grylliade.org Free minds. Free markets. Free beer.

Real, uncensored hardcore libertarianism. (Not legal in Red states.)

Note: the USS Luce was decommissioned in 1991. Dondero redacted this to "1982", but it's still unsubstantiated.

I wonder if this is like a real-life Cthulu mythos type deal. If you read too much Dondero, only madness awaits. Careful Eric!

Ia Ia DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! ftaghn!

Remember, Rudy won't stand in the way of Dondero getting himself an abortion.

This makes him libertarian.

(Mind, that will only work on people who have actually interacted with Thoreau prior.)

too bad Giuliani won't legalize a post-parturition abortion for Dondero

The ones you've been waiting for!

In response to someone (me) criticizing the libertarian value of Guiliani (or Eric calls him, "Wu-Wu"):

Should this have been as funny as it was? I just keep picturing this gaggle of imams, who have bribed their friend who pilots the Minneapolis-Denver run, spending their summer pranking hapless passengers. There's a movie pitch in there somewhere.

dude he's going to generate quotes faster than you can post them.

you can't put a rainbow in a jar, after all.

On the 9/11 death toll:

Emphasis added.

it's not stupidity, it's elegant blank verse! god, didn't you guys know that Dondero has been in on the situationist movement LIKE FOREVER SO STFU NOOBS!

Wow. Just....wow.

And that's the last I can post for now - I finally got some work sent my way and I'm a-billin'!

I'm lovin' my new avatar...

Edit: it's not showing up yet...darn.

Edit #2: OK, my new avatar looks like crap. Stevo I'm not! Never mind.

Well, it may not be the prettiest, but it is teh funny.

Hee. :)

I think we need to make LOLDonderoz. "I CAN HAZ POLICE STATE?" We just need to find more pictures of him doing things.

Find...or make. Stevo?

Oho! I'm actually pretty buried at work from now until at least the 28th. I shouldn't even be here now. Not something I could jump on right now.

Anyway, I think there are other people here who are much better at photo manips than I. People skilled and imaginative and ... dhextrous.

The counter-examples to such objections as "illegal detention", "torture"?

Too bad. I was hoping to see the lede, "Eric Dondero was forced to quit his House race after photos showing him withering taints appeared on the Internet."

BTW, Thanks to tymac for the much better version of my avatar!

Eric, I salute your tireless efforts to document the whackjobbery that is DONDERROOOOOOO

People go to use the restrooms, and the imams jump out wearing Scream masks?

Looking out their windows calmly, then shrieking and jabbering about how there's "something on the wing!"?

Pinching female flight attendants?

Pinching male flight attendants?

Asserting "Stewardess, I speak jive!" when dealing with confused non-English speakers?

When one handsome, younger imam is inevitably brought into a conversation about terrorists by a lovely young woman, he very seriously says, "Yes, I am told there will be virgins waiting in paradise to serve those who martyr themselves. I have pledged myself, however, to make sure that there will be none left for them." *wocka-chicka, wocka-chicka*

I have the same problem.

While I'm sure Dondero is just making this up, and Stevo is joking, I can tell you from my own personal experience that the phenomenon does happen to young men who are fighting the battle against their fleshly desires, though in my case they weren't blonde. (I remember going to confession a few years ago about some, uh, related stuff, and the priest just telling me to stop thinking about sex. Not practical advice for a 17-year-old male!)

Though, ironically, it appears that the 9/11 hijackers were anything but chaste prior to their big day -- martyrs are forgiven everything, apparently -- so I doubt their inspiration came from that problem.

93? What happened to the other 75? Were they killed by a non-Islam related lightning bolt?

He thinks white supremacists like Tim McVeigh are actually working for Arab Muslims? Jesus. The guy is crazier than a shithouse rat.

The 101st Fighting Bedwetters get all their "ideas" from 24, and the beginning of season 2 was about some anti-government militiamen whom the Muslim fundamentalists hired (through an intermediary) to blow up a government building.

The problem is that the 101st Fighting Bedwetters never watch an entire season of 24. If they did, they'd realize that every terrorist threat is aided and abetted by various moles and conspirators in the intelligence community, the White House, and the military-industrial complex.

While I think Dondero's theory is totally whacked out and he himself is totally whacked out, to be honest the idea of white supremacists trying to ally with Arab Muslims isn't totally crazy.

