Pretty much the entire LewRockwell.com blog is showing severe symptoms of a cult mindset on all Ron Paul matters. They react to any criticism of Paul just like I saw the Church of Scientology doing years ago to any criticism of L. Ron Hubbard:
1) Make no effort at all to find out if the criticism has a basis in fact, e.g., no one at the blog asks, "Did Lew Rockwell
really write those newsletters?" No, because there's no time to do that, being busy with 2 and 3:
2) Viciously smear the reputation and character of anyone who reports bad news (in Scientology we used to label them 'suppressive persons' and the Church would dig up (or make up) any tawdry detail from their past that they could); and
3) Invent far-fetched conspiracy theories to explain the "attack" on their messiah, e.g., the American Psychiatric Association was out to get Hubbard, or the "Cocktopussy" is out to get Paul.
But the chief fruitcake in this regard is far and away Karen De Coster. For instance, she sees it as a sign of a conspiracy that Julian Sanchez
knew about his own article on the newsletters in advance of publication: "The Beltway-Kochtopus libertarians and their junior blogger understudies have been trying to put Lew in the gas chamber of ideas [Help! My ideas are being gassed!] for a very long time now... This is the kind of thing that these guys used to keep under wraps, but nowadays, they revel in the glory of their lynchings a bit too openly for their own good. For instance, this little squirt
couldn't contain himself two days prior to his article launch."
And
she adopts the classic "I wasn't even there AND I fired the shot accidentally" defense of Lew Rockwell:
"The burden of the newsletter content is on Ron Paul, the man whose name graces the covers, and shame on you scoundrel "libertarians" for automatically drawing the assumption that Lew Rockwell must have, had to be, surely was involved in writing those passages that have you all so horrified."
Lew would never write that stuff AND there was nothing wrong with it anyway! And Karen, no one "automatically drew the assumption" (and I thought
conclsusions were drawn, while assumptions were made) that Lew was the author -- Sanchez and Weigel interviewed lots of people who were around at that time and those people
told them Lew was the author.
Here, De Coster sees a dark conspiracy to ignore her blog:
"The round-up of Lew Rockwell continues. [Lew must have gotten loose out on the range again and be-a stampedin'!] I find
this post interesting, especially since my extensive blog post is not to be found here. Of course -- I'm not taking the standard pc, lynch-mob line, thus I do not get the Reason honor badge. Ahem."
De Coster apparently didn't note that David Gordon, John Derbyshire, and Athena Kerry also did not take "the standard pc, lynch-mob line," and yet appeared in the list. Perhaps
Reason was seeking out
sane supporters of Paul so as not to make him look any worse?
She actually resorted to trashing the careers of people like
Weigel and Sanchez: "I don't feel I have to follow anyone's politically-correct bullshit line for one moment. I am very well-employed outside of the libertarian clique that consistently attempts thought control, hence my ability to say whatever the hell I want, and I don't care what the other bozos think or say about any of it. Being employed far outside of the libertarian/academic inner circle leaves me free to tell the Kochtopus to kiss my well-employed behind."
DeCoster doesn't seem to notice that, along with the "beltway libertarians" she hates, she's also impugned the integrity of everyone who depends on the Mises Institute for making a living, since they must all be "thought controlled" by money as well.
Here, she hallucinates that
this piece by Brian Doherty, which doesn't mention Sanchez or Weigel once, even indirectly, is giving them the "Mother of All Spankings."
DeCoster latest display of advanced Turrets
appeared yesterday, suitably chopped up since almost every word written by her is nutty and worthy of comment:
"Junior Member of (T)Reason"
The "Bible-belt-way libertarians" are owed our allegiance! To criticism them is treason!
"Lie-A-Rama"
No one has been able to show a single thing in the Sanchez/Weigel piece was a lie. But let's just keep calling it mendacious until it sticks.
"Says 'Let's Get Over Ourselves'"
"David Weigel, the opportunist"
Just who is running a "smearbund," Karen?
"who put his name on an article"
Perhaps he "put his name on" the article because he co-authored it? Or is that a lie, too?
"full of anecdotal, unsubstantiated lies"
Well, apparently everyone they talked to
substantiated everyone else's claims. I can see De Coster in a court of law: "Your honor, the claims by these dozen people that they saw my client kill the victim are merely anecdotal -- none of them have photos, do they? -- and each person's story is totally unsubstantiated, except, of course, by the other eleven liars.
"from "unnamed""
Why is 'unnamed' in quotes here, Karen? Are you doubting that they really were unnamed? And here's
a named source who knows Lew wrote most of the newsletters. Are you willing to call McElroy an "unreliable" member of the "smearbund," Karen?
"and unreliable "sources," says: 'The Ron Paul campaign has captured much of the libertarian imagination and the controversies about his newsletters have alienated various sides of the libertarian thinksophere. We need to get over ourselves. The arguments over who wrote what in 1989 or 1990 are less important than whether the Senate retroactively legalizes and forgives international surveillance.'"
So what Weigel is saying is that he wishes people would
stop arguing so divisively about the newsletters. That would be people like you, Karen. He is not apologizing for his article.
"I bet some people really wish they could turn back time and erase their moments of instability and imbecility."
But what if "the moments" turn out to have been one's whole writing career?
