Lew Rockwell and Islam

Miscellaneous General
21

Praetyre: I see what you’re talking about but it seems to me that the media - in its role as handmaiden of the State - is bipolar on this issue. On the one side, “Muslims did it” is treated as case-closed. If some government official says “Muslims did it” then anyone who challenges the official theory is a crazy, ranting-with-a-bullhorn conspiracy theorist. On the other hand, you’re absolutely right about the kid glove treatment of clearly anti-human values within Islam, as if every religion is sacred in its own right and above criticism because we must be “tolerant.” I don’t think either sentiment reflects a “pro-Islam” or “anti-Islam” disposition on the part of the Power Elite… they are merely pro-whatever-serves-their-interests and anti-everything-else. Rather, I think there is a kind of schizophrenia in the media because, on the one hand, the mandate to merge all nations requires the desegregation of East and West in the long run (multi-culturalism) and, on the other hand, the short-term military goals of the imperialists require demonization of “Islamic Terrorists” so Muslims can be the universal scapegoat for all the murder and mayhem caused - directly or directly - by the agents provocateur in the intelligence agencies.

Clayton -

22

Constittuionalist,

Don’t be too hard on lew. He doesn’t like sharia law or islam, he just hates the US government so much that he will use any excuse to attack it. They have a name for guys like this in the mosques, they are called useful idiots.

Lew is non-violent like most anarchists and it is obvious that the United States is not.

Check out this quote from lew:

Lew: For the sake of freedom and human rights, we must say no to war.

don’t worry about lew and other anarchists, they are harmless. I mean how do they expect to take and hold power if they say no to war?

Just open any page on a history book and that pretty much shows that every society that lasted more than a day got and held its power by war. But lew and most anarchists are still in the non-violent camp.

And I say good for them, they can stay there. The last thing we need is a group of folks like lew ‘kick me first’ rockwell running the show with Russia, china, political islam and teacher and public employee unions running around with access to guns.

lew is crazy with hate for the US government and crazy with love or a fetish for non-violence. what do they call those guys that like to get spanked ? is it sadist or machochist ? i get them mixed up. maybe lew is one of those guys that would rather get hit, then hit. God bless him for that, someone has to take the first punch and lew and the anarchist have always stepped up to the plate to take the punch instead of dudes like us. Good for them.

Keep an eye on him Constittuionalist, but at this point in time he and the anarchists are pretty much irrelevant and harmless.

23

@Centinel: Actually, a private-property society, such as that advocated by LR, is not completely pacifistic. The use of violence is justifiable… but only in defense of legitimate property rights, which States - by definition - are never fighting for. Hence, all State-run wars are aggressive, regardless of the propaganda.

You are right that the history books are filled with the stories of those who murdered, raped and pillaged their way to wealth and power. However, this is less a sign of how glorious such individuals are than it is a sign that paying chroniclers was something that only the richest could afford to do - and chronicling the dirty deeds of the King was something that only another King dared to do and that from a long distance. Technology has made chronicling a lot less expensive and, despite the determined efforts of the State to thoroughly corrupt the historical record, the true face of the State is emerging in Blu-Ray hi-definition.

The irony of a state apologist calling Lew Rockwell a useful idiot is difficult to overstate.

Clayton -

24

First off, how are you defining “hate” above?

Second, by your reference to “useful idiots” in mosques, am I to take this to mean you approve of the FBI’s practice of domestic-terrorism sting operations?

Do you see a difference between being non-aggressive and being non-violent? I’d say that Lew is certainly the former, but I doubt he’s the latter. On the other hand, do you approve of the United States government’s aggression?

Do you see “power” as a thing which exists regardless of whether anyone tries to take and hold it?

Also, if “Lew and other anarchists” are so “harmless”, why are you bothering to rail against them at all?

Ah, I was wondering when a bona fide neocon was going to arrive here. Tell me, are you an active member of the military, the intelligence community, or some branch of the domestic security apparatus? If not, what are you afraid of?

Regardless, please demonstrate how and why “Russia, china, political islam and teacher and public employee unions” pose an existential threat to Lew Rockwell - or to myself, for that matter.

Perhaps you’d like to back up these assertions with some, you know, actual substance. Or do you consider that beneath you?

Again, I can’t help but wonder - if we’re “pretty much irrelevant and harmless”, then why pay any attention to us at all?

