's "right" to a workplace free from African Americans.)

I never was a member of the JBS, but from where I am sitting, it seems to me that they were far more often correct than incorrect. And yet, it still seems fashionable to trash them as some kind of paleolithic throw-backs with jutting jaws and enormous brow-ridges.

Quite the unreasoning viewpoint for a magazine called "Reason"

Chalk this one up as one more "reason" I won't be renewing my subscription.

alan | April 4, 2008, 5:27pm | #

Fluffy, a year or so ago either Bennington or Brattleboro Vermont tried to get fluoride in their municipal water supply. There was lots of good scientific discussion about the merits.

Personally, I never gave a damn if their were scientific reasons for doing so or not. I just know that the
water I get from public drinking fountains when I'm in the city (which has fluoride in it) taste like shit compared to the well water I have at home in the county. I get my fluoride twice a day when I brush my teeth.

Happy Jack | April 4, 2008, 5:28pm | #

OK, but how many of those "flouridation in our water is a conspiracy" guys are really still around?

I couldn't say, but I worked for one about thirty-five years ago. He slept on a mattress on the floor, because he was worried someone could hide under his bed and kill him as he slept.

An employee had a key to his house, and had to wake him up every morning. For some strange reason, he didn't believe in alarm clocks. I didn't ask.

Fun times.

Orange Line Special | April 4, 2008, 5:29pm | #

I'm not overly familiar with the group, but there are probably two basic reasons why Reason and the Cosmos don't like the JBS:

1. The "liberals" to whom they curry favor react with horror to the JBS, and Reason/the Cosmos don't want to piss them off.

2. The JBS's opposition to certain things would cost certain people some money.

Edward | April 4, 2008, 5:30pm | #

Why's he doing stuff like this?

Because he's a certifiable fruitcake. A more relevant question is why Reason ever took him up.

Citizen Nothing | April 4, 2008, 5:31pm | #

"Quite the unreasoning viewpoint for a magazine called "Reason""
OK. I KNOW that one calls for a drink, under any interpretation of the rules. I'm making myself a manhatten as soon as I my fingers leave this keyboard.

alan | April 4, 2008, 5:31pm | #

And yet, it still seems fashionable to trash them as some kind of paleolithic throw-backs with jutting jaws and enormous brow-ridges.

Exactly. The Eisenhower matter (and I do like Ike) was fifty years ago. The Neocon and social conservative crazies are a real menace at this present time.

The Wine Commonsewer | April 4, 2008, 5:32pm | #

Cue paleolibertarian writers ineffectively attacking me in 3,2,1...

Good one, Weigel!

Sam Grove | April 4, 2008, 5:32pm | #

I have to wonder about any group that takes the name of its founder.

But why isn't that Scientology group more accurately called "the L Ron Hubbard" society?

The Wine Commonsewer | April 4, 2008, 5:32pm | #

Shut up Eric.

Citizen Nothing | April 4, 2008, 5:33pm | #

By my spelling of "manhatten," you can probably tell that I didn't wait for Kevin Houston to start the party.

Gabe Harris | April 4, 2008, 5:34pm | #

They aren't racist...they are agaisnt the drug war, they are against affirmitive action, they are against communism, they are against the entire New Deal.

The wierd conspiracy stuff is 90% in this book:

"None Dare Call It A Conspiracy"
http://reactor-core.org/none-dare.html

if you don't want to read then watch avideo clip
JBS president on Crossfire and judge for yourself
:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlkD5z740w0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma6Cnqqv39M&feature=related

Jennifer | April 4, 2008, 5:34pm | #

John Birch had nothing to do with the founding of the society which bears his name.

Citizen Nothing | April 4, 2008, 5:35pm | #

Where's the goddamn bitters?

Citizen Nothing | April 4, 2008, 5:37pm | #

"We don't know what he did
But he's our hero just the same."

Citizen Nothing | April 4, 2008, 5:39pm | #

http://www.songlyrics.com/song-lyrics/Chad_Mitchell_Trio/At_The_Bitter_End/The_John_Birch_Society/23598.html

Citizen Nothing | April 4, 2008, 5:41pm | #

And the day we get Red Skelton
Won't that be a victory!

Famous Mortimer | April 4, 2008, 5:42pm | #

The more and more I learn about Ron Paul and his associates, the more I feel like I did the right thing by not voting for him in the primaries.

The newsletter scandal made him unfit for any kind of political office, but his attraction to crazy-Leftists-in-reverse demonstrates that beneath his veneer as a sweet, skinny old man, lies a wingnut waiting to unfurl.

Kolohe | April 4, 2008, 5:43pm | #

Quite the unreasoning viewpoint for a magazine called "Reason"

Chalk this one up as one more "reason" I won't be renewing my subscription.

Damn, happy hour is over 180 min away in my time zone.

charlie | April 4, 2008, 5:43pm | #

Right... Ron Paul can't associate with the eccentric but generally harmless JBS, but Reason staffers can write at the Weekly Standard?

I mean, if we're going to start purging people, I'd start with the warmongering pricks before I'd pick on the eccentric, but more often than not right, Birchers.

Now I'm not about to join them myself, but their greatest crimes seem to have come a good five decades ago -- and many of those "crimes", such as opposing the Civil Rights Act and the UN, are libertarian in nature (though I'll concede that they probably didn't oppose them at the time on strictly libertarian grounds).

joshua corning | April 4, 2008, 5:43pm | #

If only leftist organizations retained their taint long after past transgressions.

I am assuming that the John Birch society is some group of libertarians/conservatives who ended up on the wrong side civil rights 40 years ago.

Didn't the Democrat party end up on the wrong side of the fucking Civil War?

SIV | April 4, 2008, 5:45pm | #

I have to wonder about any group that takes the name of its founder.

John Birch wasn't the founder. I believe Robert Welch was.

GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 5:54pm | #

"paleolibertarians"?

I though those guys were just a bunch of idiots. It's not like they were proposing alternative points of view, other than that, well, "You suck", "Reason sucks", "Matt Welch has liberal tendencies", and that "Gilmore obviously has a very small penis".

I think one of those things is probably true.

It's definitely not the one about my penis though.

GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 5:57pm | #

Citizen Nothing | April 4, 2008, 5:31pm | #

"Quite the unreasoning viewpoint for a magazine called "Reason""

OK. I KNOW that one calls for a drink, under any interpretation of the rules. I'm making myself a manhatten as soon as I my fingers leave this keyboard.

All I gots is beer.

Cheers everybody. It's friday, and soon those... paleos or whatever... they'll put us all on the floor in no-time

svf | April 4, 2008, 5:59pm | #

who gives a shit about the John Birch Society, the newsletters, the Masons, blah blah.

let's just abolish the IRS, dismantle Social Security and the Welfare State, end the Drug War, bring our troops home, and balance the budget...

then we can go back to arguing about irrelevant shit that most people have never heard of and don't care about anyway.

and.... 3... 2... 1... happy hour.

Colin | April 4, 2008, 6:03pm | #

This just in:

Ron Paul has commemorated the Horst Wessel Lied on his 80th year, praising it as "a great patriotic song."

###

Citizen Nothing | April 4, 2008, 6:03pm | #

Cheers, friends.

GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 6:05pm | #

Quite the unreasoning viewpoint for a magazine called "Reason"

Chalk this one up as one more "reason" I won't be renewing my subscription.

Ahh. Technically thats a *double* drink.

CHUG!

I learned recently that brits call that "a one'er".

charlie | April 4, 2008, 6:07pm | #

I think the paleolibertarians are in fact making a very clear point -- that Reason allows no deviation on issues such as the drug war (and rightfully so), but for some reason bombing poor people half-way around the globe is somehow open to debate. Advocating drug laws would be a violation of a fundamental tenet of libertarianism, but murdering foreigners in order to secure "U.S. (corporate) interests" wouldn't be -- at least in hipster Reason-land.

You can criticize the paleos all you want, but they do have a point. And you know, for some reason, advocating that there should be restrictions on immigration is somehow less abhorrent to me than advocating dropping bombs on poor brown people in order to secure U.S. hegemony around the world.

And people like Matt Welch not giving a shit about the deaths of hundreds of thousands to Iraqis to the point of not even caring either way if the U.S. preemptively attacked Iraq is fucking obscene, especially for the politically-aware editor of what's supposed to be the premier libertarian magazine (which isn't saying a whole lot, I know).

Ayn_Randian | April 4, 2008, 6:10pm | #

reason posted recently to an interview with W. Buckley where he described how he and Barry Goldwater and some others consciously set out to separate the JBS from the conservative movement.

Buckley's fiction book Getting it Right mentions that it was the Birchers and the Objectivists he wanted out of the Right movement.

Funny, though, how the right has betrayed libertarians time and again since Buckley did that.

Isaac Bartram | April 4, 2008, 6:11pm | #

Quite the unreasoning viewpoint for a magazine called "Reason"

Chalk this one up as one more "reason" I won't be renewing my subscription.

Dammit, I won't be renewing my subscription either. But in my case it's because my doctor says I'll get diabetes if I don't quit drinking.

Besides, I have no idea how many drinks that comment requires.

GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 6:12pm | #

charlie | April 4, 2008, 6:07pm | #

I think the paleolibertarians are in fact making a very clear point -- that Reason allows no deviation on issues such as the drug war (and rightfully so), but for some reason bombing poor people half-way around the globe is somehow open to debate.

Can you go back to that thread the other day and actually quote 1 person who said as much?

I thought they were just jealous of my huge dick, extensive vocabulary beyond "sucks"

Ayn_Randian | April 4, 2008, 6:12pm | #

but murdering foreigners in order to secure "U.S. (corporate) interests" wouldn't be -- at least in hipster Reason-land.

What corporate interests would those be? And if you say "oil", I reserve the right to laugh in your face, as you would so richly deserve.

Yes, reason was generally pro-Iraq war. Now, they are generally NOT. Maybe you can ask them, but I bet they're willing to cop to making a mistake, as did 70% of America, you big soppy douche.

Citizen Nothing | April 4, 2008, 6:12pm | #

I dig being a "hipster in Reason-land." I feel kinda like Sammy Davis Jr., or at least Joey Bishop.

GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 6:13pm | #

Besides, I have no idea how many drinks that comment requires.

(Gilmore as Wise Owl)

Let me see.

A one...

A two...

a three...

Three.

Citizen Nothing | April 4, 2008, 6:15pm | #

LOL, GILMORE, probably because of all the manhattans.

Jesse Walker | April 4, 2008, 6:15pm | #

Yes, reason was generally pro-Iraq war.

