Current Events

Clearing Up The Hoppe Foreword Controversy

Please Consider Purchasing A Copy Of White, Right, and Libertarian

I’d like to begin by expressing my reluctance to go through with bringing the details of this sensitive issue to light.  I absolutely love the Ludwig Von Mises Institute and never thought I’d find myself in a situation to where I would be revealing facts that may have a negative impact on its repute.  I also have a strong personal distaste for being involved in drama and controversy. Unfortunately, due to the ever growing spread of out of context rumors and outright libel (even by Mises staff/workers), I am in a position now to where I can only defend my reputation and honor by bringing all the facts to light.

I will provide as many facts, screen shots, e-mails, texts, …etc. as possible.  I will also include some of my own interpretations and speculations to help make sense of the facts.  However, I will be very careful to distinguish between fact and interpretation/speculation.  Ultimately, you the reader will have to decide for yourself what to make of the situation.  I hope most of you will choose truth over comfort.

The origin of the foreword

I first contacted Hoppe on November 16, 2017 requesting that he write the foreword for my upcoming book White, Right, and Libertarian In my request I explicitly provided the title of the book, as well as the entire manuscript.  Hoppe graciously agreed to write the foreword the following day.  Below is the entire text of my initial e-mail request:

 

“Dr. Hoppe,

I am, perhaps, one of your biggest fans.  You may remember a few years ago I sent you my book, A Spontaneous Order: The Capitalist Case For A Stateless Society, in the mail.  It was heavily influenced by your work.  Your dear friend, Stephan Kinsella, was gracious enough to write the foreword.  Since then it has sold 4,000 copies so, considering the topic, I believe it was a success.  Attached is a draft of a new short book/booklet I plan on publishing soon entitled: White, Right, and Libertarian. This book is also very heavily inspired by your work…namely your more recent work regarding: Democracy: The God That Failed, A Short History of Man, “Realistic Libertarianism as Right Libertarianism”, and “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right”.  My hope is to entice the Alt-Right to adopt the political/economic theory of genuine libertarians, and libertarians to adopt the cultural positions of the Alt-Right.  

I know it may be asking too much, but I was hoping you would be willing to either write the introduction, foreword, or at least a small review/endorsement.  I can think of no better man for the job, and I would be deeply honored.  I very much look forward to hearing your response.

-Christopher “Chase” Rachels
Phone: (xxx)-xxx-xxxx
  

<WhiteRightLibertarian.docx>”

 

 

This is the entire text of his reply:

 

“Dear Christopher,

I read your excellent book Spontaneous Order and I have been following and am delighted about your Radical Capitalism blog. I would be happy to write a short foreword for your planned little book if you give me time until the end of the year.

Best,

HHH”

Below is a screen shot of these e-mails:

email1

 

I then responded thanking him for granting my request on November 17th.  Approximately a month later, On December 18th, I followed up to see if he needed an extension.  The screen shot for these two emails is below:

 

email2

Hoppe responded later that very same day, December 18th, to confirm that he was still planning on completing the foreword, but that some tragic family matters would delay the completion until mid January.   The following is a relevant excerpt from his response:

 

“….But I have thought about you and if it is not quite by the end of the year it will there by mid-January.

HHH”

Below is a screenshot of these emails:
email3

I then apologized for the tragic circumstances he was facing, and expressed my condolences:

 

email4

On January 13th, 2018 he sends me his foreword stating:

“I put in far more effort than first anticipated. I hope you are satisfied.

HHH”

The following is a screen shot of this email that also includes the word doc attachment with the foreword:

 

Capture

Below is a screenshot which provides a preview of this attachment demonstrating that it is indeed the foreword intended for White, Right, and Libertarian (although Hoppe labels it a “preface”)  Notice he explicitly writes the title of the book at the top of the page, which affirms that he was well aware of the title of the book (contrary to the false rumors being spread by others):

 

Capture

 

This extended screenshot affirms that the “Hans-Hermann Hoppe” in the header of the e-mail is indeed coming from Hoppe’s e-mail address: hoppe@mises.com

 

Capture

 

This affirms that hoppe@mises.com is indeed Hoppe’s genuine e-mail address:

 

Capture

I then responded to him on the same day, January 13th, affirming that I am more than satisfied and requested his address so that I could send him a copy of the book once it was published.  A couple days later, on January 15th, Hoppe responds by giving me his physical mailing address and granting permission to make any corrections since English is his second language.  This is his exact quote:

“Also, English is not my native language, so if some corrections are needed I don’t mind.

