Wednesday, October 29, 2014

The Lying, Libelous, Leninist Louts at Loyola University-New Orleans

By Thomas DiLorenzo

LewRockwell.com readers may be aware of how Professor Walter Block was libeled by theNew York Times several months ago by a “reporter” who totally and completely fabricated the notion that Walter once wrote that “slavery was not so bad.”  He has never said or written any such thing, of course.
Unfortunately for Professor Block, his employer, Loyola University-New Orleans, has been captured by a gang of totalitarian-minded socialists who are sworn enemies of free speech in particular, and of freedom in general, as are all socialists of any variety.  They sugarcoat their evil, totalitarian beliefs with pleasant-sounding euphemisms like “social justice,” implying that anyone who disagrees with them favors social injustice.  They even sell sweatshirts in the university bookstore proudly proclaiming that
they are “Social Justice University.”  In The Mirage of  Social Justice, F.A. Hayek explained in great detail what a devious diversion this perversion of the English language was.  “Social justice” has always been a dishonest euphemism for socialism, wrote the Nobel laureate.
The lying Leninist louts at Loyola University New Orleans showed their true colors, however, when instead of simply asking Dr. Block if he ever actually wrote such a stupid and offensive thing, they publicly denounced him for something he never said or wrote.  The university president, one “Father” Kevin Wildes, a religious fraud of the first order, started the libel of Walter Block with an ignorant letter to the school newspaper.  Then eighteen radical left-wing faculty members piled on, without any of them ever contacting their “colleague,” Professor Block, to hear his side of the story.
What this proves is that the cultural Marxists who have taken over institutions like Loyola University New Orleans really are totalitarians of the worst sort.  Had they lived in the Soviet Union they would have been the first to call for the firing squad for deviationists like Professor Block.  They demonstrated that they have no interest at all in hearing whether or not the outrageous libel against Walter Block by the New York Times is true.  They know that Walter Block is a prolific author and outspoken advocate of a free society, which of course is pure poison to all totalitarian socialists, no matter how they may disguise themselves with priest’s collars and silly-sounding euphemisms like “social justice.”  THIS is why they have done what they have done.
The school newspaper published dozens, if not hundreds, of defenses of Walter Block from students, alumni, and from people all over the world, along with  condemnations of these shameless totalitarian idiots.  All  of that has been deleted from the online archives of the paper, however, and some na├»ve and ignorant students have even accosted Professor Block on campus and threatened to “get him.”  This is apparently what the Loyola University-New Orleans administration wants to happen.
Shame on all the other Loyola University-New Orleans faculty who did not support decency and academic freedom at their institution and sided with Kevin Wildes instead, out of nothing but careerist motivations.  Like most university faculty, they are small-minded, petty, bureaucratic weasels.  I hope and pray that Walter finds a super-aggressive, S.O.B. of a lawyer who will sue Kevin Wildes,  Loyola University-New Orleans, the Jesuit order, and the eighteen libelous faculty members into bankruptcy while pocketing millions for himself–and for Walter.
A person would have to be insane to send his son or daughter to Loyola University-New Orleans.  Or a communist.
UPDATE:  A.H. writes:  “What a bunch of apostates Jesuits have become.  They have become just what their enemies always said of them: devious, untrustworthy, and unscrupulous.”  (By the way, an apostate is one who has abandoned his religious faith).
 The above originally appeared at LewRockwell.com

7 comments:

  1. On page 47 of his book, Block says that slander and libel are not crimes. Since Block is a big proponent of the NAP, please explain why Block is violating the NAP by asking the government to initiate force against President Wilde.

    http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you've been reading this blog for any length of time (including EconomicPolicyJournal.com), you would know Dr. Block struggled with this decision for the reasons you mentioned. Dr. Block resisted when many recommended he sue for libel. I think the tipping point was when Dr. Block began receiving threats from ignorant students. Dr. Block explains how libel is not a crime, but threats of violence violate the NAP. Now that those threats have occurred, Dr. Block is clearly defending himself and not initiating force.

      Delete
    2. Wouldn't the self defense need to be against those threatening him and not those committing libel?

      Delete
    3. Ryan,

      Makes total sense to me....of course, I agree with Block (and Rothbard) when they discuss libel specifically, concluding that libel does not violate the NAP.

      Cue, the pro-IPers lecture about "value"!

      Delete
    4. "Cue, the pro-IPers lecture about "value"!"

      LOL! It's true.

      Anyway, it's just me for now...I was surprised Plenarchist made the argument last week...maybe I've started a trend.

      :)

      Delete
    5. Ryan Nace,

      "Wouldn't the self defense need to be against those threatening him and not those committing libel?"

      It would depend if the libeler knew that the libel would cause these kinds of threats. I think a reasonable person, given the environment on campus (an environment that has long been encouraged by the libeler, btw, who is head of the university), would know that the libel would lead to these kinds of threats.

      Let us look at a different example. Let us say that you live in Salem, and someone has libeled you as being a witch. Some might say, well, no NAP violation here! But hold on. The libeler would have known that you would have a lynch mob appearing at your door with torches and pitchforks.

      In this sense the libel is very similar to giving an order. A mob boss might say "I don't like that guy". No order order, only the mob boss using his free speech right? But the guy the mob boss doesn't like is going to get whacked anyway. During the cultural revolution in China there were newspaper articles about so-and-so being a deviationist or a capitalist-roader. Just free speech, right? Wrong. Because it took place in the context of suspected deviationists and capitalist-roaders being lynched at the time.

      Given that one can read the libel by the school president as an OK to harass and threaten Dr. Block. Not free speech, but an invitation or an order.

      Someone like Anonymous@October 29, 2014 at 2:29 PM would make libertarians pacifist collaborators with the state. No way, I say. The university libeler is a state agent, and an aggressor that has initiated force against Dr. Block.

      Let us also keep in mind that Dr. Block is collateral damage, and it is his libertarian ideas that are being targeted. When other people see Dr. Block persecuted for his libertarian ideas, people being what they are will be less likely to cleave to libertarianism. Therefore it is not merely about Dr. Block, and he should NOT turn the other cheek.

      Delete
  2. Block writes: "[T]he NAP only requires that libertarians refrain from using violence (lawsuits ultimately constitute the use of invasive force) against innocent people. The New York Times hardly fits this bill. Rather, that organization is a major mouthpiece for the state."

    And Block writes: "Under the government manipulated economy that we live in, certain "private" entities must be considered agents of the state. Goldman Sachs comes to mind, but so does NYT."

    President Wilde is NOT an agent of the state. So Dr. Block needs to explain why he is initiating force against Wilde.

    ReplyDelete