Linked above is Justin Raimondo's take on the roots of the Neocons apoplexy over Tom Woods' The Politically Incorect Guide to American History. It's refreshing to note that Raimondo makes a similar point about the parallels between the neocon justifications for the Invasion of Iraq and the War to Prevent Southern Independence to the one I made the other day while beating up on Tom Palmer.
Woods' defense of the right of the states to defy the federal government – and even secede! – cuts too close to the bone in an era when the gulf between "red" and "blue" states is every bit as deep as the chasm that separated North from South in the run-up to the Civil War. And the Woodsian critique of Reconstruction – which looks, from here, every bit as merciless and stupid as the "de-Ba'athification" of Iraq in the wake of our "victory" – earns his [Max Boot's] ire, too.While this may be an overstatement of the gulf between the Reds and the Blues on Raimondo's part, because at some level both love Big Bother more than they hate each other, it does point towards the future of America in a way that is distressing to the Neocon desire for Global Hegemony. And, Raimondo may be right that this book (and its resultant big sales figures) represents a warning shot to both sides of the Neocon fence. Man, I hope so! I may buy the book now and join the League of the South just to thumb my nose at the odious bastards that are helping to create the horrors we see daily.
What's important for me to take away from this little episode in history brought about by Guttenberg's little invention is the importance of doing. The more we do, the more we write, the greater the chance there is to build the world we want to live in. This blog may not be important in the aggregate, but hopefully, some of the things I've said here have become important for someone else. Honestly, it's the only reason I spend the time doing it. You have to think that Tom Woods wrote his book for much the same reason.
Ta,
Comments