Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Alex Jones and "right wing conspiracy groups" blamed for Boston Bombing...

Expand Messages
  • Dan
    One reason a friend of mine kind of gave up on conspiracy theorizing. (He also was susceptible to numerology.;) he came to see people stopped listening to any
    Message 1 of 81 , Aug 16, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      One reason a friend of mine kind of gave up on conspiracy theorizing. (He also was susceptible to numerology.;) he came to see people stopped listening to any of his criticisms of government and war as they just looked as the "whacky conspiracy nutter."

      Regards,

      Dan
       See my SF short story "Residue":

      On Aug 16, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Roderick Long <berserkrl@...> wrote:
       

      > rather, he's delivering a powerfully anti-USG policy gospel to the masses. 

      Yeah, but he does it in such a crackpot-sounding way that he reinforces the stereotype of anti-government = nutjob, which I think may well help the USG more than it harms it. 

      R.


      From: J Olson <jlolson53@...>
      To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 5:42 PM
      Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Alex Jones and "right wing conspiracy groups" blamed for Boston Bombing...



      Well, it's not just about creating libertarians.  It's also about creating awareness of dangerous USG policies.  I'll happily count anyone who opposes insane USG policies - whether it be eternal warfare or the Fed or floridation - as allies against those things.

      That's what Alex Jones mostly does.  He's not delivering the libertarian gospel to the masses (except through implication, which most people aren't that great with ;-); rather, he's delivering a powerfully anti-USG policy gospel to the masses.  That probably doesn't create libertarians directly, but it may help curb USG policies.  For example, AJ is always predicting some horrific government plot.  The thing is, I'm fairly sure that at least some of those plots are in the works, and his predicting them probably does have some constraining effect.  

      But for your peace of mind, it should be noted that AJ doesn't explicitly identify himself as a libertarian (at least not very often).  He's more of a muckraker, I think.

      Jeff


      On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Roderick Long <berserkrl@...> wrote:
       
      > Is it better to have flamboyant, loud-mouthed advocates of liberty
      > getting their messages to huge numbers of people (however
      > imperfectly), or would it be better if they just shut up and went home?
      >
      > To me, the obvious answer is the first.

      It's not obvious to me. (I don't mean that I favour the 2nd; I mean it's not obvious to me which is better.)   I care about creating libertarians, but I also care about what kind of libertarians get created -- both intrinsically, and because if blowhard X creates 1000 crazy or obnoxious or inconsistent libertarians, who in turn alienate 10,000 people who could have become non-crazy or non-obnoxious or non-inconsistent libertarians, then what looked like a gain is really a loss.

      In any case, I'm working not just for liberty but for the whole left-libertarian package.

      R.


      Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 5:07 PM
      Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Alex Jones and "right wing conspiracy groups" blamed for Boston Bombing...



      That may be true.  But the fact is that libertarians simply aren't getting anti-government messages out there; JV and AJ are.  And if you get past the presentation, there is a lot of valuable anti-gov info there.  You may hate his manner, but I believe he got something like a hundred million hits (or so some have claimed; haven't verified that) recently - thanks in large part to publicity from the mainstream news.  

      I personally detest loud-mouthed flamboyance and over-the-top argumentiveness, but it seems you simply don't get known in this society unless you have a very powerful outspoken personality or have achieved something highly noteworthy.  

      The question here is not whether AJ or JV is a "blowhard" or unlikable to you, but rather this: Is it better to have flamboyant, loud-mouthed advocates of liberty getting their messages to huge numbers of people (however imperfectly), or would it be better if they just shut up and went home?

      To me, the obvious answer is the first.  Why worry about the credibility of libertarianism when without people like RP, JV, and even Alex Jones no one would either know or care about it (other than libertarians)?  Surely you noticed by now that libertarians almost exclusively talk among themselves?  

      I think a book like our own Jesse Walker's meditation on US paranoia has a chance to escape libertarian orbit into the mainstream, and that's what we need more of.  But meanwhile JV and John Stossel and RP's books, interviews, and programs are already doing that.  Thank Zeus for that, I say.

      Jeff
      Yahoo! Groups
      Switch to: Text-Only,
    • Juan Garofalo
      ... Distributed knowledge? Is that the reason why he created a centralized piece of gargabe like wikipedia? =) Run by a bunch of a fascist editors of course.
      Message 81 of 81 , Aug 17, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        At 10:14 AM 8/17/2013 -0700, you wrote:


        >Though Wales came into free-market ideas (and, more importantly, distributed-knowledge ideas) through Hayek, under Mark Thornton's tutelage right here at Auburn.


        Distributed knowledge? Is that the reason why he created a centralized piece of gargabe like wikipedia? =) Run by a bunch of a fascist 'editors' of course.




        >R.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.