Monday, May 12, 2014

Tom Woods Reacts to the Reisenwitz Apology

Following my post on the Cathy Reisenwitz apology (SEE: BREAKING Reisenwitz Issues Apology for Making Racist Charges), Tom Woods added this in the comment section of the post:

Tom Woods May 11, 2014 at 9:30 PM
To continue in that vein, she would have had to break with Tucker, and that gig is evidently too lucrative to give up.
Meanwhile, Tucker, who from his recent writing appears to be a delicate flower who feels pain at every unkind word or thought entertained by anyone at any time, couldn't spare three seconds to stand up in defense of Ron Paul, who has done so much for him, or for Walter or the others. Let's hope this phase passes soon.

18 comments:

  1. https://mobile.twitter.com/RoderickTLong/status/465364275280629760

    Epic smack down by Tom of tucker and Cathy. But what on earth is going on with Roderick long? He is agreeing with Cathy's original tweet and saying that it is public record that lew, Ron, Walter, Hoppe, etc all make racist statements regularly bashing blacks.

    Long must be getting ready for a career at salon or slate to attack libertarians. Hilarious now he is sticking up for Cathy when even she admits she can't find any proof - all Roderick has done is link to a Hoppe book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's still listed as a senior fellow at the Mises Institute. He still lectures at Mises University every year. I wonder when he's going to give that up? Hypocrite.

      Delete
    2. Has someone showed lew his ridiculous tweets agreeing with Cathy's original racism charges that she even backed away from?

      Delete
    3. According to the heroically titled "Anonymous," I am claiming that "lew, Ron, Walter, Hoppe, etc all make racist statements regularly bashing blacks."

      Bullshit. Not what I said.

      It would also be helpful if the people jumping on this hysterical bandwagon would pay some attention to what "racism" actually means: http://aaeblog.com/2014/05/19/cordial-and-sanguine-part-60-strong-words-and-large-letters/

      Delete
  2. Can anybody shed light on why Tucker left the Mises Institute any way? I think many assumed for years he was going to be Lew's successor.

    I don't know if anybody else noticed, but after Tucker left, Lew Rockwell website never would link to or use one of Jeff's column's at Laissez-faire Books on the website.

    I have always thought, there must have been some sort of acrimonious divorce between Tucker and the Mises Institute. If so, that may explain his and some of his surrogate's pot shots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would bet that Lew and Jeffrey probably have some gentleman's agreement about this. Reisenwitz just comes off as incredibly immature and low class.

      Delete
    2. I am interested both in why Tucker left and in what Tom woods brought up: why did he not defend Ron Paul after all Ron Paul has done for tucker? Does he agree with the racism bs? Did he send Cathy Womyn as a proxy? Either way, she still works for his website so basically is declaring war on all of us by keeping the intellectual equivalent of Sarah palin around.

      Delete
    3. I suspect Tucker left Mises because he realized Mises is not about profit and power, but ideology and education. I believe Tucker's actions show he is most interested in popularity and personnel profit. And he launched this new career by literally backstabbing those who made his former career up to this point. What kind of person calls his former close associates 'racists?' Tucker is about trying to make money from what's currently fashionable. It's very sad that he has stunned the Libertarian community with insults like that. His former good friend Tom Woods is so stunned by the betrayal he apparently can't believe what's in front of his own eyes, but that's not surprising given the extreme and no warning nature of it. It's especially stunning given that Tucker also claimed to be a conservative Catholic, like several of the Mises crew. I'm an atheist and I feel sad for them.

      It's also horrendous that all that mentoring time by Lew for Tucker to be something of a replacement is now wasted. It's like Tucker was on the level of a paid double agent or something.

      Mises.org will never be become a society wide popular internet site, any more than a Physics education web site would. So he took the route of Rand Paul, attempting to appeal to a broader chunk of America by watering down and pop'ifying the Libertarian message to the point that it's not Libertarian. In other words just as Lew Rockwell said, the same thing the modern 'Liberals' did to the classical Liberals 100 years ago.

      Delete
  3. Notice she is thanking supporters of her statement who are showing their support on her wall, that is not the behavior of someone who is apologetic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most of the responders on her wall are saying she has nothing to apologize for. Many arguing with christoph also seem to be of the "race and gender are just a social construct" nonsense crowd.

      On twitter, Roderick long is being the ultimate Internet white knight and still defending her as correct on her original charges of racism against most of the major Mises people.

      Delete
    2. "Race and gender are just a social construct." Last I checked, my man parts were different than woman parts. Gee, that one was hard to explode. But I guess it's all some evolutionary accident that we end up with what we have, so therefore humans (more specifically, the "experts") should right all of nature's "wrongs."