One other thing. Regardless of how you define “hate”, why do you think that “hating” the US government is necessarily such a bad thing?

25

Clayton: The use of violence is justifiable… but only in defense of legitimate property rights, which States - by definition - are never fighting for.

Call him non-aggressive if you like but logic like Lew ‘nuke me first’ Rockwell aint going to last long in the real world.

Hell even you anarchists admit that statists are violent. Do you think that got that way because of government ?

No. they learned at a very young age that you can get what you want by smacking someone weaker than you. Dont you have any siblings ?

This dude pretty much says it all

“The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and great nations”

I guess what this dude was trying to say was make love, not war but he really hit on the important fact that you only get strong (great nations) by using physical force and it is also natural to man (small children )

thats why anarchists like Lew are harmless. and dont get me wrong he is spot on about the economics stuff. it is just the dude is clearly living in a fantasy world when it comes to physical force.

btw, i am not a state apologist. the state is bad, capitalism good, waiting to get nuked before fighting back insane.

hey, i should write a movie starring called the good, the bad, and the insane. starring ludwig von mises, obama, and Lew.

remember hate the game, not the player

26

So you believe that “might makes right”, eh? How nice. By that logic (oops, there’s that silly word again!), you won’t complain when someone stronger than you smacks you and takes your shit. Oh wait, I imagine you’ll complain then.

That’s not what he was saying at all. Really, you have to be trolling to misinterpret that quote to such an extent.

If he’s living in a fantasy world when it comes to physical force, then how can he be “spot on about the economics stuff”. I mean, where is there any role for economics in a world where might makes right?

That of course raises the question of who you think is actually at risk of getting nuked right now, and why. Are you up to the challenge?

Don’t quit your day job.

27

autolykos: So you believe that “might makes right”, eh? How nice. By that logic (oops, there’s that silly word again!), you won’t complain when someone stronger than you smacks you and takes your shit. Oh wait, I imagine you’ll complain then.

it dont make it right, i never said that (arent you using a strawman ?)

no I mean it is probably wrong if your a pacifist or non-violent, but that is a subjective opinion. I mean you dont have a monopoly on what is right or wrong. are anarchists gods that they decide what is right or wrong ?

really though I think that if someone can kick my ass, take my dough, and get away with it there aint much I can do about it. and there are many instances in history in which the strong guy got the money and the girl. oops, i know, that is an argument from ignorance. sorry.

lets try this, if a group of highly motivated dudes with guns wants stuff, then the only way any one is going to stop them is by using physical force. the question is do you wait for them to start shooting first before you fire back ? btw, i am in the camp that shoots first, lew is evidently in the camp that favors getting shot first.

so the new name of my movie is the good, the bad, and the stupid. and the sequel is the good, the bad (and richer), and the dead. starring me as the good guy and lew as the dead guy.

autolykos That of course raises the question of who you think is actually at risk of getting nuked right now, and why. Are you up to the challenge?

sure dude, how do you think the good ole’ USA got to be so secure ?

you think it was by non-aggression ?

the sad fact is that the better we get at security, the more shrill peaceniks like lew get and the bigger there audience. but I can assure you a few chinese nukes hitting some population centers, or your computers fizzing out for the next 3 months from a cyber attack will cut into lews audience of fans.

I wont respond to the rest of your stuff cuz i think you were just being funny. like your suggestion that I dont quit my day job

28

Since when does anti-war equal pacifist?

29

Irony alert! Irony alert! Irony alert!

30

The idea of China nuking the United States is so bizarre that I think even Leonard Peikoff would balk at it. The last time China, in it’s entire 5000 (though I think that’s only a tiny fraction of it’s true history) year history as a civilization, invaded anybody, was in the Qin Dynasty, and that was against the then-insignificant Korean civilization, not a major power like Persia or the Alexandrian Empire. China would not nuke it’s biggest customer, nor would it be even remotely consistent with the mentality of any Chinese political leader since Qin Shi Huang.

31

The United States government is the only entity that has ever used a nuke. People outside the US definitely have good reason to worry, people inside the US have a lot less reason to worry… as bad as other governments may be, none of them have ever nuked anybody. What’s funny is that the irony of the only government ever to nuke anybody being the self-appointed world policeman of nukes never strikes anybody as odd… even the supposedly super-smart people that constitute the brigades of political punditry, political journalism and political think-tankery.

