The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Trends and evolution of Lewrockwell.com

rated by 0 users
This post has 64 Replies | 6 Followers

Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 512
Points 9,510
Dondoolee Posted: Fri, Jul 10 2009 1:14 AM

I have only been a reader of Lewrockwell.com for only about 6 months.  Was there a time when such radical viewpoints of the average writer  wasn't "The United States is  rotten to the core and beyond all redemtion"?  In other words has this viewpoint evolved  amongst the regular writers for Lewrockwell or has this sentiment been there for quite some time?  Has the site got progressively more radical over time? For example,  10 years ago was the average article just criticizing policies and politicians without as radical or revolutionary an undertone behind it? 

 Let us look then and see, how they manage their concerns- they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic

 -Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own

  • | Post Points: 110
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 428
Points 7,840

Dondoolee:

I have only been a reader of Lewrockwell.com for only about 6 months.  Was there a time when such radical viewpoints of the average writer  wasn't "The United States is  rotten to the core and beyond all redemtion"?  In other words has this viewpoint evolved  amongst the regular writers for Lewrockwell or has this sentiment been there for quite some time?  Has the site got progressively more radical over time? For example,  10 years ago was the average article just criticizing policies and politicians without as radical or revolutionary an undertone behind it? 

It might be Lew Rockwell's progression to become more radical, but the site always promoted anarcho-capitalism.

Some will disagree with me here, but LRC has become a bore of a site lately.  Some of his bloggers are utterly rude and insulting, and the articles posted have been getting more and more bizarre - an article a couple weeks promoted the release of Leonard Peltier, an indian activist who murdered two FBI agents (ok maybe FBI agents are not angels, but that doesnt mean he can blow them away with impunity).  I also love how Lew promotes the clownish Howard Zinn ("Mao was just a reformer").

Semper Fidelis

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,456
Points 24,270
Daniel replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 1:58 AM

Stephan Kinsella has been loving Zinn's A People's History of the United States. I'll wait until he gets to the chapter on the socialism.

My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile Big Smile

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 5
Points 145

The blog goes through transitions through the months depending on current events. This blog was incredibly fun to follow during the election hoopla, but as all political diaries go, there are slow spots during the year. I tend to think LRC has gotten softer than the old Rothbard/Rockwell duo would have been. I doubt Rothbard would ever plug Peter Schiff, for example.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 428
Points 7,840

Daniel:

Stephan Kinsella has been loving Zinn's A People's History of the United States. I'll wait until he gets to the chapter on the socialism.

Yeah I read it a few years ago.  I found it to be nothing special - just the usual dopey left wing revisionism. Of course now it has spawned a whole series of 'People's History' books;  I imagine they are just more Marxist revisionism.

Semper Fidelis

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 63
Points 1,500
mitcjm replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 10:31 AM

sicsempertyrannis:
an article a couple weeks promoted the release of Leonard Peltier, an indian activist who murdered two FBI agents

 

To be fair, the article in question promoted his release because of lack of evidence and the procedural farcity. Did you read the same article as me?

sicsempertyrannis:
I also love how Lew promotes the clownish Howard Zinn

 

Again, to be fair, Lew only promoted the parts of Zinn which are consistent with libertarian interpretations of history. There is lots in Zinn that demonstrates the evils done by state power.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 117
Points 1,775
Nielsio replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 10:47 AM

Dondoolee:

Was there a time when such radical viewpoints of the average writer  wasn't "The United States is  rotten to the core and beyond all redemtion"?

That's a radical viewpoint? For a site who's slogan is anti-state?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 589
Points 10,500
Stephen replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 10:54 AM

The Lew Rockwell Column originally grew out of Triple-R (Rothbard-Rockwell Report). Tripple-R was way more radical than anything since it. Just read a few chapters from The Irrepressible Rothbard and you'll know what I mean. In particular, try Invade the World, Clintonian Ugly, "Date Rape" on Campus, or Never Say "Jap"!. Overall, Lew Rockwell has become less radical. He's 'extended rhetorical tolerance leftward' (in his own words). I'm not sure if he's gotten better at marketing or just gone soft.

Liberals don't mean to destroy people. They just do.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 589
Points 10,500
Stephen replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 10:58 AM

sicsempertyrannis:
I also love how Lew promotes the clownish Howard Zinn ("Mao was just a reformer").

I looked him up and watched one of his lectures. It was pretty good overall.

Liberals don't mean to destroy people. They just do.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 589
Points 10,500
Stephen replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 11:03 AM

Dopey Gigglz:

The blog goes through transitions through the months depending on current events. This blog was incredibly fun to follow during the election hoopla, but as all political diaries go, there are slow spots during the year. I tend to think LRC has gotten softer than the old Rothbard/Rockwell duo would have been. I doubt Rothbard would ever plug Peter Schiff, for example.

Stephen Forde:

The Lew Rockwell Column originally grew out of Triple-R (Rothbard-Rockwell Report). Tripple-R was way more radical than anything since it. Just read a few chapters from The Irrepressible Rothbard and you'll know what I mean. In particular, try Invade the World, Clintonian Ugly, "Date Rape" on Campus, or Never Say "Jap"!. Overall, Lew Rockwell has become less radical. He's 'extended rhetorical tolerance leftward' (in his own words). I'm not sure if he's gotten better at marketing or just gone soft.

Sorry, didn't read your post before I posted. Nice to know someone thinks the exact same thing though. Peter Schiff would get on just because he predicted the details of the crash better than anyone else. He's a better prognosticator (thymologist) than any Austrian economist.

Liberals don't mean to destroy people. They just do.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 565
Points 10,115
I. Ryan replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 11:10 AM

Dopey Gigglz:
The blog goes through transitions through the months depending on current events. This blog was incredibly fun to follow during the election hoopla, but as all political diaries go, there are slow spots during the year. I tend to think LRC has gotten softer than the old Rothbard/Rockwell duo would have been. I doubt Rothbard would ever plug Peter Schiff, for example.

Why not?

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 2,565
Points 45,395
Stranger replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 11:22 AM

My favorite part of LewRockwell.com are the grooming tips.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 428
Points 7,840

Stephen Forde:

sicsempertyrannis:
I also love how Lew promotes the clownish Howard Zinn ("Mao was just a reformer").

I looked him up and watched one of his lectures. It was pretty good overall.

He might make a decent point every now then, but hes nothing but a Marxist apologist.  If hes honest about the US's wars, why cant he be honest about his heroes Mao and the Spanish anarchists being totalitarians?  It destroys his credibility in my opinion.  It reminds me of how Chomsky can really rip US foreign policy, but when it comes to Pol Pot..well, he's was really not such a bad guy.

Semper Fidelis

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 428
Points 7,840

Stranger:

My favorite part of LewRockwell.com are the grooming tips.

I get the impression Lew wishes fedoras would come back in style.

Semper Fidelis

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 428
Points 7,840

I. Ryan:

Dopey Gigglz:
The blog goes through transitions through the months depending on current events. This blog was incredibly fun to follow during the election hoopla, but as all political diaries go, there are slow spots during the year. I tend to think LRC has gotten softer than the old Rothbard/Rockwell duo would have been. I doubt Rothbard would ever plug Peter Schiff, for example.

Why not?

 

Yeah Rothbard had no problem with some politicians for strategic reasons.  I am sure he would have gladly promoted Paul, Schiff and many others.

Semper Fidelis

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 589
Points 10,500
Stephen replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 12:25 PM

sicsempertyrannis:

Stephen Forde:

sicsempertyrannis:
I also love how Lew promotes the clownish Howard Zinn ("Mao was just a reformer").

I looked him up and watched one of his lectures. It was pretty good overall.

He might make a decent point every now then, but hes nothing but a Marxist apologist.  If hes honest about the US's wars, why cant he be honest about his heroes Mao and the Spanish anarchists being totalitarians?  It destroys his credibility in my opinion.  It reminds me of how Chomsky can really rip US foreign policy, but when it comes to Pol Pot..well, he's was really not such a bad guy.

Nobody's ever 100% right about everything. Just because you disagree with people on some issues, it doesn't mean you can't  learn anything from them. Narrow-minded in my opinion.

Liberals don't mean to destroy people. They just do.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 5
Points 145

It isn't a point I'm willing to die for, and certainly Rockwell knows what Rothbard would do much better than I, but Rothbard was always very slow to back someone running for office. Not impossible, but unlikely.

But I think the bigger point is not with specific politicians, but with the attitude in general. Libertarians tend to get egg on their collective (heh, suck it Randians) faces when they get behind a candidate. See CATO with Guliani, Young Americans for Liberty with Mark Sanford, Reason with everyone. Rothbard would have- and as far as I know, did- backed Ron Paul, but he is a once in a lifetime candidate.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 5
Points 145

Stephen Forde:
Nobody's ever 100% right about everything. Just because you disagree with people on some issues, it doesn't mean you can't  learn anything from them. Narrow-minded in my opinion.

Howard Zinn is a great gateway for many young people into anti-nationalist thinking. He's wrong about a lot of things,  but you can't help but applaud his articulate dismantling of imperialism. For a lot of us it was our first exposure to this kind of thinking (namely, that "America can do no wrong" is false) and that he has been able to break into the mainstream is a little exciting.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 199
Points 3,345
Cork replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 12:49 PM

Zinn may make some good criticisms of US imperialism, but then so does Fidel Castro.

It doesn't change the fact that both are totalitarians.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 5
Points 145

And what's your point? We all agree that his nod to leftist wackos is wrong. But his scholarship on early America is top-notch. You can ignore it at your own loss.

  • | Post Points: 35
Page 1 of 4 (65 items) 1 2 3 4 Next > | RSS

Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119

contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises

Mises.org sitemap