 It is my great pleasure to introduce one of the leading Rothbardians and a very faithful Rothbardian this evening. We're comrades in arms. We've known each other since 1985. Together fought the good fight, hopefully, for Austrian economics and libertarianism. The person I'm introducing is a hero in that he has initiated the property of freedom society on his own and with the help of his lovely wife, Gultrin Emre. And that this is certainly a politically incorrect but a truth-telling organization that has no peer in the world. And I'm, of course, talking about Hans Hermann Hoppe. Hans was educated at the University of the Sarlans, Gerde University of Frankfurt, both in Germany, and the University of Michigan for studies in philosophy, sociology, history, and economics. He earned his PhD in philosophy and his habilitation, which is an advanced degree, advanced even beyond a PhD, in sociology and economics from Goethe University. He taught at several German universities, as well as at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Advanced Studies in Bologna, Italy, and his professor emeritus at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. In 1986, he moved from Germany to the United States to study under Murray Rothbard and remained a close associate of Rothbard until Murray's death in 1995. Dr. Hoppe is currently the distinguished fellow of the Mises Institute, the only one who has achieved this recognition. He is former editor of the Journal of Libertarian Studies and is a lifelong member of the Royal Horticultural Society. I don't know where that came from. Among his English-language books are Democracy, the God that Failed, The Myth of National Defense, Economic Science and the Austrian Method, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, The Great Fiction, From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy, and numerous articles on Philosophy, Economics, and the Social Sciences. Best of all, all of these books and articles can be read by people without a PhD in anything. Okay, by regular people, by real people. And I recommend that you dip into these works and you read them and you will soon become addicted. Hans and his lovely wife, Gulchan Imre, Dr. Gulchan Imre, live in Istanbul. So I introduce to you Hans, Hermann Hoppe. Thank you, Joel, for that nice introduction. Thank you, Misesinsud, Jeff Deist, Lurokwell, Pet Barnett, for the honor to be the keynote speaker here. I will not talk about horticulture, even though I'm a member of the Royal Horticultural Society, thanks to my wife, who is an ardent gardener. I'm just more spectator. But my topic is coming of age with Murray. I first met Murray Rospart in the summer of 1985. I was then 35 years old and Murray was 59. And for the next 10 years, until Murray's premature death in 1995, I would be associated with Murray first in New York City and then in Las Vegas at UNLV in closer and more immediate and direct contact than anyone else except his wife, Julie, of course. Now being almost as old now as Murray was at the time of his death, I thought that it would be appropriate to use this occasion to speak and reflect a little bit on what I learned during my 10 years with Murray. I was already an adult when I first met Murray, not just in the biological but also in the mental and intellectual sense. And yet I only came of age while associated with him. And I want to talk about this experience. Before I met Murray, I had already completed my PhD and attained the rank of a privatozend that is a 10-year but unpaid university professor that incidentally is the same rank that Ludwig von Mises once held in Vienna. Apart from my doctoral dissertation, I had already completed two books, one that revealed me as a Misesian and another about to be published in the following year, 1986, that revealed me as a Rosebardian. I had already read all of Mises's and Rosebard's theoretical works but I must admit that I had not yet read Murray's voluminous journalistic work which was essentially unavailable to me at that time in Germany. Thus it was not my personal encounter with Murray then that made me a Misesian and a Rosebardian. Intellectually, I was already a Misesian and Rosebardian years before I ever met Murray personally. And so notwithstanding the fact that I am and consider myself also foremost a theoretician, I do not want to speak here about the grand Austro-libertarian intellectual edifice that Mises and in his succession, Rosebard, have handed down to us or about my own small contributions to this system but about my long personal experience with Murray about the practical and existential lessons that I learned through my encounters with him and that turned me from an adult to a man who had come of age. I moved to New York City because I considered Murray the greatest of all social theorists at least in the 20th century if not of all times just as I considered Mises the greatest of all economists of all times. And with Mises having gone long ago and out of the picture I wanted to meet, get to know and work with this man Rosebard. I still hold this view concerning the greatness of Mises and Rosebard indeed even more so than 30 years ago. And since then there has been no second Mises or a Rosebard not even close and we may have to wait for a long time to come for this to happen again. So I moved to New York City knowing Murray's work but knowing almost nothing about the men. Remember this