Monday, February 1, 2016

Willis Hart Absurdity Re The NYT Being A Communist Paper & "The Left" (In It's Entirety) Also Being Communist

Absurd broad brush painting by the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart (in the context of reporting the NYT did on some South African politician) in which the dude asserts that the NYT (a for profit USA newspaper) is (1) A Communist entity, and (2) attempting to manipulate South African politics. Oh, and that "The Left" (in it's entirety) is also 100 percent Commie.

Willis Hart: On the Slanderous Attempts by the New York Times to Discredit Mangosuthu Buthelezi and Tar Him as a Puppet of Pretoria... The New York Times has a done a lot of bad and unfair reporting over the years but this was especially hideous. Buthelezi was a lifelong opponent of Apartheid and as the head of the Zulu nation (an entity that has been dealing with the Afrikaners for close to two centuries and way, WAY before the slantheaded ANC) the dude used to routinely fill up soccer stadiums, for Christ. Of course, we all know the real reason why the New York Times (Pravda on the Hudson) didn't care for Buthelezi. It was because the fellow believes in capitalism, private property, free trade, and a limited, republican form of government, all of which are antithetical to the left, and damn it all we can't have that.

P.S. They also couldn't control him (a la the rest of those "buffer Negroes"). That must have really pissed them off. (1/30/2016 AT 9:03pm).

This is pure idiocy, of course. I refer to his commentary concerning how The NYT and "The Left" is Communist. This assertion being particularly absurd given the fact that WTNPH determined I was an idiot after he came to the (incorrect) conclusion that I did not know there were different flavors of Libertarianism.

Willis Hart: On the Idiot and Libertarianism... What the idiot fails to comprehend (and this is a long standing problem with the idiot) is that libertarianism, just like with a lot of other things, is a) a continuum (from the moderate policy oriented libertarianism of the Cato Institute to the harder, more doctrinaire, orientation of the Mises and Ayn Rand Institutes) and b) a construct that has a great many permutations to it; neolibertarianism, paleolibertarianism (whose anti-immigration emphasis I fully reject), classical liberalism (insert Amity Shlaes and our colleague, RN), civil libertarianism (which actually includes a fair number of liberals), objectivism, anarcho libertarianism, etc.. I mean, I know that the simpler that person is, the more that this type of individual requires a clear-cut dichotomy, ideal types, etc., just to get frigging by in their life but enough. Enough. (1/28/2014 AT 7:51pm).

So, I guess that Libertarianism, just like with a lot of other things, resides on a continuum... but there is an exception with "the Left". He did say "just like with a lot of other things", not ALL things. The Left is obviously an exception to the "continuum" thing, in that everyone on the Left is Communist.

Although I doubt many people would agree with this assertion. I know I would immediately categorize anyone that did as being "simple", and wonder (based on the WTNPH post in question) if Willis Hart is the type of simpleton that requires a clear-cut dichotomy, ideal types, etc.

As for what Willis wrote about Mangosuthu Buthelezi, I'm going to have to admit that this is an assertion that I'm unable to ascertain the veracity of. Mostly because Willis neglects to link to any NYT article in which they engage in the alleged hideously unfair reporting.

I did find the following article, however.

Zulus' Buthelezi - Statesman or Scoundrel, He'll Count in Pretoria's Future [article excerpt] The African National Congress continues to denigrate him as a collaborator who it asserts does not really speak for blacks. The congress adherents assert that while their own leaders were in prison or in exile, Mr. Buthelezi was offered and accepted special treatment from a succession of leaders in Pretoria who were committed to maintaining apartheid. [However, Buthelezi says] "Apartheid is doomed... No matter how you analyze the South African situation, status quo apartheid politics is a thing of the past". (4/18/1990 NYT article by Christopher S. Wren).

Would this article fall into the "unfair reporting" category that Willis alleged? Who the hell knows. I mean, IF Willis wanted anyone to know WTF he was talking about, he could have given an example. But, as is usually the case, he does not. Leaving anyone reading his blog with the task of having to research the subject if they want to know what he's talking about. And, given the fact that Willis rejects most comments (including mine), all I can do is guess.

In any case, as you can see for yourself, the author of the article I found is only reporting what the ANC (African National Congress, a social democratic political party) folks are saying (the author isn't asserting any of this himself and likely isn't in a position to know if what the ANC says is true).

Proof that the NYT is a Communist paper that is (or was) attempting to manipulate South African politics - per the Hartster's assertion that they tried but "they also couldn't control him" which "pissed them off"? I say no, but that would be because Willis present no evidence.

I can state with 100 percent positivity, however, that capitalism, private property, free trade, and a limited, republican form of government are not all antithetical to the Left, in that (if it were) "the Left" (in it's entirety, which would include the Democratic Party - not just it's Progressive wing, but the 3rd Way adherents as well as the Blue Dogs, a group that Willis formerly identified with) would have to be dedicated Communists.

Which, I think that unless you're Simple like Willis is (apparently), we can agree is not the case. Not only not the case, but a charge that is laughably absurd. Yeah, there actually is an American Communist Party but it's membership is estimated at a paltry 2000 individuals, so they really are quite insignificant. This despite what loons like former Congressman Allen West might say.

Remember when West alleged that "about 80 House Democrats are members of the Communist Party" (a charge PolitiFact deemed pants on fire)? Well, apparently Willis thinks West was wrong - it isn't just 80 out of 188. He thinks all 188 are Commies.

This from someone who said he was supportative of Jim Webb's presidential run AS A DEMOCRAT! Webb might have started his political career as a Republican, but he did hold a Senate seat AS A DEMOCRAT... and therefore is a part of the Left and a Communist... according to Willis Hart. Makes me wonder... maybe Willis is a closet Commie? Or perhaps he's just an idiot.

OST #102


  1. In my opinion Will is neither a closet Commie or an idiot. Will became a Rand enthusiast partly because of my influence, something he told me. What apparently Will lacks is the ability to seperate the good from the whole leaving the not good behind.

    Unortunately Will has been caught up with the fringe who frequent sites like Who's Your Daddy, FreeThinke, Z, et all and has bought the narrow minded and often bigoted BS.

    Perhaps Will just has to go through the curve before he regains his senses. I figure if he does it will take him 5-10 years. Or may be he"s perfectly comfortable where he's at.

  2. No, he isn't a closet Commie. I said that in jest.

  3. BTW, in regards to Ayn Rand, I think she would agree that "capitalism, private property, free trade, and a limited, republican form of government... are antithetical to the left". Does RN agree with that bull, or is he more rational? Maybe RN is a closet Commie? "Benevolent capitalism" sounds Leftist to me. Surely it is anti-Randian (free money for parasites).

  4. What RN agrees to is that all the items you mention in your reference to Rabd are good and and proper. With this caveat. for a market to be free in must be regulated, lest it become predatory and monopolistic.

  5. Except the "limited government" part. Many Consertaives want government to be limited so that it cannot effectively regulate. Because they WANT the market to be predatory and monopolistic (this enables a select few to unfairly become extremely wealthy). Although I am convinced that many Libertarians are simply naive that this is what will happen under "small government". Government represents the power of The People. Reduce their power and the plutocrats will fill the vacuum.

  6. Small government to me means effective government. A government that provides for the national defense AND general welfare in a productive and efficient manner.

    One who stays out of my personal life and insures maximum civil liberties as well as equality under the law.

    I could elaborate but gotta run. Headed to upstate NY.


Comment moderation is not currently in effect.