[Red Skull]

With the likes of Ayn Rand, Rothbard, Hayek, Mises, Volker, Kirzner, and Friedman am I correct to suppose Libertarianism is a Zionist movement?

[SolarCross]

With the likes of Ayn Rand, Rothbard, Hayek, Misus, Volker, and Friedman am I correct to suppose Libertarianism is a Zionist movement?

Yeah maybe but at least they aren't commies. I'll take a zionist over a commie anyday.

[Rich]

With the likes of Ayn Rand, Rothbard, Hayek, Misus, Volker, and Friedman am I correct to suppose Libertarianism is a Zionist movement?

Well in origin you could definitely call them the spurned Jewish lovers of fascism. Hayek was particularly responsible for starting the fascism had nothing to do with conservatism nonsense. And in particular that American Conservatism had nothing to do wtih nasty European nationalism. And of course given the actions of Grant they were able to sympathise with the "innocent" liberty loving Dixie victims of Lincolnite tyranny.

[Red Skull]

Yeah maybe but at least they aren't commies. I'll take a zionist over a commie anyday.

The ranks of Communist Bolsheviks had many Zionists amongst them.

It's more like the Zionists being opportunistic will support any ideology that suits them for whatever present purpose that they may have in terms of ongoing goals.

Moreover, you'll notice Communists are internationalists and the tenets of hardcore Libertarians besides believing in the privatization of everything want there to be no national borders. Libertarianism of course largely coincides with Anarchist thought and limited government equally would eventually dissolve into anarchy rather quickly.

Libertarianism is an antithesis of nationalism.

Well in origin you could definitely call them the spurned Jewish lovers of fascism. Hayek was particularly responsible for starting the fascism had nothing to do with conservatism nonsense. And in particular that American Conservatism had nothing to do wtih nasty European nationalism. And of course given the actions of Grant they were able to sympathise with the "innocent" liberty loving Dixie victims of Lincolnite tyranny.

Yes, if of course you mean a Zionism supremacist form of Fascism. The inner circle of official party members consisting individuals of the tribe only.

[SolarCross]

The ranks of Communist Bolsheviks had many Zionists amongst them.

It's more like the Zionists being opportunistic will support whatever ideology that suits them for whatever present purpose that they have in terms of goals.

Moreover, you'll notice Communists are internationalists and the tenets of hardcore Libertarians besides believing in the privatization of everything want there to be no borders. Libertarianism of course largely coincides with Anarchist thought and limited government equally would eventually dissolve into anarchy.

Well the way it looks to me is that commies are basically just another gaggle of sock puppets / zombie drones for that trickster daemon Jehovah's gagtastic aim of enlaving all this planet's homo sapiens to him but the zionists, particularly the atheist ones, actually have backed out on being tools for that scheme and just want to settle for a little country of their own instead of being agents of total world domination and for this reason the commies hate them. You want to hear vitriol being directed at zionists? Ask a leftist about them. That says something right there about where the zionists fit with jehovah's big scam.
As for libertarians again who hates them the most?... that's right the commies. Libertarians are really different from anarchists but even the anarchists are not really 100% on board with the total domination of the human race by a hyper troll god with an inferiority complex (jehovah).

[Red Skull]

Well the way it looks to me is that commies are basically just another gaggle of sock puppets / zombie drones for that trickster daemon Jehovah's gagtastic aim of enlaving all this planet's homo sapiens to him but the zionists, particularly the atheist ones, actually have backed out on being tools for that scheme and just want to settle for a little country of their own instead of being agents of total world domination and for this reason the commies hate them. You want to hear vitriol being directed at zionists? Ask a leftist about them. That says something right there about where the zionists fit with jehovah's big scam.
As for libertarians again who hates them the most?... that's right the commies. Libertarians are really different from anarchists but even the anarchists are not really 100% on board with the total domination of the human race by a hyper troll god with an inferiority complex (jehovah).

Recent writings of a famous Israeli Rabbi I've read said it is not so much to control the world everywhere by Zionists themselves but rather to control and rule the world from Israel itself.

At any rate you can't really take anything Communists say seriously especially in critique of Libertarianism because like everywhere else this is the era of controlled opposition. Moreover, the common run of the mill Communist knows very little about the inner workings of the central Communist leadership or intelligentsia that gives them their marching orders. We all know the Bolshevik origins of Communism and where that came from.

We're in an agreement on the subject of the demonic god Jehovah where I would argue Jehovah, Jesus, and Allah are all one in the same.

[Lightman]

So, uh, Red Skull, it's pretty nakedly clear that "Zionist" is just a polite way to say "Jew" for you.

[Red Skull]

So, uh, Red Skull, it's pretty nakedly clear that "Zionist" is just a polite way to say "Jew" for you.

What gave it away? Even the most nonpolitical of Jews like Noam Chomsky are Zionists at heart.

[Lightman]

Yes, Noam Chomsky, probably the leading American critic of Israel, is a "Zionist at heart." I once went to a lecture of his - 80% of his two hour talk was lambasting Israel. But this man is a Zionist!

[SolarCross]

Recent writings of a famous Israeli Rabbi I've read said it is not so much to control the world everywhere by Zionists themselves but rather to control and rule the world from Israel itself.

At any rate you can't really take anything Communists say seriously especially in critique of Libertarianism because like everywhere else this is the era of controlled opposition. Moreover, the common run of the mill Communist knows very little about the inner workings of the central Communist leadership or intelligentsia that gives them their marching orders. We all know the Bolshevik origins of Communism and where that came from.

We're in an agreement on the subject of the demonic god Jehovah where I would argue Jehovah, Jesus, and Allah are all one in the same.

I think the way to see zionists is as being a bit like recovering alcoholics. They were pretty messed up on the demon jehovah and now they are trying to abstain but it is a daily battle and sometimes they relapse. Let's be fair, no people on earth have been so thoroughly trolled by jehovah as the jews. I mean he tricked them into mutilating their own son's penis! Jehovah messed with them harder than a bull pedo on a orphan boy child. You don't get better from that just like that, it will take time.

I think the jewish libertarians you mention are again just jews trying to find a way without jehovah's twisted whispering.

[Drlee]

Well Red Bull. You self identify as a National Socialist even though the very term is so loaded with NAZI association that the choice to use it can only be seen as an attempt to associate with the NAZIs. You see son, we are not stupid here.

Why did you call Ayn Rand a Zionist? Is it, as Lightman correctly points out, that you think she is Jewish? She wasn't you know. She was born to non-observant Jewish parents and was an avowed Atheist.

Then there is the matter of Paul Volker. Mother Lutheran - Father Episcopalian.

Heyek. Zionist? Not hardly. He barely gave the idea the time of day. (Roman Catholic by birth and agnostic by inclination.)

I could go on. I think I will leave it here.

The thread is just stupid. It is based upon a false premise forwarded by our new anti-Semite.

You won't get away with this bullshit. We will call you on it every time.

[Red Skull]

Yes, Noam Chomsky, probably the leading American critic of Israel, is a "Zionist at heart." I once went to a lecture of his - 80% of his two hour talk was lambasting Israel. But this man is a Zionist!

Lambasting Israel? I can't seem to ever recall Chomsky saying that Israel should be abolished as a nation.

If what you say is true, he criticizes Israel and that is about it. He wants to make Israel a better Zionist nation but of course through his own image of what it should be.

[Lightman]

I won't even dignity this discussion by engaging further in it; everyone who knows anything about Chomsky knows that he is vocally against the policies of the Israeli state (I do not know if he supports its abolition); this is something he is known for. And to call him "nonpolitical" - what are you even talking about? If you're going to be an anti-Semite - which is a crime against reason - at least have the decency to be an interesting, well-read anti-Semite.

[Rich]

The thread is just stupid. It is based upon a false premise forwarded by our new anti-Semite.