At the time of the invasion, two Reason staffers supported the war, one was unsure, and the others -- a clear majority -- all opposed it.

Ayn_Randian | April 4, 2008, 6:19pm | #

Jesse - although that may be true, I don't think that my memory is so bad because I recall that the pro-war folks (CPF and Cathy Young, at least...) got a lot more column space and blog time on the issue.

But, I do appreciate the opportunity to be wrong.

LevStrauss | April 4, 2008, 6:21pm | #

"During the 1960s, The John Birch Society opposed aspects of the Civil Rights Movement because of concerns that the movement had a number of Communists in important positions and because they suspected that it was backed and supported by the American Communist Party."

I regret that I was not alive to see the Civil Rights Movement during the sixties, but if history was written by the same type of people who give me my mainstream news, then who knows what went on. I can tell you the contemporary version of the Civil Rights movement, the anti war protesters are rather communist. If you walk past the tables in the mall during a protest there is plenty of Marxist-Leninist stuff to purchase. They also condition people who are passionate about their cause to dress grungy and make paper mache puppets to exact change. Now does that makes sense to anybody who looks at it for the first time? There is some social engineering going on there. It is like a cult, like a religion, where they deprive you of your instincts to make you more docile. The leaders of the anti war movement, that Peace and Justice Outfit, tries to be impotent, nobody could be more useless. It is nothing but a hustle and a gag like the truther movement. Many are well meaning, passionate leaders and followers, there can definitely be the few, the kind of people who highjack popular movements like Neocons did to foreign policy. I definitely think there could have been elements in the Civil Rights Movement. When things become popular thats when the charlatans come out to further their own causes and ambitions. Look all the hustlers that gather around religions, is there supposed to be anything nobler than God?

I don't agree with what the Birchers say and probably how they say what they say as well, but I do not believe that jumping to conclusions or vulgarity should be mortal sin. The two parties appear to do plenty of that on their own, same for Reason and Rockwell. Here at Reason, the cosmopolitans seem so eager to find favor with their liberal friends that they cave on everything they do not feel like debating in an effort to look effeminate and beautiful. I live in DC too but it makes me want to be quiet and take more showers.

And why do I have to keep shooting the defenseless, denouncing the weak minded, the people who buy the 9/11 truth garbage, Birchers, and all those small fringe groups that have absolutely no power or influence? I'd much rather pity them and go after the people who actually influence how I live my life.

charlie | April 4, 2008, 6:22pm | #

Ayn_Randian:

You may have heard of this little thing called "the military industrial complex." That liberal commie plant Dwight Eisenhower mentioned a few years back I think.

I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty just why the U.S. attacked Iraq, but I'm pretty sure those corporations that make all those weapons that make "shock and awe" possible had something to do with it.

Ayn_Randian | April 4, 2008, 6:27pm | #

I may have heard of it. Given that you've presented no evidence that it caused or was even a significant contributing factor to the invasion, I suggest that you quit making hysterical accusations.

I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty just why the U.S. attacked Iraq

There are certainly quite a few who can. You ain't one of 'em.

GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 6:31pm | #

I will admit I supported killing Osama and putting his head on a stick in lower Manhattan (*With an "A", dude)

As for Iraq, and Reason, I recall a bunch of posts about how there was poor intelligence, but that finishing the war of 1991 was not necessarily bad idea.

Once things went to shit, I dont recall anyone at Reason begging us to "stay the course"

Are the ardent ant-war types of the mind that Afghanistan attack should never have happened?

charlie | April 4, 2008, 6:31pm | #

You have to appreciate some of the superficial libertarians that comment here -- the ones whose political philosophies are derived from a shitty author who, when not writing awkward pseudo-rape scenes, claimed big business was a poor, persecuted minority -- reflexively coming to the defense of corporations. Why, daring to point out that corporate interests benefit from military interventions makes you a wild-eyed leftist, despite the fact that the U.S. has, repeatedly, invaded countries to protect natural resources. I mean, for christ's sake, the U.S. invaded Guatemala over fucking bananas, so suggesting oil played a factor in the invasion of Iraq isn't so ludicrous, even if some anti-war protesters overstate the role it played.

Corporations themselves are a government-created entity, and there's no reason (ha) libertarians should feel the need to defend them. And dare I point out that the the U.S. elites just might want to sit on the third largest oil reserves in the world, if only so that countries such as China and Russia can't? There is a reason, I think, why the US decided to "liberate" Iraq and not, say, Zimbabwe... just saying.

GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 6:32pm | #

p.s. still support the Osama+Sharp stick idea, FWIW. Surge that shit!

GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 6:35pm | #

Why, daring to point out that corporate interests benefit from military interventions makes you a wild-eyed leftist

Well, yes. Sort of.

War has not benefited many 'corporations' with $100 a barrel oil.

Unless you think the whole thing was aimed at destabilizing the global economy?

Sorta like our secret plan to attack ourselves at the WTC to achieve the same...?

Sorta reminds me of that Mr Show sketch where NASA launches mission to Blow Up the Moon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHpX5aa5Lz4

Brandybuck | April 4, 2008, 6:35pm | #

The John Birch Society is correct on every one of their positions... except their core belief which is the Conspiracy Theory of History. That Ron Paul is actively endorsing them is distressing.