HHH”

The following is a screenshot of these e-mails:

 

email5

The Cover Design Controversy

 

Around this time, I posted on my small closed Facebook group, Hoppean Ancaps, that I had received Hoppe’s foreword for my upcoming book.  Jeff Deist, the President of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, happens to be a member of this group, and, according to Facebook, saw the post announcing Hoppe’s contribution:

 

Capture1

 

Tho Bishop of the Mises Institute also saw the post (He handles social media and the press for the institute according to Mises.org):

 

Capture

Now to give you some more background information, several weeks before this I sent Chris Calton (writer for the Mises Institute) a possible design for the cover that I was considering using, however I expressly told him to keep it confidential.  The following is a screenshot of this exchange (the cover has been edited to conceal content that Hoppe does not want publicized):
thumbnail_Screenshot_2018-01-28-09-20-24

I wanted this cover design confidential because I DID NOT WANT TO PUBLICIZE A COVER DESIGN THAT HOPPE HAD NOT YET APPROVED OF (at this point I had yet to show him the cover design, though I actually planned on showing him the following the day, after confirming with my designer that he didn’t want to make any more final tweaks).  If Hoppe were to disapprove of this cover design, I had the full intention to modify the design accordingly (just as I eventually did).

Well apparently, after becoming aware of Hoppe’s intention to contribute to my upcoming book on January 15th, Chris Calton was contacted by “some Mises Institute people” inquiring about the book, Hoppe’s connection to it, and expressing some concerns.  Apparently Chris then felt compelled to share the cover design with Jeff Deist as he was allegedly unsure if I was planning on showing Hoppe the cover before publishing (of course he could’ve easily confirmed this either way by asking me directly).

Chris felt bad about breaking his word, so he later confessed to me what he had done via text.  The following are screenshots of his text to me, he also cited concerns of this possibly impacting the Mises Institutes donations:

CaptureCapture1

Chris Calton then confirmed that measures were already being taken to have Hoppe pull the foreword before Chris had even given the Mises Institute the cover design.  He also explicitly named Lew [Rockwell], founder and chairman of the Mises Institute,  as being in contact with Hoppe regarding the foreword:

 

Capture

While members of the Mises Institute were, according to Chris Calton, attempting to get Hoppe to pull the foreword, I was none the wiser until Hoppe sent me the following e-mail requesting I remove the foreword owing to the “incendiary” cover (Chris didn’t confess to me until after Hoppe sent me the following e-mails) :

 

email6

 

I then responded (as you can see in the e-mail above) that I would be more than happy to alter the cover design to address his concern.  Hoppe responded thusly:

 

email7

He was insistent on wanting the foreword removed despite my assurances that it had not been made public, and that I was more than willing to change the cover and get his approval prior to publishing.  Recall, he sent me these emails the very same day he confirmed his desire to move forward and granted me permission to make corrections.  It wasn’t until only after the Mises Institute presumably contacted him that he changed his tune.  I also found Hoppe’s wording rather odd since he is typically a very precise communicator. He said:

I am forced [emphasis added] to withdraw my preface.

Well it wasn’t until Chris had later confessed what was going on behind the scenes at the Mises Institute that this wording made sense to me.  At this point I am technically speculating, however it seems clear to me that the only reason Hoppe was insisting on having his foreword removed, even after being assured the cover design he took issue with hadn’t been made public and would be altered to his liking, was because of pressure being applied to him by members of the Mises Institute to pull the foreword.

After Chris Calton confessed to me, I then called Jeff Deist.  I was upset about what I felt were underhanded tactics to pressure Hoppe to withdraw the foreword behind my back.  However, I had no intention of holding a grudge and wanted to work out a resolution with the top ranking members of the Mises Institute that would better satisfy all parties involved (myself, Hoppe, and those concerned parties at the Mises Institute).

Unfortunately, the call was not very fruitful.  Jeff was very careful to neither admit nor deny anyone’s role at the institute in reaching out to Hoppe to have the foreword pulled.  However he did ask about the book cover, title, and theme.  So I told him a bit about it and offered to send him the original cover design and full manuscript with Hoppe’s foreword.  It’s also important to note that I clearly and expressly told Jeff Deist that I was going to change the cover design in light of Hoppe’s disapproval of it.

After calling Jeff Deist, I then called Lew Rockwell’s office.  He was conveniently absent so I left a message on his machine expressing my sincere willingness to find a resolution regarding his concerns with my book and Hoppe’s contribution to it.  He never called back.  I also ended up forwarding nearly all of the following e-mail correspondence between Jeff and myself to Lew Rockwell and Tho Bishop.

