I have been reading some of Caitlin Johnstone’s articles reprinted on LewRockwell.com. Johnstone comes from the political left, but she is very good on issues of war and civil liberties. She is incredible at poking through the establishment’s false narratives and propaganda.

When you read her material, you have to deal with the occasional throwaway line criticizing capitalism or hyping up so-called climate change.

Overall, I like her writing, and I think most libertarians will enjoy her writing. She focuses on the areas where she tends to be really good. She goes against Murray Rothbard’s dictum that most people tend to specialize in the areas where they are the worst.

There is one interesting thing I caught in her byline. Johnstone writes, “Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.”

When it comes to articles, I generally think it is good when authors grant permission to republish material. This is especially true when you are trying to spread the truth. If you want to get your message out, why not let people assist in spreading your message?

The interesting part is where she excludes “racist platforms”. I don’t really know her definition of racist, so I guess it is up to each person or organization to decide for themselves.

The Definition of Racist

Racism is the belief that one race is superior over another. A racist is one who advocates such beliefs.

There are other definitions of racism that could be used, but in today’s world, it is almost anything goes.

Some people define a racist as anyone who is white.

Some people would call others racist because they don’t believe in affirmative action. They might call someone racist because they don’t want open immigration. There are even some who would call others racist because they don’t support Obamacare.

So you can see where this becomes a bit of a problem. Racist almost doesn’t mean anything anymore because it is used so loosely. If you just happen to disagree with anyone on any issue, you might be a racist.

Why Exclude Racists?

Still, for the sake of argument here, let’s say that it was easier to identify and label people as racists. Why does Caitlin Johnstone only want to exclude racists from republishing her works?

Johnstone spends much of her time writing about blood-thirsty war hawks who have little regard for innocent human life. Are these people allowed to republish her work?

Maybe the thought is that someone with a pro war platform won’t republish her work. Or if they do, even if it is to criticize her, they are putting her work out there for the readers of the platform. So maybe some pro war person reading the site will read Johnstone’s work and start to rethink some of his positions.

But then couldn’t the same thing be said about a racist platform? If someone spouting off racist things republishes Johnstone’s work, maybe someone who is kind of racist who is reading the site will see her words and start to rethink his worldview.

Or maybe some racists will continue to be racist but oppose war after seeing one of her articles.

So if she wants to spread her message, wouldn’t it be better to allow anyone to republish her work, including racists?

Who is Worse?

If Johnstone simply doesn’t want bad people republishing her work, then why is she just mentioning racists? What about murderers? And what about the people who promote the wars that she correctly opposes?

In today’s world of cancel culture, I have heard people point out that you would be better off committing a crime than saying something politically incorrect.

You can commit a crime and serve your time and somehow get yourself back into society. If you say something politically incorrect and you don’t already have a large audience who doesn’t care, then it seems that you may pay the price forever.

For some, it is easier to serve jail time and recover than to say something politically incorrect that the “woke mob” doesn’t like.

Is Johnstone just trying to be politically correct (in this one instance) by mentioning racists? I’m hoping she just hasn’t thought it through.

Someone who is racist doesn’t necessarily advocate violence. You can have a racist who simply doesn’t want to be around someone of another race or around a group of people with a particular characteristic.

Does Johnstone consider being a racist the worst possible thing? She has been writing frequently lately about the risk of nuclear war with Russia and how irresponsible these people are who casually inflame tensions with Russia.

Is it worse to be a racist than someone who is promoting nuclear war and a possible end to the human race? I think the question answers itself.