Remember folks:

*Nothing happens by accident
*Nothing is as it seems
*Everything is connected

charlie | April 4, 2008, 6:40pm | #

War certainly has benefited defense contractors and the oil companies -- not an insignificant portion of the U.S. economy. Granted, the economy as a whole has predictably tanked as a result of the massive deficit spending the war has incurred, but for the aforementioned politically connected corporate interests it has worked out pretty well.

The most ludicrous suggestion is that the United States invaded Iraq over a genuine concern over "weapons of mass destruction" or "spreading democracy." Both those claims are bullshit on their face. When lawmakers push a regulation libertarians rightly argue that one should the follow the money -- the same applies, doubly, to military interventions.

Famous Mortimer | April 4, 2008, 6:40pm | #

If the U.S. invaded Iraq to gain some kind of oil advantage, it certainly hasn't even remotely had a positive effect on that initiative.

The "blood for oil" routine simply doesn't add up.

Sometimes the truth is simpler, and much more obvious.

However, I guess that's the point of some of these comments. Conspiracy theorists tend to cling to ideas like the Pope clings to a rosary. They can't imagine that it's just as the talking heads say it is.

GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 6:44pm | #

War certainly has benefited defense contractors and the oil companies -- not an insignificant portion of the U.S. economy

Well, technically... as an economic research analyst, thats sorta stealing from peter to pay paul. Consumer spending is 70% of the US economy, and war is/has not been particularly good for the US dollar, employment, consumer prices, cost of driving to work, etc.

The idea that Wars happen BECAUSE OF or FOR THE BENEFIT of corporations is kinda silly and naive. Yes, some entities benefit. But it's not like we kill American kids in order to grease Halliburton. We kill the environment and stuff for that.

Tess | April 4, 2008, 6:46pm | #

Personally, I am anti anything that is against our Constitution, or We The People, and yes, I am a Ron Paul supporter. Ron Paul has my vote and support.

Brandybuck | April 4, 2008, 6:47pm | #

p.s. Of course, there are some other beliefs of the JBS that I have problems with. They've very squishy on immigration and trade, for example. But on the whole they are very libertarian. Most of the shit they get accused of is simply not true. Except for the conspiracy lunacy.

GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 6:47pm | #

The most ludicrous suggestion is that the United States invaded Iraq over a genuine concern over "weapons of mass destruction" or "spreading democracy."

Ok. fair enough.

How about "Hubris", "Revenge", "Ending existing regime", "Scaring Shit out of Iran + everyone else", and "Installing Bases in North to put in Missile Shield and Spyplanes to Fuck With Locals & Secure Threat Potential"

And more.

I mean, thats more plausible than, "hand out money to buddies".

They can do that over lunch.

Famous Mortimer | April 4, 2008, 6:47pm | #

So, your argument revolves around agreeing with you automatically, and if not, we're blind?

Sound like an argument from incredulity.

Ayn_Randian | April 4, 2008, 6:49pm | #

the ones whose political philosophies are derived from a shitty author who, when not writing awkward pseudo-rape scenes, claimed big business was a poor, persecuted minority

My, you're passive-aggressive. And stupid to boot! Hanging out with you must be a lot of fun.

She didn't say "Big Business"...she said the businessman. The "superficial" libertarian around here is you, who cannot even get past the most shallow and wrong-headed criticism of Ayn Rand. You have no concept of deeper meaning or understanding WRT her writing.

Which is all well and good...it's not required. But if you're going to blather on about her, it'd be best you not demonstrate your ignorance the instant your fingers hit the keyboard.

and her political philosophy, like mine, is libertarian...I don't see where it makes a whit of difference from where it was derived.

Did you know that Rand was virulently anti-war, an "America Firster" and probably someone with whom, if you knew how to read past a sixth-grade level, you would find yourself vigorously agreeing WRT foreign affairs?

No? Color me surprised.

Anthony Gregory | April 4, 2008, 6:52pm | #

The John Birch Society has been far better on foreign policy than a number of libertarians, since 9/11. It is fairly sound on most things, except abortion, immigration and trade.

GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 6:52pm | #

War certainly has benefited defense contractors and the oil companies

Have you asked oil guys how much they're thrilled about the failure to be able to access Iraqi oil for the last 15 years, Embargo Iran, having Venezuela and Nigeria be unstable, etc.

Temporary profits are sweet, but shit priced above $100 a barrel is bad business overall.

I mean, I can find an article for you explaining this... it's not complicated if you have some knowledge of the economics of oil...

I think Salon did a decent piece on this...

here tis -

Big Oil Fears War Too
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/02/25/oil/index.html?source=search&aim=/news/feature

Is it me, or are conspiracy theories most often a replacement for things people dont understand?

charlie | April 4, 2008, 6:52pm | #

Mortimer --

Read your history -- you'll find plenty of conspiracies. Arms manufacturers were the leading advocates of U.S. intervention in WWI, and benefited the most from the Cold War arms buildup.

United Fruit pushed to overthrow the government of Grenada, and it just so happened that the Sec. of State was their former chief counsel.

Pointing that out is very much different than saying 9/11 was an inside job or fluoridation is a communist plot.

I'm sure many of these military contractors thing they are good, American patriots -- I don't think they eat babies while planning the next war. But there's plenty of money to be paid in times of international conflict, and certain companies stand to gain the most. Thus a sort of mindset develops that sees military intervention as frequently necessary (and, coincidentally, good for business). That played a part in why the US invaded Iraq, and it's a large part of the reason why the US spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined.

