July 30, 2011 A.D.
Lefties are too evil to go big for Ron Paul in November but Lew Rockwell wants you to ditty-bop on over to a leftist website to see favorable comments about Ron Paul. Paul likes liberty and freedom and leftist don't and that is where the proverbial rubber will meet the road.
Democrats are deeply committed to fascism, Marxism, and totalitarianism, and they will never willingly put the interests of the welfare state at risk because the US remains a warfare state. Follow the money. Democrats love other peoples money too much to care about whether or not the US fights unjust wars and kills people overseas.
It just isn't going to happen. Democrats adore slaughter and bloodshed. This should be quite obvious by now and that is why they do not flinch at the thought of approximately 50 million human organisms having been snuffed out in the womb legally through the abortion they promote through legalization. They have never cared about slaughtering people in the past and still don't. Yes, yes, there's the oddity of Vietnam. But the problem there was the dead Americans, not the dead foreigners.
So it is odd to see Lew Rockwell online leading his readers to a weird place like this one on the web. It's called Dissident Voice. Strangely enough, not only is there no dissent at that website that I could see, especially since what is said there is the same old criminal-type Marxist collectivist baloney that everyone has heard over and over again, but I thought the Libertarians didn't like collectivists?
Here is Lew's introductory comment about the Dissident Voice article:
Ron Paul's Challenge to the Left
A very interesting piece by John Walsh in DissidentVoice, which argues that it's a question of basic morality. Indeed, any honest leftist, someone opposed to the warfare state, the police state, and Fed-bankster-Wall Streetism, must support Ron Paul.
I think the father of modern Libertarianism would have cringed at the sight of the Dissident Voice blog and Mr. Rockwell's blurb.
DV blogger John Walsh writes:
"The Left often acknowledges its obligation to those in developing countries, people of color over the planet whose standard of living and life itself is held back by the depredations of the U.S. Empire."
Okay, that is what the loons on the left often do acknowledge, but that is also what depraved people acknowledge. Of course, if the left wishes to obligate itself to what non-whites around the world need, that is their own business. I'm opposed to any US imperialism, but I'm not going to take the fall for it because some leftist dirt-bag feels guilty about it.
And that is the problem with fascists, thugs, and collectivists. They take their moral beliefs and cram them down other peoples throats while screaming about any religious person who might try to do the same to them.
This is completely against what the Father of Libertarianism (Hayek) would have advocated. So what's up with Lew Rockwell taking his readers to a fascist collectivist website and not providing a disclaimer about how he abhors the evil thinking that goes on there?
Is he that desperate? Or is he a deceiver? Or is he kinda dumb?
Even the subtitle of the website should shock the sensibilities of a true Libertarian. It reads "a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice."
What the...?
"Social". "Justice."? You have got to be kidding me. People still talk like that? Well I guess so and Lew Rockwell is directing you to a website where they do.
In Hayek's The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, Hayek devotes an entire chapter to the misuse of words and how serious a matter it is. In the chapter named "Our Poisoned Language", Hayek teaches that sometimes words have heavy animistic overtones. Words like "coerce" and "distribute"-- "things" that imply an actor. (pages 107 and 108).
Socialist writers, Hayek claims, use this superstitious animist thinking to explain their coveted economy theory. Hayek writes:
"Take for instance the personification of 'society' in the historicist tradition of Hegel, Comte, and Marx. Socialism, with its 'society', is indeed the latest form of those animistic interpretations of order historically represented by various religions (with their 'gods')...Imagining that all order is the result of design, socialists conclude that order must be improvable by better design of some superior mind [their minds, of course]." page 108
To advance their Marxist 'religion' the socialists pepper the political language with their 'religious' phrases. Like, for example, and especially the word "social" and all the nouns they modify with it. Hayek, on pages 115 and 116, lists "over one hundred and sixty nouns qualified by the adjective 'social'." These are words like:
...awareness...compact... etiquette...[and] needs...
And of course the biggie is "social justice". Like the "social justice" in the title of the Dissident Voice blog.
You cannot describe what social justice is, just like you cannot describe what hate speech is. So you can bet that leftist thugs and criminal types are going to overwork its usage. Hayek makes a good argument that sticking the word "social" in front of all these other excellent nouns robs them of their meaning.
How is justice any more meaningful if it is social? Isn't being a just person ample enough to meet a satisfying level of justice? Isn't a righteous court decision for an individual good enough justice? Why and how does it have to be "social" to be anything more just? And how is etiquette better by being social? A man or a woman having good etiquette is insufficient unless it has some mystical or magical quality of being social? Isn't etiquette already a social act?
To say there must be social justice is to say that having plain ole justice isn't enough. It also gives the priests of Marxism and collectivism a means by which they create their 10 commandments and the Law and the Prophets. Since justice becomes a collective concept instead of an individual one a whole new system of "collective justice" with its sins, proscriptions, and prohibitions must follow. And they, not god, will tell us.
And in this new collective, religious, economic order, whatever "THEY" the collectivists say is unjust is unjust and you better not get in their way as 100 million innocent dead and billions enslaved last century will attest to if they could.
Nasty folks these priests of "social justice".
I noticed an article at the DV whining about the left's alleged Islamophobia. The left is Islamophobic? Since when? Isn't it just the opposite and the left tends to love Muslims? Islam fits in neatly with so many of lefts self-righteous values. But isn't a phobia an unnatural fear of something as opposed to a genuine and rational fear of something dangerous? Isn't is righteous and not phobic to fear Imperialism? If so then it is as much a good thing to fear Islam as the DV folks fear Imperialism. That is because, in fact, Islam is KNOWN as an Imperial religion.
Just how stupid do you have to be to "hate" imperialism, complain about Islamophobia, and not know that Islam was founded by the imperialist military leader named Mohammad who led a 30,000 some odd army of thugs, thieves, and rapists across the Arabian desert plundering wealth and subjugating the innocent? As stupid at the people at DV. Obviously.
So Mohammad's sex slave trafficking of women, and kiddie sex with a nine year old, and approval of it all by the Koran doesn't upset the folks over at DV who claim to be interested in something called "social justice"?
This is a joke, right?
Shame on you Lew Rockwell.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/07/a-question-of-morality-ron-paul%E2%80%99s-challenge-to-the-left/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/07/ron-pauls-challenge-to-the-left/
http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/07/leftists-of-america-and-the-world-wake-up-to-your-islamophobia/
