JEFF DEIST: One issue discussed recently at our Supporters Summit
is whether we’re winning or losing. So two questions: Who is “we,” and are we
winning?
LEW ROCKWELL: Well, the “we,” fundamentally, is
everybody who believes in civilization, who is opposed to what’s been going
on ever since the French Revolution, when the Left came to total power and
set up a totalitarian state. This includes some, but not all libertarians,
and many conservatives as well — but certainly not neoconservative
warmongers.
Are we winning or are we losing? Both. We’re winning in some ways but
losing in others. More and more young people on campuses are attracted to us.
When they look at their professors — I’m talking about the smart, good kids —
the professors might as well have signs flashing on their foreheads that say
“liar, liar.” And the young people come to us because they want the truth and
they want no baloney and they want no PC and they want a hard rigorous course
of study and that’s what they get from us. On the other hand, it seems that
much is going downhill, but this has always been the case throughout all of
civilization. It’s always been a fight, and I think that we can win this
fight, but we all have to work very hard. We have to educate ourselves,
educate others and it’s possible to win, but it’s going to be a close run
thing.
JD: Is some part of “we” on the Left? Is a Dennis Kucinich
or a Caitlin Johnstone or the late Alexander Cockburn part of us?
LR: Yes. Caitlin Johnstone is a very interesting
writer. She mostly says what’s true, although once in a while she falls from
grace. Alexander Cockburn was tremendous. I think he was largely on our side.
He was, for example, pro-gun and anti-green, which is very unusual on the
Left. There are certainly left-wingers who are anti-war, who are
anti-imperialist. They’re with us on those issues and it’s not necessary that
people agree with Against the State: An ... Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. Best
Price: $11.01 Buy New $9.95 (as of 11:10 EST - Details)
us on everything.
We welcome people who simply are anti-war and anti-imperialist, even if
they’re wrong on economics or wrong on the state. If they agree with us on
foreign policy, we have a foothold to convert them to libertarianism, though
success is by no means guaranteed. It is possible that they can come to see
that the institution that’s causing the imperialism and fighting the wars is
also doing horrible things domestically that violate individuals’ rights. So,
absolutely, we should reach out to everybody who’s interested in anything
that we’re doing. There was a former LP presidential nominee who phrased it
this way: there’s a train headed out of the station, heading for total
freedom and people are welcome to hop on the train with us, ride just a
certain distance, and then get off if they wanted. We’re glad to welcome
them.
We have great inspiration from Mises and Rothbard and many other great men
and women throughout the centuries who’ve defended our ideas, and it’s
important to study their works. It’s important to fight every day the people
like George Soros, who, in the guise of promoting the “open society,” want to
bring about the destruction of Western civilization. We’re facing what Tom
DiLorenzo, following Mises, called “destructionism” in his excellent talk at
our recent Supporters Summit.
JD: Over the years you’ve talked about the Mises Institute
and its role. You’re also the proprietor of LewRockwell.com. How do you see
its role, and what prompted you to start it?
LR: I started LewRockwell.com in 1999. The basic
idea originated earlier when Bill Clinton was fighting his wars and bombing
Serbia. I’ll never forget, one day he announced the bombing of Serbia, and
also hosted a conference at the White House for young people to promote the
message that we don’t use violence when we differ. He was advocating peace in
the high schools, while at the same time his policies led to mass
murder abroad.
I started sending out messages about the wars to all the people on my
email list. Then I copied the Drudge Report, a tremendous site. LRC has never
reached Drudge proportions in terms of its readership, but I wanted every day
to bring people news and opinion about what was going on in the country,
about wars and the government, and make it available on the site. I’ve always
seen LRC as an adjunct to the Institute and I’m amazed it still exists. It’s
a financial struggle to keep it going, but I think it’s very much worth
doing. I’ve had many young people write to me and say, “LRC has changed my
life.” They read it. One gentleman at our Supporters Summit said, “I read LRC
every morning after I say my prayers,” a very sweet thing to say. So, I think
it’s had a good effect. It can have an even better effect and I must say I
get a lot of joy out of doing it and talking about religion, talking about
economics, talking about foreign policy, talking about domestic policy,
talking about the state, all the ideas we’re interested in. But at LRC I do
it in a simpler and less scholarly way than the Mises Institute does.
JD: But people don’t only need alternative economics and politics.
They need alternative news, alternative history, and alternative views on
healthcare. You don’t shy away from those things.
