http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch75.html
Essays of Murray N. Rothbard
Edited by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
RACE! THAT MURRAY BOOK
December 1994
Under the spell of a misplaced analogy from Darwinian theory, analysts for over a century liked to think of social change as necessarily gradual, minute, and glacial. The idea of any sort of radical or "revolutionary" social change became unfashionable among intellectuals and social scientists. The political and cultural revolutions of the twentieth century have altered that perspective, and observers are now more willing to entertain the idea of sudden revolutionary change.
Well, one vital and recent social change has been not only truly revolutionary but has occurred at almost dizzying speed. Namely: Until literally mid-October 1994, it was shameful and taboo for anyone to talk publicly or write about, home truths which everyone, and I mean everyone, knew in their hearts and in private: that is, almost self-evident truths about race, intelligence, and heritability. What used to be widespread shared public knowledge about race and ethnicity among writers, publicists, and scholars, was suddenly driven out of the public square by Communist anthropologist Franz Boas and his associates in the 1930s, and it has been taboo ever since. Essentially, I mean the almost self-evident fact that individuals, ethnic groups, and races differ among themselves in intelligence and in many other traits, and that intelligence, as well as less controversial traits of temperament, are in large part hereditary.
While, in contrast to many other countries, the professional egalitarian left in the United States has not been able to use government censorship as one of its weapons of expulsion, it has used every other smear and bullying tactic, high and low, to drive any such sentiments out of public life, to suppress discussion and scholarship, as well as any genuine freedom of inquiry or research in what had long been a flourishing area of study. In a deep sense, this was an early manifestation of Political Correctness, after which other virulent forms of PC were added on top of this previous foundation. In the area of scientific research, the last truthful comprehensive book on the subject, Race, by the great British scientist John R. Baker, was published by the distinguished Oxford University Press in the 1970s. But Oxford Press was virtually forced, by intense pressure, if not to withdraw the book openly, at least to suppress it in practice by giving it as little circulation as possible.
For the rest of society, the racial thought police were able to suppress journalism, and to eliminate all Racially Incorrect traces not only of media sentiment, but even of humor, and the rich American heritage of ethnic humor has almost been stamped out of existence.
The basic tactic of the egalitarian left rulers was, of course, not to dignify any books engaging in candid inquiry into the race question by openly rebutting them. After all, to engage in any sort of public debate, in lecture hall or in print, with The Enemy runs the risk of the egalitarian actually losing, or at least demonstrating to lay intellectuals or to the general public that maybe a plausible case can be made for this horrible heresy. So the ruling tactic of the left was to engage in what Harry Elmer Barnes, in another connection, called "the blackout," and for the rest to smear the heretic relentlessly with the usual PC smear labels we have come to know and love so well: "racist," "fascist," "Nazi," "sexist," "heterosexist," and so on. Better to black out and smear, to marginalize the heretic into shame and oblivion.
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

He says "Under the spell of a misplaced analogy from Darwinian theory, analysts for over a century liked to think of social change as necessarily gradual, minute,and glacial...intelligence,as well as less controversial traits of temperament, are in large part hereditary."

If social change isn't gradual, then Rothbard can't claim to be a libertarian. If intelligence is fixed, then he can't claim to believe in "revolutionary" social change.

Rothbard is not agreeing with the "misplaced analogy". His libertarianism does not depend on social change, gradual or otherwise. He is not saying whether intelligence is "fixed" or not, he is talking about it being hereditary.

Rothbard-Rockwell

And such a special spin on John Taylor Gatto's work on education!

Why not explain how McCarthy was all wrong? That Duke was wrong about zionist influence in the government and the media??? It is much easier to just smear and dash, yell "racist" and "anti-semite".

I'm afraid it's fitting you much better than me. So you CAN'T do any better. You Can't explain how Hollywood wasn't and isn't rife with Marxists as McCarthy claimed and Zionists are not controlling the MSM and the US gov't. as Duke claimed, the Zionists themselves brag about and Walt and Mearshimer wrote about.

Such a shock. Yawn. You people are pathetic.

Why don't you explain why deliberating inflaming racial tensions in order to build a political movement is wrong?

Why don't you explain how much of David Duke's claims ARE pure anti-Semitism and racism, based on his beliefs that the so-called white race is superior? Why don't you comment on his pushing eugenics?
Whatever Happened to Eugenics? You only dislike eugenics from other people but go for it from David Duke?