32

“If pressed to acknowledge Islamic terror at all, the Western MSM will often qualify it by insisting that other religions (most often Christianity, though Hinduism occasionally gets the short end of the stick) are just as violent and anyone who believes otherwise is guilty of some imaginary mental disorder.”

Are you kidding. Look at the events in Norway over the weekend. Within minutes of a reported bombing everyone from Reuters^1 to BBC^2 had created suspected profiles putting it all down to half a dozen of so crazed muslims.

  1. Here is the Reuters article, they’ve pulled it from all but their India portal:

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/07/22/idINIndia-58403920110722

  1. BBC has pulled a similar article I looked for.
33

You certainly seemed to indicate (to me, at least) that you were in favor of “[getting] what you want by smacking someone weaker than you”, to use your words. You also seem to look down on what you call “pacifism” or “non-violence”. Hence I figure you’re in the “might makes right” camp. Are you or aren’t you? If you aren’t, then what was your point with your earlier statements?

That’s not the point. Of course “right” and “wrong” are subjective. My question for you was whether you think that might makes right. That is, I was asking about your subjective opinion.

It’s not even an argument, actually. While there may not be much you can do about it, that doesn’t mean you can’t complain or think it’s wrong. So would you do that or not, in such a case?

Presumably said group of “dudes” presents a direct threat against my property, if not also my person. In that case, I’d say they’ve already aggressed against me, so any force I use to stop them from getting my stuff is defensive. Now with that said, I don’t see how Lew Rockwell would think any differently about it.

That begs the question: is the “good ole’ USA” so secure? If it’s so secure, then why does the government apparently see enemies behind every corner? If it’s so secure, then why does the government see its own subjects as enemies?

This doesn’t answer my question. Please try again. Who do you think is actually at risk of getting nuked right now, and why? (Note: If you answer “the good ole’ USA”, then obviously said “good ole’ USA” isn’t so secure, now is it?)

Actually, I want you to respond to this:

and this:

Or are you afraid to?

34

Praetyre: The last time China, in it’s entire 5000 (though I think that’s only a tiny fraction of it’s true history) year history as a civilization, invaded anybody, was in the Qin Dynasty

Whoa, slow down Tex.

China has invaded, threatened, and/or occupied just about everyone of its neighbors in the last 50 years, not to mention murdering over 50-100 million of their own citizens.

The short list of chinese military interventions since 1949:

1950 taiwan straits crisis

1950 invaded tibet

1951 attacked UN forces in korea

1962 invaded india

1970 to 1978 invaded Soviet Union

1974 invaded Vietnam

currently provided material military and economic support to virtually all of the world’s dictatorships of Sudan, Burma, Iran, Venezaula, North Korea, Zimbabwe and any other brutal statist regime you want to name (btw fellas, statists dont like anarchists)

And here is the kicker, China has enslaved, tortured, and murdered over 100 million innocents since 1949.

summary of the lesson fellas - statism is bad, china is staist, china is bad. the evidence speaks for itself.

dude you got to get out more and stop reading just anarchist stuff.

jeez, I am reading your stuff, much of what I dont agree with, and it aint killing me.

knowledge is good, tunnel vision is bad, reading just rothbard, rockwell, dilorenzo, murphy, hoppe, woods is good, but just reading rothbard and rockwell and nothing else is bad.

35

Taiwan is a cold-civil war, not an invasion of a foreign entity. China’s claims to Tibet are far stronger than the US’s to California’s, and it didn’t so much “invade” it as reclaim it from the British Empire. Attacking UN Forces in Korea was due to wishing to support the North Korean communist government of the time, not due to any Japanese-style colonial ambitions. It’s border disputes with India are over tiny areas on their border where there is confusion regarding ethnicity and linguistics. Ditto for the USSR, though it should also be added that was fueled by the Sino-Soviet split over Maoism versus the “revisionism” of Khruschev. Vietnam is, again, a matter of backing a similar “team” to yours in a foreign context (not unlike the US backing the Shah…) rather than a desire to create a Co-Prosperity Sphere in Southeast Asia.

I don’t deny China backs many of these regimes you mentioned, but none of them are anything other than garden variety isolationist authoritarian dictatorships, and I wouldn’t be even remotely surprised if Russia and the US have backed twice as many of these tinpot nations for their own self interest. And Maoist China (which makes the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany look like pushovers, I agree) is a far cry from the post-Xiaoping, largely apolitical oligarchic China that exists today. Show me China invading and occupying a long established sovereign nation (like Nazi Germany with the French, or the USSR with East Germany) and I’ll start to reconsider my position.

