Robin interviewed on the Roads to Liberty Podcast

Here is the video of my interview with the Roads to Liberty Podcast.

Download: Interviewed with Roads to Liberty

RSS Feed: The History of Byzantium

If you want to send in feedback to the podcast:

– Either comment on this post.

– Or on the facebook page.

– Leave a review on Itunes.

– Follow me on Twitter

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Post navigation

4 thoughts on “Robin interviewed on the Roads to Liberty Podcast

  1. Mystikos

    I haven’t listened to the interview yet (I’m looking forward to it – as I do any Robin Pierson content), but I am alarmed by Robin’s choice of interview host. I read their Facebook page – they do things like endorse Alex Jones (who got his supporters to harass Sandy Hook survivors and spread lots of other nonsense) and post lots of other pretty repellent right-wing memes. There’re openly Nazi-supporting posters.

    Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism are ludicrous political and economic ideologies to begin with (their ahistoricism is one of their worst offenses), but these particular representatives of that movement are simply beneath the rigorous, academic, and serious character of the History of Byzantium podcast.

    Please check out the guys you give content to, Robin! These people are not worth tarnishing yourself with.

  2. Pyrrhus

    It’s good that a doctor of the faith has warned us before being led astray by the doctrinal deviations and scandalizing meme dissemination of these individuals.

    It’s also good to know their political affiliations are ahistorical mistakes lest we make the grave mistake of giving them the time of the day – I guess this is in contrast to the absolutely sound spawn of scientific materialism (hey, it says scientific in the name!).

    Now seriously, I’m neither libertarian nor anarcho-capitalist, but I’m increasingly alarmed by the ease some cast aspersions on (e.g. Nazi by association) – and lobby for the exclusion of – the slightest deviations from the orthodoxy. I grant this podcast is not the most professional venue, but that’s endearing enough and comes with the territory of podcasting.

    For those that fear for their souls, the podcast broached no political subject. All in all, I found it an entertaining diversion while we wait for the narrative to return. It helps that the host seems to be interested in the subject and Robin answers with characteristic sincerity and thoughtfulness.

    I think Mr. Pierson should continue to appear wherever he pleases, as I trust his criteria more than that of random Internet commentators (myself included). I also believe the results are usually better when going to actual fans of the podcast as it appears to have happened in this instance, instead of more professional, but disinterested venues.

    • Mystikos

      After listening to the interview – I agree it was a fine interview. The host was clearly one *casually* interested in history and at one point referred to “Chris Duncan” as the author of History of Rome, but still asked fine questions that allowed Robin to provide interesting answers. No problems there – great to listen to.

      But I still believe one should exercise careful choice as to whom they tacitly endorse – precisely because we listeners trust Robin, as you said. History is political ammunition, so historians can’t ignore the political implications of what they say – or don’t say. I would have no problem appearing on “Roads to Liberty”, for example, because I would say, “I disagree with the host, but am open to dialogue with them on any subject”, but I wouldn’t speak without that disclaimer, because that would signal that what they say is not worth commenting on, it’s normal.

      Libertarianism is not normal – it is a very niche approach to politics and economics. Saying that opposition to it is tantamount to the pursuit of “the slightest deviations from the orthodoxy” is ludicrous. The fact that so many of them are indeed fellow travelers of White nationalists – which shows so easily on the FB page of this group – is not the ‘casting of aspersions’, it goes to the heart of an ideology that rejects democratic control by the many in favor of a plutocracy, of rule by corporate whim. The privileged groups require no government help – they need to government out of the way and the poor and minorities kept out by private security…

      Libertarianism shouldn’t be “excluded” – it should be debated and shown up for the sham ideology that it is, an ideology of the Kochs and of Greenspan, an ideology of the selfish magnate class. That’s the point – don’t treat it as normal. It isn’t.

  3. Pyrrhus

    I believe you’re simply placing your personal position as the absolute uncontroversial gold standard. Again, I reject your premises (“fellow travelers” guilt by association, libertarianism as an abhorrent current only to be engaged in “debunking” exercises, etc.) and I’m far from any political fringe.

    Even were you correct on all points, I’m unpersuaded of the fact that this would require some “purity of faith” disclaimer from Mr. Pierson, when no political themes were broached by the host. That would be disturbingly illiberal and utterly condescending to his audience.

    That said, I don’t think I’ll dig further into this discussion as the podcast should take center stage and we’re unlikely to reach agreement on this matter. Thank you at least for addressing my points.

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

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: