You are here:
From the enemies of my enemies (posted 27 April 2008)
Shorter DiLorenzo: Don’t vote for Alan Keyes because he used to hang out with a bunch of fags.
DiLorenzo may be the single most embarrassing figure associated with radical libertarianism today. If he were a covert agent trying to rehabilitate disgusting politicians by deliberately making their critics look foolish, then he couldn’t act like any more of a perfect ass than he already does.
JOR replied:
DiLorenzo puts the term ‘Straussian’ in scare-quotes the first time he uses it in that post.
A Freudian (or rather, Straussian, ha!) slip?
Robert Hutchinson replied:
Wow.
There is so much revealing information to be unpacked from those 33 words, from the clarification that the dresses were women’s dresses to the quote marks around “Straussian” that don’t show up anywhere else. (“Flamboyant” people are contradicting themselves by being warmongers, perhaps?)
Thanks for drawing attention to this, RG.
Deus X. Nihilo replied:
Clearly and obviously, DiLorenzo mentioned that Bloom was a cross-dresser in order to embarrass Keyes for hanging out with a “bunch of fags.” End of story.
Critic critique. thyself.
Rad Geek replied:
It’s not at all clear or obvious to me. As far as I can tell, DiLorenzo’s comments are intended to do what the rest of the sentences in that paragraph do—i.e. to give reasons why the Constitution Party were right to reject Alan Keyes as a candidate, not to embarrass Alan Keyes personally. (Do you suppose he’d be embarrassed about studying under Mansfield or working with Jeane Kirkpatrick?)
Do you have any positive reasons to believe otherwise, or is this just an esoteric subtext that a mere lay reader like myself can’t discern?
If, however, your defense is that DiLorenzo is just pandering to homophobia in an effort to discredit his enemies — rather than indulging in sincerely-felt homophobia himself — well, then, so what? Is that supposed to be better?
Natasha replied:
Thank you for exposing DiLorenzo. It’s imperative that libertarian radicals like you and I explain our differences with the social conservative bigot libertarian crowd.
Honestly, I don’t think we’re even of the same philosophy. Not if our cultural radicalism is an essential part of our integrated philosophic perspective.