was 1985. I was still writing in long hand and then using a mechanical typewriter, acquainting myself with a computer for the first time only during the following year at UNLV and Murray never used a computer but stayed with an electric typewriter until the end of his life. There were no cell phones, there were no emails, no internet, no Google, no Wikipedia and no YouTube. At the beginning even fax machines did not exist. So my correspondence with Murray preceding my arrival in New York City was by old regular snail mail. Murray expressed his enthusiasm about my wish to meet and work with him and immediately offered to enlist the help of Bert Blumert and indeed Bert Blumert then was of instrumental help in facilitating my move from Europe to the US. The wonderful Bert Blumert incidentally was the owner of Camino Coins and also the founder of the original Center for Libertarian Studies that would ultimately be integrated and merged with the Mises Institute. Bert Blumert was one of Murray's dearest friends and confidants and he was also a great benefactor and dear friend to me. I had seen some photos of Murray. I knew that he like Mises was Jewish that he taught at Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute which was subsequently renamed as New York Polytechnic University and nowadays Polytechnic Institute of NYU that he was the auditor of the much admired Journal of Libertarian Studies and that he was closely associated as its academic director with the Ludwig von Mises Institute that Lou Rockwell had recently then 35 years ago in 1982 founded and that was about it and so both unprepared we met for the first time in Murray's University office. Here was I the cool blonde from the North. That was a popular advertisement for bitter tasting Norse and German beers young tall and athletic and somewhat unsociable dry and with a dry sense of humor and more on the blunt sarcastic and confrontational side. So you might say I was perfect Wehrmacht material if you will and there was Murray the big city neurotic to use a German title of Woody Allen's comedic Annie Hall a generation older short and round none athletic even clumsy except for typing gregarious and hilarious never moping but ever joyful and in his personal dealings quite unlike in his writings always non confrontational well-tempered or even tame not exactly Wehrmacht material so personality wise then we could hardly have been more different indeed we were quite an odd couple and yet we hit it off from the start given the long special historical relationship between Germans and Jews so I I as a young German meeting an older Jew in America had been afraid that this history might become a potential source of tension but not so quite to the contrary on the subject of religion itself there was general agreement we were both agnostics yet with a profound interest in the sociology of religion and quite similar views on comparative religion yet Murray greatly deepened my understanding of the role of religion in history through his unfortunately uncompleted great work during the last decade of his life on the history of economic thought moreover in our countless conversations I learned from Murray about the importance of complimenting Austro libertarian theory with revisionist history in order to come up with a truly realistic assessment of historic events and global affairs and it was I then as someone who had grown up in defeated and devastated post-World War two West Germany with the then and still official history taught across all German schools and universities of a feeling guilty and ashamed of being German and German history and be believing that America and America's democratic capitalism was the greatest thing since or even before the invention of sliced bread so it was I who had to revise his formerly still despite all austral libertarian theory still quite rather naive views about world affairs in general and US American and German history in particular as a matter of fact Murray made me fundamentally change my rather rosy view of the United States and helped me for the first time to feel consoled content and even happy about being just a German and to develop a special concern for Germany and the fate of the German people to my initial surprise then and ultimately my great and pleasant relief Murray was quite a Germanophile he knew and highly appreciated the German contributions to philosophy mathematics science engineering scholarly history and literature his beloved teacher Mises had originally written in German and was a product of German culture Murray loved German music he loved German Baroque churches he loved the Bavarian beer garden atmosphere and the from church to beer garden we go tradition his wife Joey was of German ancestry her maiden name being Joe and Schumacher and Joey was a member of the Richard Wagner Society of all societies and a lifelong opera buff as well most of Murray's friends that I would eventually meet turned out Germanophiles foremost among them Ralph Rayco the great historian of classical liberalism who I had hoped to see again at this occasion but who sadly left us forever almost a year ago now I met Ralph only a few months after my arrival in New York City at the party held at Murray's apartment on the Upper West Side I immediately took to his caustic sarcasm and over the years we developed a close friendship apart from our many meetings at various Mises Institute