And please don't conflate saying that oil played a part in why the U.S. leadership cared about Iraq with saying that was all it was about. And just because things haven't worked out as said leadership planned -- and oil hasn't paid for the reconstruction, as Wolfowitz predicted -- doesn't mean it wasn't a factor.

GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 6:53pm | #

Famous Mortimer | April 4, 2008, 6:47pm | #

You aint talkin to me are you?

Ayn_Randian | April 4, 2008, 6:54pm | #

It is fairly sound on most things, except abortion, immigration and trade.

erm, well, those are issue of some significance to be "bad" on, wouldn't you agree?

And please don't conflate saying that oil played a part in why the U.S. leadership cared about Iraq with saying that was all it was about.

In all fairness, you started the conflation, not us.

GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 6:55pm | #

Pardon me =

*"borrowing from Peter to Pay Paul..."*

I actually played to the guy's assumption that we fight to "steal oil" by fucking up that cliche

Anthony.Gregory | April 4, 2008, 6:56pm | #

Charlie writes, "You can criticize the paleos all you want, but they do have a point. And you know, for some reason, advocating that there should be restrictions on immigration is somehow less abhorrent to me than advocating dropping bombs on poor brown people in order to secure U.S. hegemony around the world."

Heroic! And indeed, the "paleos" are better, or at least more nuanced, on immigration than they're often given credit for, and surely better on it than many libertarians are on war -- or on immigration, for that matter.

Here's Lew Rockwell on immigration:

http://www.bkmarcus.com/blog/2006/01/lew-rockwell-on-immigration.html

charlie | April 4, 2008, 6:57pm | #

She didn't say "Big Business"...she said the businessman. The "superficial" libertarian around here is you, who cannot even get past the most shallow and wrong-headed criticism of Ayn Rand. You have no concept of deeper meaning or understanding WRT her writing.

Ouch... so I touched a nerve by criticizing your dear messiah? I take it Ayn Rand did not author the chapter "America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Go back to reading the Fountainhead.

Ayn_Randian | April 4, 2008, 6:57pm | #

Anthony - it has already been demonstrated that reason doesn't endorse global hegemony.

I know you're smarter than this. Stop being so "TEAM PALEO" that you get dumb about things.

Ayn_Randian | April 4, 2008, 6:59pm | #

Ouch... so I touched a nerve by criticizing your dear messiah?

a nerve? I don't have feelings, tiny stuff, and I certainly don't have a Messiah (that is, excepting the person who beats you down with a tire iron...he would be my Savior from your Stupidity).

Regardless, I'm still curious why you're Rand-bashing when I have explicitly informed you that when it comes to foreign affairs, she's on your side.

A curious thing to shoot one's own intellectual allies.

charlie | April 4, 2008, 7:00pm | #

I really have nothing against Rand (or you). It's just that you come across as a petulant ass on the Internet. But I'm sure I do too. So sorry :-).

GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 7:03pm | #

Pointing that out is very much different than saying 9/11 was an inside job or fluoridation is a communist plot

Yes, but not as much as you'd think.

Some corporations have been nasty and mean.

The extension of that to, "all corporations are part of some scheme to defraud the economy and start WWIV" is a tad thin though.

oil played a part

No one said it didnt.

But assuming it would be *good* for the economy would be naive. At best we wanted to install a nice government that would promise to sell it on the open market to nice western companies (and not china). And also let us keep some soldiers there to ensure they didnt use their reserves as a economic threat.

It's not like we were gonna *steal* it.

I mean, it's not some big secret conspiracy. Thats what Iraq I was about.

Anthony Gregory | April 4, 2008, 7:03pm | #

Me? Team Paleo? What the heck is that even supposed to mean? I'm just a libertarian, and very socially liberal at that. If paleolibertarian means what it once did – hard core, plumbline libertarian – then I'm on that "team."

But come on. It's clear that if you're going to hammer at "the paleos" for being ecumenical on immigration – and yes, I think that's the right word; half the people I've met through Mises, if not more, are for completely abolishing all state immigration controls immediately -- then what about "debating" the war? And the US does indeed aspire to global hegemony. This is just abundantly clear.

I think it's also clear that, overall, the "paleo" crowd is at least as anti-police state as the "cosmo" crowd, if not much more so. When's the last time Reason advocated abolishing police and government courts? Now, don't try to turn this around and say I'm being sectarian or showing off radicalism. I'm just pointing out that, if anyone should be read out of the movement, it's the people endorsing the greatest amount of aggression, which would be the war.

Anthony Gregory | April 4, 2008, 7:04pm | #

Rand wasn't good on foreign policy. She favored winning wars once they began. She was an America-First non-interventionist, not very much concerned with the fact that dropping a bomb on people is mass murder.

LevStrauss | April 4, 2008, 7:06pm | #

"Famous Mortimer | April 4, 2008, 6:40pm | #
If the U.S. invaded Iraq to gain some kind of oil advantage, it certainly hasn't even remotely had a positive effect on that initiative.

The "blood for oil" routine simply doesn't add up."

