Ротбард. Типа эссе о неравенстве человеческих рас
Essays of Murray N. Rothbard
Edited by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
RACE! THAT MURRAY BOOK
December 1994
Этот тяжелый бреддушевнобольного отца современного либертарианства цитировать невозможно - там каждый кусок липкой грязи равно ценен, так что читайте подряд. Ну... в качестве десерта (курсив авторский, если чё):
The political situation of the 1930s and 40s was used to cunning effect by the egalitarian left to stamp out all opposition. Any expression of racial home truths was automatically lambasted as "fascist," "Nazi," and therefore ultra-rightist. In fact, all of this was a fabrication. The leading "racial scientists" from the 1890s until the 1930s were in agreement across the ideological and political spectrum. In fact, most of the leading racial scientists were Progressives, left-liberals, and New Dealers. In that period, only Communists and other Marxists were egalitarians, for ideological reasons. But the Commies were able to use their extensive ideological and propaganda machine during that era to somehow link Nazi persecution of Jews to racism, and with doctrines of racial superiority and inferiority. In that way, the Commies were able to bully or convert all manner of liberals and leftists, including those ex-Trotskyites and liberals who would much later become neoconservatives. This left the conservatives, who were the least amenable to Marxist influence, but who in turn were bullied into submission by being smeared savagely as "Hitlerite" for any expression of racialist views.
In point of fact, however, it should be clear that Hitler and the Nazis did not persecute Jews because they believed Jews to be inferior in intelligence. And as for blacks, there were too few blacks residing in Europe for the Nazis to bother about, much less persecute.
via
ok_its_the_last, в этой дискуссии.
Слов не осталось, даже матерных.
Edited by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
RACE! THAT MURRAY BOOK
December 1994
Этот тяжелый бред
The political situation of the 1930s and 40s was used to cunning effect by the egalitarian left to stamp out all opposition. Any expression of racial home truths was automatically lambasted as "fascist," "Nazi," and therefore ultra-rightist. In fact, all of this was a fabrication. The leading "racial scientists" from the 1890s until the 1930s were in agreement across the ideological and political spectrum. In fact, most of the leading racial scientists were Progressives, left-liberals, and New Dealers. In that period, only Communists and other Marxists were egalitarians, for ideological reasons. But the Commies were able to use their extensive ideological and propaganda machine during that era to somehow link Nazi persecution of Jews to racism, and with doctrines of racial superiority and inferiority. In that way, the Commies were able to bully or convert all manner of liberals and leftists, including those ex-Trotskyites and liberals who would much later become neoconservatives. This left the conservatives, who were the least amenable to Marxist influence, but who in turn were bullied into submission by being smeared savagely as "Hitlerite" for any expression of racialist views.
In point of fact, however, it should be clear that Hitler and the Nazis did not persecute Jews because they believed Jews to be inferior in intelligence. And as for blacks, there were too few blacks residing in Europe for the Nazis to bother about, much less persecute.
via
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
Слов не осталось, даже матерных.
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
Потом увидел, что это 1994 год.
(no subject)
no subject
Но вообще, встает вопрос а зачем? Какова ваша мотивировка в цитировании этого человека? Он лично для вас интересный мыслитель? Он оказал большое влияние на общество вцелом? Знакомые вам его нынешние последователи считают этот его конкретный труд принципиальным для собственных умозаключений? Вроде бы, ответ все три вопроса отрицательный. Чего вы хотите понять?
Выглядит оно как некое "забудьте Герострата".
(no subject)
(no subject)
Ну... разве что в качестве десерта
А может не надо и читать?
Я о либертарианстве знаю только по наслышке, но из написанного []taki_net-ом и некоторыми другими сведущими людьми создается впечатление, что Российской Федерации эта напасть больше не грозит.
Так может можно уже расслабиться?