People we love to hate/ People we hate to love

Miscellaneous General
1

I figured this could be a fun thread were we get the chance to not only indulge in some name dropping but also a chance to shamefully admit that some none libertarians are pretty awsome.

Person I love to hate: Naomi Klein.

Motivation. With books like “No Logo” and “The shock doctrine” she has fueled an entire generation of wannabe intellectuals and middle class neo hippies into thinking that they actually get the “system”.

With a complete lack of any real methology her books are nothing else than a confused attept at making sense of the world by gathering loose, subjective, observations all over the world and then puzzling them togheter into the worst conspiracy theory ever written, a conspiracy theory so bad it doesn’t even care about making a destinction between classical-liberals and Gerorge Bush and like all neo-marxists, she has no interest in understanding cause and effect. Further more, Naomi Klein is an elitistic, pretentious, spoiled brat without any real education (in her own words: “she’s selftought”) and I can only hope that one day we will invent a time machine, and send her back to Sovjet, were she belongs.

Person I hate to love: Deng Xiaoping

Motivation: Sure, he is a mass murdering communist dictator, but lets face it, he also developed China into one of the fastest growing economies in the world and vastly raised the standard of living for millions of chinese. He gave rise to the expression that “socialism does not mean shared poverty” and opened up China to the world market. It’s hard not to “hate to love him” because he might be one of the most important liberal reformator ever.

2

I second the above love to hate, Mangnus. Her complete disregard for logic is astounding; I immediately stopped paying attention when I noticed she failed to see the difference between capitalism & corporatism. The only person I honestly think who could make her shut up (short of an offline, street mugging nearby her local Liberal think-tank) would be Rand.

Then again, you’d probably have a similar spectacle like Buckley vs. Vidal, & Klein would just go back to publishing nonsense about “shock feminism” or whatever the devil kids talk about nowadays…

I can’t think of many people right now… I suppose for “Love to Hate”, it would be Liberals. Deep down inside, they love the attention the Neo-Cons get, as well as the notoriety the (hijacked) Republican Party gets, as it allows them to basically say, “Look we’re stupid, but they’re stupider.”; possibly in those exact words, depending on whose speaking.

The tyranny of good intentions, love of this nebulous, unforeseen nanny state that looks out for you; just a few things that always manage to make my blood boil. Most of all, it would have to be their double-speak of “open-mindedness”, and their inability to admit their own arrogance or error; I find this prevents me (usually) from having a meaningful discussion with said Liberals / Leftists.

But I digress, there are worse things, such as the vacuum of space, or the event horizon of a black hole.

I’ve never thought about “Hate to Love”, but I guess it would be Napoleon Bonaparte, as far as historical figures go. I credit studying Bonaparte (in one of my history “classes”) for helping to illustrate the lack of differences between the Left & Right sides of the traditional political spectrum.

I also credit the professor, who in hindsight might have had a libertarian streak to them, who introduced me to the “pendulum concept” of “going to so far Left and/or Right, you end up back at Right and/or Left”. This was also around the time I was between political affiliations, & after being burned by the 06 election, I’d begun to take alternative political thought seriously.

I also list Napoleon for a few, non-personal reasons: 1.) It helped me understand that Men can and/or do make history (not just events), 2.) The Napoleonic Code, being introduced in France, no less, & 3.) His rise-fall-rise-fall to power helped illustrate such concepts as monarchy, revolution, warfare, Coup d’état, rule of law, etc. that aided in my political insight (& would for others) later on.

If nothing else can be said, I find Napoleon is one of the more interesting figures of history; war-mongering aside, of course.

3

Brilliant suggestion, Magnus!!

My personal list would be quite long, but on top of the “Love to Hate” list, #1 would surely be Karl Marx [:@], for the (main) reasons below:

  • Having never run a single business in his rotten life, not even a newsstand, had the “chutzpah” to write “Das Kapital”, which would turn to be one of the most-read books of all times, dealing with subjects he utterly ignored, and whose influence would inspire the greatest atrocities and miseries committed in the name of “public good”;

  • While advocating that all people should be entitled to decent earnings and a good living standard in the name of “social justice”, he was personally a vile exploiter of his own employees and servants, paying them miserable salaries and treating them worse than slaves - it is well known the case of a maidservant with whom he had an extra-marital affair and bore a child that got sick and eventually died lacking of medical treatment due to the own father’s indifference;

  • Being himself born to a Jewish family, he publicly despised the Jewish people and all religions in general - his own in particular -, being known to be personally anti-semitic and spreading venomous statements and charges about the Jews throughout his pseudo-scientific literature;

  • All in all, a sad record, a perfect loser, who paradoxically succeeded in transforming his intellectual rubbish in one of the most influential ideologies of mankind.

The second category (“Hate to Love’s”) is also quite rich, but one of my “five-star” choices would be the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.

Being one of the most hated figures for the Left worldwide, surely killed some commies and performed a thorough “cleansing” of Chilean society to erradicate the left-revolutionaries.

I consider myself to be a sincere believer in the libertarian non-aggression axiom, I cannot however fail to recognize that, as Pinochet stepped off the power in Chile, the country was immensely better off: recovered economy, no inflation, solid finances, a massive extinction of state regulations, growing economic freedom and prosperity, in summary, a general raise in the living conditions of the people.

And what do the Chileans do after Pinochet’s dirty job was completed??? They elected a socialist guv’mint!!! (which will sooner or later destroy everything to return to the previous state of economic and social chaos).

That’s my five-cents to the matter.

Best regards from Rio,

R. Halevy

4

Ahh, Napoleon! Damn good pick!