LR: No. We run many healthcare articles that
oppose big pharma, oppose big medicine and tell people there are alternative
ways to do things. I must say revisionist history is probably the most
popular thing that appears on LRC. People just love it when we talk about
what really happened in World War I and World War II and the Civil War. The
government always wants to lie and give people a phony view of what happened.
Revisionist history is simply history as it actually happened. It’s very
important to present that view and it’s fun to do it. I hear from people who
are outraged that I would say that Franklin Roosevelt was responsible for the
bombing of Pearl Harbor in order to secure America’s entry into World War II
through the “back door.” But the evidence is clear on this topic and we have
done a few podcasts on it. John Denson does a great job on historical
podcasts. You’re right that this is a very important part of what LRC does.
JD: During the last presidential election some people saw
LRC as pro-Trump. Give us your thoughts on Donald Trump today.
LR: Well, I was for Trump as against Hillary,
although I didn’t myself vote. I don’t vote since your vote makes no
difference whatsoever. It’s a useless thing, unless the election were to be
decided by one vote. Despite its irrationality, voting assumes the role of a
sacrament for the government. I enjoy not partaking of that sacrament.
I thought that Trump’s campaign was quite wonderful in that it was
pro-peace and anti-establishment. He said many great things, but
unfortunately, few of the programs he spoke about have come about in
practice. I still think, though, that we’re better off than if Hillary had been
elected; and for that reason, I publish pro-Trump articles. I also publish
anti-Trump articles, because he has done so many bad things in terms of the
military. Despite this, though, I still argue that he’s better than Hillary,
I also enjoy the fact that he drives the Left up the wall. And he does talk
about immigration, even though he’s done very little about it, whether
because the courts won’t allow him to do so or because his anti-immigration
rhetoric is insincere. Who can tell? He also talks about PC, like immigration
a subject that needs to be considered in a negative light. Needless to say,
I’m disappointed in him. However great my disappointment, though, there is no
telling what Hillary might have done — my surmise is something far worse than
what we now have.
JD: You mention PC. One criticism leveled at the Mises
Institute, and at LRC, is that PC isn’t real or isn’t a problem. It’s a
figment of privileged white male paranoia.
LR: To say that PC isn’t real strikes me as
nonsense. People who say that are invariably violent advocates of political
correctness. The universities today have in the humanities been taken over by
the Left, following the plans set forward by Antonio Gramsci’s “march through
the institutions” and the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt school. And so,
we have to oppose PC. One of the reasons students come to us is that they’re
sick of the PC that they encounter these days, from the elementary grades
through graduate school. They want a different view and we offer that to them.
By and large, they like it. We do have our enemies who are PC-types,
including many so-called libertarians. Fascism versus Capitalism Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. Best
Price: $4.00 Buy New $9.00 (as of 07:10 EST - Details)
But, I want to say it’s fun to fight them and we have to tell the truth
about who’s doing what to whom; according to Lenin this is the key question
in politics. We have to prevent people from doing bad things to us. We must
fight the good fight. When I see the support for Trump’s anti-PC stance, I
realize that it will count very much in our favor that we oppose PC. More and
more Americans hate the guts of these PC people and they’re right to do so.
JD: On a related note, talk about the modern American
political Left: the Bernies, the Elizabeth Warrens, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez,
Antifa, and the rest. Give us your rundown.
LR: Antifa is, of course, a very violent and
dangerous group. They’re paid by George Soros and his ilk to hit people
in the head with bicycle locks who are saying things they don’t like. I would
hate to think that we’re going to end up in street fights, but this is what
these people want. Ocasio-Cortez impresses me as a joke, not somebody really
to be worried about. Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Does he actually want to
take the means of production and nationalize them and have the government run
everything? He says he doesn’t but I suspect he does. In every country that
has tried this policy, it has led to the destruction of wealth and the spread
of poverty. This is what Mises called destructionism, and it really is the
goal of people like Bernie, and Elizabeth Warren, whom I find especially
irritating, by the way, because she’s a phony Indian.
Moreover, their ideology is becoming increasingly detached from reality.
I’ve run into young people who actually deny that Stalin killed 40 to 60
million people. They say it’s just a myth. So, it’s important that we teach
about what happened in communist countries and the amount of poverty and
social destruction that took place — and we must demonstrate that
communism really is the worst economic and political
system ever to exist. It really did horrendous damage wherever it was in
power, whether it is Mao and his followers killing tens of millions in China,
or the tens of millions of people who were killed in Russia and Eastern
Europe under the Soviets. And then there’s Cuba and Cambodia.