The following is the e-mail I sent Jeff after the phone call:

Jeff,

Attached is the manuscript for the short book White, Right, and LIbertarian I plan on publishing with Hoppe’s foreword. Once again, Hoppe was fully aware of both the title and entire content of the book, as I sent it to him with my request that he write the foreword 2 or 3 months ago. I do plan on changing the cover, however to clarify, it was intentionally incendiary and “edgy” since this is what seems to capture people’s attention. It is also art, and the “bodies” represent ideologies (Socialism, Anti-fa, feminism, and Islam) not actual people (hence the fact that the heads are ideological symbols instead of human heads). Again, I plan on removing these “incendiary” elements out of respect for Hoppe and concern for the Mises’ institute’s perceived threat to their reputation and donors…etc.

I was informed by Chris Calton (who wishes to remain neutral in this, he is a mere messenger) that members of the Mises Institute, in their capacity as Mises staff, expressed their concern to him about Hoppe providing his foreword for my upcoming book, and had already taken measures to prevent his foreword from being associated with said book. Chris told me this was taking place even before they were aware of the cover. Well, after some at the Mises Institute (or those acting on its behalf) contacted Hoppe, Hoppe then contacted me requesting I remove the foreword in light of the cover. I offered to change the cover to his satisfaction and am making the same offer to you all.

I hope we can all work this out together. I will say, I have no intention of altering the content or title of the book as Hoppe was fully aware of both when writing the foreword. I also want to make it clear that I had full intention of showing him the cover prior to publishing, and that the cover has not been made public. There is nothing more incendiary in the content of the book than what Hoppe has already expressed in his past speeches at PFS. I look forward to hearing back from you. I hold the Mises Institute in very high esteem and sincerely do not wish any potential future endeavors we may share to be jeopardized by miscommunication.

Sincerely,

Chase Rachels

 

The following is a screen shot of the above e-mail (I blacked out some elements of the cover, because I assured Hoppe it wouldn’t be made public):

 

Capture

 

Jeff Deist then responds:

 

You do realize Hoppe lives in an Islamic country, one with (intermittently enforced) blasphemy laws? And is married to a Muslim? Turks might not appreciate your depiction of the crescent moon and star. The nooses evoke lynchings in US history and the helicopter evokes Pinochet.

To which I reply:

 

Jeff,

Understood, hence why I’m willing to change the cover and remove all “incendiary” elements.  The cover hasn’t been made public.  Will this be satisfactory for all parties?

 

Already, it seemed Jeff Deist wasn’t interested in working out an amicable resolution as I already previously made it very clear that I was going to change the cover design in both our phone conversation and my initial e-mail.  Thus it seemed odd that he was still harping on it.  The following is the screen shot of these e-mails:

 

email8

 

Jeff Deist then responded with the following:

 

I’m not a party. But I wouldn’t publish this under the Mises Inst. name because of all the “white” discussion and title. If white folks created the best culture and political systems for liberty and flourishing (true), (((they))) [parenthesis and link added] also created the worst ideologies. So it becomes a distraction and leaves you open to racist/neonazi accusations.

It’s up to Hans re the cover

 

It was convenient for him to claim he was “not a party” when Lew and he were previously investigating the matter and reaching out to Hoppe directly to encourage him to pull the foreword according to Chris Calton.  I then responded with the following:

 

Jeff,

Y’all became a party when Lew (and others at the institute) interfered with my and Hoppe’s arrangement, and poisoned the well with Hoppe (attached is testimony to this fact that I received from Chris Carlton, which evidences such measures were being taken even before y’all were made aware of the cover).  Like I said before, I was already planning on showing Hoppe the cover before publishing to get his approval.  If he didn’t approve of the cover, I was going to change it (as I am currently doing).  However, thanks to the interference on part of the Mises Institute, it appears my communication with Hoppe has ceased.

Regarding the title and content, Hoppe was privy to this from the beginning so I have no intention of altering the title and content.  I don’t expect you or the Mises institute to publish, however I think the least you could do is apologize for interfering with our private arrangement, and assure Hoppe that my publishing of this book will not negatively impact the Mises institute’s relationship with him in any way (especially now that I will be removing all the “incendiary” elements and imagery from the cover).  I would like to be CC’d on the email you send him to this effect.

I’d like to close by saying I have the utmost respect for you, Lew, Hoppe and the Mises Institute.  Though I am a bit disappointed and feel a bit betrayed by how these events transpired, I will nevertheless continue to wholeheartedly support the Mises Institute.

