Reason

Did Reason Really Publish a "Holocaust Denial 'Special Issue'" in 1976? Of Course Not.

|

If you want a preview of just how lame ideological mud-slinging is going to get over the next few years—or decades, possibly—take a look at this pair of articles penned by Mark Ames at Pando.com, a Bay Area-based website that, among other things, aspires "to bring more civility into the blogosophere." The pieces charge Reason with being not a libertarian defender of "Free Minds and Free Markets" but a hotbed for pro-apartheid Holocaust deniers who slavishly do the bidding of David and Charles Koch (cue the monster-movie music, maestro).

Yeah, seriously. A publication that just celebrated "Marijuana on Main Street: The long, hard road to safe, legal pot," covers the police brutality beat like nobody's business, and criticized George W. Bush's "disaster socialism" and his stupid wars for the entire eight awful years he was in the White House, is really a stalking horse for reactionary politics right out of The Turner Diaries.

However ridiculous such attacks may be, they are a sign that broadly libertarian ideas about fiscal responsibility and social tolerance are gaining ground in all areas of politics and culture. Indeed, as Ames frets, libertarianism is even making "major inroads into the disaffected left."

As the conservative right and progressive left feel threatened by libertarianism, such attacks will multiply in number and intensify in venom. The main purpose is not to actually engage libertarian ideas—including once pie-in-the-sky beliefs that governments should be financially sustainable, gay people should be allowed to marry one another, and that more immigration is better than less immigration—but precisely to avoid discussing their merits.

In his response to the false idea that Reason supported apartheid in the 1970s, Reason's Editor in Chief Matt Welch noted that Ames is "the anti-libertarian conspiracy theorist with a history of generating apology notes and speedy take-downs among those journalistic outlets still reckless enough to publish him." Click through on those links to get a sense of just how reckless and inattentive a reader Ames can be.

In the newer post, Ames runs through Reason's February 1976 issue that was billed as a "Special Revisionism Issue." He has posted the entire issue, which I had not read before, online here (an incomplete online archive of Reason's run can be found here at the invaluable Unz.org site, which compiles hundreds of titles; we hope eventually to produce our own fully searchable, complete archive at our own site). Ames is correct that some of the contributors to that issue developed an interest in or were fellow travelers with that most pathetic area of study known as Holocaust revisionism or denialism. That scurrilous topic is not the focus of any of the articles in the issue, but the inclusion of contributors such as James J. Martin, who would go on to join the editorial board of the contemptible denialist outfit the Institute of Historical Review, is embarrassing. Another of that issue's contributors, Gary North, would later be excoriated in this 1998 Reason article for arguing in favor of violent theocracy and the stoning of gays and others.

The "revisionism" under discussion in the 1976 special issue refers to the movement that was popular especially among left-wing critics of the Cold War such as University of Wisconsin's William Appleman Williams. Rather than accepting the United States' self-justifying explanations for the wars it fought and the domestic policies it pursued, revisionists typically focused on less noble motives in ways that they believed illuminated uncomfortable truths. In The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, for instance, Williams argued that America's "Open Door" foreign policy was not about spreading democracy or human rights but was actually a way for America's leaders to escape domestic issues caused by racial strife and  capitalism's "contradictions." You can take or leave that particular argument, but there's no question that Williams and other revisionists brought a huge amount of energy to the fields of history and political science.

In the Reason issue, various authors discuss, among other things, what sort of foreknowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor Franklin Roosevelt may have had and how actors other than Nazi Germany bear some responsibility for the start of World War Il. Some of the material holds up, such as the observation from then-Senior Editor Tibor Machan that "the Nazis were worse than the Americans or allied nations, and…the Soviet Union is a more vicious government, even in international affairs, than is the U.S. government. This does not mean, emphatically, that I believe FDR to have been an angel during World War II, or Wilson to have been the paragon of diplomatic and political virtue in World War I." Such a view has become the baseline of virtually all contemporary discussions on such topics.

Much of the material from the issue doesn't hold up, which is hardly surprising for a magazine issue published almost 40 years ago. Even as the various writers warn explicitly against uncritically accepting revisionist accounts out of inborn contrarianism, there is a generally adolescent glee in being iconoclastic that I find both uninteresting and unconvincing. However, to characterize the issue as a "holocaust denial 'special issue,'" as Ames does, is an example of how quickly he can lose his always-already weak grasp on reality.

As is his obsession, widely shared on the left and increasingly among centrist Democrats, with fingering the Koch brothers as the motive force in the decline of everything that is good and decent in the world:

Reason isn't just any magazine — since 1970, Reason has been backed by the richest and most politically engaged oligarchs alive, Charles and David Koch. The Kochs are almost singlehandedly responsible for giving us libertarianism, a radical-right version of neoliberalism that has steered the Republican Party agenda for decades now, and has made major inroads into the disaffected left as well. Reason is the respectable, "educated" blue state face of the Kochs' libertarian network.

Not just any magazine? Respectable and "educated"? We'll take compliments, even ones in scare quotes, when we get them. As I wrote in The Daily Beast after interviewing the author of the critical new biography, Sons of Wichita: How the Koch Brothers Became America's Most Powerful and Private Dynasty, there's no question that "one of the reasons we're having this conversation" about the size, scope, and spending of government "is the Koch brothers." David Koch has been been on the board of trustees of Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason magazine, Reason.com, and Reason TV, since the early 1990s and Charles Koch has donated over the years.

None of this is secret or in any way scandalous. While they play no role in our editorial process we appreciate their support, which helps us generate the sort of journalism that took home six prizes at the 56th annual Southern California Awards in June (among our winning entries were a feature-length documentary critiquing drug prohibition, "America's Longest War"; Matt Welch's brilliant essay recovering Jackie Robinson's incredible and wrongly forgotten 1964 oral history of baseball's integration; and the short video "LA County Sheriffs Hassle Photographer, Trample Constitution, Get Lauded by Bosses").

Since 1968, Reason has been pushing for "free minds and free markets" in a principled, across-the-board way because we think those things will create not just a richer and more interesting world but a more just and peaceful world too. I realize that not everyone will agree with those goals or our positions on everything (those on the right tend to recoil from our pro-choice position on abortion just as those on the left tend to hate our pro-choice postion on school choice). But if you give a rat's ass about whether policies actually work the way they are advertised, whether your government is lying to you and spying on you, whether bureaucrats should be in control of more and more areas of your lives, and whether people should be given the ability to run their own "experiments in living" (as John Stuart Mill called them), you'll find a lot of interesting stuff in our pages and videos. Our 46-year history of promoting freedom has already done and will continue to do a hell of a lot more to improve humanity than the radical left or right, and certainly than the Mark Ameses of the world can ever dream of doing.

Interest in our work is growing precisely because of our willingness to engage in honest conversation and analysis rather than fever-swamp ramblings and unconvincing arguments ad funderam. Given the general level of exhaustion with conventional right-wing and left-wing ideology, with Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, there's a real interest in something different. To the extent that we're providing an alternative way to view politics and culture, we'll bug the hell out of folks who feel like we're making "major inroads" into what they took to be their own captive audience. Suffering inaccurate, misleading, and over-the-top attacks on our credibility and integrity is just part of the landscape of the world in which we live. We'll correct them when they're wrong and take it on the chin when they're right. Reason is happy to acknowledge missteps and mistakes while also forcefully pushing back against blatant misreadings of our past and current work.

NEXT: Skip Oliva on Endless Delays as Reason to Abolish the Death Penalty

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yes, but does Reason stand behind their 1977 Friday Funny, “Libertarian Super-men are our superiors!”?

    1. If there are Top Men to hand the world over too …

  2. I’m waiting for Mark Ames to get his teeth kicked in for spitting on a Libertarian.

    1. Jesus christ, I read one article by him, then the comments. My head fucking -hurts- from both trying to comprehend his run-on sentences that lead to nowhere and from the rage at his misguided notions.

      How do you people do this and stay sane?

    2. It’ll never happen. Ames is the kind of asshole who would run from a physical confrontation from anyone who isn’t an underage girl.

      -jcr

      1. :golf clap:

  3. You will never shake your ex post facto convictions for thoughtcrimes.

    1. Ayep. Just ask Ron Paul….

  4. Libertarians will always be open to attacks from the left on ‘civil rights’ or ‘social justice’ issues. Actually intellectual honesty and consistency is what appeals to libertarians, but it allows for very shallow attacks of racism. Notable example – Ames linked to a Salon article bashing Rand Paul:
    http://www.salon.com/2014/07/1….._old_ones/

    “There’s 10 different titles, you know, to the Civil Rights Act, and nine out of 10 deal with public institutions, and I’m absolutely in favor of. One deals with private institutions, and had I been around, I would have tried to modify that.” He went on to indicate that he might or might not have finally agreed to support the bill, with just one title that he objected to.

    Making technical arguments with nuance isn’t good in American politics. It’s impossible to support the spirit of the Civil Rights Act, as Paul does, and most of its content even, while objecting to federal overreaches in the minds of many on the left.

    Further, if someone on the ‘right’ shares a single idea with someone else on the right, they will attempt to paint with one broad brush. It’s guilt based on association or vague similarities.

    1. When ad hominems are all you have…

      1. ..all your problems look like a BOOOOSH?

        1. I was thinking black.

          Also, RACIST!

  5. It’s pretty simple really.

    To Ames all that is good and right is a function of correct progressive philosophy. Any time a property increases in value, a worker earns a wage, or a kitten chases a butterfly putting smiles on the faces of a group of children of the proper ethnic diversity it is because of the righteousness of what he believes. All good flows from his ideology and all that is wrong is opposition to it.

    You are guilty of his accusations because you are not a progressive. If you didn’t support apartheid, racism, the holocaust, etc then you would be a proper progressive, because opposing bad things is what progressives do. As you are not, but continue advocating this “libertarian” falsehood, you reveal yourself to be in opposition to what is good and an advocate of what is bad. It does not matter if you, yourself, advocated for these things. By not being a progressive and supporting a differing philosophy you are supporting evil. It doesn’t matter what you do individually, you have cast your lot with the legions of evil and are culpable for any and everything that they do.

    1. You know who else thought like that?

  6. To go further:
    Rep. McMorris Rodgers was homeschooled by her father, and got her higher education degree at an unaccredited Christian fundamentalist institution, Pensacola Christian College (PCC), which bans homosexuality, open Internet (PCC until recently banned all Internet access), and mixed-gender stairwells (male and female students are required to use separate stairs and doors). Pensacola Christian College is the publisher of A Beka textbooks for K-12 pupils, which teach kids that Islam is a “false religion,” Hindus are “incapable of writing history,” Catholicism is “a monstrous distortion of Christianity,” African religions preach “false religious beliefs,” liberals and Democrats are crypto-Marxists, and the United Nations is a “collectivist juggernaut that would crush individual freedom and force the will of an elite few on all of humanity.”

    So, Rodgers was educated at a Christian university, so let’s tar and feather her with extreme descriptions of anything espoused by anyone affiliated with said university! Totally makes sense.

    1. United Nations is a “collectivist juggernaut that would crush individual freedom and force the will of an elite few on all of humanity.”

      Well they got that one right.

      1. Democrats are crypto-Marxists

        Pretty close on this one as well.

      2. The great thing about the UN is that they’re fucking useless at all of their supposed jobs.

        The UN had a peacekeeping force on the ground when the Rwandan genocide broke out, and they were forbidden to intervene by a UN mandate.

        The UN commander in the country actually learned of a Hutu weapons cache and had evidence they were planning to exterminate the Tutsi. When he requested to intervene before the genocide started, he was rebuked for overstepping his mandate.

        So a UN peacekeeping force was not allowed to intervene in a developing genocide when they were already in the country.

        1. The UN couldn’t break up a pillow fight between the Olson twins.

          1. Why would you want to?

            [looks up currents pictures of the Olsen twins]

            Hmmm. OK, maybe.

          2. But UN workers like underage charges, so that may be why Ames is done of them.

      3. Other than the obviously wrong Hindu one, Im okay with them all.

        Well, I would drop the word “monstrously” from the Catholicism one.

        1. Catholics are about 50% of Christians and another 25% or so are various Eastern Orthodox sects. Evangelical Protestants are a tiny minority of Christians, yet feel entitled to say what Christianity is or isn’t.

          At least they didn’t knock Buddhists.

          1. Who are you, Tony? The truth aint decided by vote.

            1. I am a big fan of catholics. But as far as the bible is concerned, catholicism is basically a pagan religion.

              I’m not sure WHY many catholics are such wonderful positive ppl, but its certainly not their theology.

              I think its cultural (and its only a tiny subculture within catholicism that produces these quality ppl).

              Praying to non-deities is elementally inconsistent with an Abrahamic religion. The question of who even qualifies as ‘God’ tinkers with blasphemy.

      4. Yeah, that stood out to me too.

    2. I wonder if he will forgive my libertrianism because I went to a liberal university full of SJWs and Marxists?

    3. so let’s tar and feather her with extreme descriptions of anything espoused by anyone affiliated with said university!

      Can we now say that anyone who went to College with Ames believe all Russian woman want to be raped and are child molesters?

      1. Hell, why not criticize Matt Taibbi for co-writting a magazine with Ames.

        Does Taibbi believe in raping and beating Russian woman? Who knows, but the connections are intriguing…

  7. In the mid-late 90s, McMorris Rodgers took office in the Washington state legislature and co-authored a bill banning same-sex marriages,

    So, Rodgers was in company with Democrats who largely defined marriage as between a man and a women, such as the Clintons who were in the oval office at the time.

    It’s always amazing to me how the left claims they are the party of gay rights when until Biden’s remarks a few years back, Obama and the rest of the party leadership were too scared to make any stand. They did nothing but follow poll numbers, but Republicans who espoused similar ideas in the same time frame are bigoted homophobes.

    The author then goes into a diatribe linking Reason with Holocaust denial.

    I struggle to see how anyone could write this nonsense in good faith, but then I remind myself of the progressives I’ve met over time…

    1. I struggle to see how anyone could write this nonsense in good faith

      I don’t think all leftist writers argue in bad faith, but it certainly seems like that is Ames’s thing.

  8. But did you know Reason can be found on the same news-stands as magazines such as Playboy and Hustler, which objectify women!? #WaronWomen

      1. +1 evangelist in an outhouse with his mom

  9. I am confused!? What do Lords Koch command us to think about this?

    “argumentum ad funderam”

    I goog’d this, and the closest to a source i could find was a loop-back to Julian Sanchez in 2002, who drops it as though everyone should already be familiar with the idea of =

    “Smearing your opponents argument by attacking the sources of their funding, implying that everything they say is in service of their paymasters interests”…

    I’d never heard it before.

    Is this a Reason*-branded neologism? I’d assume so, since i guess fending off these nonstop accusations that the paper is nothing but the propaganda mill for the Big Evil Capitalisms is ‘half the battle’.

    And this isnt an insult… well, intentionally… but really, don’t you think if Mega-Billionaires and giant corporashuns really wanted to produce a secret political propaganda wing… that they could do better than the Aging Hipster Journalists w/ a splash of ‘interns’ called Reason?

    (hides behind protective cover)

    1. I’m sure Nick has do deal with these kinds of accusations all the time at the.. you know.. cocktail parties.

    2. “What do Lords Koch command us to think about this?”

      I believe the racism and holocaust denialism came before the Kochs had influence here. To their credit, they took measures to purge Reason of some of its extreme rightist contributors.

      1. How can you explain the extreme-rightist hordes that populate the magazine and readership NOW, though?

        1. I suppose they have learned to watch their mouths. It’s perfectly OK to say that Apartheid was an admirable policy, or that Obama must have been born in Kenya, but people here are extremely uncomfortable with racism. Nobody will admit to it.