events I still fondly remember in particular our extended joint travels in northern Italy and especially when at a conference in Milano sponsored by some friends and affiliates of the ones but no longer the sessionist Lega Nord some self-proclaimed who would have guessed that anti-fascist demonstrators appeared in front of the conference hotel to denounce us to our great amusement as libertari fascist Ralph was also the one who introduced me to the revisionist history revision scholarship concerning World War one and World War two as well as the entire interwar period and it was Ralph who taught me about the history of German liberalism and in particular its radical 19th century libertarian representatives that had been almost completely forgotten in contemporary Germany incidentally Lou Rockwell too early on showed that his Germanophile credentials when we first met in New York City in the fall of 1985 he drove a Mercedes 190 he then went astray for a few years driving an American made pickup truck but ultimately returned to the fold by driving a Mini Cooper produced by BMW but above all it was Murray who taught me never to trust official history invariably written by the victors but to conduct all historical research instead like a detective investigating a crime always first and foremost and as a first approximation follow the money in search of a motive who is to gain whether in terms of money real estate or sheer power from this measure or that in most cases answering this question will lead you directly to the very actor or group of actors responsible for the measure or policy under consideration simple as it is to ask this question however it is much more difficult and requires often arduous research to answer it and to unearth from under a huge smoke screen of seemingly high-minded rhetoric and pious propaganda the hard facts and indicators the money flows and the welfare gains in order to actually prove a crime and to identify and out its perpetrators Murray was a master in this and that at a time when you did not have access to computers the internet and search machines such as google and to do this detectives work I as I learned from Murray you must go beyond official documents the mainstream media the big and famous names the academic stars and the prestigious journals in short everything and everyone deemed respectable and politically correct you must also and in particular pay attention to the work of outsiders extremists and outcasts that is to disrespectable or deplorable people and obscure publication outlets that you are supposed to ignore or not even know about to this day I have heeded and indeed relished following this advice anyone who could see my list of bookmarks of frequently visited websites would likely be surprised and any establishment terry in or leftist in particular would likely be shocked and shudder in disgust now with this general perspective and outlook on things revisionists such as Murray and then in his footsteps also myself are regularly charged contemptuously as some nutty conspiracy theorists to this charge Murray would typically respond first put bluntly and sarcastically even if one were a certified paranoid this cannot be taken as proof that no one was actually after you and your money after all and second and more systematically conspiracies are of course less likely of the larger the number of supposed conspirators also it is naive to assume the existence of just one big org encompassing conspiracy run by one or powerful group of conspirators but conspiracies often rival or even contradictory conspiracies that is confidential efforts of various groups of people acting in concert in the pursuit of some common goal are indeed an ever present feature of social reality as any action such conspiracies can succeed or they can fail and can lead to consequences that were unintended by the conspirators but realistically speaking most if not all historical events are more or less exactly what some identifiable people or group of people acting in concert intended them to be indeed to assume the opposite is to assume incredibly that history is nothing but a sequence of unintelligible events and accidents moreover in learning from Murray about the necessity of complimenting austral libertarian theory with revisionist history so as to gain a complete realistic picture of the world and worldly affairs i also receive constant training from him in the art of prudent and judicious judgment and evaluation of people actions and events pure theory allows us to make rather clear-cut judgments of true or false right or wrong and effective leading to the goal intended or ineffective but many if not most actions and events provoking or eliciting our judgment do not fall into the category of matters that can be evaluated in this simple yes or no matter we are surrounded or better encircled by a class of people politicians and state agents that they in and they out renders and enforces decisions that are systematic that is systematically impact and affect our property and consequently our entire conduct of life without our consent and against our explicit protestation we are confronted by an elite of rulers and confronted with politicians and political decisions then our judgment concerns the evaluation of at best second best the question is not true or false right or wrong effective or ineffective rather it is this given that political decisions