Borrowed from the
Dutchman for those who can't go there:
"It is better to be despised by the despicable than admired by the admirable." -- Kurt Hofmann.
You know, I've been called a lot of names in the past twenty
years by everybody from the SPLC to the neoNazis. SPLC has
characterized me (back in the 90s) as a stooge for the racists like the
Klan, the Neos and the misidentified "Christian" Identities. Of course
this was at about the same time as the Constitutional militias were
engaged in Operation White Rose and when I was saying that “Christian Identity is for pantywaists”:
“I think in some ways Christian
Identity is designed for pantywaists who are afraid to declare
themselves true Nazis,” Vanderboegh jibed. “These are the folks who have
to tell their mommas or their wives, “It’s OK that we hate blacks and
Jews, dear, because God and Jesus told us it’s OK. Whereas the Nazis
don’t worry about that kind of thing. They’re sort of beyond excuses.
“You know, when you’ve got Adolf Hitler as your
standard-bearer, what else have you got to be embarrassed about?”
Vanderboegh said.
“They each come to their pus-filled beliefs
by different roads, but they agree on the destination.” -- “Christian
Identity is for pantywaists” by Jeff Stein, Salon, 11 Aug 1999.
For their part the neos and identities called me "Red Mike"
and claimed I was an agent of both the Mossad AND the SPLC. The loon
Bill Cooper (who also claimed to have shot it out with space aliens)
called me "John Doe Number Five." The Larouchies claimed (and do yet
today) that I was an agent of MI-5. At the time of the small window war
over Obamacare, I was denounced by Kurt Nimmo at Alex Jones "Infowars":
Vanderboegh’s act will not inspire a modern
three percent to take action against the federal government. It will,
however, provide plenty of ammo for the likes of David Neiwert, Chris
Matthews, nearly the entire line-up at MSNBC, Bill O’Reilly (who
specializes in demonizing the Oath Keepers), the Southern Poverty Law
Center, and hundreds of Borg hive Democrats who have hysterically warned
now for months that “militias” (as defined by the SPLC) and rightwing
racist extremists (as defined by the DHS and the MIAC report) who hate
Obama because of his skin color are about to start burning down
government buildings and killing bureaucrats.
Mike Vanderboegh’s comments are a gift to the
Department of Homeland Security and the SPLC. His call for vandalism
feeds right into the propaganda cycle and follows on the heels of
supposed Tea Party activists — as likely agents provocateurs — who
hurled racist epithets at African American members of Congress last
weekend.
Jones himself used his radio show to claim that if I wasn't
arrested for sedition that this would "prove" I was an agent of the
Obama administration.
Well, I wasn't arrested and I went on to break (with David
Codrea) the news of the Gunwalker Scandal. Sound like I was an agent of
the Obamanoids to you?
When I was supporting the Minutemen back in 2005, SPLC
called me a xenophobe and a "nativist." The government monopoly of
force advocates at CSGV have been screaming for some time that I am an
"insurrectionist."
So I've been called a lot of names over the years by a lot
of folks. But I have to confess, I have never before been called a
"Republican anarchist."
And, what, you may ask is a "Republican anarchist"? For
that, you'll have to ask Bob Burnett at the Huffington Post, who, his
bio sketch says "is a Berkeley writer, activist, and Quaker. Before
starting a second career as a journalist, he was a technologist and one
of the founding executives at Cisco Systems. Bob can be reached at
boburnett@comcast.net."
Now Burnett initially fielded the concept of "Republican anarchism" on the first of March in an article entitled "Sequester: The Rise of Republican Anarchists."
The March 1 sequester budget cuts are yet
another product of crises manufactured by the ultra-conservative wing of
the Republican Party. These Tea Party extremists have one objective:
crush the federal government. Motivated by a strange brew of Old
Testament Christianity and Ayn Rand's "objectivism," they're a lethal
force within the GOP -- anarchists. . .
What should President Obama do? The Republican Party has
been taken over by anarchists, Tea Party extremists who do not believe
in government. As University of California linguistics professor George
Lakoff observed, "They believe that Democracy gives them the liberty to
seek their own self-interests by exercising personal responsibility,
without having responsibility for anyone else or anyone else having
responsibility for them." Republican anarchists reject the founders'
morality, the sentiments that produced the Declaration of Independence
and U.S. Constitution. These ultra conservatives don't believe in the
common good or the notion that Americans have a moral responsibility to
care for each other. The Republican anarchist motto is, "I'm for me,
first." (Ayn Rand's objectivism and glorified self-interest.)
President Obama must recognized that the anarchists have
pushed the United States into a political civil war. The president
cannot negotiate with House Republicans so long as they are beholden to
the ultra-conservative wing of the party. Obama cannot negotiate with a
fiscal gun held to his head.
The president has to hold firm, even if that means
shutting down government for a spell. Perhaps then the mainstream
Republican Party will expel the radicals and proclaim they are not
against government, in general. Perhaps if the government is shut down,
and the economy goes into a tailspin, Americans will wake up to threat
posed by Republican anarchists.
Uh, huh. Methinks Comrade Burnett is not too well educated
on the whole "anarchism" thing. I'm sure Mama Liberty and others could
give him a good tutorial. But that wasn't all. Now Commissar Bob has
elucidated further his concept in an article entitled "Disarming Republican Anarchists."
