Interview with a Zombie

Tom Woods

"Well written, well researched, and the thesis put forth is well argued.... Woods has opened up an area of historical analysis that should invite further study."
-Journal of American History
"During these times that challenge our freedoms there is no one more qualified to make U.S. history relevant to the fight against big government than Thomas Woods."
-Barry Goldwater Jr.
Former Member of Congress
"I strongly recommend Woods's work."
-The Honorable Ron Paul,
U.S. House of Representatives
"Written with great clarity and fluency, making the complex philosophical and theological concepts approachable."
-Journal of American Studies
"A must-read."
-Barron's
"An excellent reading source for anyone interested in financial markets, and much more so for anyone interested in learning about capitalism without all the misinterpretations being thrown about in the financial media."
-Asia Times
"Provocative, well-written, and deserves to be read."
-Catholic Historical Review
"An engaging and important contribution to scholarship on the history of American Catholicism."
-Journal of the Historical Society
"Woods and [co-author Kevin] Gutzman appeal to both left and right in this constitutionalist jeremiad…. The authors' exegeses of the Constitution and court decisions, heavy on original intent arguments, are lucid and telling."
-Publishers Weekly
"A marvelous read. Every chapter taught me something new and unexpected."
-Tom Bethell, senior editor,
The American Spectator
"The hottest book today is Meltdown, by my friend Tom Woods."
-Judge Andrew Napolitano, senior judicial analyst,
FOX News Channel
"Should be required reading."
-Economic Affairs (London)
"Woods, one of the best classical liberal [libertarian] scholars of his generation, has once more placed us in his debt with this lucid and tightly argued book."
-David Gordon, The Mises Review
"Tom Woods is one of my dearest allies in the struggle against wrong-headed and dangerous economic policy."
-Peter Schiff

The first original video on TomWoodsTV, my YouTube channel. An unusual promo for my book Nullification.

UPDATE, Jan. 2011: Then, watch the blooper reel:

Bob Murphy, the zombie, now has a full line of zombie gear! Next time you’re confronted with opponents who refuse to address your arguments, you can already be laughing at them with this full line of T-shirts, mugs, mouse pads, and stickers.

K Bock

“The requirement of ‘concision’ is the enemy of true discourse.”
Paraphrasing Noam Chomsky.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Saulius-Muliolis/100003404730807 Saulius Muliolis

I could have done better with the zombie makeup. You missed the top of his head and his hands.
Cmidan

Dr. Woods does not appear to be espousing a Republican viewpoint. On the contrary, he seems to be pointing to an alternative check on the power of government. We should not be content to select between boob A and boob B every four years and should seek to use local/state government to fight against statism.
http://bendwavy.org/ Anton Sherwood

The first time the zombie said RACISM you shoulda said “That’s another good example.”
http://bendwavy.org/ Anton Sherwood

They say we get the government we deserve, but what bothers me is getting the government that a plurality of my neighbors deserve.
http://twitter.com/Bethsimmons5245 beth simmons

ROTFL! That was awesome. I have shared this with all my FB friends. Currently reading your first book the Politically Incorrect Guide to American History I bought from you in OKC at the rally post OK GOP Convention. Will eventually get “Nullification”. Thanks for making economics humorous. Although what is happening to our great country is not humorous at all. Audit the FED, End the FED. Go Ron Paul.
Guest

Is that who that is? I thought it was Keith Obamaman.
Rurudyne

“Zombie” is what we should call those who suffer from or borderline trade in misology … and I’ve encountered more than a few among so-called progressives.

Between their appeals traditionalism and fait accompli (ever notice how most every aspect of tyranny from things like Frothingham v Mellon through the New Deal and onward is “settled law” when for it to be so the Constitution had to first be unsettled — or arrogated — as Law?) or charges that I and others who argue for intent in accordance with the original right of those who ratified the Law can be said to have agreed to are “cherry picking” — even though many of those who level such a charge would be hard pressed to present a single proverbial cherry of their own (aside from the Hamiltonian view which was ONLY expressed by Hamilton after ratification and so cannot be considered part what he told the several States beforehand so that they could be said to have agreed to that understanding) it gets a bit tiresome.

Reminds me of the last bit from the song about banging your head against some mad bugger’s wall….

Find me on Google