are per se false wrong and ineffective which of these decisions is less false wrong and effective and comparatively closer to the truth the right and the good and which person represents a lesser evil or a greater one than another such questions do not allow for a scientific answer because answering them involves the comparative evaluation of countless immeasurable and incommensurable variables and in any case newly discovered facts about the past or future developments may well reveal any such judgment as mistaken but the answer is also not arbitrary what is true right and effective is given as fixed points and reasons must be supplied whether based on logic or empirical evidence for locating various second bests as closer or more distant to such points rather judgment making in matters such as these is a difficult art much like entrepreneurship is not a science but an art and just as some people are good at entrepreneurship and others bad indicated by monetary profits or losses so are some people good at judging political events and actors and others bad gaining or losing in reputation as wise or prudent judges now Murray was of course not unfailing in his judgments during the late 1960s and early 1970s for instance he misjudged the entire war stand of the new left as more principled than is actually wars something that he afterwards readily admitted as a mistake and I know of at least one rather personal case where Joey's judgment was better and more on the mark than his but this notwithstanding I have not encountered anyone of sounder and subsequent subsequently vindicated judgment than Murray now with this I want to come to a second major lesson I learned during my long association with Murray while the first lesson in revisionism concerned matters of practice and method the second lesson concerned an existential matter before I met Murray I knew of course that he was a radical outsider in a predominantly leftist liberal academia and I expected and I was willing to accept for myself that this would involve some sacrifices that is that one would have to pay a price for being a rospardian not only but also in terms of money but I was quite surprised to realize how high this price was I knew that Brooklyn polytechnic was not a prestigious university yet I expected Murray to occupy their comfortable well-paying post moreover at the time I still fancied the United States as Sebastian and Bolvark of free enterprise and consequently expected that Murray as a foremost intellectual champion of capitalism and the personified anti-cesus of Marx would be held in high esteem if not in academia then certainly outside of it in the world of commerce and business and accordingly be rewarded with a certain degree of influence in fact at Brooklyn polytechnic Murray occupied a small grungy and windowless office that he had to share with a history professor in Germany even research assistants enjoyed more comfortable surroundings not to speak of full professors Murray ranked among the lowest paid full professors at his school indeed my german national science foundation grant at the time a heisenberg scholarship turned out to be considerably higher than Murray's university salary something that I was too ashamed to reveal to him after I had discovered it and Murray's apartment in Manhattan large and filled to the ceiling with books was dark and run down certainly nothing like the penthouse that I had imagined him to occupy now this situation improved significantly with his move in 1986 at the age of 60 to Las Vegas and UNLV while my salary went down there as compared to my previous compensation Murray's went sharply up but was still well below 100k and he would could afford to buy a roomy but Spartan house even as the holder of an endowed chair at UNLV however Murray did not have command of any research assistants or a personal secretary yet Murray never complained or showed any bitterness or signs of envy but always plugged along joyfully and pushed ahead instead with his writings this was a hard lesson for me to learn and I'm still having difficulties following it at times apropos Joey and Murray once told me laughingly how at the time when they were still dating both had expected the other to be a good catch Joey Joey because Murray was Jewish and Murray because Joey was Gentile only to then find out that they were both wrong in their expectation moreover despite his towering achievements as an intellectual champion of free market capitalism Murray never won any prizes awards or honors to speak of that he did not win a Nobel prize in economics was not surprising after all the great Mises also did not win it but in the US alone there exist existed dozens of institutions think tanks foundations business associations research centers and universities that profess their dedication to free markets and liberty and yet none of them ever awarded Murray any significant prize or honorary award all the while they show our people with money and awards who had done little more than to suggest daringly some incremental reform such as let's say lowering the marginal tax rate from 35 to 30 percent were cutting were cutting the budget of the EPA by some percentage points or who had simply expressed their personal love of freedom and free enterprise often loudly and emphatically enough none of this faced Murray in the slightest indeed he expected nothing else for reasons that I still had to