HUAC is back. The House Un-American Activities Committee is back, and it's called Cosmopolitan "Libertarianism."

The round-up of Lew Rockwell continues. I find this post interesting, especially since my extensive blog post is not to be found here. Of course -- I'm not taking the standard pc, lynch-mob line, thus I do not get the Reason honor badge. Ahem.

As the Ron Paul attacks and Lew Rockwell smear-o-rama continues, I'm reminded of something I have always spoken about in the past. And it has never been a popular topic. One thing rampant among libertarians is their lack of the ambition gene outside of libertarianism and the web. So many of these people have no real job, no career, and in fact, if they can't align themselves with some small-time, paid position at some libertarian outfit, they remain unemployed. As such, they will do anything to not make enemies in the movement, and in fact they must win friends in order to write columns and hope for paid gigs. They are low-paid and no-paid libertarians. Their perspective on the real world is warped because they sell their principles for a paycheck or a job. So what does that have to do with anything? They - especially the circle of "full-time" bloggers, writers, and think-tankers - have low opportunity costs to stirring up trouble, and so they stir. Too much time on their hands and all day at the computer means that these people have the time to cruise the 'Net and fan the flames of incrimination, and even so, they never seem to take the time to produce credible evidence. Most of these people know nothing about the good man they are trying to destroy, yet they join in on the lynching because it keeps them in the good graces of the libertarian social circle in which they all want so badly to belong.

Someone wrote me and said, "Don't you worry about backlash from the (libertarian) movement for your defense of Rockwell and the Mises Institute?" I haven't replied to him yet, but, what backlash? What "movement?" I consider myself to be fortunate: I have a great job and a great career. This is my "side" gig. My lifestyle and passion and personal philosophy, yes. My "job," no. My career has taken over much in my life, but hey, sometimes things change, priorities change, and you make choices. I take my passion for libertarianism very seriously, however, due to my success, I don't feel I have to follow anyone's politically-correct bullshit line for one moment. I am very well-employed outside of the libertarian clique that consistently attempts thought control, hence my ability to say whatever the hell I want, and I don't care what the other bozos think or say about any of it. Being employed far outside of the libertarian/academic inner circle leaves me free to tell the Kochtopus to kiss my well-employed behind.

As far as talking about a "movement," it is entirely collectivist to say that I am some part of a movement for which I have an obligation to hold up certain standards put forth by the self-elected "leaders" of the movement. The standards, by the way, are upholding the state as virtuous and promoting its collectivist, politically-correct canon. I absolutely refuse to be a part of this democracy-lynching that is taking place here and now.

The Kochtopus. That gigantic and powerful machine that has funded much of the conservative and Beltway Libertarian apapratus. Just look who is number one on its list of organizations funded.

Let me tell you why they (meaning the collective lynch mob) are trying to bring Lew Rockwell down. I started on some of this topic here, but let me delve a little deeper into why they hate Lew Rockwell so much. Because Lew Rockwell, and his Lew Rockwell.com and Mises Institute, represent one of the very last remaining strains of non-Kochtopus libertarianism in existence. The Kochtopus tried to stop the Mises Institute from launching way back in the early 1980s, but with no success. Since then, it's been a persistent launch of attacks from Cato, its satellites, and its hired hands.

The Kochtopus, along with all of its recipients and players, loves the state. We (and I) have blogged about this time and time again on LewRockwell.com (and here), with the best evidence of all: links to the written words. The Kochtopus, most of all, hates that Rockwell (along with his like-minded writers) recognizes the illegitimacy of the state, and thus the anti-statism from the LRC bunch is loud, persistent, and radical. Include me among them.

The Kochtopus, and thus those tied to Cato, IHS, George Mason, etc., is made up of hired tongues who have to act within certain boundaries, and those boundaries are a reflection of the state's moral code: the state makes the eradication of racism, homophobia, sexism, anti-Israelism, and all other un-PC "isms" its top priority. The cosmopolitan/Beltway/Centralizing/PC libertarians consistently promote the state, and especially its moral codes. While Lew Rockwell is always and everywhere anti-state, the focus of the anti-Rockwellians is not the state and its effect on individual liberty, but promoting the state's thought control on racism, homophobia, gay marriage, immigration, and all other pc topics. This has become the new "libertariansim." Libertarians have become some sick and twisted version of the Gestapo on thought control, motives, and guilt by association.

Not one of these posts that I have seen, that brand Lew with all these nasty tendencies, have produced a shred of evidence: a link, an article, a byline, or otherwise. What it comes down to is this: Lew doesn't use his website to promote queer marriage, gay this and gay that, Rosa Parks, MLK, or any other "hero" of the politically-correct, libertarian Kochtopus. Instead, he promotes ideas which are against the state and its collectivization of the individual.

So you guessed it - by not consistently promoting the state-approved, pc agenda, one is therefore found guilty of all charges by those who do promote The Agenda. If you don't beat the drums for, say, gay marriage, that makes you a "homophobe." And on and on.

