the un-racist Gene Callahan

Good enough, Justin? Am I allowed to un-stfu now?

“And I have to say that, having been a reader of Reason since the beginning, I can recall no sympathy for King and his cause while he was still alive…”

Justin was there! He remembers it all well! The disdain Reason had for King while he was still alive.

Except King died in April 1968, and the first issue of Reason was May 1968.

Justin, it’s pretty east to “tear this loser to shreds” when you get to just make s**t up.

But I will say, SOMEONE’s article IS getting torn to shreds!

Rakia is supposed to be drunk from special small glasses (0.3 to 0.5 dl). It is often drunk warm, sometimes even heated (sugar is caramelized in a pan before the rakia is added) for better effect.

But it is a libelous generalization, and I say it is just as grave as being racist. One can’t point at 100 black people and say they are all dumb just as one can’t point at 100 white people and say they are all smart. This is beyond obvious (I would hope).

Now, while I agree with much of what I’ve so far read of Rothbard, some of what he’s written does paint him as a total dickwad, with or without context. From his “Right-Wing Populism” essay, for example, we have the quote that has been bandied about, “Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment.” Uh, no. That was written in 1992, and currently we have an out of control “Police Class”, which is to say a bunch of roided-out goons who have somehow gotten the impression (coincidentally and conveniently with the ever-increasing usurpation of power by King George) that they are above the law. For someone who ostensibly believes in individual freedom and abhors state power, as Murray Rothbard purports to, this is a pretty unintelligible argument. Especially since the caveat (“…subject of course to liability when they are in error”) is such a convenient washing of the hands. What liability do any cops face when they taser someone to death, as has happened way too many times over the past few years? The police unions usually make sure these jack-asses never face any sort of liability., let alone justice.

Let’s say a guy is running from the cops and they catch him and beat his ass (“instant punishment”). Well, what did he do? Let’s say he beat and robbed an old lady. Well, I’d say that son-bitch deserved to get beat. But I’ve seen too many videos of literally innocent bystanders at protests being clubbed bloody by the cops when they’re given the order to rampage. Instant punishment? For what? In any event, whether the suspect is guilty or not, the job description of cops entails peace-keeping and law enforcement; they are not judges, they are not jurists, and they are not executioners.

So I don’t care what other things Rothbard said, f**k him. He’s a hypocrite. Maybe he changed his views later on in life, I don’t know. He’s not around anymore to perhaps affirm or retract that statement, so we must go on the words he’s left behind.

Yes Welch said Rothbard held Duke up as an “exemplar of right-wing populism” — notice your sneaky deletion of the whole context! — and look what we find in Rothbard’s article, in which he cites Duke as — an exemplar of right-wing populism:

“It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke’s current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians; lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites: what’s wrong with any of that?”

Hey, he really likes the guy! I don’t see a peep in anywhere in the whole article about demagoguery or racial collectivism, but a lot about how Duke was bringing excitement back into Louisiana politics and Rothbard’s glee about how he was shaking up the establishment. No one with an IQ above 80 could doubt that this was a strongly pro-Duke article.

Justin, GIVEN THAT YOU WROTE A BIOGRAPHY OF ROTHBARD, you really must have known all this, and you were obviously just lying to discredit Welch. You really out to apologize to Welch for your smear campaign against him.

Now, folks, that is a racist idea. (See definition above.) You may think it is correct, but that means you think some racist ideas are correct, not that it’s not racist. It’s funny how many defenders of Rothbard react to someone pointing this material out by saying “Rothbard was not a racist! And anyway, blacks ARE less intelligent than whites!” I.e., Rothbard was not a racist, but anyway he was right if he was.