learn what Murray realized and I still had to learn was that the most vociferous and ferocious rejection and opposition to austral libertarianism would not come from the traditional socialist left but rather from these very self-proclaimed anti-socialist pro-minimal state pro-private enterprise and pro-freedom outfits and their intellectual mousepieces and above all from what has become known as the Beltway libertarians they simply could not stomach the fact that Murray had demonstrated with plain logic that their doctrines were nothing but inconsistent intellectual clap trap and that they were all to use Mises's verdict vis-à-vis Milton Friedman and his company a bunch of socialists socialist notwithstanding of course their vehement protestations to the contrary for as Murray argued once you admitted the existence of a state any state defined as a territorial monopolist of ultimate decision making in every case of conflict including conflicts involving the state itself then all private property had been effectively abolished even if it remained provisionally as a state grant normally private and all of that had been replaced instead by a system of collective or rather state property state any state means socialism defined as the collective ownership of factors of production the institution of a state is praxeologically incompatible with private property and private property based enterprise it is it is the very antithesis of private property and any proponent of private property and private enterprise and must as a matter of logic be an anarchist in this regard as in many others Murray was unwilling to compromise or intransigent as his detractors would say because in theory in thinking compromise is impermissible in everyday life compromise is a permanent and ubiquitous feature of course but in theory compromise is the ultimate sin a strict and absolute no no it is not permissible for instance to compromise between the two incompatible propositions that one plus one equals two or that one plus one equals three and accept that it is 2.5 either some proposition is true or it is false there can be no meeting in the middle of truth and falsehood now here regarding Murray's uncompromising radicalism a little anecdotal told by Ralph Reiko seems apropos to quote Ralph Murray was someone special I recognize that fact the first night I met him it was after the Mises seminar a body of mine and I had been invited to attend and afterwards Murray suggested we have coffee and talk my friend and I were dazzled by the great Mises and Murray naturally was pleased to see our enthusiasm he assured us that Mises was at least the greatest economy of the century if not the whole history of economic thought as far as politics went though Murray said lowering his voice conspiratorially well when it comes to politics some of us consider Mises a member of the non-communist left and Ralph concludes this by saying yes it was easy to see we had met someone very special unlike Murray quite a few individuals who had learned essentially everything they ever knew from Murray in particular from his man economy in state quite a few people were willing to make such intellectual compromises and they were richly rewarded for their intellectual flexibility and tolerance but that was not Murray and consequently he was and is still ignored excluded or denounced by the chieftains of the limited limited government free market industry and he was essentially left without any institutional support as a lone fighter until the arrival of Lou Rockwell and the Mises Institute I experienced this Rosebard phobia secondhandedly if you will for as soon as word had gotten out that the new German arrival was Murray's boy and also appeared rather intransigent I found myself immediately placed on the same black lists with him thus I had quickly learned the first important real life lesson of what it means to be a Rosebardian you will be black bald another lesson was in humility Joselano talked about that a little bit I have to add a few things Murray had a huge library and read and digested an enormous amount of literature and was consequently a humble man he was always reluctant and highly skeptical to assume or recognize any originality claims originality claims he knew are made most frequently by people with teeny libraries and little reading in distinct contrast Murray was highly generous in giving credit to others and he was equally generous in giving advice to anyone asking indeed on almost any conceivable subject he was prepared on the top of his head to provide you with an extensive bibliography as well he encouraged any sign of productivity even among his lowliest students while I was why I always try to follow this example I could not bring myself to go quite as far as Murray did because I sought and still think that Murray's humility was excessive that he was humble almost to a fault his students at Brooklyn Polytechnic for instance mostly engineering majors or as Murray described Miseser students at NYU packaging majors they had they had no idea who he was because he never mentioned his own works they were genuinely surprised to find out from me who their jolly professor was when I substituted teaching Murray's class while he was out of town and at UNLV the situation was not much different while I actively promoted him as his unofficial PR agent Murray continued in his self-deprecation although he had written