Human beings are pathological pattern recognisers. There are people who will even read significance into the fact the chair of the Fed has been a Jew for forty four of the last forty five years.

You see I wouldn't mind, but what's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the cis heterosexual White Goy Infidel male. If we're going to have equality for Blacks, women and Latinos then I don't see why we shouldn't have equality for Goy. That's my ultimatum, shut the fuck up about equality for non Whites, trans, gays, lesbians and Muslims are I'll start shouting about my identity group's oppression.

(edit just to clarify that last sentence is not directed at you personally Drlee)

[Red Skull]

Well Red Bull. You self identify as a National Socialist even though the very term is so loaded with NAZI association that the choice to use it can only be seen as an attempt to associate with the NAZIs. You see son, we are not stupid here.

Why did you call Ayn Rand a Zionist? Is it, as Lightman correctly points out, that you think she is Jewish? She wasn't you know. She was born to non-observant Jewish parents and was an avowed Atheist.

Then there is the matter of Paul Volker. Mother Lutheran - Father Episcopalian.

Heyek. Zionist? Not hardly. He barely gave the idea the time of day. (Roman Catholic by birth and agnostic by inclination.)

I could go on. I think I will leave it here.

The thread is just stupid. It is based upon a false premise forwarded by our new anti-Semite.

You won't get away with this bullshit. We will call you on it every time.

Not all Zionists are ethnic or religious Jews as any Christian Zionist group organization can attest to.


Let's look at Ayn Rand.

Israel looms large in the Ayn Rand Institute mind. A Google search for Israel on their website lists many hundreds of pages. [1] Israel was not as important to Ayn Rand: there is only one mention of Israel in all her written work. It occurs in “The Lessons of Vietnam,” The Ayn Rand Letter, dated August 26, 1974 but – the Letter being behind schedule – written in May 1975. The essay is reprinted in The Voice of Reason, published after her death.

At the time she wrote this essay the U.S. had just abandoned South Vietnam, which immediately fell to the North Vietnamese, who were backed by communist China. We will examine her mention of Israel in a moment, but since she will use the slippery term “isolationism” we first quote an earlier paragraph to make her reference clear:

“Observe the double-standard switch of the anti-concept of ‘isolationism.’ The same intellectual groups ... who coined that anti-concept in World War II – and used it to denounce any patriotic opponent of America’s self-immolation – the same groups who screamed that it was our duty to save the world (when the enemy was Germany or Italy or fascism) are now rabid isolationists who denounce any U.S. concern with countries fighting for freedom, when the enemy is communism and Soviet Russia.”

Thus the Leftists, for such were all these “intellectual groups,” are inconsistent. They denounce the patriotic isolationists of WW II (Ayn Rand was one) and yet praise the new isolationists of the Cold War. In her next paragraph she castigates these new isolationists, and maintains that, contrary to them, the U.S. may properly aid another country if (to add a condition she makes elsewhere in the essay) such aid really is in the interests of America.

The next paragraph laments that this new isolationism plays on the American public’s legitimate anger over Vietnam, thus making the U.S. government afraid to get involved in foreign wars “not agreeable to Soviet Russia.” Now comes the part concerning Israel:

“The first intended victim of the new isolationism will probably be Israel—if the ‘antiwar’ efforts of the new isolationists succeed. (Israel and Taiwan are the two countries that need and deserve U.S. help—not in the name of international altruism, but by reason of actual U.S. national interests in the Mediterranean and the Pacific.)”

The time she wrote the above, 1975, is important, because the context of her knowledge is important. And it turns out that that knowledge was incomplete and inaccurate. The above quote, as we shall show, is not Ayn Rand’s philosophy, it is an innocent misapplication of it.

Many times Ayn Rand praised isolationism in its old-fashioned, America First, sense. For example, in her essay “The Chickens Homecoming” (reprinted by her in The New Left) she attacked

“the premises that we owe a duty to the rest of the world, that we are responsible for the welfare of any nation anywhere on earth, that isolationism is selfish, immoral and impractical in a ‘shrinking’ modern world, etc.”