McCarthy was a demagogue, a man who attacked people indiscriminately. The fact that there were spies in the government in no way exonerates his tyrannical tactics in pursuing innocent people. The Venona Papers in no way justify his persecution of innocent people, his putting pressure on people's employers and innocent people themselves to testify before his committee, his attempts to discredit them as communists. What happens to your call for liberty if there's a Red Scare? Then your supposed love of liberty disappears, out the window, and you assume the role of persecutor -- just as you constantly do with your false accusations on this forum.

You are not for freedom. You are only for the kind of warped freedom men like Rothbard devised for whites ONLY. Thus your article from Alternative Right calling for education separatism, your harping on "Beat Whitey Night" at the Iowa Fair. You sure picked up Rothbardian techniques in order to sow dissension and racial enmity.

And all the while you preach Christianity, as if you were some sort of exemplary Christian. What a joke.

I need a commentary rest.

Bluster,
"McCarthy was a demagogue, a man who attacked people indiscriminately." Leave it to you, Bluster. Only you could take a man as unlovely as McCarthy and then manage to slander him. For most people telling the truth about him would be sufficient.
He realized that the Democrat party had been very negligent in protecting the internal security of the US. He wanted to wreck the Democrat Party, as a party, and used their negligence to create ill will toward them. But he did not "indiscriminately" attack anyone. The CPUSA tried to make that claim but the Venona papers and the archives of Soviet intelligence have long since proven they, the CPUSA, were active agents of the USSR and liars to boot.
Could you please get your facts straight and quit sounding like an agent from the CPUSA?
Ron

Bluster,
"You are not for freedom. You are only for the kind of warped freedom men like Rothbard devised for whites ONLY."
Whereas you want to advocate the sort of freedom advocated by Richard Hofstadter? This is a man that by self admission hated capitalism and wanted a Soviet style government to give us prison camps in Alaska in lieu of Siberia? Exactly how long have you had this ambition?
Rothbard was a second rate economist whose message hasn't spread very far at all. Compared to Hofstadter he was powerless.
Ron

>>>>Why don't you explain why deliberating inflaming racial tensions in order to build a political movement is wrong?<<<

LOL! Tell it to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

>>>Why don't you explain how much of David Duke's claims ARE pure anti-Semitism and racism, based on his beliefs that the so-called white race is superior?<<<<

He thinks his race is superior. So what?? I have read enough blacks who claim THEIR race is superior, Jews and Asians as well. Big deal.

>>>>Why don't you comment on his pushing eugenics? <<<<

Again, that is the origin of the abortion pushing Planned Parenthood. When you stop defending infaniticde then you can complain about Duke and his "pushing eugenics".

>>>>>Whatever Happened to Eugenics? You only dislike eugenics from other people but go for it from David Duke?<<<<<

I take it you never saw "Idiocracy".

>>>>McCarthy was a demagogue, a man who attacked people indiscriminately.<<<<

No, he pretty much targeted commies.

>>>> The fact that there were spies in the government in no way exonerates his tyrannical tactics in pursuing innocent people. <<<<<

And the warm fuzzy tactics of the Hollywood Stalinistas were downright sweet. Ask Elia Kazan.

>>>>>The Venona Papers in no way justify his persecution of innocent people, his putting pressure on people's employers and innocent people themselves to testify before his committee, his attempts to discredit them as communists. What happens to your call for liberty if there's a Red Scare? Then your supposed love of liberty disappears, out the window, and you assume the role of persecutor -- just as you constantly do with your false accusations on this forum.<<<<<

As usual you yet again cast a simple acknowledgemnt that McCarthy happened to be right about communist Hollywood into a blanket endorsement of his bullying on the part of the state. No. I am not a statist. But McCarthy was not a "witch hunter" as I was taught in school. Hollywood was and is overwhelmingly commie.

>>>>>You are not for freedom.<<<<<

???? Funny, I think I am.

>>>>>> You are only for the kind of warped freedom men like Rothbard devised for whites ONLY.<<<<

WHERE does Rothbard advocate whites only have liberty?

>>> Thus your article from Alternative Right calling for education separatism, your harping on "Beat Whitey Night" at the Iowa Fair. You sure picked up Rothbardian techniques in order to sow dissension and racial enmity.<<<<<<

It's not wrong to want to choose your own aquaintances and not want to be targeted for random beating at the state fair because ones skin is white. And your Anti-nuclear family crowd don't seem to flinch at "sowing" dissent.You only object to dissent when it is dissent from your social engineered forced association.

>>>>And all the while you preach Christianity, as if you were some sort of exemplary Christian. What a joke.<<<<

Where have I posted that I am an exemplary Christian?? I am a very poor Christian and have very great need for Gods mercy and Christs salvation.