Multiple excuses have been offered for the
difficulty of enacting gun control legislation, but the most obvious
problem has not been mentioned: the U.S. contains millions of Republican
anarchists. These ultra-conservatives fear the government and buy guns
for protection. Their Tea Party Congressmen will do everything they can
to block common-sense legislation.
Over the last five years, the Republican Party has veered to
the far right and, in the process, been taken over by anarchists, Tea
Party extremists who do not believe in centralized government. As
University of California linguistics professor George Lakoff observed,
"[ultra conservatives] believe that Democracy gives them the liberty to
seek their own self-interests by exercising personal responsibility,
without having responsibility for anyone else or anyone else having
responsibility for them." Republican anarchists reject the founders'
morality, the sentiments that produced the Declaration of Independence
and U.S. Constitution. These ultra conservatives don't believe in the
common good or the notion that Americans have a moral responsibility to
care for each other. But they do venerate the second amendment to the
Constitution, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
As a consequence, America is an armed camp . . Republican
anarchists tend to live in Red states, where weapons are concentrated.
There's a disturbing relationship between gun prevalence, resistance to
gun control, and anti-government rhetoric. . .
Wherever there's a high percentage of gun ownership there is
also pro-second-amendment rhetoric and inflammatory talk suggesting the
federal government threatens individual freedom. In January, gun-rights
advocate, Kurt Hofmann, wrote an article "Government prepares for war
with the people, and mass media approves," in which he deplored a
"forcible citizen disarmament campaign," and predicted the current wave
of gun control legislation ultimately intends to seize the weapons of
"patriots."
. . . This is the dark background that underlies the gun
control debate. There are 49 self-identified Tea Party members in the
House of Representatives and four in the Senate, plus several dozen more
"fellow travelers." They represent the anarchists in opposing
gun-control laws. Recently, Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul
proposed a law that would nullify any presidential gun-control actions.
Florida Republican Congressman Trey Radel suggested that if Obama takes
executive action it would be grounds for impeachment.
Commonsense gun control legislation is anathema to Tea Party
Republicans. To the anarchists universal background checks suggests
intrusive government surveillance. To anarchists limiting magazine size
or assault weapons is unacceptable; their guns are not for hunting, they
are for self-defense.
That's why the current congress won't pass gun-control
legislation. The Republican anarchists are too powerful. Indeed, nothing
meaningful will happen until the GOP reinvents itself and disavows its
anarchist wing.
Now, first of all, I'm jealous of Kurt Hofmann. To be despised so publicly by someone so obviously despicable is a rare honor.
I will not try to deconstruct or analyze this collectivist
loony. I leave that to the reader. But "Republican anarchist"? Huh.
That's a new one.
5 comments:
I suppose that if one is not in favor of every little bit of life being regulated, observed and recorded by the state, then one is in contrast an anarchist. I said once somewhere that Ayn Rand was pulling so hard against the collectivists that by comparison she seemed upside down, and that might be the case again.
Another thing, if these collectivists found that their mortgage contracts had been changed by the courts in the manner the US constitution had been "changed", they would be out there as a Tea Party.
I'm going to read that again tonight, it's just too good too skim through and spoil with a speed read.
Ayn Rand and her Objectivists - anarchist?
now, that is a good one*. the bloke the Dutchman is quoting'd likely wet himself if he ever stumbled into an actual self described an-cap,
Like Rothbard, Hans-Herman Hoppe, Stephan Kinsella, Wendy McElroy, or indeed, Mama Liberty.
Whilst on the subject of libertarian "Dutchmen", I've been reading some of the stuff on Natural Law, on Frank van Dun's site at the university of Ghent (Ok, he's Flemish rather than Dutch). it's good, and quite a lot of it is in English.
http://users.ugent.be/~frvandun/Texts/Logica/TheLaw.htm
________________________
*the objectivists I've met have all been within snogging distance of being paranoid Bushite neo-cons
Interesting that the leading neo-cons started the same place as the Dutchman (ex trots) but ended up in such different directions
I know this is gilding the lily, but.
"But "Republican anarchist"? Huh. That's a new one [to add to the already too long list of oxymorons, like "anarchist politician"].
Many thanks for continuing to share the gentleman's goodies with us.
Keith, or "liberty-respecting collectivist"!
Hi Windy,
with that one, you're reminding me of the walking internal contradiction that was Floppy Freddy (Hayek).
I have a copy of his "road to serfdom" and frequently re-read his "use of knowledge in society" paper,
but...
Floppy Freddy's cognitive dissonance in "road to serfdom" is downright painful,
He has beautifully reasoned arguments against central planning and where it inevitably leads
Then he throws in his little and totally unsupported "but, I think we should have tax funded state schooling, tax funded pensions, tax funded healthcare, subsidized unemployment" and pretty much the whole Swedish socialist welfare state.
If RTS were edited to leave only the reasoned stuff, it would be an an-cap text, but as it stands, it shows Freddy, flip flopping as usual, to smuggle in his unsupported justifications for a state.
For all he gets portrayed by the lamestream as the extreme of laissez faire
he was a mildish social democrat - a bloody socialist.
Even some of von Mises writings, you can see Mises in painful contortions to avoid following the reasoning to its logical conclusion - the conclusion Gustave de Molinary came to back in 1849:
That the production of defense services is not a unique service, which can only be provided by a monopoly, but, like any other good or service, it is better provided by competitors in a free market.
Once you go there, the final justification for a state is gone. Mises never openly went there, in public at least, he remained a "minarchist" (=mini statist).
Post a Comment