How paleo-libertarianism has become left-wing anti-Americanism

I have occasionally spoken at VFR about the poisonous turn of the paleo-libertarian movement under the leadership of Llewellyn Rockwell. For example, from 2002, see this compilation of hate-mongering headlines from the Rockwell site that I posted, followed by an attack on my views by a Rockwell supporter, John Carney, who was a VFR contributor at the time (but ceased being one soon afterward), followed by my reply. Here is a later entry I posted about Lew Rockwell, followed by interesting discussion. Also, from 2002, here is the Mother of All VFR Debates about (and with) the Paleolibertarians/Neo-Confederates.

I have never been a libertarian of any stripe, but a constitutional traditionalist. In order to contain the federal government within its proper sphere, we do not need libertarian ideology, with its dogmatic rejection of any moral and cultural framework for political society, and ultimately, its rejection of the state itself; we just need fidelity to the Constitution. Of course, America has by now gone so far outside the Constitution that only a dismantling of much of the structure of modern America could return us to a truly constitutional order.

All this is by way of introduction to an article by a long-time libertarian (his name is a pseudonym) expressing his own disillusionment with the Rockwell movement.

The Transformation of a Libertarian Website
By Peter Bradley
Exclusive for VFR

A libertarian website taking the side of Muslim rioters (and basically parroting the line of European government officials) over a small, beleaguered private newspaper seems quite strange. Especially when that site proclaims on the top of the page that it is “anti-state, anti-war, pro-market.” But that’s just what has done over the past few days with no less than three articles coming down on the side of the “oppressed” Muslims against the European “racists” in the Mohammed cartoon affair. This stance is even more puzzling given the origins of the website.

I started reading the Rothbard-Rockwell Report newsletter in 1995 and kept my subscription intact until 1999. Shortly after that the RRR newsletter became defunct as it was redundant to the website. A fan of Sam Francis and Chronicles, I enjoyed the newsletter because of its freethinking articles on racial and cultural issues and because I was/am actually a libertarian on most social issues (abortion, prayer in school). I also subscribed to their isolationist foreign policy and their embrace of capitalism and free trade (which put them—and me—in the minority of the now defunct paleoconservative movement).

Murray Rothbard was the founder of modern libertarianism and was also a proponent of voluntary racial separation. I never met Rothbard, but Sam Francis and several others told me he was on the same wavelength as American Renaissance on racial issues. Michael Levin was a frequent contributor to the RRR for the four years I subscribed to it. He wrote very honestly about things such as black crime, race and IQ, and the media whitewash of black failure. Hans Hoppe, who favors immigration, wrote that America could keep its racial identity and still have immigration by selecting immigrants based on IQ and race. Jared Taylor’s book of essays, The Real American Dilemma, received a favorable review by Paul Gottfried in a 1998 issue of RRR. The RRR’s forthrightness on race got it lambasted by David Frum in his 1994 book Dead Right. Frum was particularly displeased about an unflattering essay on the moral character of Martin Luther King.

Looking at today, nobody would know it grew out of the Triple R. A particularly stupid article by Eric Margolis on the Mohammed cartoon controversy is titled “Right to be Angry.” But, according to Margolis, it is Muslims, not Europeans, who have the right to be angry:

Muslims suffered 150 years of the most brutal European imperialism and exploitation. Millions of Muslims were slaughtered by European and Russian colonialists, though we seldom hear about this holocaust. Many of Europe’s 20 million Muslims are third-class citizens. Muslims have a right to be angry.

It would nice if Margolis documented his clam that “millions” of Muslims have been slaughtered by Europeans. But as Srdja Trifkovic and other have pointed out, Europeans (and other non-Muslim peoples including Zorastrians, Jews and Hindus) have suffered hundreds of years of the most brutal Muslim imperialism and exploitation. Scores of Spanish and Balkan Christians—and others—were slaughtered by Muslim colonists. How does Margolis think Muslims got to Europe? Moreover, Muslims are certainly not “third-class citizens.” Leftists throughout Europe and America routinely demean and criticize Christianity and Christians. Yet if white Christians murdered, rioted and issued death threats against non-Christians I am sure Margolis would not defend them. Muslims in Europe are acting as racist colonizers, not third class citizens. Europeans—not Muslims—have the right to be angry about racism.

Another ridiculous article on is “Race Hatred and Mass Murder,” by Mike Rogers. It is not about the Zebra Killings, black-on-white crime, or even the routine racial warfare between blacks and Hispanics in California. It is about the U.S. dropping the bomb on Japan in WWII:

Truman and his advisors wanted to scare the Russians. The USA had an atomic bomb and wanted to use it. Who better to use it on than inferior “Japs”? Who better to test a weapon on than people who were not white and who were considered savages? Who could possibly think that race hatred by Americans did not play a huge part in this crime?

Apparently the completely unnecessary bombing of Dresden was motivated by race love and admiration. Same thing with the more recent bombing of Serbia. still gets credit from people like Peter Brimelow for being anti-immigration. Yet when was the last time they ran an article critical of immigration? In fact, is now almost a pretty standard leftist website. John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, and Alexander Cockburn are all welcome there. Why not Jared Taylor, Michael Levin, or (before his death) Sam Francis?

In fact, I asked Sam that question a few months before his death a year ago. He did not have any contact with Lew Rockwell by then, but he surmised that Rockwell knows what happens to people who write honestly about race (Michael Levin, Philippe Rushton, Sam himself, Peter Brimelow, Kevin Lamb …etc). Writing about foreign policy is much safer and you don’t lose your job or your status.

That is fair enough. But why go out of your way to publish anti-white, anti-Western screeds on a website that is supposedly “anti-state, anti-war, pro-market?” Why not just avoid the subject altogether or at least balance the articles out? If you are going to publish an article on how “white colonialism” has destroyed Africa (yes, they did publish such an article last year), why not ask Michael Levin to write a counter on how black IQ is the real culprit for African failure? Why not have Jared Taylor write an article on the “racism” of the Japanese if you are going to let Mike Rogers write about the alleged “racism” of America toward Japan?

I think we know why. Alas, Lew Rockwell is not Murray Rothbard, and is not the Triple R.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 24, 2006 05:45 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):