-Chase Rachels
Phone: xxx-xxx-xxxx

P.S. I would also appreciate receiving assurances that your professional relationship with Chris Calton will in no way be negatively impacted. He should not be punished for being honest and open with me about actions that were taken to undermine my arrangement with Hoppe.

 

The following is the screenshot of the e-mails quoted above:

 

email9

To which Jeff Deist Replied:

I don’t get it, nobody poisoned anything. You reached out to Hoppe hoping to use his name to promote your book. Nothing wrong with that, but you were the one asking for something and treading on his reputation. The cover shows bad judgment, and now you’re asking for an apology?

He’s his own man, you’re in closer contact with him than me. Nobody betrayed you.

Of course, the cover wasn’t “bad judgement” because I had no intention of making it public or “treading” on Hoppe’s reputation without first receiving his approval.  Hoppe ended up disapproving of the cover, so I changed it accordingly.  Thus, I have no idea where this “reputation treading” was occurring.  In my opinion, the people showing bad judgement were those at the Mises Institute who chose to go to Hoppe to pull the foreword, without first coming to me to see if I would change it.  After all, I was the only person with the power to change the cover and at this point had clearly demonstrated my willingness to do so.  Also, they were further compounding their bad judgement by refusing to work with me to find a mutually agreeable resolution, even after I went to them directly with the sincere intention to do just that.

I then replied:

Jeff,

Did you not read the text from Chris Calton I attached to the previous email?  It clearly indicates that Lew and others at the institute were involved in pressuring Hoppe to pull his foreword (even before y’all were made aware of the cover).  Are you denying this interference took place? If not, then how is that not poisoning the well? Do you think it’s a mere coincidence that Hoppe told me he wanted to pull his foreword after having been contacted by Lew? (Btw the foreword is already in my possession…not sure if y’all are unaware of this fact)

That cover hasn’t been made public, and I’m removing the incendiary elements.  So no poor judgement on my end, especially because I fully intended acquiring Hoppe’s approval before publishing, and of course I was not going to publish a cover he disapproved of.  I do hope your next response will be more conciliatory.

-Chase Rachels

 

The following is a screen shot of the above quoted e-mails:

 

email10

Unfortunately, Jeff’s next response was not more conciliatory because he never provided a response after this.  At this point I was quite upset that my bridge was being burned with the Mises Institute, despite my sincere and earnest efforts to reach out to them to find a resolution that worked for everyone.  I was shocked and disappointed to discover Jeff Deist did not appear to have any intention of working with me to find a resolution, and that Lew Rockwell had not even so much as bothered to respond to my phone call or e-mails.

However, at this point I decided to let the matter go.  Despite the fact that I was very upset about this burnt bridge and the interactions I had with Jeff, I still loved the Mises Institute and did not wish to tarnish their image by going public with this unfortunate series of events.

It is also important to note that later on Tho Bishop claimed that no one at Mises Institute made contact with Hoppe regarding my foreword until after they received my cover design.  Of course, I was skeptical of this claim as Chris Calton had no reason to lie about the timeline of events, and Jeff Deist had every opportunity to make this correction in the time line on our phone conversation and in our e-mail correspondence.  Nevertheless, even if they did wait until after they received the cover to contact Hoppe, I think it’s pretty clear that it would’ve been far better to come to me first.  Tho did however admit that there were concerns brewing at the institute regarding the book and Hoppe’s contribution before they received the cover.  Why they chose not to come to me first with said concerns, I still don’t know.  I know several staff members there personally.

LewRockwell.com Publishes an ABRIDGED Version of Hoppe’s Foreword

To my shock and dismay, a couple days later on January 18th, 2018 LewRockwell.com published and abridged version of Hoppe’s foreword which only omitted the two specific excerpts where Hoppe endorses my previous and upcoming books.  The following is a screenshot of the article on the website:

Capture

Some suggested that the omissions may have been innocent, and only made because the editor didn’t want any specific books endorsed in the article.  However, this isn’t the case either because the editor left the other book endorsement in place.  You can see this in the following:

Capture

Apparently the editor did decide to leave Hoppe’s endorsement of my website, http://www.RadicalCapitalist.org, in tact.  I wanted to provide Lew Rockwell with the opportunity to either unpublish the article until after my book was released, or include the two omitted paragraphs.  So I sent Lew the following e-mail (On the same day it was published, January 18th):

 

Lew,

I noticed you published Hoppe’s foreword to my book (found here: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/01/hans-hermann-hoppe/on-getting-libertarianism-right/) that is conspicuously missing both the paragraphs endorsing my previous book, A Spontaneous Order, and my upcoming book White, Right, and Libertarian.  I would like to ask that you please take this article down atleast until after my book is published (or include the two omitted paragraphs regarding my book endorsements), so that others don’t get the mistaken impression that my book’s foreword is somehow a work of fraud or plagiarism.  Thank you.