          I don’t think Libertarianism has a problem with racism. Properly speaking, a racist believes that one’s race is his or her most defining characteristic. That’s pretty well antithetical to Libertarianism.

          1. How exactly do you identify the ‘silent majority’ of race-haters and holocaust deniers here?

            Is there a code-language they use?

            Does it involve deep-dish pizza?

            1. “How exactly do you identify the ‘silent majority’ of race-haters and holocaust deniers here?”

              Easiest way to identify a bigot is how lightly and easily they dismiss the grievances of others. You gotta better way, you can share it.

              1. “Easiest way to identify a bigot is how lightly and easily they dismiss the grievances of others.”

                Uh oh.

                Really? Because I thought my ‘not giving a shit’ was really just a product of ‘maturity’.

                silly me. I must be a holocaust denier and not even know it.

                1. “Because I thought my ‘not giving a shit’ was really just a product of ‘maturity’.”

                  No, indifference to injustice and suffering has never been the hallmark of maturity or wisdom. All I’m seeing here is shallowness.

                  1. mtrueman

                    I have empathy for people who have grievances. I just don’t see why I have to pay their restitution.

                    You can guilt trip me all day long, and guess what? I don’t give a shit because I haven’t done anyone wrong, and I certainly haven’t done anyone wrong based on race, sexual orientation, etc.

                    Is this where you tell me to check my privilege?

                    1. ” I don’t give a shit because I haven’t done anyone wrong,”

                      That’s nothing to boast about. What on earth gave you the idea I was trying to guilt trip you? Maybe you should call Dr. Freud and have your guilty conscience seen to.

              2. Ummm…no. That’s bullshit. The extent to which one should or shouldn’t dismiss the grievances of others is the legitimacy of the grievance. Your argument presupposes the legitimacy of the grievance.

              3. So all the “progressives” who have looked the other way while their party kidnapped poor black and brown kids and sold them to the educrat cartels in exchange for donations to Democratic campaigns then?

            2. I love deep dish pizza.

              1. And that isn’t code for anything other than pizza is pretty awesome.

              2. I love deep dish pizza.

                You are a monster.

                1. Clearly.

          2. I do think libertarianism has a diversity problem, insofar as there are people who, like Tony, will dismiss libertarian ideas because of the messenger but who, unlike Tony, might be receptive to those ideas if they could get past that. It would be an unquestionably good thing to have effective ambassadors for libertarian ideas that can make inroads in communities where white middle class men are at an immediate disadvantage.

            1. Such people exist and are becoming more widely known, though they are under reported. That’s exactly whyAmes is writing this. Progressives re desperate and threatened.

  10. “. Ames is correct that some of the contributors to that issue developed an interest in or were fellow travelers with that most pathetic area of study known as Holocaust revisionism or denialism.”

    So, reason did publish Holocaust denial ism and now publishes the work of 9/11 Truther, Andrew Napolitano. I don’t see the problem in ames’ charge.

    To be taken seriously by the Lame Stream Media, Nick, one must first not publish contemptible conspiracy theories.

    1. So my buddy who helped me work on my car is also in the KKK… Therefore obviously my car is racist and so am I…

      Disclaimer: I own a VW

      1. I’ll go further than this. Does the modern left realize how many important intellectuals in the history of their own movement were associated with racist, or just plain crazy authoritarian ideologies?

        Amazingly, it’s possible to consider an idea in isolation without concern for who proposes it. A person can hold one very wrong belief and one very correct belief. One would have nothing to do with the other.

        Pretending otherwise is intellectual laziness at best. An idea should be judged on its own merits.

        It’s even possible to entertain two opposing thoughts, or to provide a forum for opposing ideologies without endorsing either.

        1. Susan Sontag told them but they ignored her.

      2. How many Jews can you fit inside it?

        1. Inside the libertarian movement? Well let’s see, there’s Lanny Froedlander, who founded reason. Manny Klausner, who started the Reason Foundation that bought reason magazine. Ayn Rand, Ludwig Von Mises, Robert Nzzick, Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman, who created the libertarian movement. Tonie Nathan, the Libertarian Party’s first vice presidential candidate….

    2. Right! Printing variations of perspective is evil. Sticking with one, narrow-minded viewpoint is righteous.

    3. The Democratic Party supported Jim Crow. And slavery.

      Does that mean modern Democrats are pro-Jim Crow and slavery?

      Also, socialists are murdering civilians literally right this instant in a whole host of countries. Not sure how you have the right to criticize a modern political movement because scumbags happened to adhere to it in 1976.

      1. Many of the Founders owned slaves. America was founded by the Founders, therefor America is racist.

        1. Careful. Most socialists and progressives believe that.

      2. And the original Progressives were largely awful racists and eugenicists. It amazes me how many people on the left today want to identify with those nasty people.

      3. Does that mean modern Democrats are pro-Jim Crow and slavery?

        Yes. Look at how the treat blacks who leave the plantation of acceptable thought, such as Clarence Thomas or Condoleezza Rice.

      4. I only vote for a Democrat when he starts his campaign by apologizing for FDR turning away boat loads of Jewish refugees.

    4. Please, keep reading…

      That scurrilous topic is not the focus of any of the articles in the issue, but the inclusion of contributors such as James J. Martin, who would go on to join the editorial board of the contemptible denialist outfit the Institute of Historical Review, is embarrassing.

      Now, want to debate in good faith?

      1. Sure… So what is wrong exactly with Ames article? Why, in fact, would nick gillespie care about a series of articles written in the 70s by people he wasn’t associated with?

      2. So Martin wasn’t on the board of the denialism group when reason published him?

    5. “Now publishes the work of 9/11 Truther, Andrew Napolitano”

      Please cite or link to the articles published in Reason where Andrew Napolitano made conspiratorial, ‘9/11 truther’ claims.

      Thanks

      1. Napolitano is definitely a 9/11 truther.

        Here’s Napolitano on fucking Alex Jones saying 9/11 couldn’t have happened the way the government said.

        Of course, he has never written a 9/11 truther article for Reason. I question the idea that someone’s bizarre beliefs should deny them employment with a magazine when they never write articles about that issue for the magazine.

        Also, here’s left-wing news organization The Village Voice actually publishing an article in favor of 9/11 truthers.

        The thing about 9/11 truthers is that they cut across party lines. There are libertarians, conservatives, and progs who all believe it. As a result, any hack can point to some random 9/11 truther on the other side and claim their opponents are crazy conspiracy theorists. I could find literally dozens of well known leftists and conservatives who are 9/11 truthers. That doesn’t mean any of those ideologies take 9/11 Truthism as a given.

        1. That Village Voice article mentions that 49% of New Yorkers in 2006 thought the government knew about 9/11 before it happened.

          So apparently New York must be some sort of den of libertarianism. Tell me, which party does New York generally vote for?

        2. I asked when he’d published any 9/11 trutherisms for Reason.

          I don’t care whether the Judge has kooky-town ideas *elsewhere*

          dude seems to think that Reason is culpable for things the guy writes for *other people*

          Reason has also had other people contribute to the magazine who turned out to be kooky in more typically progressive ways = does that make them *secretly left-leaning*?

          1. Weigel, for example.

            Although I was calling him out as a prog while he was here.

            1. I like Weigel. He’s a great reporter who covers a beat where it’s super-easy to be a hack.

          2. Nick seems embarrassed Reason published an article by someone who “later” went on to found ……

            Was it obvious at the time that the guy was going to found that magazine in the FUTURE?

            1. Also Nick, you said you wrote this to correct things in the article but you did not actually take the time to point out the obvious reasons that Ames saying libertarians have been running the Republican party for two decades is completely crazy. I know it seems obvious but not to people who don’t know what libertarianism is. I was going to link to this or send it to a few people but then I realized in reading it they may notice that you did not say he was wrong about several of the lies he wrote.

        3. Irish|7.26.14 @ 1:57PM|#
          “Napolitano is definitely a 9/11 truther.”

          So can he get appointed as a WH consultant like Van Jones?

          1. Had to back peddle on that one pretty quick, I see. Do you still want the cite or, even better the judge’s article on how “contemporary democracy” has turned us into a paper tiger–published right here in the definitely not kooky pages of the contemporary Reason magazine?

    6. american socialist|7.26.14 @ 1:12PM|#
      “So, reason did publish Holocaust denial ism”
      Lie.

      “and now publishes the work of 9/11 Truther, Andrew Napolitano.”
      Cite missing

      “I don’t see the problem in ames’ charge.”
      Of course you don’t. You’re a slime bag liar who supports a murderous political system.

    7. I don’t see the problem in ames’ charge.

      The Democrat party is the party of Eugenics, Slavery, Japanese internment camps, and Jim crow….

      How you like them fellow travelers?

    8. No, Reason published a person who later became a holocaust denier. That’s pretty far from publishing holocaust denialism itself.

    9. “Reason is happy to acknowledge missteps and mistakes while also forcefully pushing back against blatant misreadings of our past and current work.”

      Hey nick, if you are happy to acknowledge missteps why not just say that reason’s former editors published articles about nazi concentration camps by known holocaust deniers in your magazine? You aren’t a holocaust denier so why should you accept responsibility for content that you don’t have any control over. I don’t see the problem nor do I see any problem in ames’ article where he points out that nuts on the far right keep showing up on your doorstep.

      1. I like how you come back to shit on the thread hours after everyone stopped commenting to make it look like nobody had a counter-argument. Your level of honesty is about what I’d expect given your handle.

        1. Commie-kid has no interest in engagement. Commie-kid has been beat down so often that commie-kid will only ‘hit and run’.
          Commie-kid is a slime ball.

          1. I was out with my kids– or, as I call them, the vanguards of the proletariat– at the beach. You guys sure do have a lot of time to root out Leftist Deviationalism from the Libertarian party line. Hail Dagny Taggart, comrade.

            1. I was out with my kids– or, as I call them, the vanguards of the proletariat

              The proletariat actually work for a living. I suspect your raging shitlibbery is going to end up crippling them to the point that they won’t be able to actually be hireable for anything other than college secretary.

              1. Come on. Those shitsippers’ bones could be used for my new monocle, and their skin would make an excellent top-hat.

              2. Shitfibbery……I like that. Added to the database.

      2. That scurrilous topic is not the focus of any of the articles in the issue, but the inclusion of contributors such as James J. Martin, who would go on to join the editorial board of the contemptible denialist outfit the Institute of Historical Review, is embarrassing.

        Now, want to debate in good faith?

      3. “y nick, if you are happy to acknowledge missteps why not just say that reason’s former editors published articles about nazi concentration camps by known holocaust deniers in your magazine? You aren’t a holocaust denier so why should you accept responsibility for content that you don’t have any control over. I don’t see the problem nor do I see any problem in ames’ article where he points out that nuts on the far right keep showing up on your doorstep.”

        1. This is spoken from someone who worships a man who turned human skin into lampshades.

    10. You’re a fucking retard.

  11. As is his obsession, widely shared on the left and increasingly among centrist Democrats, with fingering the Koch brothers as the motive force in the decline of everything that is good and decent in the world

    Yeah, this seems to be an accelerating trend. The Koch Brothers are taking the place of “right wing talk radio” as the evil villains of the day.

    1. They need their Satan. They always need to have their prince(s) of darkness; the shadowy evil figures who foil all their plans and stop them from bringing heaven on earth. Because they are fundamentally religious, faith-based, and animist.

      1. Don’t forget totemic. You brought that idea to me, I’ve found it to be very true.

        1. That was implied when I said animist!

          1. Maybe, but there’s a subtle difference. Believing that guns have a will is not the same as associating the Koch brothers with everything they don’t like.

      2. Manichaeism taught an elaborate dualistic cosmology describing the struggle between a good, spiritual world of light, and an evil, material world of darkness. Through an ongoing process which takes place in human history, light is gradually removed from the world of matter and returned to the world of light whence it came. Its beliefs were based on local Mesopotamian gnostic and religious movements.[5]

      3. It’s funny how they have to make everything into a comic book or a gossip tabloid, discussing personalities, usually trashing them and lying about them, because they are not able to think abstractly about ideas or policies.

    2. My question is what are they going to say the next time there is a Republican president and the Kochs are opposed to some policy of his/hers?

      1. Crickets. The same sound you hear from them about Obama’s lies, drones, etc etc.

  12. Note the evolution of the initial “pro-apartheid!” accusations.

    From the first smear article:

    “Throughout its first two decades, in the 1970s and 1980s, Reason supported apartheid South Africa, and attacked anti-apartheid protesters and sanctions right up to Nelson Mandela’s release, when they finally dropped it.”

    Then when Reason showed that this was not true, showing all the anti-apartheid articles published in the magazine, the second smear article replies:

    “He also admitted that ? sure! ? Reason published a bunch of sick, racist pro-apartheid articles? but hey, they also published articles critical of apartheid, so what’s the big deal?”

    “Your magazine defended apartheid!” “What about the anti-apartheid articles!” “Your magazine ran *some* articles defending apartheid and others which criticized it! So my original accusation is true!”

    And this assumes that the lesser-of-two-evils articles by that South African libertarian were pro-apartheid.

    1. Basically, the gist of it is “I would rather have the apartheid government than a communist government.”

      Which is hardly “pro-apartheid”. This is like someone on the left saying something to the effect of “I’d rather have the Khmer Rouge than an American puppet government. ” Which is basically EXACTLY what Noam Chomsky said.

      Fortunately, as it happens, when Nelson Mandela came to power, it was the communists – Vietnamese and Chinese, who actually convinced him NOT to adopt communist policies.

  13. But as to this bit of moral equivalence:

    “(those on the right tend to recoil from our pro-choice position on abortion just as those the left hate our pro-choice pos[i]tion on school choice).”

    Lots of commenters here, not just fundy freaks like me but reliably non-leftist libertarians, are skeptical of the “pro-choice” position on abortion.

    Whereas I can’t find any of the *libertarian* H&R commenters who are skeptical of the school-choice position.

    Perhaps there’s no precise equivalence between aborting children and educating them?

    1. Correction: “Lots of commenters here, not just fundy freaks like me but reliably non-*rightist* libertarians”

    2. Nick seems to slip in the pro-choice angle just about whenever he can. It’s sort of sad, because the honest and usually civil debate within libertarianism about when a developing human gains the right not to be killed is actually worth highlighting. Not only does it cut to the actual core of the abortion issue, but it proves that libertarianism is not just some echo chamber for socially awkward white dudes.

      1. I agree. It is one of the things that irritates me about Nick. It is almost like he wants it to be an echo chamber.

        The thing with most libertarians is that we both understand where the other is coming from in the debate. One side thinks it is a form of aggression to kill an unborn, the other thinks that the woman should be able to abort the child because her body.

        I understand the pro-choice guys. I respect them. I just know they’re wrong.

    3. You are right that there is no equivalence. Though I am decidedly pro-legal-abortion, I can recognize that libertarian opposition to abortion is not about “choice” but about different ways of considering the moral status of the unborn and the mother’s obligations thereto. Though it hasn’t changed my mind at all, the discussions about abortion (as awful and dull as they can be after a while) have opened my mind quite a bit. It’s just not an issue that has a purely libertarian answer.

      1. Not only that, but most of the arguments libertarians have about it are the same arguments everyone else who argues about it have.

  14. EVEN IF the aforementioned material could be construed as being representative of the folks working for Reason in 1976, a HUGE leap, your proof that libertarians are holocaust deniers is a Magazine from 38 years ago?

    You are drawing conclusions about a 2014 magazine based on what was said in one release in 1976 from a bunch of people who no longer work here? That’s all you got? Ames, thanks for showing the world how squeaky clean Reason is, you fucking moron.

    1. Except the current editors are defending the content of those articles and the decision to publish them. It’s possible to write an article criticizing the way that racial identity politics ends up hurting the minorities they claim to represent. If you hire David Duke to write that article for you, you deserve to be criticized for it, regardless of the content of the article.

      1. To be clear:
        1.) The articles Reason published in the 70s do not, in and of themselves, reflect on the views of the people currently involved with the magazine
        2.) That being said, a lot of those articles are clearly bullshit and the decision to hire the writers is an example of the way the early libertarian movement was too willing to accept bigots as fellow travelers.
        3.) The failure of the current editors to recognize how bad those decisions were does open them up to having their current judgement question.

        1. 1) Margaret Sanger and eugenics
          2) Walter Duranty and the left
          3) Oliver Wendell Holmes and Buck v. Bell. You can hear the simplest fart out of a buttocks if you ever quote the “Three generations of idiots is enough.” in law school.”
          4) The Woman Question – Stalin, et. al
          5) Michael Willrich’s expose of Roscoe Pound, Chicago, and technocracy and “City of Courts”

          Nobody apologizes for this stuff, and this – reason’s dumb and possibly anti-Semitic issue — isn’t farming out contrarian articles for freelance pay, this is serious government policy by all of the above. Munich and the Jews in ’72. The UN for the past thirty years about Israel. WTF?

          Fuck that. If reason posted some dumb shit in 1976, then so be it.

          Same with Buckley and tattooing Aids citizens or his writings about the pre-Civil Rights Era South.

          It’s done by all sides.

          1. Great! So because the left refuses to ever admit making a mistake, libertarians should similarly refuse to do so?

            I didn’t say we need to apologize; there’s a distinction between recognizing your mistakes and learning from them and apologizing to unrelated third parties for them.

            But the attitude here seems to be that never admitting you’re wrong is more important that being right because our adversaries might somehow get “points” if we don’t pretend to be infalliable.

              1. No, because it’s never done, F d’A. Ever.

            1. If the left or right ever — ever — fucking apologized, that would be nice.

              Instead, you mention Buck v. Bell in a law school room, you’re a pariah.

              Mention Sanger’s fifteen-year absence of her writings from her website, you’re a nut.

              Talk about Duranty, the NYT will give you a million excuses for his Pulitzer.

              Talk about Roscoe Pound’s conversion to a rabid anti-New Dealer, you’re a misfit, a maniac. Never mind that he might have had a point about administrative due process and the fifty years that followed in its wake.

              Talk about Buckley and his tattooing, you’re just crazy and simplistic.

              CIte a bunch of freelancers in 1976, and you have a point about an entire institution?

              C’mon. You know better than that.

              1. C’mon. You know better than that.

                Well, as it seems Bo has taken the day off (so far) we need someone around to see the the purity of our souls.

                1. There’s nothing sarcastic about what I say. I’m that cynical. You think NR spends a blog post about Buckley and AIDS tattooing?

                  Ot that the NYT ever gives anything but a cluck-cluck about Duranty and its sanctimonious bullshit?

                  Or that law professors, who inscribe “the life of the law has not been logic” on their chalkboards like when this is brought up in classrooms??

                  Or that when faced with the fact that the biggest legal realist and New Dealer ever turned his back on the whole thing as an anti-democratic program, that most scholars embarrassingly laugh is not earnest?

                  Shit, man, I’m dead serious.

                  reason seems to have hired a bunch of WWII isolationists to refute the extent of the horror of that war. It’s sadly — and cynically — relativistic — every other politically motivated publication has done it. Ever. TNR. NR. reason. You name it. So being singled out for it seems simplistic until others are, in the words of David Foster Wallace, “called to account.” And fuck it.

                  1. I see no problem with wanting Reason to rise above its “peers”.

                    There is also a cautionary tale here. Reason commenters (myself included) sometimes bring up the skeletons in the closet of progressivism as a way of refuting the trolls. It is possible to do that in an effective and intellectually honest way, but it’s also all too easy to start arguing against a label that no longer means what it did in the early 1900s (or whenever). And it opens you up to similar attacks.

                    1. There is also a cautionary tale here. Reason commenters (myself included) sometimes bring up the skeletons in the closet of progressivism as a way of refuting the trolls. It is possible to do that in an effective and intellectually honest way, but it’s also all too easy to start arguing against a label that no longer means what it did in the early 1900s (or whenever). And it opens you up to similar attacks.

                      Which is why it’s fucking moronic when libertarians bring up Jim Crow to attack modern leftists.

                      The modern left is filled with authoritarian scum. We hardly have to go back to the 50’s to prove it.

                    2. This is the kind of game that the left wins, because it can point to some distasteful or immoral condition in the time when classical liberalism was ascendant and scream, “YOU SEE! YOU SUCK, TOO!” It’s essentially what they did with the “Victorian holocausts”. The important thing about history is not so much labels as it is cause and effect: did a certain policy cause a certain result? In the case of progressives, it can be established that forced egalitarianism is incompatible with a system of individual liberty, and that market mechanisms are by far the best way to guarantee a country’s prosperity. That extreme manifestations of forced egalitarianism have led to extreme divestment of liberties is true and helpful, but not even necessary to establish these facts, as one can examine through the historical record. This, rather than what the R and D parties were or were not doing in the 1800s, is what is useful about history.

                    3. Exactly, IT, see my comment below about the “reflection” of 1976 vs. the advocacy of certain programs. We’re on the same page.

                    4. Victorian Holocausts didn’t even effectively make the case it was trying to make. Considering that the famines were the result of imperialism and not capitalism or anything resembling a free market the book fell flat. Hell, the most prominent proponent of the market economy of the period, Herbert Spencer, whatever his flaws, was ardently anti-imperialist. It was the state and only the state that was responsible for those deaths.

                    5. Victorian Holocausts didn’t even effectively make the case it was trying to make. Considering that the famines were the result of imperialism and not capitalism or anything resembling a free market the book fell flat.

                      This is of course true, that is the point that I was alluding to. The “Victorian holocausts” had a couple of causal factors related to British imperialism during a time when the UK was one of the representatives of liberal capitalism in the world (liberal capitalism was the ‘label’, if you will). However, none of these causal factors was related to liberal capitalism: firstly, such was by and large not practiced in British India at the time, secondly the famines in India were caused by natural conditions in India and exacerbated by uneven urbanization/railway development (making it cheaper to ship food halfway across the world than inland). The “cause” was not free markets; markets were in fact responding to severe distortions in Indian markets caused by imperialist policies wherein Great Britain heavily favored port control and disfavored inland powers.

                      In contrast, tragedies attributed to forced egalitarianism had everything to do with attempts to impose such; along every chain of logic, the Holodomor (in a country with no experience of any sort of famine), the Great Leap Forward, and the other atrocities characteristic of socialism preceded from assumptions and were planned and celebrated decades prior to their implementation.

                    6. That Indian wheat ended up in Britain rather than staying in India and being eaten by Indians is entirely due to the workings of the free market. Are you blaming imperialism for the Brits’ willingness to pay more for Indian wheat?

                      “It was the state and only the state that was responsible for those deaths.”

                      The state was neither buying or selling wheat.

                    7. That Indian wheat ended up in Britain rather than staying in India and being eaten by Indians is entirely due to the workings of the free market.

                      No, it was the workings of a market distorted by a prior British preference in developing port cities and neglecting (sometimes by force) inland areas of the regions it was dominant in — such that railroads were simply not built in the first place anywhere near the interior of the country. Not all markets are free, and of course the absurd notion that Brits somehow acquired and utilized a heretofore unparalleled ability to bid up the price of grain to absurd heights such as to cause a famine was and is absurd, and is even more evidence that you socialists don’t know how to analyze market processes.

                      The famine itself was not artificial in nature; it was the result of drought and bad harvest in a country known for it (very much unlike the Ukrainian famine in that regard, which if not directly planned was certainly unique in that country’s history and not the result of climate), and exacerbated by factors peculiar to the country’s geography, development, and relationship to its imperial master.

                    8. How do you think the grain got to Britain if not by train? The British built an extensive rail network in India, precisely to enable the movements of goods. India continued to export grain while Indians starved. That’s where the famine comes in. It takes more than simple drought. It takes drought plus government policy. In this case a policy of free trade, and global markets which saw food shipped off to those who were prepared to pay the higher price.

                      “of course the absurd notion that Brits somehow acquired and utilized a heretofore unparalleled ability to bid up the price of grain ”

                      Are you saying they didn’t have that ability? Why not? I’m really not following you unless your argument comes down to a “no true market…” foolishness I’ve seen round these parts in the past.

                    9. mtrueman|7.26.14 @ 8:16PM|#
                      “How do you think the grain got to Britain if not by train?”

                      Uh, trains across the Channel?
                      Buzz off, asshole.

                    10. British built a rail network in India.

                    11. I don’t, either.

                      I want other publications and institutions to do it.

                      I want Holmes fellowships and scholarships annihilated.

                      I want Buckley sycophants to deal with his federal Civil Rights issues.

                      I want Duranty’s Pulitzer gone.

                      I want an apology for TNR eugenicism.

                      And it would be nice if all this shit was acknowledged before a pretty integrity-rich mag like reason got called on and picked on for it, as 1976 didn’t shape the politics of the progressive/statist idiocy, it reflected on it.

                    12. Actually, on the scale of human freedom vs. statism, I’d come close to betting my life on reason vs. the others. The skeletons gather larger and larger on the other side, and Nick probably should have ignored this.

                  2. Part of what the libertarian movement has been about has involved contradicting factual claims from the mainstream. I see nothing wrong with this if it’s done sincerely rather than out of mere spite.

                    People ask how it’s relevant for libertarian activists to make marijuana out to be safer than mainstream authorities have said, if libertarians don’t care about its safety in deciding whether it should be legal. It’s simple: It goes to the credibility of those authorities. If the authorities are lying or otherwise unreliable regarding facts, why trust their judgment on whether something should be legal?

                    Reason published at least one article attacking the mainstream’s blame of AIDS on HIV as at least shaky and prematurely cutting off certain avenues of investig’n of the issue. I was a HIV skeptic too until ~1995; it took the combination of Ho’s work at Aaron Diamond on viral load & the progress of immunodeficiency with the success of anti-protease treatment as predicted by the HIV model of pathology to convince me.

                    Revisionist hx was a big deal in the libertarian movement 40 yrs. ago, and not just at Reason, and not just about World War 2. If authorities are untrustworthy about the past, why should they be believed about the present or future?

                    1. If authorities are untrustworthy about the past, why should they be believed about the present or future?

                      Fair enough. But do you believe the Holocaust is a fabrication and a conspiracy of a Jewish-Zionist cabal?

                    2. No, but if I did I wouldn’t be ashamed of it, and I would use the fact to tar mainstream authorities.

                    3. Well said.

                2. You’re assuming Bo and Stormy aren’t the same person.

                  1. Assuming that everyone you come across who disagrees with you is really the same person is pretty paranoid.

            2. WTF are you talking about?

              He said it was embarrassing? What more do you want?

            3. I, nor any of us here have any connection to whoever wrote something thirty eight years ago.

              How does holocaust denial fit in with libertarian ideology? It doesn’t. At all.

            4. Great! So because the left refuses to ever admit making a mistake, libertarians should similarly refuse to do so?

              If your opponents are never willing to admit their own mistakes, and wear that attitude like a badge of honor, it’s absolutely suicidal to take the high ground.

              You want to know why the borderline insane ideologies of the left are pretty much institutionalized in academia and the government? Because these people are too full of themselves to ever admit when they fucked up–and thanks to their mendacity, they’re the ones in charge of running the country and educating our kids.

              Taking the moral high ground does you no good when all it does is result in your head getting shot off.

              1. “If your opponents are never willing to admit their own mistakes, and wear that attitude like a badge of honor, it’s absolutely suicidal to take the high ground.”

                This is exactly my point, and well said, man.

                And it would be nice if stuff like this 1976 issue made reason re-examine its intellectually radical isolationist position, but I am not holding my breath, nor do I even want reason to do so. Their isolationism, however much I believe it can color its coverage of things like, say, the Muslim Brotherhood, is an adversarial counterweight to perceived consensus. In other words, potentially useful.

                But, in the words of an eminent libertarian IR scholar who once told me about a job interview at an esteemed libertarian think tank (paraphrased) “Did I tell them my isolationism went so far as WWII? No. Fuck that. If that’s the condition of my hiring, I can’t do it.” Sometimes forcing facts to fit ideology leads to stuff like this. If only every — and I mean almost every — other publication publicly admitted their editorial positions caused carnage and death, rather than had to self-flagellate about reflections stemming from freelance hiring embarrassments from 1976, the world would be a much better place.

                But as we just saw — even as recently as the other day with a guy like Gruber — the omelets need their broken eggs, and nobody appears to be any bit self-conscious about it. It is indeed a suicidal stance these days to be self-critical.

          2. “It’s done by all sides.”

            So? Because people align themselves to ‘sides’ they should be immune from criticism? So much holding individuals to account for their opinions or actions.

            1. Actually, Nick acknowledged and accepted the criticism, and even said, regarding such critics “We’ll correct them when they’re wrong and take it on the chin when they’re right.”
              As usual, the exact opposite of what you wrote.

              1. I was responding to Rock Action, not Nick.

                1. It would be nice if everyone held themselves accountable for their intellectual histories, and my cynical point is that nobody does, and they just keep on truckin’ into the night, ever-convinced of their own current worldview, never taking time to stop and reflect lest some asshole somewhere impute that their current stances may be just as wrong-headed as their previous ones.

                  Mine is an intellectually indefensible position, IMO.

                  And, paradoxically, reason should do the same as everybody else until such time as everybody else with a longer history of bodies piling up and state coercion does just what I’ve suggested. I mean, Holmes scholarships are the norm at law school. Pound is revered for his advocacy that Chicago remake its municipal courts which resulted in abject personal freedom horrors. Duranty lied his way through Stalinism. Sanger wanted to kill the blacks and feeble. NR constantly pushed against civil rights legislation in any form, and was, as an editorial position, downright hostile towards gays in the late eighties. And reason has to go out if its way to apologize for freelance contracts in 1976? Sorry if I sound like an apologist, but that’s fucking hilarious, and just shows the sick state of intellectual warfare in the form of slick publications.

                  I admit, I’m totally cynical. I dial it up to eleven.

              2. mtrueman is an admitted liar, proud to be a hypocrite and an all around asshole incapable of honest engagement.
                Right, mtrueman?

        2. 2.)the decision to hire the writers is an example of the way the early libertarian movement was too willing to accept bigots as fellow travelers.

          That statement has the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. I’m reasonably sure that Martin wasn’t asked his views on the Holocaust when he was interviewed for his position. A lot of people hold screwy views on certain topics, and one cannot know the future.

          And Nick admits it’s embarrassing.

          Ames is correct that some of the contributors to that issue developed an interest in or were fellow travelers with that most pathetic area of study known as Holocaust revisionism or denialism. That scurrilous topic is not the focus of any of the articles in the issue, but the inclusion of contributors such as James J. Martin, who would go on to join the editorial board of the contemptible denialist outfit the Institute of Historical Review, is embarrassing.

          1. When I hire anyone, my first question is ‘Ten years from now, are you planning on joining any Holocaust denial organizations?’

            1. “Now, Mr Irish, before I hire you, do you hold any imbecilic beliefs I should know about?”

              1. The issue in question featured an article from Austin J. App, who wrote this article called The Six Million Swindle in 1973:

                http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres9/APP6million.pdf

                1973. Three years before this issue. Wonder why Gillespie didn’t mention that. Wonder why you too fucking idiots didn’t know that. Actually, I’m pretty sure it’s because you’ve been too busy patting each other on the backs for making a barely intelligent point about James Martin. What a pair of fucking morons.

