The Truth About Tom Woods – Freedom Feens radio

Lou's new house, not a comment on the name "Woods"

Lou’s new house, not a comment on the name “Woods”

Michael W. Dean and Lousander Feen talk about a bunch of stuff, including why any show with the title “The Truth About…” is probably a mixture of opinions, agenda, and incorrect statements.

Also, why Lou says Tom Woods is a really good guy, but Michael says Tom Woods is not a great man because Tom was so damn wrong in his “shoulder thing that goes up”-level understanding of AA in the harsh critique of 12-step programs in his episode called The Truth About the Rehab Industry and 12-Step. (Lou recommends this Tom Woods video as an antidote to that show.)

This show has Lou coming in over FeenPhone.

Check out the BipCot No-Government  Open-Source License . (Now with even LESS government!)

This entry was posted in Live Radio and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to The Truth About Tom Woods – Freedom Feens radio

  1. Nathan says:

    Is this the first time you’ve made the MWD/WMD pun?

  2. Ikefeen says:

    This is the most drama I’ve seen in a comment section in some time!

  3. Edward Feenman says:

    That whole Chris Dorner fiasco happened in my hood. I did about half of my schooling on that mountain.
    The cop that got it was a highschool Buddie of mine. He was actually a great guy, and a horrible cop. In our early twenties when we did more drinking then thinking we had a lot of fun. Like most cops Jeremiah Mackay had a superiority complex. Just about every time we went out drinking, if he wasn’t going to get laid, we were going to get into a fight. It almost always started with him baiting the bouncer into throwing a punch.
    He was on the level with the stoners. He never said a thing about me lighting a j as long as I wasn’t making an issue out of it.
    Jer was not interested in pursuing or enforcing the victimless crimes.


  4. Ben Stone says:

    The fantasy of secession:
    I think the main problem I have with anarchists and libertarians who maintain faith in secession is that ultimately all of their schemes boil down to methods proven to be flawed, like elections, voting, petitions, and other forms of permission from the existing government. Or they hold blind faith that the US government will collapse due to a dollar crash, and somehow the powers-that-be simply go into the night. Then local Americans fight out some kind of freedom struggle where everyone sets up some local governance, and everyone is free.
    All of these schemes depend on government goons acting in a way they have never acting in history. That being, they simply lay down their power and get real jobs, rather than acting the way they always act, killing all who oppose them.
    A) The goons in DC will never allow state level secession. They will happily slaughter Americans, and have done so.
    B) Faith in elections, voting, petitions, etc, perpetuate the addiction of statism, while providing no freedom.
    C) If the dollar crashed nothing significant would change. Technically the dollar has crashed several times. Government exists because there is a demand for government. That demand is not based on the dollar.
    D) If in some magic fantasy, the DC government vanished tomorrow, the New York based UN would step in within hours, with blue helmeted American patriot volunteers, and enforce the new government.


    • Ben Stone says:

      RE: secession
      I should have added to the above:
      E) How is nationalism bad but regionalism good? In other words, how is it bad to be ruled by tyrants in DC while it’s good to be ruled by tyrants at my local County Seat? Or how are tyrants in DC bad, but tyrants at my local City Hall are good? Is the local foot on my throat more comfortable than the one from DC? Are local cops less likely to murder me than federal ones? The fact is that it doesn’t matter where the goon calls home. He’s still a goon.


      • MichaelWDean says:

        I fear “my” city council more than I fear Obama. My city council loves to take people’s homes for no just cause. They also love to add nanny laws on a whim. The are more of a danger to my freedom than Washington DC is, as far as actionable things they might do that might directly affect me in a serious way.

        Ben, I can’t believe were having an argument with a libertarian who is defending tribalism. (And not discounting someone entirely who owned slaves.) I’m out. I got actual work to do related to keeping the Feens going. Someone else is going to have to explain why tribalism is just nationalism on a smaller level, and why it’s counter to liberty.

        Les Worms!

    • Nathan says:

      Worms Ben! I’ve been thinking lately a lot of libertarians put entirely too much faith into the proposition that economic collapse will happen soon. The US Federal Govt has been around for a hundred years in its current central banking form, so why not go another 50 or 100 more? However, I think you might be underestimating the potential if an actual collapse did occur. Unlike European countries the US is a huge landmass with millions of people who often share little in common culturally (e.g. compare California vs Nebraska). Without a functioning central government I think de facto secession would be a possibility for some states but not others. California for example would probably conquer the surrounding states for “democracy” as in the video game Fallout NV:

      • Ben Stone says:

        I think you’ve confused reaction with cause and effect.
        Reaction – how would the individual states react if the federal government collapsed? Maybe secession.
        Cause and effect – would a dollar collapse cause a complete collapse of the federal government in DC? It didn’t the last 6 times the dollar collapsed and no mechanism has been described that would do it during the next dollar collapse.
        A monetary collapse doesn’t require a central government collapse. The two events can be related, but one is not required for the other, nor does one have to cause the other.
        So the premise that the failure of the dollar will cause the fall of the DC government is simply blind faith based on hope and dreams.


        • Nathan says:

          I agree that a currency crisis doesn’t necessarily lead to complete collapse, so I see the distinction you’re making. Government exists because there is a demand for it, not because mysterious aliens from dimension X impose it on us. I’m curious how you analyze the collapse of the Soviet Union? That seemed to be a situation where there weren’t immediate economic factors behind it – the bureaucrats just sort of lost the will to mercilessly crush opposition from the satellite states they had before.