      Delete
    3. "Many arguing with christoph also seem to be of the "race and gender are just a social construct" nonsense crowd. "

      Left turd morons do flock together.

      Delete
    4. "Race and gender are just a social construct."

      Does anybody with an IQ over 40 actually believe that gender is a "social construct"? Are these people really THAT stupid? I always shake my head at that. It's like saying gravity is a social construct.

      Delete
  4. @Anon at 10.24

    I don't think she's low-class. More like middle-class, acting declasse to win brownie points with the commie MALES running the ideological establishment.

    With all her misandry, Andrea Dworkin was sharp and saw through that.

    CR's from an evangelical Christian neo-con background. In shedding the neocon, some feel compelled to throw out even the good in their bourgeois upbringing and embrace even the bad in their new world-view.

    It would be too dangerous and it wouldn't pay nearly as well to see through the Soros-style pieties of white liberal activism (sorry for the "racist" collectivism, but I'm an unapologetic evil minarchist who frequently uses abstract nouns), so the young embrace sexual radicalism as the alternative. It has the useful by-product of keeping the focus on their own sexuality, which is where young people's focus is anyway.

    But bigger entities are using the lady as a proxy and I don't think it's useful to pick on her, simply because she's the mouth-piece.

    In any case, Roderick Long has tweeted the evidence to back her up, so I think she should stand aside and the gents should step forward.

    http://mises.org/media/4691/Necessary-and-Sufficient-Causes-of-the-Industrial-Revolution-Some-Critical-Remarks-on-Mises-and-His-Explanation

    Isn't there a transcript of this thing somewhere? Is this the same old stuff about time-preference I once raised on my blog, much more cogently, and got attacked by Kinsella (Tucker's friend) for it?

    http://c4sif.org/2011/04/incoherent-libertarian-attacks-on-ip-opponents/

    So why is Kinsella not attacking Reisenwitz?
    Is a white woman attacking Hoppe OK, but not a brown woman?

    Is that brutalist or humanitarian?
    Could it be all these labels back and forth are just theater?

    Could it be that the real problem is any theory/analysis that gets in the way of the ruling establishment, no matter if it's anarchist, minarchist, Hoppean, anti-Hoppean, black, white, pink, yellow or anything else?





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lila, you have been involved in the movement for many years. I never even heard of Reisenwitz until 2 days ago. I don't think such a person even warrants bothering to respond to, and it's feasible Kinsella feels the same way. I think all these big name Libertarians are responding more as a proxy fight with Tucker, than actually caring what some fresh off the bus pseudo-Libertarian has to say. Tucker's actions have been too stunning in their betrayal to believe, and this proxy fight is an indirect way to begin to address that.

      Long's comments are sadly nonsensical. He is making ungrounded claims about racism. Sadly, Long, Tucker, Sheldon and others have all become infected by the modern popular culture driven 'thick' mental virus. Part of the nature of this virus, coming from it's modern American culture origins, is to drive those sick with it to throw away principle, embrace pure rhetoric, and attack those with actual principle, bizarrely painting the principled as terrible people for not following some rhetorical current bandwagon. Sound familiar? It's what modern 'Liberals'/'Progressives' have done for 100 years.

      The Hoppe audio lecture Long linked to contains nothing racist whatsoever. In it Hoppe posits a theory that the missing explanation for why the Industrial revolution happened as suddenly as it did around 1800, is human intelligence evolving to a certain point in Europe due to challenging climate conditions, as opposed to less harsh more southern parts of the world. His point being that the industrial revolution required Both free market conditions And a certain level of intelligence. It's an accepted fact in Anthropology that a leap in human intelligence occurred around 50,000 years ago. So Hoppe was not suggesting something outside the bounds of science possibility. Also, making an intelligence evolution claim about Europeans around 1800 is not the same thing as claiming that people can be classified in intelligence by 'race' today, nor that Europeans are ahead today. In fact the few studies in that area today show Jews and Asians ahead of none Jewish Europeans.

      Did Hoppe say that black people are dumb, or that Europeans are superior? He said nothing even remotely like that, he posited a theory about an event in the evolution of human intelligence that took place over 200 years ago, and said nothing about today's world, or anything even remotely like the claims of actual racists.

      A 'racist' is someone who hates others of a different race. Talking about the evolution of human intelligence is not the same thing as proclaiming ones hate for others of a different race. Long is unwittingly helping to provide cover for actual racists by confusing the issue of what racism really is.

      Delete
    2. Science itself may indeed be 'racist' so it makes one question the validity of that term.

      Delete
  5. Cathy Reisenwitz sanctimonious and politically correct Twitter and Facebook accounts are just begging for a good troll to come along and take the piss out of her.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Let's hope this phase passes soon.

    ReplyDelete