      2. Actually the current editors seem to be attacking Ames for his sloppy, partisan and mendacious smear merchantry (all the points the posters here have pointed out) and not defending all of the past editorial decisions of previous reason editors.

    2. proof that libertarians are holocaust deniers is a Magazine from 38 years ago?

      Any port in a storm, and of course using that logic mainstream liberals are Stalin supporters a thousand times over.

  15. steered the Republican Party agenda for decades now

    If only

  16. I’m bored

    1. Jesus, tell me about it. This fucktard Ames’s article deserves a big hefty “fuck you, moron” and then a strong turn back to the beer and barbecue.

      1. I don’t understand why Reason keeps dignifying Ames with a response.

        He’s a 40 something man who can’t get a job with any legitimate organization. Go read his twitter some time. He’s quite literally mentally ill.

        1. The unfortunate fact is that a failure to respond to even the most retarded accusations can be twisted into an admission of guilt.

          1. Good thing I’m not in charge. My tendency is to succumb to pique and/or sarcasm and “own up” to the craziest & most extreme accus’ns. Call me a baby killer, and I’ll go one better & admit to roasting them alive while their parents & siblings look on. I figure I’ll pick up enough support from the baby roasting lobby to compensate for whatever I lose in the circles I’m being accused from, because I’m sure I lost them long ago anyway.

      2. Is there website of his I can troll? I need a few yucks today.

        1. You can troll Pando.com. Come on over, it’s the usual low brow proglodytes.

  17. Things were better around here when Poole was in charge.

  18. Salon.com writes an article about the most important ethical dilemmas in torture porn.

    “Evil Dead” (2013) The original is untouchable, but this effective remake excels because it sets up its heroine, Mia (Jane Levy) as a drug addict hoping to quit cold-turkey. Viewers want her to survive and recover, but things become, er, complicated after Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) reads the “Book of the Dead” despite warnings not to open it. Eric unleashes the Evil Dead, a supernatural force with a nasty wrath. Fede Alvarez’s graphic, gore-filled shocker is a terrific allegory for addiction, depicting the hell and healing process that is recovery. What is our responsibility to addicts? This rhetorical question, combined with the morality of interventions, and the perils and repercussions of addiction, makes “Evil Dead” a tense and traumatic analogy for how people on drugs become “possessed,” and end up doing harm to themselves and others. It’s easy to root for the characters’ unlikely survival, even as tongues, arms, thighs and other body parts are sliced off.

    Yes, Evil Dead clearly existed primarily as a parable about drug addiction.

    1. He doesn’t say it existed primarily as a parable about drug addiction. Only that it works really well as one. The fact works of art are open to interpretation in ways entirely unintended by their creators is part of what makes art interesting.

      1. Indeed.

      2. I know the bloodletting is fake, but what is real to me ? and what I appreciate about these films ? is that they address ethical dilemmas that prompt their protagonists to grapple with trauma and issues such as survivor’s guilt.

        The writer explicitly says that he believes the ‘ethical dilemmas’ he mentions in the piece are present in the actual text of the film; not that he is simply saying it’s his interpretation.

        Also he says this:

        Fede Alvarez’s graphic, gore-filled shocker is a terrific allegory for addiction, depicting the hell and healing process that is recovery. What is our responsibility to addicts?

        He says Evil Dead is an allegory for addiction. I said he argued it was a parable for addiction. This basically means the same thing, your mindless contrarianism not withstanding.

        1. Where does he explicitly say the ethical dilemmas in the film? Do you know what “explicit” even means? Do you know what “text” means? The only way drug addition could be in the text is if one of the characters actually said out loud “hey, this zombie attack is just like drug addiction!” He’s talking about the subtext of the films.

          Furthermore, if you’re from the “death of the author” school of criticism, authorial intent has nothing to do with what’s in the subtext. If a particular interpretation is consistent with the work, it’s in the subtext regardless of whether the author intended it to be there.

        2. Interpreting the author’s intent and meaning is what critics do. If you don’t like it, don’t read art criticism.

          1. So the art critic is a sort of.. top man who cannot be disagreed with?

          2. CS Lewis had some interesting comments on that.

            Basically, in cases he could verify, they were 100% wrong. One example he gave was of a novel with a mystical tiger that the critic said was derivative of Aslan. However, Lewis knew the author and while the book was published after Narnia, it was written before. So, if anything, Aslan was derivative of the other.

          3. Unless they’re deconstructionist

          4. Meaining isn’t intrinsic to the text; what something means to you and what it means to me can be completely different. That doesn’t mean one of us is necessarily wrong. That being the case, it’s somewhat silly to give the author a special place. Just because their work means something to them doesn’t mean it has to mean the same thing to other people.

      3. Like the way the TV play “Shatterday” wasn’t intended as the story of somebody suffering thru a stroke & aphasia, but works really well as one.

    2. If you want to talk about addiction in popular movies, why not bring out the big guns –

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cul…..ction.html

  19. OT: Just listening to Mevins Ozma album this morning. Went to Wikipedia to read up on Buzz Osborne, and found this tidbit.

    In a 2014 interview with Tonedeaf, Osborne expressed that American economist, Thomas Sowell, has been a major influence on his career. “I consider Sowell the greatest philosopher of all time.” Osborne explained. “He is a PhD economist and he’s written more than 30 books about everything you can imagine, from social; commentary to how economics works.”

    One more fun fact: Shirley Temple’s daughter was the bass player for Melvins 1988-1992. The more you know.

  20. In The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, for instance, Williams argued that America’s “Open Door” foreign policy was not about spreading democracy or human rights but was actually a way for America’s leaders to escape domestic issues caused by racial strife and capitalism’s “contradictions.” You can take or leave that particular argument, but there’s no question that Williams and other revisionists brought a huge amount of energy to the fields of history and political science.

    Hitler argued that the Jews were genetically inferior and deserved to be exterminated. You can take or leave that particular argument, but there’s no question that Hitler and other revisionist politicians brought a huge amount of energy to the fields of history and political science.

    I realize that not everyone will agree with those goals or our positions on everything (those on the right tend to recoil from our pro-choice position on abortion just as those on the left tend to hate our pro-choice postion on school choice).

    Awful example, Nick. There is no question about school choice from a libertarian POV, while abortion is very much a contested issue from those premises.

    Given the general level of exhaustion with conventional right-wing and left-wing ideology

    If only.

    Reason is happy to acknowledge missteps and mistakes

    C’mon Nick. Ames is a moron but y’all done fucked up with this one.

  21. Honestly Nick, we small-l libertarians would be so much more appealing politically if we had a conspiracy story strung together by a single piece of yarn explaining how the statists accomplish what they accomplish. Instead, we rely on an invisible hand of arrogance and stupidity which requires an IQ exceeding 140 to even begin to grasp.

  22. Heil!

  23. OT:

    io9 offers 21 books that changed fantasy & sci-fi forever:

    http://io9.com/21-books-that-c…..1610590701

    1. There are no Doctor Who novelizations on there. Something must be wrong.

    2. Foundation and Childhood’s End included, no surprises for a Gawker site, they love themselves some communist sci-fi.

      But the Hunger games and Harry Potter are listed before Dune and The Martian Chronicles? What the hell?

      1. While I realize it was important and etc, I really dont get the love for The Martian Chronicles.

        That and Rama.

        1. Rama was pretty boring.

          But I’d put the average Piers Anthony book ahead of the Hunger Games.

          1. I found Rama fascinating, from an archaeological perspective. It didn’t need any action, I just wanted to know.

            Piers Anthony? BURN.

            (Though I agree.)

            1. Come to think of it, how much of the Harry Potter world was lifted from the Xanth novels?

              Mundanes and Muggles
              Unique magical abilities
              Half breeds
              Every magical creature thrown together (although I blame Lewis for that)

              1. How much of Game of Thrones was lifted from Robin Hoob’s Farseer series?

          2. Ive always thought that the Incarnations series would have been really interesting if you take the magical aspect out of the world.

            It was set in a world in which science and magic were equally powerful. I think make it like todays world, only with the incarnations would be interesting. I realize there almost needs to be some sort of magic involved for the incarnations to do their job…I would allow it. Although Death taking jets around the world to his appointments would be interesting.

            1. Magick is just another technology, and vice versa. Once you figure out how it works, you don’t call it magick any more. It’s just that magick tends to be based on esoteric knowledge, rather than a diffuse development of open knowledge, so there’ll be a great many people who see the results of magick without understanding its mechanisms. The same becomes increasingly true of technologies as specializ’n narrows the circle of people who understand them, approaching the esoteric.

            2. Although Death taking jets around the world to his appointments would be interesting.

              Well at least then the TSA really would be protecting people’s lives.

        2. I prefer Fahrenheit 451 to Martian Chronicles myself. And I actually prefer Death is a Lonely Business to both of them. Watching Martian Chronicles on TV as a kid was pretty weird, though.

          1. Well… Martian Chronicles is a collection of short stories stitched together with some connective material, so it’s not surprising that it doesn’t really “work” as a novel so well as Fahrenheit 451 does. That said, I love them both and they made a huge impact on me as a kid.

      2. I never heard the “Foundation as communism” idea before. To me, it seemed to be Asimov’s re-writing of Gibbon.

        However, there has been at least one academic article arguing the Foundation was Asimov’s interpretation of Turner’s Frontier Thesis.

        1. Communism isn’t really accurate for Foundation. Socialist paradise is more apt.

          Childhood’s End was communist, as Clarke was an aficionado. It kept popping up in his books, particularly 3001.

          1. Childhood’s End was communist

            Seems pretty damning of communism if it was.

            1. Communism generally is.

    3. Ringworld made the list, Im happy.

    4. So basically they throw in some genuine classics, some recent commercial successes and then sprinkle in books that no one has read or heard of but push Gawker’s Politically Correct agenda.

  24. Just because James J. Martin wrote some material that you wouldn’t endorse doesn’t mean inclusion of him as a contributor should be embarrassing.

  25. Is that Gary North on the magazine cover?!

    1. Mark Ames: ?You’re all a bunch of theocrats.?

  26. Hey, does anyone remember the time The Nation published an article by Gore Vidal in which he argued there needed to be an alliance between the Soviets and America in order to fend off the scary Chinamen who were going to destroy us all? The article also contains some really intriguing Jew hatred.

    My conclusion: for America to survive economically in the coming Sino-Japanese world, an alliance with the Soviet Union is a necessity. After all, the white race is a minority race with many well deserved enemies, and if the two great powers of the Northern Hemisphere don’t band together, we are going to end up as farmers?or, worse, mere entertainment?for the more than one billion grimly efficient Asiatics. In principle, Mailer agreed.

    And this was published in the late 80’s!

    I eagerly await Ames’ article about the vile racist history of The Nation.

  27. “The German concentration camps weren’t health centers, but they appear to have been far smaller and much less lethal than the Russian ones.”

    The GULAG was pretty damn big…and it killed a shit load of people over a long period of time.

    I read Applebaum’s book “GULAG” where after the fall of the Berlin wall she used Soviet archives to research the history and scope of the GULAG.

    In numbers of killed and camp per capita killed it would have been much smaller and much less lethal then the Nazi concentration camps….

    That said no one in the western world and probably only a few dozen people in the Soviet Union knew this in 1976.

    If this is the only offending quote where some guy thought the GULAG was worse then the Holocaust at time when nearly no one on the planet actually knew then I have to say this is pretty thin gruel and no where near reaches the claim of Holocaust denialism.

    1. The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
      Published: 1973

      We knew quite a bit about the gulag in 1976. Perhaps not its precise extent.

      1. Stalin killed millions of people in places other than the Gulag.

  28. US Embassy in Libya evacuated, country officially going completely to shit

    Progressive Observers who noted that Libya was a case-study in how “democrats do intervention better” (no ‘boots on the ground’, cheaper) should note that the end result is just like Iraq = only goes to shit oh-so-much *faster*.

    Somewhere, Sheldon Richman is add/replacing words to generate a new essay

    1. Regrettably, we had to take this step because the location of our embassy is in very close proximity to intense fighting and ongoing violence between armed Libyan factions.

      1. Susan Rice is set to appear on Meet The Press later and explain how this ‘violence’ is in fact a local protest against the Hobby Lobby decision

        1. Actually it’s a protest against the blasphemy in a 1971 reason article.

    2. I really hope he tells us about how non-descript “interventionism” is to blame. And by “interventionism” I of course mean JOOOOOOOOOOOOS

    3. Obama: ?This isn’t an evacuation, it’s diplomatic kinetic action.?

      1. I thought he would be more like: “I didn’t know that was happening”

    4. “Progressive Observers who noted that Libya was a case-study in how “democrats do intervention better” (no ‘boots on the ground’, cheaper) should note that the end result is just like Iraq = only goes to shit oh-so-much *faster*.”

      Progressives should note that policy in that regard was formulated by Ronald Reagan, Jean Kirkpatrick, Casper Weinberger and others, and is generally known as “The Powell Doctrine”.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberger_Doctrine

      Incidentally, if Libya does go to hell, what we did in Libya will have worked out much better than what we did in Iraq–in terms of American lives, civilian casualties and the trillions of dollars it cost us to fight the Iraq War.

      No doubt about it, not committing ground troops is better than committing ground troops if the result is going to come out the same either way.

      George W. Bush was an idiot, but what’s defined as Republican doesn’t begin and end with the George W. Bush administration. All the Weinberger Doctrine/Powell Doctrine reasons for not invading Iraq were just as good in 2003 as they were in 1991.

      If the left is finally embracing that kind of realist/pragmatic foreign policy–after their disastrous liberation war experiences in places like Vietnam–then I’m glad to hear it!

      1. What they’re being stupid about is the suggestion that Obama’s reluctance to put troops on the ground is somehow fundamentally Democrat. There’s actually a long tradition of modern Republican ideas about this–going back to Goldwater.

        And, incidentally, if any of those Democrats are thinking of voting for Hillary because of her affinity for the Powell/Weinberger Doctrine, they’re going to be horribly disappointed.

        Hillary’s criticism of Dubya’s Iraq War was that Dubya wasn’t going far enough. That’s why Obama is the president now instead of her. She’s more of a neocon than Dubya was!

      2. “Incidentally, if Libya does go to hell, what we did in Libya will have worked out much better than what we did in Iraq”

        Id disagree, but not for the sake of making any useless ‘better/worse’ comparisons with Iraq. They’re not apples/apples, and my citing progs who liked making the comparison wasn’t to make it myself.

        The point would be = what was the desired end-state in the case of *either* military intervention in these Middle Eastern States?

        Simply ‘undoing’ the status quo, and then hoping whatever happens afterward is somehow ‘better’ w/o any particular input to the matter makes either effort stupid from the get go, regardless of the subsequent costs.

        In the case of Iraq, i’d have probably argued it should never have been done since the follow-up from the removal of Saddams regime would be inevitable ‘civil war’ – and a pretty *big* one, most likely. Iraq would become a proxy-ground for a hot version of an already extent Saudi/Iranian cold-war.

        Libya, i’d make the case that in the ‘follow up’ to the ouster of Ghaddadfi, the US could have had far more direct influence in establishing an interim government and empowering it to sustain itself, preventing the fermentation of the multiple jihadist groups that populate the eastern part of the country.

        The fact that both efforts were/are disasters are unique to the respective administrations and their particular misconceptions.

        1. The regional stuff with Iran is one of the biggest reasons why Bush Sr., Jim Baker, Colin Powell, and others were reluctant to invade in 1991.d Still made tons of sense in 2003 to everyone but Cheney and Rumsfeld.

          In regards to Libya, I will say this: a huge chunk of the world’s jihadis hailed from Libya. It was practically impossible for a large chunk of the young men in that country to thrive–and that steady stream of recruits wasn’t going to disappear so long as Gaddafi was in power.

