Against the Betrayal of Walter Block (et alius)

A Firebrand Controversy

Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:  For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Luke 16, 27-31

Politics always occurs, at least when it is an orderly activity such as religion or science, when it is an exception to normal affairs.

This writer, Sych, does not hide his worldview, he is upfront, anyone can read it in the “bio”. But, of course, he expects his writing to have universal reach and tries to avoid, therefore, the inevitable fact that in politics one always has to pick a side. This writer tries to leave such practical-political considerations aside, even though, as a human, and one who at least makes a (minimal) effort to obey his conscience, he does inevitably so. He is not neutral, never claimed to be, he is just specialized in a field of historical and philosophical understanding and synthesis where politics, simpliciter, is not the concern.

This moment, however, will be an exception moved by a moral imperative: The response to betrayal. Betrayal is an universal evil, such as paedophilia, and needs to be countered when one has some form of responsibility, even if it may be just by virtue of being oneself member of the same community (in this case, libertarianism).

To be straightforward: This writer is a libertarian, he is open about it, he follows Murray Rothbard, called while he was among the living “Mr. Libertarian”. Recently, someone who was personally acquainted with Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, has betrayed this principles. Mind you, he has not abandoned the principles (he is in his right to defend error such as violence against civilians, at least in the world as it is), worse: While claiming to be a libertarian he is defending what is contrary to libertarianism.

What is the case? Walter Block, renowned anarcho-capitalist, friend and follower of Murray Rothbard, has written for Zionism, to continue the ongoing invasion and killing that Israel has been committed to for the last years (for a much longer time, since Israel was Israel, but here we refer to the tragic development post 8 October). His (Walter Block) opinion, is not here to be discussed, it is his framing: He claims to be a libertarian, and also to be a Zionist, he has to choose. If he be honest, he would chose, but he wants to have the cake and eat it too, the problem is, the concern is not a cake, but the highest call of conscience, concerning human affairs, which is politics.

Therefore, this answer is being linked, as a response not directly to his political position, but to his betrayal. This betrayal, because it is a betrayal and not because it goes against libertarianism, should be universally considered disgusting, be one of the denomination he may be. The article linked is by a fellow libertarian, a much needed response to Walter Block’s subversion.

Could context be given? Shortly, but it is not fundamental. Walter Block wrote The Classical Liberal Case for Israel. In turn, his old friend and fellow Rothbardian Hans Hermann Hoppe wrote a Response and, in turn, so did the president of the Mises Institute Thomas J.DiLorenzo write a Condemnation of Walter Block and another fellow Rothbardian, and (quasi) unofficial reviewer (censor would be better) of libertarianism, David Gordon, wrote a finishing Review.

After a while, however, some libertarians, because of the inherent weakness of the human condition, of misguided pity, of cooperation with betrayal or all of the former combined, gave Walter Block a space to defend his views. Is it civil to allow someone a space to defend his views? When views are views they are, but in this case, the things defended are not views, but subterfuge of a serious political, scientific and philosophical endeavour such as any political worldview, in this case, libertarianism. People who one most hope are misguided, have shown “mercy” for Block. The case is simple: He shall have no mercy, he should know better. Some are trying to get him into the warmth again, some think this was to harsh. Well, since Substack is so fond of the topic of “political realism” it will suffice to say that the political distinction is between enemy and friend…

Most readers are not libertarian, some might even be Zionist or whatever, be you, dear reader, what you may be, one thing most be said: Duty precedes convenience. Mind you, this does not come, as was said supra, from a desire to write against Zionism or against the Israeli invasion of Gaza, not directly ( although everyone can read between lines), rather, it comes as a response to someone who is playing two sides, from a desire to weaken, or even break, the power of betrayal in this world. In other words, Yours Truly does not bother you, hic et nunc, to talk about an ongoing conflict or his subscribed political philosophy, but to write about a betrayal, the sin which Dante put at the bottom, not of a barrel, but of Hell.

Please, share, and most importantly, show no mercy to traitors, leave them to the higher power (and to us unbeknownst) of God.

Have a good day:

What You should Read, paired with this article