Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is the New York Times bestselling author of 11 books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and Meltdown (on the financial crisis). A senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Woods has appeared on MSNBC, CNBC, FOX News, FOX Business, C-SPAN, Bloomberg Television, and hundreds of radio programs... (Read More)

The Tom Woods App

New Book Coming — Smear Artists Ready

20th May 2010      by: Tom Woods     

My new book, Nullification, is coming June 29.  Wait until you see the cover design.  The design people are brilliant.

The smears that will be hurled my way are entirely predictable.  No one is allowed to adopt, much less advocate, an unapproved opinion, especially one directed at the heart of the regime, and anyone doing so can expect the heretic treatment.  (The Left, once a revolutionary movement, is now a bunch of shills for power and established institutions.  “Question Authority” is long, long gone.)  I will be portrayed as a sinister person who wants to bring back the Southern Confederacy, though why a libertarian would want to restore a regime that protected slavery and engaged in military conscription and monetary inflation is never explained.  (But when Woods was in college [sixteen years ago], he….  Yes, that’s what they are actually going to pull.  Nevermind all this.)

I’ve already smacked down two geniuses: here and here.  There will be more.

My own political philosophy, which embraces 100% self-ownership, and thus is opposed to all forms of forced labor always and everywhere, is described in this lecture (the next video in the series starts when the previous one finishes).  Anyone who tries to pretend I support slavery (slavery!) is therefore not just a numbskull, but a liar.  I am more antislavery and (for that matter) antiwar than any one of my critics will be.  I guarantee that.

In anticipation of the parade of automatons, I’ve just added a section to my articles page called “Against the Smearbund.”

The more hysterical the attacks are, though, the better.  Because then, when the inevitable person of good will reads the book and sees how reasonable and persuasive it is and how firmly grounded in American history its arguments are, he’ll start to wonder about the hysterics: what the heck is their gripe against this book?  Sure, they might disagree with its conclusions, but it’s obviously not crazy or evil. Why won’t they treat its arguments on their merits? Might these people just be irrationalists who want to intimidate people into silence?

These are just the questions we want people asking.  Why can’t these critics (if I am not dignifying them by assigning them such a hallowed designation) honestly debate what are obviously reasonable arguments?  Why must they resort immediately to smear-and-destroy mode?  Anything that discredits the smear artists is an advance for freedom.

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • http://www.twitter.com/jhonsun Jhonsun

    The worst thing that could happen would be if it were ignored.

    It’s amazing that the view point which was assumed by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton (sometimes), the ratifying states of the U.S. Constitution, the New England states, the abolitionists, etc. would now be considered too radical today. It is the foundational understanding of our governmental system.

    For these people to deny that is like climbing to the top of a ladder and then kicking it out from underneath them.

  • http://amateureconblog.blogspot.com/ Speedmaster

    Looking forward to it!

  • John

    Tom, PLEASE make sure to get on shows like Hannity. The front cover alone will be like red meat to their viewers. And get on Glenn Beck, too! It’s like every book he promotes now becomes a number one bestseller on Amazon!

  • http://www.thomasewoods.com Tom Woods

    It all depends on whether they choose to book me. All we can do is send the press materials and the book.

  • Peter

    Let’s hope they get you booked, even though I hate the free speech limiting scumbag media. You know that there are unconstitutional Federal laws that claim it should be “fair and balanced”, but it doesn’t mean censorship. They basically control the media and controling who gets a license to broadcast. Now they allow consolidation and monopoly over the broadcasting channels making it easier to manage.

Find me on Google