36

Moderator note:

Centinel, I’ve deleted your last post. I suggest you take a look at the forum rules. Broad-brush inflammatory attacks on forum users are not allowed. Repeated violations will result in a ban.

37

We go from here:

Praetyre: The last time China, in it’s entire 5000 (though I think that’s only a tiny fraction of it’s true history) year history as a civilization, invaded anybody, was in the Qin Dynasty

To here:

Praetyre: Show me China invading and occupying a long established sovereign nation (like Nazi Germany with the French, or the USSR with East Germany) and I’ll start to reconsider my position.

And these Orwellian rationalizations of recent chinese aggressions:

Praetyre:

  • Taiwan is a cold-civil war, not an invasion of a foreign entity.
  • China’s claims to Tibet are far stronger than the US’s to California’s, and it didn’t so much “invade” it as reclaim it from the British Empire.
  • Attacking UN Forces in Korea was due to wishing to support the North Korean communist government of the time
  • It’s border disputes with India are over tiny areas on their border where there is confusion regarding ethnicity and linguistics.
  • Ditto for the USSR
  • Vietnam is, again, a matter of backing a similar “team” to yours in a foreign context

Orwellian, nuanced, and hypocritical rationalizations of naked aggression. I particularily like the rationalization of the Chinese invasion and subjegation of peaceful Tibet as not representative of aggression since China’s claims to Tibet are far stronger than the US’s to California’s, and it didn’t so much “invade” it as reclaim it from the British Empire.

Wow. I think the Tibetians would be happy to learn that they were not really invaded, simply ‘reclaimed’ from Britian. And now we have a standard from which anarchists can justify aggression, as long as it is a greater claim than the US annexation of California.

I thought anarchists were peaceful. And none challenged this revisionist history expect yours truly. Your friendly neighborhood ‘war mongering’ neocon Centinel.

Oh and this last one:

Praetyre: And Maoist China (which makes the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany look like pushovers, I agree) is a far cry from the post-Xiaoping, largely apolitical oligarchic China that exists today.

400×300 29.1 KB

38

Firstly, I’m not an anarchist. Secondly, I acknowledged that China, by your definition of “invasion” (which I guess means Poland invaded Iraq when it sent troops there) had “invaded” several polities, and so I was requesting an invasion of the sort I was thinking of, unless you want me to bring up all the countless tribes the US has no doubt invaded in it’s long history.

Secondly, what part of what I listed do you consider “revisionist”? Do you maintain China intended to conquer all of Korea and Vietnam? Do you deny that Tibet hasn’t been an independent polity since the time of Kublai Khan and a single period from 1912-1951, which existing only in a de facto sense because the rest of China was off fighting against it’s monarch, between various warlords and the Nationalists and Communists?

Do you deny that, for a long time, the Dalai Lama has been principally sponsored, as he himself admitted, by the CIA, and through an ex-Secret Service Colonel, George Soros? I don’t blame the US at all for this (it was a Cold War, after all), but don’t think he’s just an Asian Gandhi financed out of the good of the people of India or America’s hearts.

Thirdly, I highly doubt most Tibetans desire a return to the brutal theocracy that ruled under the aegis of the Chinese monarchy. And as for your Simpsons-point:

39

What does it matter how the crimes of the USA compare to those of China? What does it matter that Tibet has long been controlled by a Chinese state? I myself have been a subject of the State my entire life - if I throw off such bonds, is the State justified in enslaving me once again?

In any case, the agents of the Chinese state have violently invaded the private property of many millions of people within the geographical region of China. Do these invasions count less than those undertaken by the American state overseas?

Btw I’m not American (just to let you know I have no stake in defending the USA).

40

Clayton,

I know there is a whole seperate nuke thread - but i had to comment. I think I am as anti gov. as most on this site. but to me - cruicifying the US for using nukes to end WW2 and saving thousands of its soldiers ( of course we know there were other reasons as well) - to me is the same as using current mores to judge people 100 years ago. In 50 years we will all be considered barbarians for much of our current culture. WHich ever country had developed the bomb first would have used it. The US should not be tormented forever because they were fastest.

and as much as I respect Rockwell, sometimes his anti US bias is a bit over the top.