on almost any imaginable subject in the social sciences he would when he suggested or assigned term papers to his students mentioned his own related writings if at all only as some sort of afterthought or upon specific request yet Murray's extreme modesty had also another unfortunate effect when we moved to Las Vegas in 1986 we had expected to turn UNLV into a bastion of Austrian economics at the time UNLV's basketball team the running rebels under coach Jerry Tarkanian were a national powerhouse always slightly scandalous but impossible to overlook now we had hoped to become the running rebels of economics at UNLV several students had transferred and enrolled at the university in anticipation of such a development but these hopes were quickly disappointed already at our arrival at UNLV the composition of the economics department had significantly changed and then majority rule democracy set in to balance the Austrian influence only one year later the department majority decided against our opposition to hire a known name marxist I urged Murray to use his position and reputation to interfere with the university's higher ups and prevent his appointment except for Jerry Tarkanian Murray was the only nationalized nationally recognized person at UNLV he helped the only endowed chair at the university we knew the university's president and provost socially and were on cordial terms with both of them accordingly I believed that there was a realistic chance to overturn the department's decision but I could not persuade Murray of his own powers that I thought he clearly had after this missed opportunity matters became worse the department continued to hire anyone but an Austrian or Austrian sympathizer our students were maltreated and discriminated against the department and the dean of the business college denied me tenure which decision was overruled by the university's provost and president not least because of massive student protests and the intervention of several university donors the department chairman wrote an outrageous nasty and insulting annual evaluation of Murray's professorial performance upon which the university administration forced the chairman to resign from his position as a consequence a second chance for us arose to turn matters around plans were developed and were discussed with the provost to split the department and established a separate economics department in the college of liberal arts this time Murray became involved but the initial momentum to our advantage had been lost in the meantime and after the first signs of resistance Murray quickly resigned and gave up he was not willing to take off his gloves and our secessionist movement project soon fizzled out in defeat only to quickly finish our UNLV saga after Murray's death in 1995 I continued working at UNLV for another decade in an increasing hostile environment the once protective university administration had changed and I felt ever more unappreciated and out of place even my great popularity among students was used against me as proof of the great danger emanating from my teaching in 2004 many of you have heard this I became embroiled in a scandal in a lecture I had to hypothetically suggested that homosexuals on average and owing to their characteristic lack of children had a comparatively higher degree of time preference that is of present orientation a crybaby student complained and the and the university's affirmative action commissar immediately as if he had only waited for this opportunity initiated official proceedings against me threatening severe punitive measures if I were not too instantly and publicly recant and apologize intransigent as I was I refuse to do so and I must say I'm quite certain that it was only this steadfast refusal of mine to beg for forgiveness that after a full year of administrative harassment I ultimately emerged victorious from this battle with assault police and the university administration and the university administration suffered an embarrassing defeat a year later than I resigned from my position and left UNLV and the US for good now coming back to Murray naturally I was disappointed about the development at UNLV but they did not have the slightest effect on our continued cooperation maybe Murray had been right and more realistic all along and it was I who had suffered from too much useful optimism who knows and in any case there was one more important lesson about the larger scheme of things that I still had to learn whereas most people tend to become milder and more tolerant in their views as they grow older Murray grew increasingly more radical and less tolerant over time not in his personal dealings as I already emphasized in this regard Murray was and remained to the end a softy but in his speeches and in his writings this radicalization and increasing intransigence came in response to developments in the world of US politics at large and in particular was in the limited government free market industry and among the so-called libertarians assembled around Washington DC's Beltway there everywhere a slow yet systematic drift towards the left and leftist ideas could be observed a drift that ever since up to this day has only further gained in momentum and grown in strengths constantly new rights were discovered and adopted in particular also by so-called libertarians human rights and civil rights woman rights and gay rights the right not to