Back in the day, I used to spend a lot of time researching white supremacists organizations (I wanted to know more about the people who hated me being born you see). I know of at least two violent white supremacist organizations off-hand (including the now-defunct and mostly dead Silent Brotherhood that was involved in a couple of assassinations, several robberies, et cetera) that attempted to ally with Arab Muslims under the idea of "we both hate jews, right?" Now, in every case that I've researched basically the WS groups were rebuffed (usually because they were approaching random Muslim student groups, community organizations, and what not), but this is one of those weird 'kernel of a truth of an idea' absurdities.

Jennifer, while I hate to defend the mass-murderer Tim McVeigh, and Dondero/Rittberg is full of shit linking him to Jihad, if you check McVeigh's record you will find he was not a white supremacist either. One of his complaints against the US military was the disregard his superiors had for Iraqi casualties.

This is the same problem atheists have when they want to find the "christian extremist" in the agnostic McVeigh. The man seems to be much more complicated than any of our stereotypes.

But, again, Dondero/Rittberg is full of shit linking him to Jihadis. But, then, Dondero/Rittberg is full of shit about just about everything.

I hate to say it, but McVeigh was probably one of ours, i.e. a libertarian terrorist.

Yes, I know, he initiated force and hence he wasn't a libertarian. But until that point, until he crossed that line, a lot of his stated views probably would have fit in quite well with libertarians.

This may be an uncomfortable fact for some, but I'm a Catholic with some Irish ancestors. As far as Planned Parenthood and the British are concerned I already fit terrorist profiles. Adding one more profile to my list is just sort of "Eh, whatever."

I fear you may be right. I think the thought bothers me a little too much to admit it, though.

The thing about McVeigh, as I understand it, is that he basically went to war against the U.S. government. He evidently assumed that the same rules and standards of morality that are conventionally applied to nation-states -- the limits on their behavior, or lack of same -- should also apply to him as an individual. No more, no less.

In a way, this was libertarian-type thinking. Only McVeigh inverted it. Instead of reviewing the morality of state action and concluding that states should be limited to the same moral standards that individuals conventionally are, he concluded that individuals conducting their own "wars" should be entitled to the same rather looser standards of morality that we apply to states. Instead of seeing his bombing attack as an attack on innocents, he saw it as an attack on the U.S. government, with unfortunate but acceptable civilian collateral damage.

I once started to write about this at length in an essay, "Timothy McVeigh: What the Hell Was He Thinking?" but I never finished it.

But then again, he also was a fan of The Turner Diaries, written by Neo-Nazi William Pierce...
From what I can tell, the results of the end of the Cold War, the raids on Ruby Ridge/Koresh's Compound, the election of the New Left "poster boy" Bill Clinton, and the seemingly successful rise of anti-state conservatism vis-a-vie Newt Gingrich seems to have coalesced a lot of divergent movements, like Christian Patriots/paleolibertarians/Stormfront Neo-Nazi types, into a really volatile mix that wound up with things like the rise of millitia groups like Posse Comitatus and terrorism of The Order and McVeigh...

Luckily, the destruction of the FBI building, the co-option of the Radical Right congress into buisness-as-usual corruption, and the fizzle of support for guys like Pat Buchannan seemed to sap those kind of movements...unfortunately, I think that right-wing angst/fury is directed towards the WOT and its arguements, so now that support is for the brain drain of Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter...

As was already mentioned, he was a fan of the Turner Diaries and connected to the National Alliance. Maybe he was more of a "white separatist," in which case (if he were consistent) he'd oppose the idea of killing Iraqis in their own land, but would have a low opinion of them here.

Heh. Found my semi-essay, semi-outline on my local hard drive, from circa 2003. Sorry for the long dump, but it elaborates on the points I made earlier.

Timothy McVeigh: What the Hell Was He Thinking?

(essay outline)

Review crime. Emphasize the horribleness of it.

Terrorist. Monster? Seemed a nice enough guy. Much is made of his hate of the U.S. government. But he was not a screaming rager. If anything, he seemed cold, without emotion.

No evidence that he hated the children he killed. They were simply “collateral damage” of a “legit tactic” of his fight against the federal government. He had a mission. They were in the way.

In short, he acted as if he were at war against the federal government, and preceded accordingly.

Draw parallels to Iraqi Gulf War, casualties. We had a mission. They were in the way. Collateral damage. A tragedy, yes. We’re sorry they had to die, but it was in pursuit of a larger good, or at least a fight against a larger evil. We regret this part of the outcome, but if we had to do it all over again, we’d do it. [Recent note: And we did.]