-Chase Rachels

 

The following is a screenshot of this e-mail:

 

email11

Unfortunately, Lew Rockwell never responded, never unpublished the article (atleast as of January 30th 2018), and never added back in the omitted paragraphs where Hoppe endorses my previous and upcoming book.

At this point, I was even more perturbed at the lack of consideration and professional courtesy on the part of Lew, however I still did not wish to go public because I wanted to avoid unnecessary drama, controversy, and potential damage to the reputation of the Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell, and Jeff Deist.

Stephan Kinsella Contacts Me

On January 20th, 2018 I sent Hoppe the new, and benign, cover design for White, Right, and Libertarian in the hopes that he may then offer his blessing to publish his foreword once more.  The following is the e-mail I sent verbatim:

 

HHH,

Attached is the new cover design for White, Right, and Libertarian.  It is a Medieval European (more specifically, German) wood carving motif.  I hope that with this new cover design, I can have your blessing to publish the book with your foreword.  I also want to assure you that the previous “incendiary” cover was never made public and that I was never going to publish it without first showing you and getting your approval.  Had you disapproved, I would have gladly changed the design as I have now.  Considering your stance against intellectual property, I also wanted to know whether you were previously requesting I withdraw your foreword or making a legal demand that I withdraw it?  In any case, I wanted to sincerely thank you once more for your generous contribution to my book, it truly is the perfect finishing touch that ties everything together.

With the utmost respect and admiration,

Chase Rachels

The following is a screen shot of the above quoted e-mail:

 

email12

 

This is the new cover design that was created.  As you can see, there is nothing at all incendiary about this new design:

 

26993921_10210566468628874_6391941242145998488_n

A couple of days later, on January, 22 2018, Stephan Kinsella calls me telling me had recently spoken with Hoppe and that he really likes the new design. He also told me (and I’m paraphrasing because it was a phone conversation) something to the effect of “Hoppe can’t officially give his approval to use his foreword (because of pressure applied by the Mises Institute), but that he would be ‘ok’ with me publishing it if I changed the word ‘White’ in the title to ‘Western’…or changed the title to something without ‘White’ in the title”.   I told him that I needed a minute to consider this, and we ended the call.  After some consideration Stephan and I then had the following text exchange:

 

Chase: If the Mises Institute agrees to publish then I’ll take “White” out of the title. Otherwise I’m going to publish as is. Hoppe was well aware of, and even explicitly mentioned the title of the book in his foreword. I changed the cover design out of respect for him, but I’m very attached to the title. By changing the cover design without asking for anything in return, I have demonstrated I’m willing to negotiate in good faith. I’m just not willing to alter the original terms on my end unless others would like to meet me in the middle. If Hoppe is interested in this deal, then it’d likely be better if he made this proposal to Lew and/or Jeff.

Stephan:  Not gonna happen

Chase: Understood.  Might be good to let Hans make that call though

 

The following are screenshots of this exchange:

 

CaptureCapture1

The False Rumors Begin

A couple days later on January 24th, 2018 I publicly announced that I would soon be publishing White, Right, and Libertarian with a foreword by Hoppe.

I decided to keep Hoppe’s foreword because I changed the only thing he explicitly took issue with (the cover design), and he had the entire manuscript and title for two months before giving me the foreword (plenty of time to review all the content).  Moreover, his foreword very much echoed the themes contained within the book, so he couldn’t have had issue with any of the content (none of which was any more controversial or incendiary than ideas which he had already previously expressed here and here).  I had delayed my publication timeline for the foreword and had even made limited advertisements that he would be providing the foreword.  I was disappointed that Hoppe had changed his mind about his blessing, but in the end (and considering the removal of his blessing was likely due to pressure being applied to him by members of the Mises Institute) I decided to hold Hoppe to our original terms and publish the book with his foreword.

The first major false rumor came from the “Fakertarians” facebook page.  In it they claimed there were rumors going around saying the following:

 

It came out recently that Hans-Herman Hoppe wrote the foreword for Christopher Chase Rachels’s new book “White, Right, and Libertarian.”

However, rumor has it that Hoppe asked to dissociate himself from it once he learned more about what the book was about, with Rachels moving forward to publish it anyway. Care to respond to this allegation, Chase?

Of course, Hoppe knew full well what the book was about from the beginning, as he had the entire manuscript and the title from the get go, contrary to these fallacious rumors being spread.  The following is a screen shot of this original false rumor published by Fakertarians:

 

Capture

 

I then replied:

 

I’ll clear this up Fakertarians. Hoppe was given the full manuscript and title upon my request he write the foreword. (So he’s well aware of the content and his foreword echoes the themes contained within) He gave me the foreword a couple months later. What he took issue with was the original cover design. That has since been changed.

Now that you know, I’d appreciate if you remove this false rumor. I know we have our differences, but I trust you have integrity?

The following is a screenshot of the preceding quote
Capture
It seems someone had been feeding information to Fakertarians about this matter, which I was hoping to keep private for the sake of the Mises Institute’s reputation, and only a very small handful of people had this information.  Fakertarians then responded:

I’ve edited the post for clarity and to show that you’ve responded below. I’m not removing the post at this time because I’m hearing things from other sources, but I will absolutely make a correction if I find this post to be untrue.

Two questions for you:
1. Has Hoppe okayed the foreword being published now that the cover has changed?
2. What did the original cover portray?

To which I replied:
Fakertarians I’m not going to get into details about the original cover because I assured him I wouldn’t make it public. I also dont wish to divulge any more details on the matter in general. But trust me, my silence on the other details isn’t for my own sake. [Emphasis added] It should be enough for now to know he had the entire manuscript and title for two months and wrote the foreword for it. He even explicitly endorses both my previous and upcoming book in the foreword.

The following is a screen shot of the preceding quotes:

Capture

It is important to note, that even at this point I still didn’t want to go into details about what was going on.  This was because I was still intent on protecting the reputation of the Mises Institute and wished to avoid a major controversy.  This was despite the fact that, in my opinion, it seemed someone connected with the Mises Institute was spreading these rumors.


The Mises Institute Staff/Workers Are Found To Be Spreading False and Out of Context Rumors

Finally, on January, 25th 2018 I discovered that members of the Mises Institute (namely Tho Bishop and Natalie Fawn Danielshen who designs graphics for the Mises Institute FB page) were spreading false and out of context rumors on facebook.  The following shows that Natalie is a graphic designer with the Mises Institute:

Capture

 

In a facebook comment posted by Natalie she claims (in reference to my book):

“Hoppe never saw the title or cover.  he asked that the forward be pulled and to have nothing further to do with the project after that.  he never gave consent back (as far as I know) after the cover was changed. Chase was also very aggressive when this happened to some people I care about.  so no, I won’t support this.  This is not Hoppe fault.  chase was dishonest and he has lost support from people”

Of course, Hoppe absolutely was aware of the title, contrary to Natalie’s fallacious claim.  Also, I struggle to see how I was in any way “aggressive.”  From the beginning, I attempted to take the high road and reach out to Jeff Deist, Lew Rockwell, and others at the Mises Institute to sincerely express my desire to come to a mutually agreeable resolution. I made phone calls, sent e-mails, and gave them the benefit of the doubt and every opportunity to work with me.  Ultimately they declined.  Finally, I have no idea what about anything I did was “dishonest”.  I have given as many facts as I could here, so it seems she is the one being blatantly dishonest and expressing details out of context.  The following is a screen shot of Natalie’s previous quote:

 

Capture

 

To Tho Bishops credit, he atleast had the decency to correct Natalie’s false claim regarding the title (though he did this in the weakest way possible by qualifying that he “thinks” Hoppe knew the title when he knows full well that Hoppe was absolutely aware of the title.  Of course, he didn’t correct her outrageous claims about me being “aggressive” or “dishonest” and to top it off he describes the original cover even knowing that Hoppe didn’t want it to be made public.  It is for this reason that I hadn’t revealed any details about the cover until this point and hadn’t shared the original cover design itself.  The following is a screen shot of Tho’s direct quote:

Capture

Capture

This is dripping with irony.  I wasn’t being irresponsible with Hoppe’s name because Hoppe agreed to write the foreword for my book after being fully aware of the book’s title and having the entire manuscript for two months prior to sending me his foreword.  Moreover, making the original cover was in no way irresponsible because it was never made public….for the very reason that I didn’t want to publicize it without first having Hoppe’s approval, because….you guessed it….I was being responsible.

However, despite Tho’s claims that the cover was irresponsible, he went on Facebook describing the original incendiary cover to people who were in turn spreading rumors about it.  If anything, Tho was helping ensure details of the original incendiary cover were made public which was ostensibly the very thing the Mises Institute wanted to avoid in the first place!