Young people don’t know what socialism is, and even its advocates can’t
define or describe it. We support the free market, and, as Mises kept
reminding us, it’s our job to fight a war for the truth, a war both fun and
invigorating to engage in. There is a dangerous situation in Europe, in Latin
America, and in Asia, as well. On the other hand, we did see the Soviet Union
collapse, and Eastern Europe and China become much freer. But, I’ve had
people from China tell me that, it’s so interesting how they’re moving away
from communism just as America’s moving toward communism. And of course, it’s
true.
JD: And you actually
have (American) Indian ancestry.
LR: Yes, I’m a one-eighth descendant of the Abenaki, a tribe of New
England and Canada. They were driven out, mostly from New England, by the
British, and are an official tribe in Canada, though not here. If they had
oil on their land, I’d probably own part of a gambling casino, assuming
official recognition in the US! Needless to say, I didn’t use my
part-Indian ancestry to gain an advantage in college admissions or
employment. But as for the non-Indian Elizabeth Warren, it seems to me that
she’s an evil woman, a real socialist who favors total state control.
JD: Give us your thoughts on the modern political Right in
America, the Nikki Haleys, the John Boltons, the Mitch McConnells, the Fox
News audience.
LR: I was glad to see Nikki Haley resign.
Unfortunately, Trump praised her as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
She’s of course horrendous. I don’t know why she resigned and I don’t believe
her statement that she just wanted to take time off. Something has happened,
but I do not know what it is. She’s entirely controlled by the neocons, our
biggest enemies on the Right. These are former left wingers, for the most
part Trotskyites, who during the Vietnam War and after, moved into the
conservative camp, calling themselves neoconservatives. This term cannot now
be spoken, but that is what they are. It’s a relatively small, smart,
effective, and wealthy group that runs the American Right, as well as most of
the people in Congress.
They don’t run Ron Paul, needless to say, as well as a few others allied
with him. Are they better than the Democrats? Well, they were all for
Kavanaugh, not a good guy, but probably better than anybody the Democrats
would bring into power. And also it’s important to see the feminists
defeated. So, I’m glad he was confirmed but I think the American Right,
except for the people in our sector, are by and large trouble.
Judge Napolitano is a great force for good on Fox. And so is Tucker
Carlson. Most of the Fox people, unfortunately, are neocons, like the
Republican Party and the conservative movement generally.
The conservative movement has been really bad ever since Bill Buckley, who
set out with money from the CIA to establish National Review.
Various CIA agents also became editors of the magazine. They were determined
to destroy the Old Right, and Buckley pretty much crushed it for a time. He
wanted to have a pro-war right wing and the Old Right was anti-war, in
particular as regards Franklin Roosevelt’s war in Europe and in the Pacific.
Buckley was very talented, very smart, very well-funded, very charming. He
succeeded in doing horrific damage. But once he passed away, he entirely
disappeared. It’s a good thing to remember that, for most of us, our
footprints in the sand are soon washed away. But, with Buckley, it seemed,
not even a wave was needed. He just was gone. I think he has no effect
anymore beyond the fact that the remaining neocons, whom he backed, have
taken over the right wing.
While there are good people in the right wing, notably the paleocons, and
the paleo libertarians, most of the right wing presents us with a problem,
the neocons most of all. Murray Rothbard, an effective and wonderful writer
in all areas, was especially good at combatting them. I urge everybody to
read what he had to say about the neocons. It arms you for the battle.
JD: There are parallels here because Buckley had his great
purge of the Old Right and the John Birchers and such. There are people
within libertarian circles who would like to purge anyone who doesn’t accept
a whole host of progressive cultural precepts.
LR: I do think that there are some student
organizations that make a big point of this that may be having an effect on
the students they attract, but we just have to fight it.