          Just like with any investment, too, I think we have to look at the cost of getting in and out–and Libya cost us almost nothing. We’re talking like one half of 1% of Iraq.

          It’s also important to remember that the Europeans and the Qataris were going to act without us anyway–not to mention the Libyan people. It’s just fundamentally different from Iraq, where we imposed liberation on the Iraqis from outside. The Libyan people revolted themselves–we just picked a side in that fight that was already happening.

          1. As to whether it was worth it to the Libyans, that’s up to them to decide. The American Revolution also led to a civil war. I’m glad we fought the revolution anyway. As to American interests, I still think we’re getting more for American security than we put in. Some of those risks were baked in anyway–there were always going to be risks from a newly liberated Libya.

            When the Libyan people wouldn’t take it anymore, what was the alternative? Cozying up with dictators like Gaddafi was an excellent Cold War strategy that was costing us a lot more in terms of security than it was benefiting us once the Cold War was over.

            1. You are aware you are making a very excellent cost-benefit case for “Diplomacy-by-bombing”, you realize?

              NTTAWWT, just saying.

              1. I see it as a case for restraint.

                If you don’t put boots on the ground, you’re a lot better off.

                Meanwhile, life is a marginal analysis. You analyze your investments on a case by case basis.

                Sometimes, on very rare occasions, it may be in our best interests to bomb the hell out of somebody. Yeah, I’m willing to allow for that possibility.

                Assuming a) the president seeks Congressional authorization per the Constitution, etc.

                I’m not going to rule that kind of thing out on principle. I’m not going to oppose any argument just because Barack Obama is making it, either. I think the guy was right once! Nobody can say I disagree with him just because of his ideology.

                Broken clocks tell perfect time twice a day! Hell, he probably got it right by accident–and even so, he didn’t seek Congressional authorization as required by the Constitution, so I can always damn him for that.

  29. “The Kochs are almost singlehandedly responsible for giving us libertarianism, a radical-right version of neoliberalism that has steered the Republican Party agenda for decades now, and has made major inroads into the disaffected left as well.”

    You can’t fool *me*, Nick. That’s from The Onion.

    1. that has steered the Republican Party agenda for decades now

      Really? REALLY? Willful ignorance is unbecoming.

      1. Jay Diamond said 15-20 yrs. ago that radical libertarianism had become the ruling principle in the USA, and he didn’t like it.

  30. You know who else didn’t deny the holocaust in 1976?

    1. Prince Harry?

    2. Me! I was only 5. But clearly that must have out me in the denier camp by default. At least until I learned about it several years later.

  31. They claim that the name “Pando” comes from “the largest living thing”, a stand of Aspen trees (= one tree) in Utah.

    The largest living thing is actually a fungus, several times as big, in both area and weight, as the “Pando Trees”.

    1. Yeah. There is a humungus fungus in Oregon that is bigger than Pando. But Pando is pretty fucking cool. The wife and I are planning a little road trip to go see it.

      1. My understanding is that the biggest organism in the world is a fungus that grew underground and covers square miles crossing the border of, I think it’s Michigan and Indiana.

        Like a legit botanist told me about it one time, who was, I should confess, indulging in some combustive botany while he was explaining it. But then I’ve seen references to it elsewhere.

        I even saw it on the side of U-Haul one time, and if you see it on the side of a U-Haul, then it must be true.

        1. “”combustive botany””

          *makes note of handy euphamism

        2. Meh. That Michigan fungus is a fag! This Oregon one is the new champ!

          And here is a link to Pando.

    2. Bacteria asexually reproduce.

      So if one cell becomes two cells does the original cell disappear or is it one of those two original cells?

      If the later then there is a bacteria cell billions of years older then any fungus or aspen stand.

      Also there are really old archaebacteria that sit dormant deep within the earth possibly for millions of years.

      1. Some jellyfish are effectively immortal.

        http://news.nationalgeographic…..swarm.html

      2. Bacteria producing asexually is part of the war on women. In fact, that organism must learn to check its bacterial privilege.

  32. “Indeed, as Ames frets, libertarianism is even making “major inroads into the disaffected left.””

    I’m surprised he admits there is a disaffected left!

    Maybe one of the reasons there are so many in the disaffected left is because of all the identity politics. The left isn’t really about issues anymore. It’s just about identity politics. …and the problem with progressive identity politic is that eventually you run out of other people’s identities to slag.

    Exhibit 1: the case against Reason. They don’t care if libertarians, here, largely opposed George Bush’s Iraq War. They don’t care if we publicly supported gay marriage back when Barack Obama was too ashamed to do so. They don’t care if you oppose the Drug War on the basis that it’s objectively racist!

    They just care that our identity is libertarian, and that our identity remains tainted by persistent association with their demon of the month. They don’t care what libertarians think. They hate us, but they don’t hate us for what we think.

    They hate because of who we are.

    Libertarians aren’t on their list of approved identities, and the progressives hate us for it. And they’ll do everything they can to keep slagging our identity–probably because their record is indefensible

    Identity politics is all they’ve got.

    1. Identity politics can be instructive. If you’re in a club that contains almost only white men, you should probably find another club. It’s really hard to explain something like that, especially if the premise of your club is that it has all the right ideas.

      1. Your reliance on ad hominem arguments is really boring at this point.

        1. My entire point is that noting that you’re almost all white males is relevant. That’s not ad hominem. It’s the argument itself.

          1. Tony, a movement’s demography is immaterial to the validity of their opinions or propriety of their concerns. The best way to show this is through counter-examples such as the ones I show below, though one can of course use others. For example, you are a stupid, annoying faggot with murderous impulses towards the dissident and airs of superiority towards your fellows, even those who agree with you but are insufficiently educated to your taste. In a sense, one can say that your entire package of beliefs, being unique to yourself, is 100% composed of this demographic. Yet none of this *explains* why you are wrong: you are wrong because your logic is flawed; you are using a form of ad hominem because demography is a non-sequitur when discussing the validity of a governing principle. You are wrong because your chain of logic is broken; you being a terrible person is just a nice bonus.

            The strongest indictment of the modern liberal arts program is that they let you through it without understanding this very basic logic of reasoned discourse.

          2. Thanks for making my point for me, Tony.

            Yeah, Tony doesn’t care what the argument is–he just cares about the identity of the person who makes it.

            If you’re white, male, heterosexual, middle class, then there’s something off about you–unless you’re hating in some way.

            I should say that kind of self-hatred is instructive, too. Tony doesn’t care whether someone like Barack Obama is right ton the arguments either.

            When Barack Obama was denigrating gay rights–refusing to protect their right to gay marriage, for instance–Tony continued to support Barack Obama anyway.

            To a libertarian, this is like a black man voting for George Wallace after he said, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”. It’s actually worse than that.

            Tony has told us before that he’s gay. What kind of self-hating human being would run around on the interwebs trying to convince everybody to support a president like Barack Obama, who was campaigning on his refusal to protect gay people’s rights?

            I’ll tell you what kind of person. It’s the kind of person who openly, honestly, truthfully, will tell you that they care a whole lot more about the identities of the people who are expressing their opinions than he does about the opinions themselves.

            P.S. Why would anybody argue with such a person?

            1. Tony has told us before that he’s gay. What kind of self-hating human being would run around on the interwebs trying to convince everybody to support a president like Barack Obama, who was campaigning on his refusal to protect gay people’s rights?

              For a normal person, uninfomred about anything outside of TEAMS who supports gay rights the Dems were the better choice…they were horrible but they hugged as close to the Republicans as possible trying to be just a tiny tiny tiny bit better.

              Of course Tony is not normal…he has been trolling here for years. He would have clear information that a bunch of mostly white hetero male libertarians have been far better for decades on gay rights then the Democrats have ever been.

              1. “He would have clear information that a bunch of mostly white hetero male libertarians have been far better for decades on gay rights then the Democrats have ever been.”

                And that bag of shit would ignore it.

          3. “My entire point is that noting that you’re almost all white males is relevant. That’s not ad hominem. It’s the argument itself.”

            Arguing with Tony is like reasoning with the wind.

            I think some of you are having a hard time with this because it’s hard for you to think that someone can walk around through life, basically, souless like this.

            There’s nothing to engage with in Tony.

            No authentic self that analyzes the world around him and interprets it the way we do.

            It’s like a horror movie to us, that this could happen to someone. That someone would lose themselves so thoroughly that they could never be reached again.

            How do you reach Tony? You can’t argue with him. Your arguments mean nothing.

            I think it’s interesting, sometimes, to listen to people argue about the existence of free will. Those who are more deterministic will often argue that the people who think they’re making choices on their own are actually behaving deterministicly–though they don’t realize it.

            I wonder what those determinists would make of Tony! Here’s someone who genuinely has no will of his own to engage with. Surely, we’re not all just like him?

          4. “”Tony|7.26.14 @ 3:55PM|#

            My entire point is that noting that you’re almost all white males is relevant. “

            said the white male

            1. He’s gay, though!

              That make his opinion important and okay.

              1. So all I have to do to achieve freedom from culpability for the Patriarchal Anglo-centric Racist System of Bias and Economic Injustice… is suck a few dicks?

                No one told me! In retrospect… *it does make total sense*

              2. There are plenty of white male libertarians who are gay (like me) or Jewish. There are also increasing numbers of libertarians who are either female or nonwhite. I think this is one of the things Pando and Salon find disturbing. Tony is just a parrot. He’s been here for years regurgitating whatever he felched out of Joan Walsh or Chris Matthews that week.

            2. None of you get it do you? Why don’t you name me some organizations that consist overwhelmingly of white men. Then reflect on that list and ask yourselves what, precisely, does yours have in common with the others.

              1. Why don’t you name me some organizations that consist overwhelmingly of white men.

                Every Fortune 500 company in the nation?

                1. Minorities and women must be really bad at entrepreneurship, huh?

                  1. “Minorities and women must be really bad at entrepreneurship, huh?”

                    If you knew any, you would find out that they are when asshole’s like you get out of their way.

                  2. Minorities and women must be really bad at entrepreneurship, huh?

                    Jay-Z and Magic Johnson would probably disagree with this assessment, but you’re certainly welcome to believe this is the case.

              2. The writers and editors of The New Republic?

                Hockey teams?

                Senate Democrats?

          5. My entire point is that noting that you’re almost all white males is relevant. That’s not ad hominem. It’s the argument itself.

            That it’s intellectually lazy is hardly a surprise.

          6. Eat a bag of dicks Tony.

      2. You said it, Tony. While we’re at it, let’s shame anyone who participates in a math club — an exclusive province of Asian and white men. Who needs math, anyways? Or what about if you like Soul and R&B — isn’t it wrong to go to concerts with such an enormous percentage of blacks; doesn’t that say something bad about you? And just forget about Doctors Without Borders, bunch of fucking Heebs and whiteys running that racket.

        1. Cute, but not quite good enough. Whatever reasons there may be for the racial makeup of those groups, a political philosophy has no barriers to entry–everyone is welcome to join if they agree with the philosophy. The disproportions in all these groups is problematic, but you have an extra, special kind of problem: the fact that minorities and women almost universally don’t buy what you’re selling. Since it’s merely an intellectual conclusion you’re selling, either minorities and women are especially stupid, or something else is going on.

          1. it’s merely an intellectual conclusion you’re selling, either minorities and women are especially stupid, or something else is going on

            All intellectual conclusions which are correct are known to have been accepted by all countries, cultures, and demographic sub-sections in equal proportion to their populations at all times, no exceptions. If, for example, the theory of evolution is largely accepted in white and Asian countries (but nowhere else), that is all that is needed to either declare that theory disproven or declare oneself a racist. Because those are the only two alternatives in the world. Obviously.

          2. Minorities and women. Two demographics you despise. Interesting.

          3. Since it’s merely an intellectual conclusion you’re selling, either minorities and women are especially stupid, or something else is going on.

            Most progressives are white. Remember the embarrassment The New Republic went through when it was determined that their entire editorial staff was white?

            Minorities are underrepresented among people that are politically active. This applies to libertarians as well as progressives and conservatives.

          4. Since it’s merely an intellectual conclusion you’re selling, either minorities and women are especially stupid, or something else is going on.

            That “something else” might be that there are people offering women and minorities a bunch of free shit – on the basis of their identity.

            We have one party that ways “free shit for women and minorities”, and the other say “no free shit for anyone”. Is it surprising that the “free shit for women and minorities” attracts most of the women and minorities?

            1. Yes those women and minorities sure are selfish, on the whole. Only white men both never get any privileges and are immune to offers of privilege.

              1. Tony|7.26.14 @ 10:46PM|#
                “Yes argle bargle argle bargle”

                Shitbag, did you have a point?

              2. What’s better?
                A) A philosophy that attempts to treat everyone equally, and not give anyone any special privileges.

                B) A philosophy where everyone competes to get privileges based on their racial/ethnic identities.

          5. “the fact that minorities and women almost universally don’t buy what you’re selling”

            I think the problem goes deeper. I think many minorities, blacks for example, look to a larger collectivity, ‘the black community’ for strength and guidance. Libertarians, on the other hand, see these collectivities as something overwhelmingly negative, if they exist at all.

            1. It’s worse than that. You’re forgetting about the bait and switch.

              Yeah, they hold up black people as victims and say they’re all about fighting for civil rights.

              In the next breath, they’re slamming religious people–especially evangelical Christians.

              Do you have any idea what kind of contortions it takes to champion traditional black communities out of one side of your mouth–and slam evangelical protestants out of the other?

              This arguing for identity politics as some kind of cohesive ideology is ridiculous. It isn’t an ideology! It’s a campaign strategy. It’s a wedge issue. It’s a logical fallacy.

              To see people talk about it as some kind of cohesive philosophy is ridiculous. You should join the Moonies.

              1. It isn’t an ideology! It’s a campaign strategy

                This. A philosophy/ideology must stem from its basic tenets. What both Teams have is a list of issues, pulled from their respective asses, often in conflict, not a philosophy. The closest they can come to a first principle is “we believe this because the other side believes the opposite.”

                It’s political theater to buy votes and obtain/maintain power. What it certainly isn’t is a blueprint for how to live ethically.

                1. Read down thread, and the tenet they’re deriving all of this from is that when you’re analyzing someone’s argument, their race, sexual orientation, etc., according to them, is more important than the argument itself!

                  That’s not a set of standards derived from anything. It’s a McDonalds commercial.

                  And you shouldn’t respond to it with rational argument. You should respond to it with ridicule.

              2. “To see people talk about it as some kind of cohesive philosophy is ridiculous. You should join the Moonies.”

                I agree that it is not any kind of cohesive philosophy, but give it its due. People derive strength and purpose through ethnic identification, or religious or sexual. It can be a positive force in their lives. Granted, these are not Libertarians who don’t recognize the existence of collectivities beyond the individual.

                And there is no reason why I should join the moonies, that’s not my style.

                1. “And there is no reason why I should join the moonies, that’s not my style.”

                  People derive strength and purpose through the Moonies. According to them, presumably, it can be a positive force in their lives.

                  But why would anyone argue with them about politics.

                  Why should anyone respond to their “arguments”, if and when they call us racist for promoting apartheid in South Africa–despite opposing apartheid in South Africa?

                  In the meantime, I have to live under the stupid polices of a president they support–because of his identity? Fuck that.

                  Anybody that supports any argument because of the identity of the person who holds it is a stupid asshole.

                  1. “if and when they call us racist for promoting apartheid in South Africa–despite opposing apartheid in South Africa?”

                    I don’t get where you are coming from. Apartheid IS racist. It isn’t even about the colour of one’s skin. A white skinned person with the wrong family background, the wrong racial heritage, could well have found themselves on the wrong side of Apartheid. How can Apartheid supporters detach themselves from the racism, the notion that one’s race is his or her most salient feature, the core of Apartheid theory and practice?

                    1. “How can Apartheid supporters detach themselves from the racism, the notion that one’s race is his or her most salient feature, the core of Apartheid theory and practice?”

                      Is it that you really can’t follow what I’m saying here?

                      This holocaust denial piece isn’t the first time Ames has falsely accused Reason of being systemically racist this week!

                      Is any of this getting through?

                      Earlier this week, Ames falsely accused Reason of being institutionally supportive of apartheid for decades.

                      https://reason.com/blog/2014/07…..conspiracy

                      Reason was demonstrably against apartheid in South Africa for all the decades Ames was talking about–and your weird idea that somebody somewhere around here is defending apartheid as being libertarian is bizarre!

                      Do you see this? Do you see yourself? Do you see anyone defending apartheid here?

                      Is your worldview so sick and distorted that you imagine some libertarian here is defending South African apartheid–because of what Ames wrote?

                      Have you just not bothered to read the freakin’ article at the top of this page?

                    2. “Do you see this? Do you see yourself? Do you see anyone defending apartheid here?”

                      Not at the moment, but the notion of a commenter here saying something in support of Apartheid wouldn’t surprise me. There are lots of fake libertarians around here.

                      I haven’t put too much effort into reading the articles here or the ones you’ve linked to. Skimmed them over, and honestly they don’t really interest me. Ames is a writer trying to make a living. He can, from time to time, be entertaining and informative. I liked his writing on “Going Postal” about work place shootings.

                    3. Ken, mtrueman has a long history of arguing in bad faith, which is precisely what he is doing here. He’s an admitted liar, and quite proud of the fact that he is.

                      He won’t read the article, he won’t read the links, and won’t offer anything in support of his comments, because he doesn’t come here for honest discussion.

                      There are lots of fake libertarians around here.

                      Anyone can post here fuckwit, it’s not a reflection on Reason or any of the commenters that some people aren’t “true libertarians.”

                      Just a few days ago you were bitching because the discussion is narrow, now it’s too broad, allowing the ideologically impure?

                    4. ” won’t offer anything in support of his comments”

                      My views are my own, and if you don’t understand them or disagree, you can discuss them with me. I am perfectly capable of defending them without resorting to appealing to experts.

                    5. Appealing to experts?!

                      We’re talking about appealing to facts.

                      It doesn’t surprise me that your belief in who people are being more important than their argument extends to “experts”.

                      How do you know which expert to believe?

                      Let me guess: it has very little to do with their argument and more to do with who they are–their identity.

                      An ad hominem wrapped up in an appeal to authority.

                    6. “We’re talking about appealing to facts.”

                      I’m only offering my opinions here. And I’m a liar and a hypocrite.

                      “How do you know which expert to believe?”

                      Good question. Obviously our own expertise on an obscure matter won’t help us much. We have to go by other criteria: Who they are, what kind of person they are, do you trust them… How would you suggest we choose which experts to believe?

                      “An ad hominem wrapped up in an appeal to authority.”

                      You’ll have to do better than that if you aim to express your ideas clearly. Try writing in complete sentences. Subject, verb, object.

                    7. mtrueman|7.26.14 @ 9:23PM|#
                      …”There are lots of fake libertarians around here.”

                      Asshole, you commenting on ‘fake libertarians’ is like Obo commenting on ‘transparency’
                      To be clear, you’re an ignoramus who has no idea what libertarianism is, you’re proud to be a hypocrite and you are a pathological liar.
                      I have a suggestion: Fuck off.

                    8. ” I have a suggestion: Fuck off.”

                      As long as you compare me favourably to the most eloquent man in America, I will stay. And thanks again for mentioning my blog.

                    9. “Ames is a writer trying to make a living. He can, from time to time, be entertaining and informative.”

                      The only thing I’ve seen from Ames is factually incorrect smears!

                      If you depend on this guy for your information, God only knows how many factually incorrect, stupid and wrong things you believe.

                      Informative?! People who read this shit he writes and find it “informative” are dumber after they read it than they were beforehand.

                      How stupid do you have to be to write such a thing–after he’s been exposed like this?

                    10. “If you depend on this guy for your information,”

                      I wouldn’t recommend relying on any one guy for information. Read his work on Going Postal. You might get something out of it.

                    11. After all the bullshit and lies in the two pieces I’ve read, I wouldn’t rely on this guy for any “information”.

                      You’re the one that called him “informative”!

                    12. “I wouldn’t rely on this guy for any “information”.”

                      I’m not asking you to rely on this guy for information. I’ve said, and this is the third time at least, that you might find it worthwhile to read his work on work-place shootings. If you can’t be bothered, don’t. You won’t be missing out on much…

          6. That’s not true. Some political philosophies are promulgated by establishment institutions from the White House to the mainstream media to the schools and some aren’t. Additionally some things you are calling political philosophies, including probably your own beliefs, aren’t even philosophies, but non conceptual ran bags of catch phrases and attitudes, that anyone, even an illiterate person, could adopt.

            Radical feminism/lesbian feminism is almost entirely a movement of white middle class women. Because the main place you could have even heard about it is a university, much like, until recently, libertarianism. At one time communist movements in many countries were heavily populated by secular Jews.

            You don’t seem intellectually curious or honest enough to understand the sociology of these things. You continually post snide vacuous comments that simply expose you as an idiot.

      3. If you’re in a club that contains almost only white men, you should probably find another club.

        I think you are equating Reason commentors with all people interested in libertarian ideas. The commentors here are mostly white males. But other libertarian sites are more diverse. Volokh, LvMI, Cafe Hayek all have more diverse commentors. In fact, you should go to one of those other sites and troll there.

        Anyhow, I got more fun things to do on a Saturday than respond to internet trolls; like go down to my local bar and smoke, drink, watch sports, and play pool. In conclusion, fuck all y’all!

        1. The commentors here are mostly white males.

          Not excessively so. HM, myself, and at least a few others are not “white”. Lady Bertrum and Nikki are not male.

          My guess is that the largest collocation of white male libertarians is Rockwell’s site and the other Rockwellian/Rothbardian wells.

          1. GMSM, Injun, Old Mex, Kibby, Waffles, BuSab, I could go on..

            1. Want to hear a conspiracy theory that isn’t complete bullshit?

              Mark Ames takes a special interest in trolling reason magazine, for whatever reason. Mark Ames is a writer/editor.

              The commenter known as “Tony” takes a special interest in trolling reason magazine’s Hit ‘n Run blog, for whatever reason. Tony claims to be a writer/editor.

              Tony = Mark Ames?

              Discuss.

              1. Makes more sense than PB = Weigel.

              2. Compelling.

              3. But Tony is a gay man and Mark Ames claims to have a thing for 15 year old girls.

      4. If you’re in a club that cares more about getting the right politically correct mix of people than it does about the actual ideas and actions that define it, you should probably find another club. It’s really hard to explain something like that, especially if the premise of your club is that the right ideas can be identified by looking at the people who hold them.

        1. Big problem–your ideas are fucking stupid.

          It’s another question altogether why they seem to only apply to white males with middling intellects. Not a particularly interesting question, I grant you.

          1. Tony|7.26.14 @ 10:50PM|#
            “Big problem–your ideas are fucking stupid.”

            Not nearly as bad as your problem; you’re a fucking lying asshole with a rep that stinks.

          2. Rofl. And yet you spend so much time here, and have never shown that you comprehend any of their ideas. Faggots like you make me so ashamed of the gay community. Little hos who felch ruling class ass excusing all Obama etc.’s crimes. What a piece of shit.

        2. This is an absolutely brilliant twisting of Tony’s comment. And seeing how he responded it likely cut him much closer to the quick than normal.

    2. “Identity politics is all they’ve got.”

      I don’t think you understand what Identity Politics is. It concerns itself with sexuality, ethnicity and issues like that. Libertarianism does not fall under Identity Politics. It falls under Politics, period. Without the Identity. In that respect it is like Conservatism or Liberalism.

      1. We’re not an approved identity.

        That was my point.

        They’re trying to make an identify of us to hate.

        They say we’re racists because we supported South Africa apartheid for instance.

        1. “We’re not an approved identity.”

          We’re victims! We’re victims!

          1. If we acted like victims, they might actually forgive us for not being on their approved identity list.

            1. “If we acted like victims,”

              You’re acting exactly like a victim, wringing your hands over not being on ‘their approved identity list.’ I don’t think this works. You gotta offer people something more positive than resentment. The Black Power movement didn’t revel in victimhood, it celebrated strength and action.

              1. I’m not wringing my hands. I’m pointing out the facts.

                When we see someone lie about Reason’s record on Apartheid, trying to smear them as racists, there’s a reason for that.

                These people do not care about arguments. They do not care about facts. They do not care whether they were right or wrong about what Reason actually published…

                All they care about is making Reason (and libertarians by extension) seem like racists. Racists being the polar opposite of some of their most cherished identities.

                Explaining what they’re doing and why is not playing the victim. I’m actually going on the offensive here. I’d engage these things with arguments, the way Gillespie did today and Welch did earlier this week, but as I said in that thread from earlier this week, it isn’t about arguments.

                These critics don’t care about arguments or what the truth is–so long as their greater truth comes through to their readers. And what they want their readers to think is that libertarians are racists. I’m encouraging all of my libertarian friends to take that into consideration.

                Don’t waste too much time debunking the arguments of people like Tony, who don’t care about ANY arguments one way or the other. Instead, I think we should point out what these people are doing.

                They’re just playing at identity politics. That’s all it is. And saying what it is isn’t playing the victim. It’s just calling it like it is.

                1. All they care about is making Reason (and libertarians by extension) seem like racists. Racists being the polar opposite of some of their most cherished identities.

                  We need to start pointing out that racism is inconsistent with libertarian philosophy. You cannot be a racist AND a libertarian at the same time.

                  1. Didn’t Richman try to make that case, and was subsequently criticized by a fair fraction of the commentariat?

                2. “These critics don’t care about arguments or what the truth is-”

                  They are called partisans, and you’ll find them among liberals, conservatives, communists, libertarians, you name it.

                  Is there a particular black libertarian commenter who supported Apartheid, but obviously couldn’t have been racist coz of his skin colour? Is that what you have in mind? Otherwise, I can’t see what your driving at with this Apartheid business.

                  1. In the last hit piece on Reason by Mark Ames, he accused Reason of supporting apartheid:

                    https://reason.com/blog/2014/07…..conspiracy

                    This seems to be his response to Matt’s takedown of his stupid accusations.

                    Again, he doesn’t seem to care whether the things he says about libertarians are true–he just cares about painting libertarians as racists.

                    So, how do we respond to that?

                    It’d be nice if it were possible to point out the falsehood sans dignifying his garbage with an answer, but short of that, we can point out that his whole strategy is driven to convince people, like Tony, that libertarians are inherently racist.

                    …since, you know, you don’t need to convince people like Tony of anything–since he’s impervious to rational argument. All you have to do is convince people like Tony that libertarian is an indefensible identity.

                    1. “So, how do we respond to that?”

                      Without going to the trouble of reading in detail, I’ll give you my take.

                      Libertarians have no excuse for supporting Apartheid. It goes against everything libertarians believe. There was support for Apartheid among conservatives however, justified by fear of communism. Reagan is a good example of this. Notably, Reagan was an ardent supporter of the Saudi leadership and Islamism, also justified by anticommunism.

                      How do you respond to these accusations? Try this: “I supported Apartheid and the Saudi regime because of our shared anticommunism. I was the dupe of racists and Islamists and their core ideology appalled me. It was pure political expedience on my part, and now I’m paying the price for my being on the wrong side of history.”

                    2. “Libertarians have no excuse for supporting Apartheid.”

                      Hey Dumas!

                      Who’s supporting apartheid?

                      Anyone?

                      Are there libertarian voices in your head saying that they support apartheid?

                      The only person saying that libertarians support apartheid was Ames–and the link I gave you showed more than 20 examples of that being total complete unadulterated bullshit.

                      It never happened. But you apparently believe it did! I’d be honestly interested in learning why. If it’s not just that you’re crazy. Because you could be! There are paranoid people in this world who imagine that everybody’s out to get them or that libertarians support apartheid–and you might be one of them!

                    3. “Who’s supporting apartheid?”

                      Ames is writing about the pages of Reason magazine in the 70s and 80s. They are not going to reveal who is supporting Apartheid today.

                    4. mtrueman|7.26.14 @ 9:43PM|#
                      “Ames is writing about the pages of Reason magazine in the 70s and 80s. They are not going to reveal who is supporting Apartheid today.”

                      And our favorite hypocrite is going to tell us?

                    5. Ames is writing about the pages of Reason magazine in the 70s and 80s. They are not going to reveal who is supporting Apartheid today.

                      Reason didn’t support it then either. It’s not like there wasn’t an entire article devoted to just his apartheid accusations or anything.

                    6. “Reason didn’t support it then either.”

                      The publishers of Reason chose to include pieces by Apartheid apologists. Pretty standard stuff for the times, especially among conservatives. Frankly, don’t see what all the fuss is about.

                    7. mtrueman|7.26.14 @ 8:57PM|#
                      “So, how do we respond to that?”

                      mtrueman is a liar and a hypocrite and proud of it by his own admission.
                      I probably represent half of the monthly traffic on his pathetic blog, since I clicked on it once and found this:
                      “Publishing is a self-invasion of privacy – McLuhan”
                      What a fucking idjit!

                    8. “What a fucking idjit!”

                      McLuhan was much more than a fucking idjit. He was also a hypocrite and a liar. Thanks for going to the trouble of reading and promoting my blog.

                    9. It’s funny that Tony et al don’t realize that minimum wage laws and most of their welfare state policies are Apartheid, and that they live in cities where African Americans always have twice the unemployment rate of everyone else because of it, and are segregated into the most dysfunctional schools.

                  2. mtrueman|7.26.14 @ 7:13PM|#
                    “They are called partisans, and you’ll find them among liberals, conservatives, communists, libertarians, you name it.”

                    How about “hypocrites”, hypocrite?

                    1. “How about “hypocrites”, hypocrite?”

                      Yes, certainly. At last you seem to be getting it.

    3. Which is fundamental bigotry at its core. Which is true. No k e is a bigger bigot than a progressive.

  33. If only your audience were as sophisticated as you want to claim your philosophy is.

    Of the three things you listed (fiscal responsibility, gay marriage, more immigration), most of the cousin fuckers here start shooting steam out their ears about the latter two, while the first doesn’t actually mean anything except as euphemism.

    Listen to the vox populi and you’ll think the most important tenet of libertarianism is how evil those “progs” are.

    1. There are a lot of people here who are both

      – pro gay-marriage (the majority, i’d guess), and

      – pro immigration-reform (to the tune of ‘reduced attempts at controlling flows, and provide better ‘work-visas’ and ‘registration’ transparency/liquidity)

      You seem to want to pretend that “most” feel entirely the opposite.

      That’s incorrect.

      Most people hate *you*, however. But that’s because you’re a silly little douche.

      1. Tony always goes full retard.

        Always.

      2. It isn’t about the arguments with them.

        It’s about the identity.

        We identify as libertarian, and that is not on the approved list.

        Tony will support Barack Obama–even when Barack Obama is actively working to discriminate against Tony.

        Why?

        Because Barack Obama is of an identity that is on the approved list.

        It has nothing to do with any arguments anyone is making. It’s all about the identity of the person making the argument.

        Seriously! I’m not kidding. This is the way they think. It is completely alien to the way libertarians and rational people everywhere think. It has nothing to do with reason and everything to do with identity.

        1. Barack Obama is the first sitting president to advocate in favor of marriage equality for gay people and the president who’s done the most–by far–for gay equality in all aspects of life. What point, exactly, do you think you’re making? Assuming gay rights is my only issue, looks like I chose pretty fucking well. Do you think you’re actually saying something persuasive?