As a special bonusit also appears that the Mises Institute vindictively removed my profile and book that were previously published on Mises.org.  The following screen shots show them as search results, but when you click on them nothing happens:

Capture
Capture1

Jeff Deist Doubles Down on The Mises Institute’s Involvement

A day or two later, around January 27th, 2018, Jeff Deist decides to double down on the Mises Institute’s interference in this matter with an off the cuff Facebook comment.  He seemed to have no interest admitting such interference now whereas in the beginning he was very careful to neither confirm nor deny the role the Mises Institute played in this matter.  This was yet another shocking and disappointing display of unprofessionalism on the part of Jeff Deist:

JeffDeist

 

Hans Goes Public About His Decision To Withdraw His Blessing

On January 29, 2018 Hans Hoppe published the following message to his website:

Some months ago I agreed to write a foreword for a forthcoming book by Chase Rachels, on the right and libertarianism, and sent him a draft. After further thought, I notified Rachels that I did not want him to include the foreword in his book and withdrew my permission, and published a version of it as a stand-alone article, “On Getting Libertarianism Right.”

It has come to my attention that Rachels is planning to include the draft of my foreword in his book despite my withdrawing my permission. I wish it to be on record that I do not consent to my foreword being included in his book.

Of course, at the time Hoppe released this statement it was already public knowledge that he had withdrawn his blessing to have the foreword published with White, Right, and Libertarian (namely because I had already published the entire timeline of events several days earlier which included screenshots of correspondence to this effect).  Thus, in my estimation, it seems he published this for one or both of the following reasons:

[1]  At the time, the Mises Institute was getting a lot of bad press and backlash from their underhanded involvement in this matter.  A such, they probably had Hoppe publish this publicly so as to highlight the one point in isolation that they felt would draw attention away from themselves and onto me.

[2]  Hoppe was playing “3d chess” and this was his subtle way of verifying the fact that the foreword was indeed originally intended for my book so as to dispel any potential false rumors that I just copy and pasted it from LewRockwell.com and added the endorsements myself.

The following is a screenshot of this note:

HansHoppeNote

To be clear, there was some confusion about what Hoppe “notified” me of.  He notified me that he had withdrawn his blessing, however he did not notify me that he intended on publishing it as a standalone article.  The first I was aware of this standalone article was when Lew Rockwell published it on January 18th, and at that time I was under the impression that Lew had simply taken the foreword I sent to Jeff Deist and omitted the two endorsement paragraphs himself.

Conclusion

It was only after discovering that Mises Institute staff/workers were spreading false and out of context rumors that I decided to begrudgingly go public with this.  I have provided as clear of a timeline of events and as many facts with as much evidence as I possibly could.

I completely understand why the higher ups at the Mises Institute had concerns with Hoppe’s association with my book.  I think these concerns are and were perfectly valid.  The issue is that they did not come to me with them first.  That they refused to work with me, even after I approached them with a sincere desire to find a mutually agreeable resolution.  That Lew published an altered version of Hoppe’s foreword specifically omitting his endorsements of my book, prior to the publication of White, Right, and Libertarian.  And finally, that Mises Institute staff/workers took it upon themselves to spread false, misleading, and out of context rumors on Facebook.

Now that you have the facts, I hope you will be willing and able to cut through the false rumors and make your own informed conclusion about the truly unfortunate preceding series of events.

 

 

24 thoughts on “Clearing Up The Hoppe Foreword Controversy”

  1. Well written and thanks for being clear. Assuming your account is correct then it reminds of situations I have been in. Why aren’t people more concerned with the truth?

    Like

    1. Power, control and order are always more important than truth – for the human ego. The unqualified search for truth is a spiritual matter undertaken by an uncompromising individual, one who is looking to retire the slippery ego once and for all.

      Like

  2. MisesUK recently cucked out on Godfrey Bloom (for what amounts to actually nothing compared to what Rothbard used to write on the topic). But that is a different thing altogether. I admit I am shocked and disappointed with Mises Instutute here, and quite a bit saddened. I have thought them uncuckable, until now. They are doing much good, and they need their donations, so wanting to avoid incidents is entirely understandable. What is not however, is the bad faith in which they have carried themselves. Such behind the curtain scheming is reminiscent of the way things are done in Communist Parties. That is not how virtuous gentlemen who advocate personal responsibility ought to conduct themselves.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Well, instead of carrying themselves like a bunch of commie apparatchiks, they could have contacted him and simply said: “Listen up. This isn’t 4chan. This is real life. We are already under lot of heat here, and we don’t need you bringing still more upon us.” Only a hysterical SJW snowflake would have taken that cover seriously anyway. It’s obviously just a reference to #PhysicalRemoval memes.

