. . . and Murray N. Rothbard's 1964 essay, "The Transformation of the American Right," illuminates not only today's players nearly perfectly, but also the principles that those who fancy themselves "right-wing" have all but abandoned (assuming charitably that they ever affirmed them in the first place):

The libertarian needs, perhaps most of all, to be informed by history, and to realize that conservatism was always the polar opposite of classical liberalism. Socialism, in contrast, was not the polar opposite of either, but rather, in my view, a muddled and irrationally contradictory mixture of both liberalism and conservatism. For socialism was essentially a movement to come to terms with the industrial revolution, to try to achieve liberal ends by the use of collectivistic, conservative means. It tried to achieve the ideals of peace, freedom, and a progressing standard of living by using the collectivist, organicist, hierarchical means of conservatism as adapted to industrial society. As a middle-of-the-road doctrine, it is easy for socialism, once it abandoned the liberal ideals of peace and freedom, to shift completely to the conservative pole in the many varying forms of "national socialism."

And just as anarchocapitalist Rothbard was smeared as a commie by National Review types in the '60s and '70s because he exposed the folly of militaristic and imperialistic "anti-Communism," so we who condemn "anti-Terrorist" military adventurism may expect to be tarred with the brush of "soft on terrorism" by foksnuz fascists.

We are ready for that fight.