          1. Tony|7.26.14 @ 10:55PM|#
            “Barack Obama is the first sitting president to advocate in favor of marriage equality for gay people”

            Yeah, shitbag, after promising to do so forever.
            And then shitbags like you are thrilled when he finally weathervanes into what the population decides!
            Tony: “Oh, look! He finally EVOLVED to agree with everyone else!”
            Man, you’re a pathetic piece of shit!

            1. As opposed to the only alternative, people who think Jesus had a pet dinosaur and gays should be stoned?

          2. You’re a lying sack of shit, Tony.

            Here’s a video of Obama saying that “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman”. He then goes on to explain that God made it that way…

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U

            He campaigned on discriminating against gay people–and you supported him, anyway, even though you’re gay.

            That’s sick. You’re a sick, self-hating human being, who has openly equated believing that black people have rights to believing in magic. You’re so sick, you’ve argued that Rosa Parks didn’t have the right to sit in the front of a public bus. You’re so sick, you’ve argued that Jewish people didn’t have a right to their own lives during the holocaust…

            And now we can add to the list? You’re so sick, you enthusiastically supported a president, who in his campaign was promising to use the government to discriminate against gay people you.

            You’re a souless waste of space, Tony. A non-entity. You have no self. Seek help.

            Your willingness to sacrifice yourself for a politician isn’t in any way admirable. It’s below contempt. It’s nauseating. It’s like watching someone volunteer to be turned into soylent green. I don’t know what happened in your life to convince you that you’re so worthless, but it’s become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

            Seek help.

            1. My alternative was John McCain, then it was Mitt Romney. Those were the same alternatives presented to you, by the way.

              I’d have a much bigger problem if I expected politicians to be perfect. I’d be an idiot utopian like libertarians or something.

              1. You’re gay, and you think that Obama campaigning against gay rights means he’s less that “perfect”?!

                You could have voted for Ralph Nader. Wasn’t he in favor of gay marriage?

                At the Libertarian convention in 2008, Bob Barr actually apologized for not having supported gay marriage before.

                “As I mentioned to you all last night and I reiterate here today, standing before you and looking you in the eye, the Defense of Marriage Act insofar as it provided the Federal Government with a club to club down the rights of law-abiding American citizens, has been abused, misused and should be repealed. And I will work to repeal that.”

                —-Bob Barr, Libertarian National Convention 2008

                http://lastdebate.blogspot.com…..chive.html

                You had other candidates to vote for that were openly advocating for gay rights, and even if you hadn’t? In a choice between Hitler and Stalin, why would you legitimize either one of them with your vote?

                You should be ashamed of yourself–but you’re not. You have no “self”. You’re just an expendable member of group in your own mind, and it’s fucking disgraceful.

                1. My vote is almost completely pointless in a presidential election. I don’t want to delete the “almost” by voting 3rd party. I can just tell people I voted for Nader without getting out of my house, if what mattered were illustrating my devotion to principle to other people.

                  Obama supported gay equality long before he said he did. IF my choice was Obama being pure on gay rights in 2008 and losing and Obama lying about it and winning, I choose the latter. Because there was only one alternative–whose party still has gay conversion therapy and Jesus had a pet dinosaur in their national platform, I do believe.

                  1. “Obama supported gay equality long before he said he did.”

                    You should join the Moonies. You’d be the best damn Moonie they ever had!

          3. Barack Obama enacted some gay rights protections. Most were enacted by courts. Obama waited to do it until he was sure it was popular with most voters, and until his polls were collapsing and he needed the GayTM as donors and trained seals like you to clap for him since almost no one else was. Everything he has done the Clinton’s could and should have done. Your voting for him means nothing, while voting for any independent party actually sends signals. He only wants you for money and photo ops.

      3. He’s a liar and and a silly bitch as well. Don’t forget that.

      4. I’m not so much “pro gay marriage” as I am ANTI the state having anything to do with marriage in the first place.

        -jcr

    2. Tony|7.26.14 @ 3:43PM|#
      …”most of the cousin fuckers here”…

      Aw, Tony’s JEALOUS.
      And a bag of shit.

  34. Ames is a jackass.

    But, frankly, that issue is embarrassing. The author of the cited article is the still-living, still Ron Paul-affiliated Gary North, who is an honest-to-God, self-described Christian “theocrat.”

    You can read all about this nutcase on his wiki, but this has to be excerpted to be believed:

    North favors capital punishment for a range of offenders; including women who lie about their virginity, blasphemers, nonbelievers, children who curse their parents,[22] male homosexuals, and other people who commit acts deemed capital offenses in the Old Testament.[23] North also favors capital punishment for women who have abortions.[24][25] North stated that the biblical admonition to kill homosexuals in Leviticus is God’s “law and its morally appropriate sanction”, arguing that “God is indeed a homophobe” who “hates [homosexuality] and those who practice it” and “hates the sin and hates the sinner.”[26]

    North has said that capital punishment should be carried out by stoning, because it is the biblical approved method of execution and it is cheap due to the plentiful and convenient supply of stones.[27][28]

    Check out the full wiki here.

    1. I think everyone here is familiar with North.

      1. I was not. How does someone like that run in libertarian circles?

        1. Thickist vs. Thinists. North gives enough lip service to the free market that the Thinists don’t care.

        2. Because for so many years, so much of what he said (still says) was also what radical libertarians said (still is), and the libertarian movement was so small that it needed leaders & voices anywhere they could be gotten. Plus, as long as we were so far from the religiotopia North sought, he made the non-libertarian stuff a really low priority. “Fellow traveler” is a real phenomenon, and they can travel together a very long way. The same can be said of anarchists & minarchists.

        3. There is a tendency among libertarians to assume that someone opposed to the current big government is opposing it because they oppose big government in general, rather than that they merely wish to impose a different big government.

          Thus we keep foolishly allying with autocrats that would be far worse than anything we currently have out of short term tactical considerations.

        4. He doesn’t. None of the people Ames talks about are anything more than people who were momentarily along the edge of the movement in the 70s or 60/. If he had to discuss people central to the movement it would hurt his thesis – Robert Nozick, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, Ludwig Von Mises – because they are all Jewish.

    2. North has said that capital punishment should be carried out by stoning, because it is the biblical approved method of execution and it is cheap due to the plentiful and convenient supply of stones.

      “He who is without sin may cast the first stone.”

      What Christian does not know that from the bible?

    3. Well he is definitely not a Reason fellow traveler:

      In late 2013, North said that Bitcoin was a huge Ponzi scheme, larger than the Madoff investment scandal, but not as large as the U.S. Social Security system.[35]

      I can’t think of single Reason writer over the past 3 or 4 years who is not at least tentatively positive about Bitcoin.

    4. self-described Christian “theocrat.”

      You are rather glossing over North’s idea of what obedience to god means. Hint: it precludes obedience to the state whenever the state demands that you do something immoral.

      -jcr

  35. My favorite WTF Reason article was the Wall Against War cover story from March 1984. The idea was secure the borders of Israel with a pipeline carrying radioactive liquid, so that anyone coming close got a fatal dose of radiation. What could possibly go wrong?

    1. That Reason would write this about Israel’s border without also considering the enormous benefits that would accrue by applying the same to our border with Mexico, is the clearest evidence available that they are in hock to the Jewish Lobby.

    2. I just read that article. It was batshit insane. Then I read about the article’s author and learned that he was the inventor of the neutron bomb. I wonder if we’re just not smart enough to understand the brilliance of his proposal.

      Then again, he could just be batshit insane.

      1. In many years, most readers here will look at all this crap and consider it just as insane…..

        1. I consider the crap you’ve posted insane right now!

  36. Yeah, seriously. A publication that just celebrated “Marijuana on Main Street: The long, hard road to safe, legal pot,” covers the police brutality beat like nobody’s business, and criticized George W. Bush’s “disaster socialism” and his stupid wars for the entire eight awful years he was in the White House, is really a stalking horse for reactionary politics right out of The Turner Diaries.

    Too bad. You’d at least be more interesting than you are peddling the elite establishment position on virtually every issue and trying to make it sound hip, daring and radial.

    1. That would sting a lot more if it weren’t for Reason having been pretty consistent on all of those issues since, what…its founding in 1968?

      We were country when legalization wasn’t cool.

      We were advocating so many of these things when the proglodytes were still quibbling about whether they could both win an election and be in favor of gay marriage?

      If those kinds of things are cool now? That isn’t why Reason supports them; rather, if anything, those things may be cool now in no small part due to Reason having advocating them on Main Street for so many, many years.

    2. When Obama was too ashamed to heart gay people in public, Reason had already been denouncing government discrimination against gay people for decades.

      You go look at the first issue of Reason from the ’60s, and it wouldn’t surprise me if it wasn’t advocating for the legalization of marijuana.

      Reason’s just doing it to be cool? …for forty-something years?! Reason was advocating for this stuff before the Fonz was cool.

      Seriously, this is why both conservatives and progressives hate us…

      When the conservatives were down on their knees blowing Bush, while he was squandering our lives and treasure, initiating history’s largest Medicare spending increase, and wiping his ass with the Constitution? Libertarians and Reason were there telling the conservatives to stop sucking the statist idiot off.

      When the left was pushing for Obama–who was campaigning as a homophobe, openly advocating using the government to discriminate against LGBT? Reason and the libertarians were there to point out what pathetic, disgusting homophobes the left was really made of.

      They both hate because we consistently expose both them as phonies–year after year.

      1. So what? Reason isn’t running for office. Rand Paul hasn’t publicly come out in favor of legalizing heroin, either.

        Try comparing apples to apples. There was nothing in Reason in 1968 that would have surprised anyone reading Rolling Stone.

        1. “You’d at least be more interesting than you are peddling the elite establishment position on virtually every issue and trying to make it sound hip, daring and radial.”

          So now you’re saying there’s nothing new?

          Or are you saying that they’re trying to be hip now?

          Or are you trying to move the goal posts somewhere else?

          WTF are you saying?

          Their positions haven’t really changed much over the years–and you’re still contending that they’re representing some elite establishment position?

          You think Rolling Stone is/was the elite establishment?

          I don’t even understand what you’re talking about. What, do you just feel uncool, and you think Reason’s supposed to do something about that?

  37. Well, I just got here, and it looks like you’ve all done the heavy lifting already. I’m glad we got that worked out.

    Just so I’m clear, we’re not holocaust deniers, right? And Tony is still a loathsome, mendacious little shit?

    Ok, great.

    Time for a beer.

    1. Says you! Dude up above says we’re *all* holocaust deniers… just *crypto-closeted* ones…

      …because we are so quick to dismiss the petty contrived grievances of self-appointed victim-groups, apparently.

      No, i didn’t think it made sense either, but there you go.

    2. You’re right up there with Gillespie in terms of intellectual dishonesty. Straw manning Ames’ piece looks like fun and all, but it does nothing to eradicate the racist roots and funding of the libertarian movement.

  38. The left isn’t attacking libertarianism because they’re growing in influence (some of their CAUSES are, but those tend to be mainstream issues). To most people on the left, libertarians are just another form of the right. Ames actually deserve credit for identifying libertarians as such, instead of the ubiquitous “teabaggers” or “right wingers” you hear from lefty online trolls.

    Minus some “RINO” types, the right won’t go out of their way to demonize libertarians. Reason gets serious linkage action from conservative sites. John Stossel and a bunch of Reasoners have a show on FOX.

    Also, not all attacks on libertarians come from partisan hacks from the left and the right. Reason does hold some truly ABSURD positions, which brings about objections from their own readers. Their rosy opinion on immigration is especially troublesome. They tend to blame the drug wars by default on a number of issues, even though prison stats and such show not many people are sent to jail for merely smoking pot. The drug cartels have been diversifying their business for a while now.

    1. “Their rosy opinion on immigration is especially troublesome.”
      And here, you hold the RIGHT opinion?

      “They tend to blame the drug wars by default on a number of issues, even though prison stats and such show not many people are sent to jail for merely smoking pot.”
      How many is “not many”? And how did you figure that out?

    2. Actually, Libertarians are perhaps the most dangerous part of the Radical Right. This applies only to current Libertarians, since the present crop is/was financed by the Kochs and created largely from thin air. True Libertarians – those who understand the concepts as operating within our society as opposed to against it – have always been celebrated by liberals and the left.

      As an example, I support libertarians with VOTES and DOLLARS when they put issues like decrim pot (paid for by Soros and put foward by local Libertarian party_ in MA – and “death with dignity” and other such issues.

      But the Koch and Reason financed infrastructure that basically calls for more pollution, more radiation, dissolution of our country and society in favor of unbridled resource extraction and predatory corporations…..NO.

      This it the Libertarian Party of today – bought and paid for many many times ago and doomed to fail. One can only hope it will go down before too much damage is done.

      1. You’re an ignoramus.

        Everyone who knows anything about libertarianism thinks so.

        You should never repeat anything like that at work, for fear that your boss or someone in upper management might find out how completely ignorant you are.

        Listening to you talk about libertarianism is like listening to a creationist talk about evolution, and I just thought I’d let you know ’cause it’s like letting somebody go make a presentation in front of a room full of people with his fly open.

        Seriously, your fly is open.

        If you even bothered to read the Wikipedia entry on libertarianism, you’d be twice as smart as you are now. …and that should tell you something about how profoundly ignorant you are.

        The things you’re reading are making you dumber than you would be otherwise.

      2. craiginmass|7.27.14 @ 10:46AM|#
        “Actually, Libertarians are perhaps the most dangerous part of the Radical Right.”

        craig is one of the slimiest of the H&R trolls

      3. more radiation

        OMG. TEH RADIATION. *derp*

      4. Excellent post.

  39. It might be fun to start like a contest, to see who can accurately guess the next false accusation Ames will level at Reason.

    I’d guess he’ll accuse Reason of supporting the Khmer Rouge, but that’s probably too far out there.

    Apartheid support, holocaust denial,…hmmmm. Actually? Accusing Reason of supporting the Khmer Rouge is just as crazy as the rest of it. So that’s my guess!

    1. My guess is that they will say Reason, Cato, AFP and all these other groups are financed by the Kochs or something untruthful like that!

      Crazy….

      1. You really, truly, honestly, believe that the identity of the people making the argument is more important than the argument itself, don’t you?

        If Barack Obama said all the things Reason does, would it completely change your mind?

        Does the term “ad hominem fallacy” mean anything to you?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

        The ad hominem isn’t a whole system of logic, like you’re making it out to be; it’s something that undermines your own argument so thoroughly that your opponents might actually start feeling sorry for you.

        1. His point must have been so good that you couldn’t even respond to it and had to finish with an ad-hom attack? Perhaps you should examine the fallacy plank in your own eye oh wise one who thinks they are smart because they found some phrase on Wikipedia they don’t understand (are you Michelle Bachmann by any chance?); before you point out the straw in your neighbor’s eye.

        2. “You really, truly, honestly, believe that the identity of the people making the argument is more important than the argument itself, don’t you?”

          Hah, I’m in marketing…..
          I believe that he who pays the fiddler calls the tune. If you believe the Kochs have spent hundreds of millions and vast amounts of time and energy in order to promote anything other than their profits, personal world view (looks different from a billionaire) and power….well, you are nutso.

          Have you ever seen a Pepsi commercial that says it give you diabetes, is bad for your teeth and generally sucks?

          My guess is no. That’s because they are paying for the production and distribution.

          Same with the Kochs. It’s really not the same as Obama because he gets paid the same – relatively low- amount no matter what he says or thinks. Also, he has a particular job which is not resource extraction or running the largest private company in the country.