Not one of you lying creeps whose blogs and articles I have read can produce a shred of evidence. But because Lew Rockwell does not consistently promote your twisted, pc version of the world, he is branded all things evil. You Libertarians Against Rockwell cannot stand that he doesn't join you; he stands on his own and fights the state, not your pathetic agenda of racism, diversity, feminism, transgenderism, homophobism, and general fucked-up-ism. And you all promote the state's agenda because it makes you popular, it makes you "part of the clique," and it keeps you in the loop of so-called mainstream libertarianism. It gets you all mainstream columns, think tank jobs, fellowships, IHS positions, paid writing positions, backslapping from "prominent" libertarians, and links from Reason, Andrew Sullivan, and Instapundit.

Note this Homophobic-o-Rama on Tom Palmer's site. So really, tell me, what does it mean to be homophobic? What does that truly define? Someone, anyone, define this for me. If you are a homophobe, does it mean that you are actually "frightened" of men who make their own sexual choices? Does it mean you hate them? If you do, so what? If you have not promoted the use of state coercion/violence against homosexuals, what have you done that is "unlibertarian?" Why is it so important to people to "out" certain people as homophobes? What does this have to do with the core values of libertarianism: decentralization, non-aggression, and freedom from state coercion.

Let's define what is really meant by "homophobe." This word has always left me bewildered because it is essentially a 'tag" for those people who do not actively support queer sex; queer marriage; and special, collective rights. The fact that one does not engage or even care about these topics at all (as with Lew) makes one a "homophobe." I, for one, could care less about these topics unless it involves use of the state against individuals.

The Kochtopus has been out to kill Rothbardian libertariansm (of the plumb-line sort) for a very long time, and this, they think, is their great chance. I have read the excerpts from the Ron Paul newsletters, and I can tell you this: those excerpts making light of immigrants/blacks/etc. are way too snappy and attempt to be way too humorous to have been written by Lew Rockwell. Lew is not a guy who tries to humor people. That is not his comparative advantage. Lew's only sense of humor is letting other people make him laugh. I do not say this to be demeaning -- it is just his nature. He will never be the snappy, impetuous, humorous, quipster of the party. His personality is exactly the opposite. The seriousness of his personality is very obvious in his many writings. He is a warm and kind man who, with all of his success, could be a condescending jerk. Instead he is a very fair, hospitable, mellow, and serious man.

The first time I ever met him in person, over 10 years ago at the Mises Institute, he went out of his way to have Roger Garrison explain free-banking concepts to me (to which I was previously resistant), and he sat me and another student down with David Gordon so we would have the opportunity to try and better understand one of his more difficult lectures we had strained to process. He sat at the dormitory pool with some of us Mises University students, and he told us great stories about the early years of libertarian publishing, think tanks, the LP, etc. There was and never has been anything about him that fits the description that people are trying to pass off right now.

I hesitate to bring this particular issue up because it's so bonkers, but it's worth it because it really paints the madman as he deserves. The crazed Tom Palmer has actually taken to calling the Mises Institute a "front for white nationalism." Isn't this a case where Palmer's friends, if he has any, should stop letting him "drive drunk?" Friends don't let friends paint themselves as insane, or do they in this case? The term "white nationalism" is, by its very definition, using the state's coercive powers to unite and advance an omnipotent white state. I want Palmer to link to exactly where it was that Lew Rockwell ever wrote something to that effect. Of course, he has not. He cannot. And yet the LAR (Libertarians Against Rockwell) stands there with their heads up their tushes, and they allow this to go on, but they paint Lew Rockwell as the guy who must show the evidence that "he didn't do it." No evidence required from the lynch mob, however. Another guy claimed, on his blog, that he went to Mises University and heard Rockwell "making racist comments." That is an outright lie. Again, no name on the blog, no person, no profile. Just a nameless, faceless, gutless remark from someone who cannot openly put their face and name behind their accusations, let alone the evidence. And the shameless LAR lynch mob is linking to his blog post.

For those of you who know nothing about Rockwell's supposed role in this newsletter scandal, I pity your pathetic need to be accepted by The Clique and The Kochtopus if you publicly claim to know Rockwell wrote those passages without you having a shred of proof. Back in those times, those types of newsletters typically had *dozens* of ghostwriters floating in and out, and those of you who are older and have been around awhile damn well know that fact. There were surely many people who were involved in producing those many newsletters.

The burden of the newsletter content is on Ron Paul, the man whose name graces the covers, and shame on you scoundrel "libertarians" for automatically drawing the assumption that Lew Rockwell must have, had to be, surely was involved in writing those passages that have you all so horrified. Yet you claim that this man, who has worked so hard - on his own time and dollar - to open peoples' minds to the more radical aspects of freedom and free markets, is "destroying your movement," as if this is some juvenile brotherhood of badges, pin pricks, sworn statements, and membership cards.