• "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 Anti-Rothbard Cult

I think you’ll enjoy this brief, informal talk I gave last week at Mises U, on a subject we’ve needed to bring into the open for a long time now.

Unlearn the Propaganda!

← Older Comments
  • gcallah

    “And even though it’s a well-known fact that Rothbard didn’t even read the writings of men he opposed…”

    He trashed Hegel, nd yet he obviously never read Hegel (as he was at least honest enough to leave him out of the bibliography) and the only two sources he cites are Karl Popper — a notoriously bad historian of thought! — and some Sovietologist. He does not even cite any Hegel scholars!

    But trashing Hegel on those grounds is not “nasty,” no: what is “nasty” is pointing out that this is “scholarship” that would get him an ‘F’ on an undergrad paper on Hegel. (Seriously, it would: “You DIDN’T READ A SINGLE WORK BY HEGEL! F!”)

  • gcallah

    I figured this out, Tom, when I remembered this: You gleefully reported on how much pain you planned on inflicting on Krugman. Inflicting maximal pain on another human being: That’s NOT nasty. I noted this was not very Christian. THAT’s what is nasty.

    And, as Zach points out, there just is NO “anti-Rothbard cult.” What there are is a lot of people who recognize that LVMI is a cult. But calling them “cultists” for recognizing this, that’s NOT nasty. What’s nasty is to point out this is just what Scientologists do, calling psychiatrists who describe their indoctrination techniques “the cult of psychiatry.”

    For Tom, nasty = calling him out on his BS.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jaffijoe Joseph Fetz

    This is about to get really interesting, isn’t it?

  • http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

    Gene, you are nasty everywhere. In the past two years, have you left a single charitable post on Bob’s blog, Mr. Nicer-Than-Thou?

    And sure there’s no anti-Rothbard cult. I guess the top people at the big libertarian institutions have been making lots of respectful references to Rothbard, except in invisible ink.

    As for Krugman, you have got to be kidding me. Pain in that context means embarrassment. And if you actually think Krugman — who is loathed even by mainstream economists, including fellow Keynesians — conducts himself with dignity in his exchanges with others, then there is no talking to you. He deserves to be called out for this. That is called justice. “Pain” means only that he is going to get what justice demands he get. Justice, recall, is a good thing.

    St. Thomas says it’s one thing to turn the other cheek when you are attacked, but it’s plain cowardice to turn the other cheek when others are attacked. You should defend them.

    Anyway, Gene, I’m sure I’m the only person who finds you bitter, resentful, or angry. You sure conduct yourself like a chipper dude!

← Older Comments

Find me on Google