"You're a racist." "No, you're a bigger racist." "No way; you hang out with Lew Rockwell, Hans Hoppe and Ron Paul; they're racists, so you're racist." What on earth is going on here? Why are serious libertarians engaging in tit-for-tat spats with a twat? She is Cathy something or another, a sally-come-lately libertarian. Justin Raimondo, a life-long libertarian, has been credited with "smoking out" this woman---who has libeled Paul, Murray Rothbard, Rockwell and Hoppe as racists.
Are libertarians as dazed and confused as Republicans? The latter have certainly dignified the rival gang's Stalinist show-trial tactics, partaking in the same silly tit-for-tat: “You’re a racist, I’m not. Democrats are racists; we’re the party of Lincoln.” Blah-blah.
And what will Mr. Raimondo do if
the bimbo in question produces some "iffy" quotes from the men she has maligned, quotes that fail the politically correct test?
Libertarians should not partake in this dance done by the political establishment. By going on the defense—allowing themselves to be drawn into such a deeply silly exchange—libertarians are, inadvertently, conceding that speech should be policed, and that those who violate standards set by the PC set are somehow defective on those grounds alone, and deserve to be purged from "polite" company.
(Incidentally, allow me some latitude here when it comes to the liberal use of ad hominem, having already proven, I hope, that Cathy Whatshername is the dim bulb she is. It was hoped that "Libertarian Feminists Make A Move On Von Mises" would have provided "brutalists" with a temporary reprieve from her ilk. Alas, this is the "Age of the Idiot." You can't keep 'em down for long.)
JUNGE FREIHEIT, a German weekly, recently interviewed this writer. One of the questions was this: "Have you been blamed for racism because of your book "Into the Cannibal's Pot"? What would you answer?"
The reply, taken almost verbatim from "Into the Cannibal's Pot" (pp. 41-42), ought to help in warding off the fee-fi-fo-fems who sniff out the blood of speech offenders and thought criminals:
No, not really. The book is concerned with reality, not race. Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself). Most intelligent readers can tell the difference. One individual from Media Matters failed, but he could hardly be called intelligent. In order to accuse me of racism, he needed to lie about what I had written. My answer to those who’d fault me for daring to make broad statements about aggregate group characteristics, vis-à-vis crime, for instance, would be as follows: Generalizations, provided they are substantiated by hard evidence, not hunches, are not incorrect. Science relies on the ability to generalize to the larger population observations drawn from a representative sample. People make prudent decisions in their daily lives based on probabilities and generalities. That one chooses not to live in a particular crime-riddled county or country in no way implies that one considers all individual residents there to be criminals, only that a sensible determination has been made, based on statistically significant data, as to where scarce and precious resources—one’s life and property—are best invested.Ilana Mercer is author of Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa.
So libertarians shouldn't get involved in this type of fruitless nonsense; meanwhile, we're going to malign Cathy in every post we make about how we shouldn't get involved in fruitless nonsense. Makes sense to me. The real question here is why are "serious" libertarians continually writing about her?
ReplyDeleteWhile I endorse what Ms. Mercer wrote in the above, I have not forgotten about her treatment of Raimondo and Richman.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/principlesandisrael.html
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j081503.html (Go to "notes in the margin")
"Why are serious libertarians engaging in tit-for-tat spats with a twat? She is Cathy something or another, a sally-come-lately libertarian."
ReplyDeleteI just enjoy mocking stupidity. And attempting to mix libertarianism with left socialism is the definition of STUPID.