Tuesday, January 28, 2014

What I Told the New York Times

By Thomas DiLorenzo

The New York Times “reporter” (a.k.a. lying propagandist for the state) who authored the libelous smear against Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and the Mises Institute “interviewed” me several weeks ago by email.  It was obvious that most of his questions came directly from the “beltwaytarians” who have been waging a hate campaign against us for years since I’d heard it all before.  He obviously wanted to portray Rand Paul as a crazed “anarchist” who favored abolishing the government altogether (not that there’s anything wrong with that) since he kept asking me if Rand has ever read Lysander Spooner.  I told him that it would not surprise me if Ron Paul had shared his education, including his readings of Spooner, with his children, but I had never met or communicated with Rand Paul.  I also told him that if he listened to any of Ron’s speeches over the past 30 years, he would immediately learn that Ron is a limited-government constitutionalist, not an anarchist, and that in my opinion Rand Paul is a bit more of an interventionist than his father is.  Neither is an anarchist, in other words. The “reporter” was obviously very disappointed with my responses  and ignored them.
I also told the lying little jerk at the New York Times that my book, The Real Lincoln, is not a book about “the Civil War” in general, but about the real versus the fake Lincoln created by the Republican Party and its court historians over the past 149 years. I  told him that criticizing Lincoln does not make one a defender of the Confederacy any more than criticizing FDR makes one a defender of Hitler.  (I mention the Confederacy in one half of one page in The Real Lincoln).  He ended up ignoring everything I said, did not quote anything I’ve ever written, and simply accused all of us as being “defenders of the Confederacy,” i.e., of slavery.  As Lew has said, he was not interested in informing anyone about our scholarship, only libeling us.
As Bob Wenzel points out in his article today, some of the usual suspects (the Reason/Cato/Koch Foundation/Beltwaytarian crowd) have responded to the New York Times smear by once again proving that their Number One Goal in Life is to be able to  kiss the asses of the New York Times’ literary defenders of Stalin, of the lies that led to the Iraq War, of Keynesianism, government spying, military imperialism, and an unlimited welfare state by supporting and agreeing with the smears on their own Web sites.  They believe that that is the route to a more libertarian society, demonstrating  yet again just how far their heads are implanted up their asses.
The above originally appeared at LewRockwell.com.

1 comment:

  1. There is a rather bright line between the philosophies of the Beltway/Reason type libertarians and the Mises/Rothbardian types. The Beltway/Reason types have an optimistic view of mankind. That is, that man, through reason, which they worship, can bring heaven to earth. Reason is their savior and believe that if only one can sit down and explain to those on the Left the virtues of liberty, paradise will be ours. The Mises/Rothbardian types are less optimistic about man. We view man as entrenched in an eternal struggle between good and evil. There will always be bad people trying to dominate, and it is up to the rebellious sceptic to thwart their quest for power. It is wholly unsurprising that the Mises types attract more Christian/Jewish adherents.