Other wars: Firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo. The blasting of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These acts killed many children and other civilians because they were citizens of the government with which we were at war.

If Timothy McVeigh were not an individual man but a government that had formally declared war against another government, and committed the same actions, and used a cruise missile instead of a truck bomb, many people who now see him as a monster would be singing a different tune. It’s tragic that those children had to die, but that’s war. It’s really the fault of the enemy, for forcing us to use these violent means.

Yes. That was also McVeigh’s tune.

But wait, you say, this situation is completely different.

I think we can all agree that the weapon used – a truck bomb instead of a cruise missile or smart bomb – is not a big difference. It’s just a different delivery system.

The difference is in the legitimacy of the action. McVeigh was just a lone nut who decided to go to “war” against the U.S. federal government. In a real war, a government deliberates. There are forms to be followed. And especially in a democracy but to some extent all forms of government, the government attempts to secure the support and approval of the populace whenever it goes to war.

This is a big difference. If one individual decides to blow up children, we regard that as monstrous. In our approved system, we go to the polls and elect officials who must then appoint other officials who in turn order other men to kill, and then we bomb children.

Our system is undoubtedly superior. Certainly it brings better results, in that the cumbersome process, requiring at least some debate as well as extensive approvals and buy-in, makes the bombing of innocent children much less likely. This is especially true in a democratic government, which must obtain the approval of the people. That’s because most people are not likely to approve child murder – or more cynically, the more people whose permission you must obtain, the less likely it is that you’ll be able to do anything.

But this is a merely difference in procedure, not in the act itself, or the end result. This is not a moral argument, it merely implies that McVeigh’s error lay in not following the correct procedures or rituals, in getting the necessary approvals, dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s.

It implies that if McVeigh had only taken a poll first and gotten majority opinion on his side, or collected enough signatures on a petition, he could have gone ahead and bombed the building, and that would have been a “legit tactic” as he contended.

If only he’d been a government official, or in uniform and carrying out the orders of such an official. We would be sad, a little, but not horrified.

What is it about ballots and speeches and white marble buildings that transfigures terrorism into war, and murder into patriotism?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m no pacifist. I also respect and admire the military. I’ve always thought that bombing two Japanese cities to bring an end to World War Two was a better choice than the casualties that would have resulted, military and civilian, if the U.S. had opted for a conventional invasion, soldiers against soldiers. I supported the Gulf War, and to this day I think it was worth fighting.

But maybe I’ve got some thinking to do.

Maybe we all do.

.

[Copyright Stevo Darkly] [1st draft 2003]

Note: I'm a bit more ambivalent about nuking Japan nowadays. I might quibble with a couple other points I wrote four years ago.

It occurs to me that Dondero's deal is in a way, freedom really does spring from authority. To him, libertarian is actually all about government power. It's all about political action, and hence for him "libertarianism" = "the Libertarian Party" (or at least getting a putatively libertarian politician into office).

To him, things like publishing a magazine to spread libertarian ideas (I'm a libertarian today in part due to Reason magazine), discussing points of libertarian philosophy, and honing your pro-libertarian arguments and beliefs in online debates so you'll be better-prepared to present them to non-libertarians -- these are all worthless wastes of time that do nothing to advance libertarianism. It's just "sitting on your ass behind a computer." But if we could somehow get key people into office, we could introduce libertarianism onto the country through government policy. And standing out in the cold handing out pamphlets is where it's at.

I disagree. If most of the population is un-libertarian or anti-libertarian, then getting a few libertarians into office somehow will have limited effect. (Some things can be accomplished, but it depends on how much they are resisted by the rest of government, and by the voters.) That's not how you make a libertarian nation. You make one by spreading the ideas among the populace, until you get to the point where they demand politicians who adhere to libertarian principles. I think government and goverment officials are more likely to be the last bastion of statism than the vanguard of libertarianism. (And when you write it out like that, it seems blindingly obvious.)

And that's one reason I support Ron Paul as a presidential candidate -- as a visible spokesperson for libertarian ideas, even though his chances of actually being elected may not be worth much (but I also remain an optimist in this regard). I guess I'm more of a Fabian/emergentist libertarian than anything.

Oh, and also Dondero seems to have an odd fixation on who "owns" libertarianism -- a property right that you somehow gain through political action.

Stevo, you've gotta cut and paste that into whatever H&R thread Dondero next makes an appearance within.