I'll tell you this type of stuff gets to me. Why do people think that the people in power or who profit off of these resources give a damn what people pay at the pump or the effects of the US on the whole? Have you owned stock in Exxon Mobil during Bush's wars? Looks like the oil companies are doing just fine. But as other people stated there are plenty of other industries that have done well by Bush's policies and they have plenty of new job openings for them and their children when they get out. The revolving door is not just applicable to defense.

NJ | April 4, 2008, 7:08pm | #

Abortion, immigration and trade are pretty big and important issues. Good for the Birchers to oppose the Iraq war, but that doesn't mean libertarins should associate with them. There is much more to libertarinism than being anti-war.

Ayn_Randian | April 4, 2008, 7:09pm | #

if anyone should be read out of the movement, it's the people endorsing the greatest amount of aggression, which would be the war.

A. There's no "movement" here.
B. Stop. You nor anyone else have yet to demonstrate that reason overwhelming endorsed war

When's the last time Reason advocated abolishing police and government courts?

we're not having this debate again. there's a very sound argument to be made a little bit of government is better for reducing violence than none at all...that's all I am saying.

my malfunction is that YOU KNOW THAT and you are showing off how fashionably radical you are. You know that there's an intellectual side to libertarian minarchism and you're ignoring it for partisan reasons.

NJ | April 4, 2008, 7:11pm | #

*libertarians, libertarianism

Anthony Gregory | April 4, 2008, 7:12pm | #

"Abortion, immigration and trade are pretty big and important issues."

Of course they are.

"Good for the Birchers to oppose the Iraq war. . . . "

And the Afghanistan war. And the torture. And the surveillance state. And secret evidence. And the empire. And the war on drugs. And income tax. And the Federal Reserve. And warrantless spying. And the welfare state. And erosions of habeas corpus. And gun control. . . .

"but that doesn't mean libertarins should associate with them. . . . "

Wait, we should only associate with perfect libertarians? That's ridiculous.

"There is much more to libertarinism than being anti-war."

Of course. Being antiwar is necessary, not sufficient, to being a libertarian. But the Birchers are about 85% libertarian, I'd say, whereas a pro-war libertarian is, like, 60% the way there. I'd "associate" with either, learn from either, work with either on common goals. . . I don't see the problem.

j1 | April 4, 2008, 7:13pm | #

this article.. so ridiculous. tries to make the john birch society looks weird, while they don't have one non-libertarian position. at least you could say what's wrong with them, but you don't, and it ends up making the author look bad.

Ayn_Randian | April 4, 2008, 7:13pm | #

The problem is the conspiracy theories, Anthony. It's a deal breaker.

Anthony Gregory | April 4, 2008, 7:16pm | #

Ayn Randian wrote:

"Stop. You nor anyone else have yet to demonstrate that reason overwhelming endorsed war. . . ."
What on earth are you talking about? I never claimed Reason did!!

I wrote, "When's the last time Reason advocated abolishing police and government courts? Now, don't try to turn this around and say I'm being sectarian or showing off radicalism. . . . "

AynRandian ignored the latter sentence and wrote, "we're not having this debate again. there's a very sound argument to be made a little bit of government is better for reducing violence than none at all...that's all I am saying. my malfunction is that YOU KNOW THAT and you are showing off how fashionably radical you are. You know that there's an intellectual side to libertarian minarchism and you're ignoring it for partisan reasons. . . . "

Hmmm. As I made completely clear, I am not trying to write off the minarchists (heck, here I am defending the Birchers! It's obvious I'm big tent). What I'm trying to do is defend the Birchers, the Rothbardians, and everyone else who doesn't seem to be welcome here, for whatever petty reasons, and pointing out that if we're going to be open to people who are prowar, why not be open to people who are wrong on far lesser issues? That's all.

Anthony Gregory | April 4, 2008, 7:18pm | #

Ayn Randian wrote, "The problem is the conspiracy theories, Anthony. It's a deal breaker."

What, you don't believe terrorists conspired to hijack planes are run them into the World Trade Center? I do. And that is certainly a conspiracy theory.

The problem isn't conspiracy theories. It is that some of them are kooky. Isn't that the problem?

Ayn_Randian | April 4, 2008, 7:19pm | #

hmmm...do you go to LRC and antiwar.com and defend reason magazine? Because even though it's been debunked that reason is some kind of national greatness-neocon-global hegemonic-bloodthirsty magazine...you called charlie's implication that it was "Heroic!"

Kevin Houston | April 4, 2008, 7:22pm | #

Oh yeah I guess I forgot one, the JBS is bunch of nut-jobs who think water fluoridation is a bad idea when everybody knows that it prevents tooth decay in children.

(and since it's Friday...)

I guess it only stands to "reason" that the folks here see nothing wrong with forced medication so long as it's for your own good and the good of the children.

Whatever happened to freedom of choice?

You can pat yourselves on the back all you like about not being on the Ron Paul bandwagon. I hope you are very happy with Obama, Clinton or McCain. May you get everything you deserve - good and hard.

Gene Berkman | April 4, 2008, 7:22pm | #

I have been around JBS members on numerous occasions, and attended JBS meetings. I never joined, they knew I would never join, and they respected me as a Libertarian.

The JBS has never held an official view that Eisenhower was a tool of the Communist conspiracy, but that was the stated view of Robert Welch, founder of the JBS. He even set up a small publishing company separate from the JBS to publish his book "The Politician" about Ike, so that the JBS would not be implicated.