The Politician Robert Henry Winborne ... Best Price:
$7.71 Buy New $21.88 (as of 12:35 EST - Details)
In
this respect, they follow in the footsteps of Buckley who was extremely
effective at purges. I knew him slightly. He was extremely smart and charming
— a concert-level harpsicord player, by the way. He knew a great deal about
music and many other topics and was a very effective worker for the CIA. He’d
been a CIA agent and I think remained one for the remainder of his life. As
they say about the KGB, I think we can say about the CIA too, you never cease
being an agent. Once in, you’re always in. People often think that he purged
the John Birch Society because of Robert Welch’s book, The
Politician, saying that Dwight Eisenhower was a communist. (Murray
Rothbard, by the way, liked that book very much. He said if only Welch had
said that Eisenhower was an agent of the Rockefeller conspiracy rather than
the communist conspiracy, the book would have been just great.) But, that’s
not why they purged it. They purged the Birch Society because they came out
against the War in Vietnam and to all these people, war is the key issue.
They love war, they want war, they profit from war and this was why they got
rid of all the anti-war people in the Old Right. But thank goodness Murray
and many others didn’t disappear. Their ideas are back and there is a real
right-wing, anti-war movement. It’s a small movement, but it’s real. It’s
effective and the neocons hate it, and we have no love lost for them.
JD: You had interactions with Ayn Rand along with Buckley. Any
thoughts or recollections about her?
LR: She was, of course, very smart, an autodidact.
She was brilliant, extraordinary and again, entirely self-taught. She was
tremendous. I had a chance to be in a room with her at a private home after
she had spoken at the Ford Hall Forum in Boston, where I saw her several
times. As she had very short legs, she sat on the couch with her legs curled
under her. Everybody was invited to ask questions but I was a teenager and
found her extremely intimidating. I remember her basilisk stare. I thought,
“There’s no way I’m asking her anything.”
But, what can we say about somebody who comes from Russia and becomes a
bestselling novelist in a second language? That alone is a tremendous
achievement. She also got all her supporters to read Mises and Hazlitt. By
and large, she had a good effect, but she had her problems. She hated
Christianity and wanted to destroy it, but still she was an aid to our side.
And it’s interesting that she was not always pro-war. She was not pro-World
War II, for example. Unfortunately, she later became pro-war in some ways,
especially against the Palestinians.
JD: Give us a personal recollection of the first time that
you met Ludwig von Mises: his presence, how he carried himself, what he was
like in person.
LR: Neil McCaffrey, the grandfather of our faculty
member Matt McCaffrey, was the head of Arlington House Publishers, the only
company that would publish conservative or libertarian books. Neil was
brilliant, saintly, and scholarly. He was a very great family man, a very
serious and knowledgeable Catholic, and was sound on Austrian economics. For
example, most conservative Catholics agree with the earlier view of the
church that usury is bad. He was just terrific in explaining why interest
rates are necessary to a successful capitalist society. He called me into his
office one day and said, “How would you like to be Ludwig von Mises’s
editor?” I, of course, said I’d be thrilled. So, I talked to Mises on the
phone once or twice, and much more frequently to Margit von Mises, who as
Murray Rothbard said, was a one-woman Mises industry. We brought three of his
books back into print. We also worked on a monograph never before published.
When these books came out, Leonard Read held a reception at FEE [the Foundation
for Economic Education] in honor of their being brought back into print.
I loved Leonard Read, an important man in my life and a great man in
libertarianism for his founding of FEE and for all the work that he did when
he was there.
FEE in those days was a mansion with a wonderful dining room. I went into
the dining room, entirely empty except for Ludwig and Margit von Mises, who
sat at the other end of the room. I thought to myself, “Do I dare go over
there?” Of course, I had to. Mises was extremely impressive, very articulate
and brilliant. As Murray Rothbard said, a gentleman in his clothes and in his
manners. He was everything I might have hoped he would be. He wore a
beautiful suit and his tie, his shirt, his hair, indeed everything about him,
were impressive. He just was an extraordinary man. I would guess that his
bearing was not unusual in pre-war Vienna, but it was rare in this country
and the chance to talk to him for about 40 minutes was an experience of a
lifetime. And his wife, Margit, who’d been both a play translator and an
actress, had just a tremendous ability to present herself.
JD: Of course, she lived many more years after he died.
LR: Yes, she did.
JD: And you had a much longer relationship with her, a close
relationship.
The Panic of 1819: Rea... Murray N. Rothbard Best Price:
$4.95 Buy New $8.90 (as of 08:20 EST - Details)
LR: Well,
she was very much an old-fashioned lady. I remember a time when people
thought that she needed somebody to stay with her. And so, a friend brought a
female graduate student from NYU over to her. In very short order, she called
him and she said, “I don’t want that woman here.” He said “why not?” She
said, “she’s not a lady.” And he said, “what do you mean she’s not a lady.”