    Like

  4. Thanks for coming forward with this. The actions of those higher-ups at the mises institute are shameful. Such a disgrace. Keep up the good work you do here, Chase.

    Like

  5. Very sad about Mises Institute, Which appears to be part of the anti-racism cult. I can’t say that I, like Chase, still “have respect for the Mises Institute.” Cato is definitely Establishment-Left Libertarian. Too bad Mises has now “officially” moved into the honesty- and integrity-compromising “Cuck”-Libertarian camp. (But don’t we need a less derivative name for the kind of anti-“racist,” anti-white libertarianism that Mises represents?) It is cringe-inducing to read Deist’s comments on “neo-Nazism,” etc., and to smell in his comments and actions that sweaty fear of losing the respect of his fellows in the anti-racism cult. This is exactly the kind of thing, of course, that turns Alt-Rightists against those sporting the Libertarian label, and then, unfortunately, against libertarianism itself.

    Like

    1. The cucking will be their undoing, because they have for a long time been considered “extremists” by the establishment lolbertarians and groups like Ayn Rand Institute, and their new “moderate” approach will not change the opinion of those people and their minions anyway.

      Like

  6. This passive-agressive bullshit has to end. If there is a reason for doing something, state it plainly. What the hell, Mises Institute? Did you lose your balls?

    Like

  7. Unbelievable faggotry. Have these clowns been bought with Koch money, to oppose real libertarian views, too?

    One just has to read those words.. “If white folks created the best culture and political systems for liberty and flourishing (true), they also created the worst ideologies.” No Jeff.. Marx was not ‘white folks’.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. One of the key points of being a Libertarian is to honor your contracts, i.e. keep your promises.

    We have enough problems when women weeks after a sexual encounter they consented to but then regret call it “rape” and report it as such.
    Perhaps Hoppe’s personal stressful time led him to not think through, but then he should simply explain. Or it might be – to go back to the date rape above – that the regret only happens when the gaggle of girlfriends convinces her it was rape – so MI told Hoppe he should withdraw consent.
    Hoppe may not have read it through carefully but it was hard to miss the title, and as you note the only issue was the cover which was changed.

    But to summarize the point, how can anyone deal now with anyone associated with the Mises Institute since they think consent can be withdrawn at any time, promises broken, contracts ignored, etc. High Trust isn’t part of the NAP or Capitalism but it makes it work since you then don’t need oppressive DROs or whatever to enforce things – handshakes are good enough, and differences resolved between people first. And that is generally white culture. Cosmopolitan, globalist libertarianism could be even more oppressive and tyrannical – just that the oppressors and tyrants will be privatized.

    Like

  9. So basically it comes down to a butthurt woman and one of her beta orbiters. What a surprise. Video games, talk radio, and now libertarianism. Can you think of anything women don’t ruin the moment they want to participate? Chase, I suggest that you not only not change the cover, but add a fifth body: the Mises Institute logo.

    There is a reason why the vast majority of people within the “alt-right” come from libertarian circles, and a great deal of it is precisely due to this play-it-safe, tame attitude to appeal to people who will never give a shit about it anyway, and that frankly is afraid of addressing the elephant in the room (i.e. race). I read this in one of your hit pieces from another libertarian site, “This is sexual assault. If you’re not sure, This is sexual assault. It is definitely not something a voluntaryist does.” How could anyone read that spiel about the appropriate private behavior of a “voluntaryist” and not cringe? It’s dead, Jim.

    Like

  10. The real elephant in the room is jews, not race. “Some call it communism, I call it Judaism”- Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, NYC, 1935.

    I recall NBI [Branden Institute] book service selling “The Feminine Mystique” by Betty Friedan Bettina was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party.

    Eric Garris is/was webmaster for Rockwell and Raimondo. Eric’s mother was also a member of the CP- that info was carried by Wiki until too many found out.
    Eric and mom, and Betty are/were jewish.

    Burton Blumert was a jewish financier of the Rockwell site. I presume Rockwell and Mises are what we WNs call controlled [fake] opposition.

    Lots of stuff has been swept under the rug for a very long time. Let us see what is under there!

    Remember anti-racism comes from (((them))). I have seen the same from Brandon Smith [Alt Market] [same anti-racism]. Brandon said you WNs are at the top of his hit list!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s