Her attack is applicable not only to Europe and Vietnam but to any country.

Evidently – for we believe Ayn Rand was consistent – in 1975 she thought that foreign aid to Israel was in the interest of the U.S., that it was not an act of national self-sacrifice.

Specifically, judging from her answers to questions at talks she gave around this time, she supported Israel for two reasons. She believed that without U.S. support, Russia – which was supporting the Arabs – would control the Mediterranean and its oil. And she saw the fight between Israel and the Arabs as a fight between civilized men and savages.

Were these beliefs true? And if true, did they justify foreign aid to Israel?

Israel possessed no oil. Nor were the Arabs going to let Russia control Arab oil just because Russia gave them armaments. Later Russia could not even control Afghanistan by military force. The illusion that Russia could control the Mediterranean is a relic of Cold War thinking, a relic of the time when everyone believed “the Russians are ten feet tall.” Ayn Rand succumbed to this syndrome far less than most, but evidently not in this case. (Russia’s aid was not always against Israel, by the way. During Israel’s formative years Russia backed Menachem Begin’s terrorist activities against Britain and the Arabs.) Furthermore, only a small fraction of the world’s oil resides in the Mediterranean. In sum, Mediterranean oil vis-à-vis Russia was not an important issue.

As for America’s interests, its government had, and has, no legitimate interest in the Mediterranean. If American oil companies wish to risk drilling in that region of the world, that interest is their own and, as far as the government is concerned, theirs alone. Here it is worth noting that America’s “energy crisis” is entirely due to government interference with American industry.

Was socialist Israel our ally against communist Russia? [2] During the Cold War Israel packaged itself as a bulwark against communism, an enemy of our enemy, the Soviet Union. As it turned out, Israel was pulling the wool over our eyes. For examples of Israel’s treachery read about the Pollard Affair and other betrayals in This is Our Ally? on this website. Israel was against Russia only to the extent that Russia helped Arabia, otherwise Israel helped Russia if Russia helped Israel. Ayn Rand evidently believed Israel’s propaganda about it being our ally against Russia, not realizing the propaganda was lies.

She also evidently believed that Israel had a more civilized government than it did. When Ayn Rand spoke at the Ford Hall Forum she frequently got asked about Israel – whose supporters are anything if not vociferous – during the question and answer periods, which were open to any question. Her reply would go along the following lines: I support Israel; though Israel is a socialist country, in that region of the world Israel is the vanguard of civilization.

In other words, the gray of Israel is white compared to the surrounding near-black of Arabia. [2a] There is something to be said for that kind of argument, but of course it fails when the gray gets dark enough. Did Ayn Rand know how dark Israel really was? The year she wrote her essay, 1975, was long before Israeli torture came to light in the 1993 New York Times exposé, over ten years after her death. 1975 was long before Israel’s massacre of Beirut in 1982, the year of her death. [3]

Ayn Rand thought that Israel was America’s ally. Did she know how treacherous Israel really was? 1975 was long before the exposure of the Pollard Affair in 1985, three years after her death. Not to mention the USS Liberty attack (though it occurred in 1967 it was not made public until 1980), and many other acts by Israel against America. [4] And long before the publication of such exposés as Victor Ostrovsky’s By Way of Deception (1990) and Ari Ben-Menashe’s Profits of War (1992).

It is far more probable that Ayn Rand was ignorant of Israel’s brutality and deceit than that she thought Israel’s brutality and deceit were comparatively unimportant.

Still, she must be held partly responsible for her ignorance. With some effort even in 1975 one could break through the cloud of propaganda thrown out by Israel and its worshippers. Her mistake was surrounding herself with people like Leonard Peikoff, and – very likely – relying on their research, or lack of it. [5]

Even if Israel were truly civilized and our ally, it would not justify forcing American citizens to pay for Israel’s support. Ayn Rand did not have John Galt say:

“I swear – by my life and my love of it – that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine ... uh ... except in the case of Israel.”