THe JBS has promoted some conspiracy theories, originally about Communist infiltration of the US & other governments - not too different from views put forth by Joe McCarthy and by many in the Goldwater campaign. Later they adopted a conspiracy theory linking rich western capitalists with the Bolsheviks.

The JBS has denounced other conspiracy theories, including any anti-semitic theories, as well as black helicopters etc.

I have seen Ron Paul speak at a JBS council dinner, and made small talk with him afterword. He definitely does not consider himself a Bircher, but referred to them as allies. And they have become more libertarian since Ron Paul's 1988 campaign.

The JBS opposed the Iraq War in 1990, and the current Iraq War, and opposes the War on Drugs. Libertarians tend to differ with Birchers on social issues such as abortion, gay rights and immigration.

Anthony Gregory | April 4, 2008, 7:23pm | #

I've linked to Reason in the past. I'm not emphatically anti-Reason or anything. What I agreed with Charlie on is that being wrong on immigration is less bad than being wrong on war. Furthermore, I think promoting the work of vicious immigration restrictionists is less bad than promoting the work of vicious warmongers. Moreover, promoting anti-immigration views is less bad than promoting pro-war views.

And, besides, the "paleo" crowd doesn't actually promote anti-immigration views as much as Reason promotes pro-war views. You don't think this is true?

Ayn_Randian | April 4, 2008, 7:23pm | #

What, you don't believe terrorists conspired to hijack planes are run them into the World Trade Center? I do. And that is certainly a conspiracy theory.

I shouldn't have to shout this, but YOU'RE NOT THAT STUPID! You know the difference between the connotative definition of a term and the denotative one, and what's pissing me off is that you pretend you don't to score points.

It is that some of them are kooky.

Kooky? NAUSuperHIghWay NAFTA means the end of our Soveriegnty? Shut down the borders? And you just call this lunacy "kooky"?

dude...I never would thought I'd see an anarchist embrace something so statist and closed borders and walls. Yikes.

Anthony Gregory | April 4, 2008, 7:25pm | #

And there's Berkman, sounding all reasonable.

Orange Line Special | April 4, 2008, 7:25pm | #

I wasted my time typing out a comment on the Lew Rockwell link, only to find out that comments are restricted to members of their, ahem, circle. Herewith:

1. Rockwell forgot to discuss the fact that MassiveImmigration = political power. And, that means more power for the far-left and the MexicanGovernment. Neither of those are libertarian, yet Rockwell and most other "libertarians" would... give them more PoliticalPower. Apparently Lew and most other "libertarians" can't think things through.

2. The vast majority of Americans will always oppose IllegalImmigration/MassiveImmigration. By encouraging those, "libertarians" encourage a crackdown, leading to support for more government intervention. If I thought they had a brain, I'd think they were making things worse intentionally. If libertarians instead opposed illegal activity, there would be less government intervention, not more. Apparently Lew and most other "libertarians" can't think things through.

3. Perhaps Lew et al could tell us how we could do MassDeportations if we absolutely, positively had to. If "libertarians" try to think that through, they'll see that we've been invaded and settled, something that the Constitution says we should be defended against. Apparently Lew and most other "libertarians" can't think things through.

GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 7:26pm | #

the "paleo" crowd doesn't actually promote anti-immigration views as much as Reason promotes pro-war views.

Show me the "pro war" views that Reason so actively promotes, please.

Please, really. I've been reading for about 6 years, hanging out here for 4 or so. Dont know what the hell you're talking about.

Except for maybe a few guys on the boards. I think John & TallDave are the most hawkish. But they're the exception rather than the rule.

Ayn_Randian | April 4, 2008, 7:26pm | #

And, besides, the "paleo" crowd doesn't actually promote anti-immigration views as much as Reason promotes pro-war views. You don't think this is true?

erm...ahh...no, that's not true. At all. LRC embraces assholes like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Samuel Francis...they defend The League of the South. Anti-immigration goes hand-in-hand with racism, and LRC is a pack of racist trash.

NJ | April 4, 2008, 7:27pm | #

Yes, the Birchers being kooks is a problem. From a purely strategic viewpoint, it makes no sense to align/associate with crazy people.

Ayn_Randian | April 4, 2008, 7:28pm | #

look, you see what you did? you brought out lonewacko! now the whole thread smells of Cheeto's and "Mom's Basement".

Anthony Gregory | April 4, 2008, 7:28pm | #

"I shouldn't have to shout this, but YOU'RE NOT THAT STUPID! You know the difference between the connotative definition of a term and the denotative one, and what's pissing me off is that you pretend you don't to score points."

And I happen to think that "conspiracy theory" is an anti-concept. It begs the question. It is a statist construction of words, such as "public school" or "illegal alien" or "assault weapon" or "assault weapon" or "designer drug." By saying you oppose conspiracy theories, but what you really mean is you oppose bad, idiotic conspiracy theories, you are really saying nothing at all – since we all oppose that which we consider bad and idiotic.

"dude...I never would thought I'd see an anarchist embrace something so statist and closed borders and walls. Yikes."

Yeah, neither did I. And even though I have mixed with the "paleo" crowd for several years now, I have yet to meet a single self-described anarchist for closed borders. I have met some who oppose completely open borders, though. I think they are wrong.

GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 7:29pm | #

Orange Line Special | April 4, 2008, 7:25pm | #

I wasted my time typing out a comment on the Lew Rockwell link...

