Wednesday, March 19, 2008

From Lew Rockwell's UFO

It can be observed that Lew Rockwell's website appeals to both the extreme right and reactionary left of the political divide. However, it also appears that Lew Rockwell may be a Quaker or a Mennonite. Does that fact mean anything?

It means that the kind of cynical people to whom you have been listening, Pat Buchanan, Jeff Rense, Justin Raimondo's, and presidential candidate Ron Paul, for example, use Rockwell's factoids and fabrications for their own political and religious agenda.

NOTHING Rockwell has ever PUBLISHED on the subject of the War in Iraq and Bush and the neo-cons and 9-11 and the Middle East and terrorism and Economics has any credibility given his agenda and the context of measurable truth.

Rockwell's aggressive blathering is underscored by a particularly offensive agenda and devolves to meaningless assertions colored by his religious commandments. Moreover, Rockwell and his cohorts and associates, some named above, include David Duke & Company, many are border racists and anti-Semites. No one's perfect I guess. A such, their opinions are colored by their deep-seated racial ideology.

Pacifism -- which they couch in semantics such as, "The Doctrine of Restraint" to make it sound political, rather than religious is, among Quakers and Mennonites, NON-NEGOTIABLE. In other words, these partisans will employ linguistic mechanism, smoke and mirrors, to disguise their true agenda. Within libertarianism you will find pacifists who will make bedfellows with people whom they would otherwise not associate with. Reactionary progressives for example. They erroneously believe they are morally superior because all conflicts can be pragmatically resolved with non-violence. Of course history teaches us otherwise: Hitler, Tojo, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, the latter ones deposed within their cultures or simply passed away. Most historical pacifism is utter fiction; their believers usually wiped out by invaders who had other ideas.

Rockwell's views are ENTIRELY skewed by RELIGIOUS dogma that would have you believe that Christianity too, is pacifist to the core, to the point where even self defense is discouraged. This belief is entirely unexamined withing a historical context, and lacks religious scholarship covering post 4th Century Christians who had no problem dying for G-d and were enthusiastically ready to fight those who threatened their existence and culture.

Luke 22:36: "He said to them, 'But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.'"

Quaker and Mennonite religious teaching and belief systems, among others, are useful -- to their faithful. Accordingly, everything Rockwell has weaved into his publication is DOGMA disguised as something else. As something purportedly "objective" that can be tested by inquiry. He know that most people are intellectually lazy and won't bother.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke. "Jan Naverson argued that pacifism is a self-contradictory doctrine; in that everyone has rights and corresponding responsibilities not to violate others' rights. Since pacifists give up their ability to protect themselves from violation of their right not to be harmed, then other people thus have no corresponding responsibility, creating a paradox of rights. As Narveson puts it, "the prevention of infractions of that right is precisely what one has a right to when one has a right at all." - Wickipedia

If you don't belong to religious-inspired pacifist thought, or secular ones actually inspired by religious thinking (liberalism, Ethical Culture -- both religions), the next time someone sends you a Rockwell column suggesting it an authoritative source, raise questions and take it down with a large grain of salt.

Here Lew is pushing the intellectual drivel from that fruitcake space alien Ron Paul:

- Andrew G. Benjamin


Anonymous said...

I don't see a connection to RP with Lew looks like they share some opinions, but RP has facts to back up his statements.

....I can't name one thing RP has said that isn't fact, can you?

CountryGirl said...

Very well written, a great job. Now I have to say that you've given me some homework to do as you know much more about this then I do, so time for me to learn more.
As for Ron Paul and all his so called follower's there all appear to be a bunch of wacko's as is Ron Paul himself. Not much of what I've ever heard Ron Paul say makes any sense except the one time I heard him state he could not hear, that I do believe, he can't hear, nor does he get it.

Anonymous said...

Anyone can make up "factoids." Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell do it daily.

The difference between facts and factoids is that the latter are usually out of historical or logical context. Or content out of context.

For example, "Outsourcing causes unemployment." Factoid.

In the context of history, since the establishment of NAFTA employment has risen, unemployment has fallen. Since NAFTA, the U.S. has been exporting more goods, technology AND labor and its markets have expanded.

Insourcing has created more jobs and the DEMAND for more employees in the U.S.

An ideologue makes points using factoids.

A person with integrity puts factoids into context to assert facts.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand his point. he says RP uses Lew's "factoids", but then shows how Lew is hawking RP's books......seems backwards. Space alien...LOL. He's clueless, your site deserves better. I'd like to see him take the issues RP has on his site and find a problem with Wow he's a miserable biased guy. Must have a secret reason to hate a guy who likes freedom.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps "Anonymous" can identify himself?

Liberals, Libertarians and Conservatives see terms such as "freedom" quite differently.

Paul would free America of its responsibilities on the world stage. He would free American workers from competing against international predation and selling American goods on world markets, just keeping the domestic market for their production. Paul would free America from its security guarantees and obligations to certain "friendly" Arab states that cooperate with us on the fight against terrorism. He would accordingly free America of its obligations to our national security.

Freedom to certain inmates of the asylum may mean dressing up in a pink daiper to lead The Boston Philharmonic in a grand performance of a Rimsky-Korsakov Symphony.

There is very little problem with Ron Paul's world view. The reason is no one serious takes Paul seriously. Otherwise, if Paul would take his meds regularly, he'd be an upstanding guy.