be discriminated against the right to free and unrestricted immigration the right to a free lunch and free health care and the right to be free of unpleasant speech and thought Murray demolished all of this allegedly humanitarian or to use a German word good mention talk as intellectual rubbish and in demonstrating that none of these supposed rights were compatible with private property rights and that as libertarians above all people should know only private property rights that is the right of every person in the ownership of his physical body and the ownership of all external objects justly peacefully acquired by him can be argumentatively defended as universal and composable human rights everything except private property rights then Murray demonstrated again and again a phony non-universalizable rights every call for human rights other than private property rights is ultimately motivated by egalitarianism and as such represents a revolt against nature moreover more over Murray moved still further to the right in accordance with Erik von Künelt-Ledin's dictum that the right is right and the left is wrong in pointing out that in order to establish maintain and to defend a libertarian social order more is needed than the mere adherence to the non-aggression principle the ideal of the left or modal libertarians as Murray referred to them of live and let live as long as you don't aggress anyone else that sounds so appealing to adolescents in rebellion against parental authority and any social convention and control may be sufficient for people living far apart and dealing with each other and trading with each other only indirectly and from afar but it is decidedly insufficient when it comes to people living in close close proximity to each other as neighbors and cohabitants of the same community the peaceful cohabitation of neighbors and of people in regular direct contact with each other on some territory requires also a commonality of culture of language religion custom and convention there can be peaceful coexistence of different cultures on distant physically separated territories but multiculturalism cultural heterogeneity cannot exist in one and the same place and territory without leading to diminishing social trust increased conflict and ultimately the destruction of anything resembling a libertarian social order now if Murray had been ignored neglected or resented before by the usual suspects now with this stand against everything deemed politically correct he was vilified and met with undisguised hatred the by now only all too familiar litany of denunciatory terms followed Murray was a reactionary a racist a sexist an authoritarian an elitist a xenophobic a fascist and to top it all off a self-hating jewish nazi now Murray shrugged it all off indeed he laughed about it and indeed to the consternation of the smearbund as Murray referred to the united popular front of his anti fascist detractors his influence only grew and has continued to grow still further since his death it may not be widely recognized but without Murray there would be no Ron Paul as we know him and I say this without wishing thereby to diminish or belittle Ron Paul's own personal role and extraordinary achievements in the slightest there would be no Ron Paul movement and there would be no popular or as the smearbund prefers to say no populist libertarian agenda as for me my own views radicalized too along with Murray's my democracy the god that failed was the first major documentation of this intellectual development and if anything my radical intolerance regarding anything left libertarian and politically correct correct has been growing still ever since almost needless to say that I too then have been awarded the same and even a few extra honorary titles by the smearbund as Murray except for the self-hating jewish stuff yet I had learned to shrug it off too as I had seen Murray do it and as Ralph Reicho had always encouraged and continued to advise me in addition remembering a popular german saying helped me feel fine feel air many enemies much honor and indeed the ongoing success of my own property and freedom society which is now in this 12th year helped and conducted in a genuinely rospartian spirit has demonstrated the utter failure of all defamation campaigns directed at me if anything they have helped rather than hindered me and attracting an ever larger circle of intellectual friends affiliates and supporters I should add that during the last decade or so under the wise and strict guidance of my lovely wife Gulchan I have also made some strides in combining uncompromising intellectual radicalism with a certain degree of personal loveability even though I must admit that nature and natural dispositions have prevented me from coming anywhere close to Murray in this regard I have said far too little here about Lou and I apologize but I must say apart from Murray Lou has played a tremendously important role in helping me become the man that I am today and to Murray who I'm sure is watching us today from up high I say thank you Murray you are my hero I shall not look upon his like again and I hope you are happy with your student I always felt tremendous joy when you told me great hunts utter boy and even if I can hear can't hear you right now nothing would give me greater pleasure than if you said it again right now up there where the kings of thought are gathered thank you very much