She said, “She came out of her room in a bathrobe, not dressed.” She was
unbelievable. Once she was going to Alpbach, a place in the Austrian Alps
that she and Ludwig had visited as a couple. She went downtown to get her
ticket from Lufthansa — she always flew Lufthansa — and as she entered the
revolving door, caught her foot and was thrown to the ground. She got up, and
bought the ticket, returning to her apartment, though bruised and battered.
She was then in her 90s, and although any other woman that age would have had
a broken hip, she was able to make the trip to Alpbach. All her life she was
dedicated to her husband. She wanted to make sure that all his books were in
print, translated into as many languages as possible. She was very strict and
very sweet. She loved to have Mardi and Pat and me over to have tea. She
would make hors d’oeuvres and serve sherry. It was a small
apartment, but just a wonderful place. I had the chance to be there many
times, and talked to her many other times as well.
When I took her to the Russian Tea Room, her favorite restaurant, and told
her that I wanted to start an institute, asking her to be the chairman, she
accepted. She was excited about it, but in looking at my résumé, which she
had asked to see, she saw that I had had a number of jobs. She said, “I want
to make sure you’re going to stick with this for your whole life.” And I told
her I would agree to do that. She was an active chairman, somebody I
regularly consulted. She was really brilliant and dressed beautifully. She
was a tremendous presence and as I said, she was an actress. She too was from
an earlier and a better age and it was a great honor of my life to know her
and to work with her.
JD: You were close with Murray Rothbard for many, many
years, and he was your biggest intellectual influence. What don’t people know
about him as a person?
LR: Milton Friedman, who like Murray was very smart,
was extremely arrogant, Murray was the opposite. He was a very sweet and kind
person. The only thing that would upset him and even outrage him was somebody
selling out, but if somebody was moving in the right direction, even though
they still held many wrong views, he was very tolerant and very eager to
help. If he saw just a spark of intellectual curiosity or ability, he was
like a man pumping air into the fire in the stove to get the heat going. He
didn’t just stick to people on his level — obviously. Except for Mises, there
was nobody on his level. Basically, he knew everything. We say that about
David Gordon and David does know everything, but Murray knew everything more
than David. If you were in his apartment and you were talking about some particular
point he’d say, “Lew, check page 216 of this book in this bookcase.”
He and his wife, Joey, were very close. He called her “the indispensable
framework,” in the dedication of one of his books and she was indeed. She was
very smart. Margit von Mises said, “Murray, you’re responsible for the fact
that Joey didn’t get a PhD.” She could easily have gotten a PhD, but she
decided to dedicate herself to Murray. I could have pointed out to Margit
that she had also made a similar choice to Joey’s: “You dedicated yourself to
your husband and she’s dedicated herself to her husband.”
JD: And that’s viewed as a bad thing today, of course.
LR: Oh my gosh, it would be considered an evil
thing. Joey had a Master’s degree in history. Her hobby was Wagnerian opera, about
which she was an expert. Murray would have her read everything he wrote
before it was published and sometimes she would say, “Murray, you don’t want
to say that.” He had a wonderful home life. I remember once being in Las
Vegas and when I came into the dining room, the table was covered with about
two feet of academic papers. I asked Murray what this was. He’d been to the
Western Political Science Association convention, not one of the high-level
meetings. He picked up every single paper there and went through them all.
Despite the vast range of his reading and writing, he wasn’t an academic
hermit. He loved sports, for example, the Olympics in particular, about which
he knew everything. If you were to talk to him about a particular event, he
might say, “Well really, this guy’s nothing like the 1924 champion.” He loved
basketball, especially the UNLV basketball team.
Albionu2019s Seed: Fou... David Hackett Fischer Best
Price: $7.99 Buy New $21.60 (as of 04:35 EST - Details)
Because
they were willing to publish him, he wrote articles for probably more than
100 tiny periodicals that nobody’s ever heard of. He was always happy, always
cheerful, always optimistic, and never down. Mises, by the way, I was told by
Murray, was never down and never let anything that had happened to him get to
him. Murray said the only note of regret he heard from Mises was in talking
about a former student of his, now a professor at Columbia, Mises said that
it must be a wonderful thing to be a full professor at Columbia. By contrast
he had a horrible position at NYU where he was no more than a visiting professor
for so many years. The dean there — John Sawhill, who later was one of
Nixon’s energy czars — would actually tell students not to take his courses
and would put him in the worst, dampest classroom at the worst hours. But
Mises never complained about it and I never heard Murray complain. The only
time I ever heard him say a word of regret, was when he was talking about
David Hackett Fisher who had written Albion’s
Seed at the time. Murray said, “Imagine, Fisher has 16 graduate
students researching stuff for him.” So, obviously, Murray would have loved
it if he had had that, but, he had to do everything on his own. Imagine what
he would have achieved if he’d been in a regular university with PhD graduate
students.
Murray was extremely funny. You weren’t in his presence for more than a
few minutes or even seconds before you were laughing out loud. I remember
when we had a very funny professor who gave a great talk against feminism. I
said, “Murray, he’s a standup comedian.” He replied, “Do you notice any
similarities between him and me?” And of course, they were both Jewish and
from New York.
Murray grew up in a building where Arthur Burns lived. Burns himself was
described as having a very high-pitched, W.C. Fields voice without the humor,
and he didn’t like Murray, even when Murray was a child. He was on the
NYU economics faculty, though not on Murray’s dissertation committee.
Murray’s committee passed his PhD, which was later published as a book: The
Panic of 1819, even today considered the definitive work, often
cited by people in the mainstream, on its topic.
Burns claimed it wasn’t good enough. Murray, probably correctly, thought
Burns had it in for him and it delayed his getting his PhD for several years.
Burns was such a powerful personality in the economics department that by
opposing Murray, he was able to prevent him from getting his PhD, even though
not on his committee. It wasn’t until Burns went to Washington when
Eisenhower made him chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, that Murray
got his PhD. Joey said that when she was meeting Murray for a date, when he
thought that Burns was going to prevent him from ever getting the PhD, she
found him sitting down and crying on the curb. But he was soon back to being
his normal optimistic self, and I never saw him as anything else.
The Volker Fund, gave him a job of reviewing important books in history,
economics, and other areas and we have all of the extraordinary papers he
wrote for the Fund. There are great academic papers on important books, both
good and bad ones, and Joe Salerno and Patrick Newman are going to publish
more of these papers. Some of them we’ve already published, in collections
edited by Roberta Modugno and David Gordon. We still have vast numbers of
unpublished papers.
JD: And his personal correspondence.
LR: His letters are the most extraordinary I’ve ever
seen. Almost every letter is a paper and yet they are fun and
interesting. In fact, his personal correspondence will require many volumes
when it is edited and published. I know David would like to do that and he’d
be, of course, a great editor.
JD: Rothbard and Mises were very different in temperament.
Talk about their relationship.
LR: When
I asked Murray if he would be part of the Institute, and told him Margit had
given me permission to start it, he clapped his hands in glee. He thought it
was one of the greatest things he’d ever heard about. He loved Mises and when
he would give a speech about him, he would tear up at the end. Mises was in
essence a loveable person. He didn’t suffer fools gladly in Vienna, people
say, but in this country, he was just sweet, interesting, happy to help
anybody who wanted to learn and happy with his position at NYU. He was never
paid by NYU, never got any kind of health insurance or that sort of thing
from NYU. He had wonderful people who put up the money for his salary and
thank goodness for that. Mises taught there for many years. His seminar
included Murray Rothbard, Ralph Raico, Ronald Hamowy, Bettina Greaves and
many other important people. The late Robert Nozick, in a speech at the 100th
anniversary of the birth of Mises, talked about why the people at NYU hated
Mises. He said that one of the reasons was that Mises attracted smart,
achieving people from the outside world — businessmen, financial people, Wall
Street people, and others of significance to audit his classes.
Nozick said that regular professors have never seen anything like this and
they hated Mises and were envious of Mises for doing that. What an honor it
is to do our best to carry on his legacy, Rothbard’s legacy, Margit von
Mises’s legacy, Joey Rothbard’s legacy.
And just one word about David Gordon and Murray. I remember a breakfast
with David and Murray at Mises U in California, and when David walked in, I
saw Murray’s face just light up and it was at that moment I realized that
really David was Murray’s son. I mean, he was the son that Murray would have
loved to have had and, of course, he’s carried on Murray’s legacy exactly as
a great son would do. But, he was a joy to Murray. They talked on the phone
every day.
As for me, I miss him every day and what an honor and what a delight it
was to know him.
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org
are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
The Best of
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.