          Keep repeating “he who pays the piper calls the tune” and sooner or later, you will understand why the tune sounds like this (Holocaust denial, racism…or whatever may be popular among the far-right crazies at the time – as long as the end result is chaos and lack of regulation on pollutants.)

          My boss? My fellow workers? Silly man….folks like me don’t work in a salt mine. Real libertarians run their own places…

    2. Hey did Reason ever interview Noam Chomsky?

      Chomsky, who called himself a “socialist libertarian”, and supported the Khmer Rouge government.

      My bet it yes, Ames would cite that and say that Reason supported the Khmer Rouge.

      Thing is, Reason has a habit of interviewing contrarians of every stripe. They interviewed Christopher Hitchens, who was still calling himself a socialist at the time.

  40. Nick. Dude. First rule of holes and all.

  41. …I can go on and on and on. They think that the right of free association takes a back seat to the free rider problem of unions. They think the freedom of contract, the right to free speech, and the right freedom of association are rights that pale in comparison to the right right to be treated equally by every member of humanity, a right that has doesn’t even exist in the constitution.

    They say that racism and governmental discrimination is one of the worst crimes in history, and to *alleviate* the problem of racism they use the government to discriminate specifically on the color of a citizens skin. They believe in religious freedom only as far as they can throw it.

    In short, they only believe in Civil Liberties when they happen to completely align with their ideological goals of creating utopia upon earth through unlimited Statism and control of population. This is all plainly obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of the history of western civilization – and thus they are terrified by the true champions of Civil Liberties, Libertarians, and to a lesser extent even Anarcho-Syndicalists (who would really feel the wrath reserved for heretics, if they had any serious following whatsoever).

    1. You make some good points, but it sounds a bit paranoid over all. “…plainly obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of the history of western civilization…” ? Come on, interpreting history is much more complicated than you make it sound. That sounds kind of nutty.

  42. The left reserves it’s greatest vitriol for Libertarians because the Left’s support of Civil Liberties is more of an accident of history than a base ideological position.

    Historically, the Left’s advocacy for free speech was animated by the fact that they were fellow travelers with the communists, who suffered incredibly under Sedition Acts, the several red scares, and McCarthyism. They championed free speech because their allies were the ones with the unorthodox views.

    Once their views became more or less the orthodoxy, you get speech codes on state university campuses, if you form a partnership you check your freedom of speech and freedom of religion rights at the door, free rider problem is elevated above freedom of speech and association, free speech zones outside abortion clinics even when violence has not been a problem, attempts to reinstate the *fairness doctrine*, the DOJ claiming that anti-islam social media posts violate civil rights and reporters working with Snowden probably are criminally liable, the IRS specifically targets right leaning interest groups then shreds the hard drives, the IRS threatens pastors to leave their politics at home when discussing religion or they’ll revoke their non-profit status, Obama spying on AP reporters, the president leaks the name of the u.s. citizen that made an anti-islam video to the media and Hillary blames him for Benghazi…

    1. The Left properly recognizes libertarianism as their main intellectual enemy.

      They would much prefer to be fighting conservatives, so they can spend all day arguing about school prayer and gay marriage, and then sneak their economic agenda in under the radar.

      If they have to fight libertarians head on on economic issues they will loose. Hence the guilt by association, ad hominems, and Koch-brothers conspiracy theorizing. It’s about attempting to discredit libertarianism without having to actually engage with it intellectually.

      Because they fear us. They fear the power of a consistent, principled, political philosophy based on liberty.

    2. The sedition acts were directed at Jefferson, Madison, people like that…they were communists. Also…you support the sedition acts. Your point about fair weather ideology is a good one, but it is so fucking obvious as to be childish…we all fucking do that!!! Jesus Christ we are all fucking hypocrites in one way or another.

  43. I really don’t get why Reason bothers to respond to that drugged-up leftard rapist asswipe at all.

    -jcr

  44. Ames once wrote, “If you see a libertarian, spit on him.” Keep spitting back until he’s cocooned in phlegm.

    Mark Ames, after having it shoved in his face that he boasted of raping a 15-year-old, backed down like the serial coward he is and claimed it was “satire.”

    Sadly for the completely discredited pathological liar, it’s published in a book that claims to be “a work of nonfiction” (check the Copyright page):

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Exil…..mes+taibbi

    The passage in question was cited in the Chicago Reader. Search for the word “pervometer”:

    http://www.chicagoreader.com/c…..oid=902762

    Writing in The Moscow Times, Owen Matthews also slams Ames for his “lack of balls” in admitting he’s a rapist. They only let you post two links here, so search for the article “The Gonzo Classic That Wasn’t” from The Moscow Times to find the “lack of balls” passage.

    Bring these facts up wherever and whenever his name appears. There’s a reason no “name” publications will touch him anymore. Let’s continue shoving him into complete obscurity.

  45. “Ames is correct that some of the contributors to that issue developed an interest in or were fellow travelers with that most pathetic area of study known as Holocaust revisionism or denialism. That scurrilous topic is not the focus of any of the articles in the issue, but the inclusion of contributors such as James J. Martin, who would go on to join the editorial board of the contemptible denialist outfit the Institute of Historical Review, is embarrassing

    Much of the material from the issue doesn’t hold up, which is hardly surprising for a magazine issue published almost 40 years ago”

    Well, that pretty much says it all.

    That the John Birch Society (Reason and Kochs) – radical righties financed by oil men, resource extractors and racists – would deny the murder of millions due to their religion alone – makes perfect sense.

    What kind of a “point” is “it was 1976 so it’s no surprise we were wrong”?

    I suppose in another 20-30 years – you will look back and say “Hey, that was 2014, we could not expect to be right about things”?

    One definition – probably the best – of Propaganda is:

    “information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
    the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.”

    It can be TRUE information or ideas – good propaganda is sprinkled with enough truth to appeal to many. The Kochs use “we are for legal pot and against war” to draw readers into their John Birch world view.

    1. you’re an idiot. congratulations.

    2. “would deny the murder of millions due to their religion alone – makes perfect sense.”
      Prove “millions” dipshit.
      And I’m sure you are more than pleased to excuse the more than 100,000,000 innocent people murdered by your fave political system.

      1. “And I’m sure you are more than pleased to excuse the more than 100,000,000 innocent people murdered by your fave political system.”

        Is that more or less than died because they drank mother’s milk?

        Funny – the same people who say “guns don’t kill people – people kill people” suddenly make up figures which “prove” beyond a “reasonable” doubt that Social Democracy murders 100 million people.

        You have zero credibility….there is no “favorite” political system, rather there is the reality of each time and place. Never before have we actually had the means to help ourselves (general welfare, happiness of the people) as much as we do today. Doing so is not putting ourselves in chains, but the polar opposite. It’s using the machines and technology and advances to further the human condition.

        Yeah, I know, you want to live in a cave with your gun and dig coal from underneath.

    3. I don’t see how any of Reason’s modern positions resemble those of the John Birch society.

      Communism is dead. The Cold War is over.

      Our current debates aren’t over free markets vs. communism, or even socialism as it is properly understood.

      Todays “socialists” basically advocate a market economy with a large welfare state, and heavy regulation.

      Our main international enemy is Islamic fundamentalism, which is not even an organized state, but a bunch of groups of loosely connected insurgents.

      I don’t think the John Birch Society would even recognize any of this as remotely related to anything they were fighting about.

      1. Holocaust denial is a special form of historical revisionism that has nothing to do with the status of communism or the cold war in contemporary culture. And ironically enough, your claimed “main international enemy”, Islamic fundamentalism, is heavily in holocaust denial.

        And besides, our main international enemy is hardly Islamic wackos living in mud huts. Its the IMF, World Bank, neoliberal dogma and practice, about which the libtard press has surprisingly little to say.

        1. And besides, our main international enemy is hardly Islamic wackos living in mud huts. Its the IMF, World Bank, neoliberal dogma and practice, about which the libtard press has surprisingly little to say..

          Good point, because both parties benefit from those institutions.

      2. “I don’t see how any of Reason’s modern positions resemble those of the John Birch society.”

        The monster of fundamentalism constantly morphs – but, the first far-right movements in this country were started by – guess who? guess why?

        Well, they were started or financed by Texas millionaires – not because they were fine moral folks – but for free rein to suck resources with no tax or regs. They saw the worldwide movements toward socialism as very dangerous to their profits. If they have to pay for polluting the air, for the general society (taxes), etc. – well, then, they can’t amass 10’s of billions.

        The Big Rich – a book about the Big Five:
        http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-…..0143116827

        details out how the Hunts and other (yes, same Hunts who caused silver crash!) started and financed the movements.

        Kochs helped start the John Birch Society – as a “Christian” organization and opposed to “wealth redistribution” (taxes) and “government interference” (regulation).

        It’s pretty simple. They wanted more $$ and power.

        The Kochs took things to new levels – buying up and starting dozens of institutions and publications in an attempt to appear legit.

        For anyone to think they are about anything other than pure selfishness – would be foolish. Selfishness leads to big problems-if you don’t want to redistribute wealth, then disabled don’t get wheelchairs, rehab, cuts in the sidewalks, medical care (unless they were born extremely wealthy)

    4. Ha! Yeah… 1976, everyone knows that was a bad year for people being right about stuff.

      1. Ha Ha…yeah, that was the year the jets failed to fly, nuclear plants failed to work, computers didn’t compute, birth control failed……

        And generally the stone age!

        That has to be one of the funniest lines ever written in “Reason”……

  46. I’m sure if you dug through the archives of Mother Jones or The Nation, you could find more than a few embarrassing articles defending the USSR, Joseph Stalin, or any number of other communist countries.
    There are probably paens to Robert Mugabe out there. He was something of a left-wing darling after his initial rise to power, the same way Hugo Chavez was.

    1. Assuming there is truth in your statement (a big assumption w/o any evidence), there is a huge difference between misreading history as its happening when information is scarce and hard to verify, and promoting writers who wish to deny the most monstrous event of the 20th century many decades after the fact. Yours is a deeply flawed, false equivalence.

  47. James J. Martin authored the classic on American anarcho-individualism/mutualism:

    http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0…..clorenecro

  48. Mr Gillespie,

    You say:
    “Ames runs through Reason’s February 1976 issue that was billed as a “Special Revisionism Issue.” He has posted the entire issue which I had not read before, online…”

    He posted it online, Did he? How about letting us read it for ourselves and make up our on minds instead of telling us what to think? How about that, dummy? What are you so afraid of reading in there?

  49. “Did Reason Really Publish a “Holocaust Denial ‘Special Issue'” in 1976? Of Course Not.” Cute, but that’s not what Reason is accused of.

    Did Reason publish a special issue that hosted work by a number of holocaust deniers? Yes.

    Did Reason’s masthead include for a number of years Lew Rollins, a member of David Duke’s holocaust denial outfit? Yes.

    Does James Martin promote holocaust deniers Paul Rassinier and Harry Elmer Barnes? Yes.

    Does Gary North invite readers to the work of David Hoggan, who wrote “The Myth of the Six Million”? Yes.

    Did Fred Koch compare Hitler’s Germany favorably to FDR’s New Deal USA? Yes.

    Gillespie’s straw man attack on Ames’ piece is intellectually dishonest and clearly seeks to skirt the very serious questions about the roots of libertarianism and who funds the movement (and more than any other politically ideological movement in history, libertarianism itself is funded by a very small group of very wealthy individuals with important interests in weakening government oversight of private corporations and destroying the legacy of the New Deal and the rest of the democratic socialist experiment).

    If Gillespie and the Reason of today wish to distance themselves from this past they need to stop denying, stop straw-manning and start denouncing. The fact that they refuse to do so is a very solid reason to avoid “Reason”.

    1. Your laundry list of items are not similar. Many people have compared FDR, fascism, and socialism. They have many similar features.

  50. Excellent article until you get to this: “David Koch has been been on the board of trustees of Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason magazine, Reason.com, and Reason TV, since the early 1990s and Charles Koch has donated over the years…None of this is secret or in any way scandalous. While they play no role in our editorial process we appreciate their support…”

    That pretty much destroys any idea that this magazine is an actual independent source for Libertarian ideas. If the Kochs give you money, they control you, cut the bullshit–(or are they giving you, what $20). It also reinforces the idea that there really isn’t a Libertarian party as such, that Libertarians are just far right Republicans. Which is very unfortunate because both parties are destructively big government in their policies and a true third choice would be refreshing.

  51. Reason magazine isn’t an organ of the Libertarian Party nitwit, and the Kochs don’t seem to have given any Libertarian Party candidates money since the early 1980s. I know as I send them fundraising letters. I’d happily take their money and I think they fund many excellent projects including reason. But many parts of the libertarian movement, from Ayn Rand writing her novels to Libertarian Party candidates do not and in many cases have never seen a Koch dollar.

    That you can’t distinguish between Rand Paul, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, the Libertarian Party, etc. or attend to simple facts probably means you can’t grasp abstract ideas. I’d suggest you work on your reading comprehension rather than posting here.

  52. “That you can’t distinguish between Rand Paul, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, the Libertarian Party, ”

    Apparently, neither Reason nor the other readers and commenters here can do much in the way of distinguishing such.

    I have told them time and time again that the Koch’s are as the Koch’s do. That is, they are resource extracting, polluting and selfish REPUBLICANS. They, as well as the Paul’s, have very little to do with libertarianism…in fact, less than most lefties!

  53. Nick, your shocking arrogance and lack of journalistic ethics comes through all too clearly when you acknowledge that your salary & public profile is effectively paid for by the Koch brothers and, at the same time, you quote from your own Daily Beast article in which you lambast a critical biography of the Koch brothers.

    Other journalists avoid even the *appearance* of a conflict of interest. But you don’t care about the appearance of a conflict of interest. Indeed, you don’t even care about an *actual* conflict of interest.

    Obviously, you think that you are above the ethics that other journalists follow. Perhaps you think that you are somehow immune to even subconscious effects on your thinking from the Kochs’ donations. (Perhaps you don’t even believe in an unconscious or subconscious, for that would complicate the libertarian belief that an individual can choose to be purely rational, apart from the influence of others!)

    Or perhaps you think that corruption is freedom — that there is nothing wrong with accepting money from people and then defending those same people in articles that you write. Perhaps you don’t realize that those articles — like that Daily Beast article — are, in effect, paid advertisements.

  54. For Holocaust denial in Reason magazine (Feb 1976), go to and scroll down to page 39, column 1, paragraph 2.

    Read it for yourself.

    1. Go to the Scribd com link. The rest of it reads / doc / 234990104 / Reason-February-1976

      Hope that works.

  55. Mark Ames’ work is sloppy, gets key facts wrong, and he cherry picks a few things in order to smear (the word for this is nutpicking) instead of giving a complete, balanced picture.

    Examples of his grossly incorrect claims include characterizing Robert LeFevre and Freedom School/Rampart College as “whites-only” and a major outlet for Holocaust denial, not to mention flinging gratuitous ad hominems at LeFevre. In reality, LeFevre was a pacifist who advocated laissez-faire and peacable withdrawal from the State. And “whites-only”? First time I’ve ever heard that one. I can only conclude Ames is making BS up as he goes.

    The extent of the Holocaust denial in this “Holocaust denial issue” is just a few sentences nutpicked from Gary North’s article.That’s what, less than 1% of the content of that article alone, and 0.0005% of the issue?

    As for the rest, Martin and Greaves were at the time respected libertarian historians. The IHR did not even exist until 1979. Of all the writers only Austin App deserves the Nazi-sympathizer label, but including him was an edgy cool contrarian move. I would think the same had you run an article by a Maoist about Cambodia.

    All that is missing from this smear job on the Kochs is a conspiracy flowchart with arrows going all over the place. And Ames seems to have a real problem with edgy cool contrarian, hum? I quote Robin Williams, “there’s a man in dire need of a blow job.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.