Israel is no exception, and one would like to think Ayn Rand did not make it one. She was mistaken about the nature of Israel and sincerely believed that helping the Israeli government was in our interest. A mistake preserved in amber which ARI’s supporters bring forth at every opportunity. [6]

If you know the facts and apply Ayn Rand’s principles consistently you will oppose foreign aid to Israel, not to mention to all other Third World countries. And certainly oppose getting involved in their wars. Early in the same essay containing the reference to Israel, Ayn Rand writes:

“It [the Vietnam War] was a shameful war ... shameful because it was a war which the U.S. had no selfish reason to fight, because it served no national interest, because we had nothing to gain from it, because the lives and the heroism of thousands of American soldiers (and billions of American wealth) were sacrificed ...”

Today one could say exactly the same about the U.S. wars in the Middle East, which are really Israel’s wars.

What about private philanthropy, is it proper for individuals or private groups to aid Israel? If Israel really were the bastion of freedom and the ally that the so-called Ayn Rand Institute makes it out to be, then private philanthropy would be unobjectionable, even praiseworthy. But considering the history of Israel’s treatment of the U.S., giving to Israel is a traitorous act. [7]

How do Israel-worshippers reply to all this? Guilt by association figures prominently. They argue: “Horrid group ‘X’ brings up the Pollard Affair and so on, therefore you belong to ‘X’. This argument is as valid as: “A thief said 2 + 2 = 4 and so do you, therefore you are a thief.” Or: “Thomas Szasz criticizes the psychiatric profession, therefore Thomas Szasz is a Scientologist.”

Supremely stupid, yes, but that doesn’t stop them.

http://www.ariwatch.com/AynRandOnIsrael.htm

[fuser]

Is this thread about Jews controlling the world?

Goddamn, Jews are behind capitalism, they are behind communism, how very very dumb non Jewish people are. *Anyway, note to self*, "Must have Jewish wife for smart children".

[Drlee]

Note to Red Skull.

Did you read the thing you posted. Posted from something called airwatch. No self-identification on their part.

Now about the Ayn Rand Institute. Do you know about this organization. Did you know it was established after her death? Have you ever read this in their FAQ:

Q: Is ARI or anyone else formally vested with the right to speak on behalf of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism?

No. Objectivism is the name of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, which is presented in the material she wrote or endorsed.

ARI advocates her philosophy and applies its principles to many issues and events, including ones Rand herself never discussed . Each individual must judge for himself whether ARI’s positions are consistent with the principles of Objectivism.

In a similar connection, Rand wrote: “I urge the readers to use their own judgment as to whether a particular article is or is not consonant with Objectivist principles. Remember, it is a fundamental tenet of Objectivism that one must not accept ideas on faith.”

Nice try sport. Care to quote Rand (despicable woman that she was) directly? Or do you always let besotted acolytes engineer your philosophy in the name of some long-dead pop writer?

How about "The Truman Capote Institute"? Would you like that?

[The Immortal Goon]

The ranks of Communist Bolsheviks had many Zionists amongst them.

It's more like the Zionists being opportunistic will support any ideology that suits them for whatever present purpose that they may have in terms of ongoing goals.

Moreover, you'll notice Communists are internationalists and the tenets of hardcore Libertarians besides believing in the privatization of everything want there to be no national borders. Libertarianism of course largely coincides with Anarchist thought and limited government equally would eventually dissolve into anarchy rather quickly.

Zionism is a nationalist movement. Now it's...international?

[Truth To Power]

With the likes of Ayn Rand, Rothbard, Hayek, Mises, Volker, Kirzner, and Friedman am I correct to suppose Libertarianism is a Zionist movement?

My nomination for Non Sequitur of the Month...

[Conscript]

Zionism is a nationalist movement. Now it's...international?

Wow, and I thought it was only zionists that equated the word with jews in general.