... So, you thought you waste more typing one here?

Good move there.

You've definitely got more time than brains. Which tells me you definitely need to get a fucking life already and take a few years break from the internet.

REMINDER = No One Cares What You Say.

Please God, send him a message or something. A Flaming Taco. A Mexican Girlfriend. A vicious asskicking. By Native Americans.

Anything.

Amen

GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 7:31pm | #

Kevin Houston | April 4, 2008, 7:22pm | #

I guess it only stands to "reason"

Fuck, now I have to head back to the fridge.

DRINK WHILE IM GONE

prolefeed | April 4, 2008, 7:31pm | #

I can do the drinking game thing one better:

For a magazine that calls itself Reason and thinks it's libertarian, it has gone downhill bigtime since Virginia Postrel AND Nick Gillespie used to edit it -- so much so, that I'm cancelling my subscription to this so-called libertarian, reason-based magazine.

Everybody take 7 drinks now!

Or does it count if the violations are intentional?

Ray | April 4, 2008, 7:32pm | #

So Mike Gravel joining the LP baaad.

Right wing hate group John Birch Society good?

Anthony Gregory | April 4, 2008, 7:32pm | #

Ayn Randian writes, "erm...ahh...no, that's not true. At all. LRC embraces assholes like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Samuel Francis...they defend The League of the South. Anti-immigration goes hand-in-hand with racism, and LRC is a pack of racist trash."

Nice. Nice reasoning there. Let's see. Can you dig up a single article on LRC by Sam Francis?

This is not a very good argument you have. Reason has published articles defending various wars. There is very little stuff on LRC actually defending more state control of the borders or opposing immigration. There might be some, but the Hoppean argument is more nuanced than that. There are also numerous LRC articles taking the anti-borders position.

As for racism, LRC upholds the rights of all humans everywhere, including the right not to be bombed by the US government.

GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 7:32pm | #

You can pat yourselves on the back all you like about not being on the Ron Paul bandwagon

Dude, as i mentioned yesterday, about 30-40% of the people who read this magazine ARE on the "RP bandwagon"

We're just not drooling sycophantic dicks

Ayn_Randian | April 4, 2008, 7:33pm | #

And I happen to think that "conspiracy theory" is an anti-concept.

GILMORE, I'm doing this for you. Hope you got two of 'em:

THIS is why libertarians are so marginalized. We think that connotative definitions are so beneath us that we can't talk to the guy on the street.

And I know that Rand was a very guilty individual in all this. (see: "selfish")

Anthony Gregory | April 4, 2008, 7:34pm | #

"So Mike Gravel joining the LP baaad.

"Right wing hate group John Birch Society good?"

Who holds both these positions? Not the LRC crowd. The most critical comment about Gravel was by me. I don't think he should be the LP candidate. I also wouldn't want a protectionist Bircher to be the LP candidate. And Lew Rockwell said it was good that Gravel joined the LP.

Ayn Randian | April 4, 2008, 7:35pm | #

Ayn Randian writes, "THIS is why libertarians are so marginalized. We think that connotative definitions are so beneath us that we can't talk to the guy on the street."

Or maybe, when we're talking to each other on a libertarian blog, we don't talk the same way we do when we talk to someone on the street? You ever think of that? Libertarians should know better than to oppose all "conspiracy theories."

Anthony Gregory | April 4, 2008, 7:36pm | #

Whoops! That last comment was written by me, not Ayn Randian! sorry.

GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 7:36pm | #

ANTHONY GREGORY =

"Good for the Birchers to oppose the Iraq war. . . . "

And the Afghanistan war.

Quick question?

Why?

I wanted to fucking bomb the Taliban over the Buddha thing and shooting women in the head for teaching literacy to other women.

Much less fucking with downtown.

So, what was the principled position against attacking Afghanistan again?

Ayn_Randian | April 4, 2008, 7:36pm | #

in re: Sam Francis...no, he's not on there. Guess I got confused as I watched Paul Gottfried practically fall all over himself to give a handjob to that racist asshole.

GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 7:37pm | #

Libertarians should know better than to oppose all "conspiracy theories."

Of course.

Just the really dumb ones.

Are there some good ones you know? I know some about the MTA raping my city blind for cash while letting infrastructure rot. Also, I was in the mob for a while. We had a whole bunch of em running.

Ayn_Randian | April 4, 2008, 7:38pm | #

Libertarians should know better than to oppose all "conspiracy theories."

not if you use Occam's Razor.

NJ | April 4, 2008, 7:40pm | #

Anthony, those newsletters were racist trash.

Cesar | April 4, 2008, 7:41pm | #

Lonewacko/Click N Learn/Orange Line Special/Chris Kelly-

Do us all a favor and fuck off.

You're not Edward R. Murrow. You're not even Matt Drudge. You're a fourth-rate high school newspaper editor.

GILMORE | April 4, 2008, 7:41pm | #

I'm getting a headache.

Stop with the Paleo-Reasonoid /Sharks-Jets thing. Talk about a fucking single issue. And type slower. I've got one hand busy with the beer stein and cant rebut the "pro war" thing until someone cites examples of the Reason LETS BLOW UP THE WORLD endorsements.

Cesar | April 4, 2008, 7:42pm | #

P.S. the page ranking for your site in terms of traffi