          • Ben Stone says:

            The USSR is often cited as a comparison for a future US government meltdown.
            The problem is that there was little the USSR had in common with the USA. The Americans moved across North America and displaced or exterminated the natives. The Soviets came to power after an extended revolution and the conquering, in place, of the previous occupants. For example, neither the Huron nor the Shawnee will be rising up forming separatist governments like Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan. And culturally, Turkmenistan has as much in common with Moscow as it has in common with Paris. At least the people in California have a historical and cultural connection to DC. People in Arizona, Oregon, and Maine all consider themselves Americans. In the USSR very few people, in comparison to the population, considered themselves Soviets.
            The USSR was a forced union of existing governments that had almost nothing in common. And the collapse of the USSR was not a collapse of government. It was a collapse of the soviet system. There was just as much government the day after the collapse as there was the day before. It was simply an exchange of tyrants.


          • Nathan says:


  5. Rick says:

    Like you guys, I’m a big fan of Tom Woods. I discovered him on LRC and always enjoyed his articles. Later I discovered his podcast (I’d rather listen to a podcast than watch a video any day).

    When I saw his AA ‘cast, I figured you would respond in some way. I applaud your even-handed approach. It does surprise me that Woods would tout a psychiatrist on his show (psychiatry being an insidious weapon of the state).

    On another note, Woods had a podcast a week or so again where he teased some advance in how he would be producing his show. I really thought it might be that he had upgraded to FeenPhone. Oh well.

    • MichaelWDean says:

      lol. Better worms next time.

    • MichaelWDean says:

      Also, as Neema pointed out: “Yea, guy definitely has a conflict of interest. Woods portrayed his as a disinterested academic.”

      The guy’s bio says he treats addiction for 300 PLUS dollars per session. That’s the Psychology Today category for shrinks that charge somewhere between 300 and infinity dollars per hour.

  6. Ben Stone says:

    In my family we have a running joke that applies here.
    In the old 1973 animated movie “Charlotte’s Web” the spider is trying to spell the word “terrific”. The goose spells it “T-double-R-double-I-double-FFF-double-I-double-CCC”, whereas the ram pipes in and tells the spider; “I suggest you not consult geese on matters of spelling.”
    In other words, geese are good for many things. Spelling is not one of them.
    Tom Woods is a good historian, a decent speaker, and a rudimentary anarchist sadly wrapped up in the naive and sticky nets of secessionism. But I would not suggest consulting Tom Woods on matters of addiction.


    • MichaelWDean says:

      Ben, true that.

      I didn’t disagree with everything the guest said, especially near the end about AA being very different from group to group. But he IS part of the recovery industrial complex. He’s a book seller who does “the circuit” and most of his critiques of AA are bunk and reek of “turn people away from the free thing that works and BUY MY BOOKS!” He’s also someone who has reason to steer people to psychiatry.

      He doesn’t want people going to Betty Ford Clinic, but he doesn’t trust the free stuff. He has an agenda.

      This is his CV: “Dr. Lance Dodes recently retired as assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. He is a Training and Supervising Analyst Emeritus with the Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute. He has also served as director of the substance abuse treatment unit of Harvard’s McLean Hospital, director of the alcoholism treatment unit at Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital (now part of Massachusetts General Hospital), and director of the Boston Center for Problem Gambling.”

      And his critiques of the success rate of AA is bunk. It’s impossible to measure the success rate of an organization most people won’t admit being a member of because the stigma of addiction, etc. I’ve personally seen thousands of people who have recovered in AA, (I was in AA and NA in San Francisco and Los Angeles. AA and NA are huge in those two towns.) And many people wouldn’t admit to being a member on a survey, because of issues with employers and future employers. And because it’s ANONYMOUS.

      Tom didn’t talk much in this one, but totally co-signed the guy as being someone who’s correct with Tom’s comments at the beginning and end of the interview.

      I think Tom’s guest and Tom both resent something created and run by non-academics that is wildly successful, because both Tom and his guest are both Ivy League academics.

      • Ben Stone says:

        Well said Michael.
        I agree.
        Also you said; “I think Tom’s guest and Tom both resent something created and run by non-academics that is wildly successful, because both Tom and his guest are both Ivy League academics.” I think this is at the heart of the issue. Unfortunately I think that mentality has infected far too many “liberty leaders” from not only Ivy League academics, but some from Loyola and Auburn as well. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) Humility is an undervalued trait, it seems.


  7. Halsingen says:

    Tom Woods wrote about the League of the South several years ago:

    It’s really fascinating how the elite at the media and universities both in the United States and here in Sweden always equate secession with xenophobic nationalism.

    • MichaelWDean says:

      You calling me media elete? lol.

      OK, I read his rebuttal. I still say that org is really tribalist, based on looking over their website.

      Tom Woods also has a lot of Great Man worship for an anarchist. (He also overlooks slave ownership by his choice of “liberty loving” “great men”)

      Tom Woods writes in that article: “But I assumed that educated and fair-minded people would understand that Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Gouverneur Morris, John Taylor, William Lloyd Garrison, and a great many other early Americans thought the same thing.”


      • Halsingen says:

        I thought you favored secession down to the last man, MWD?

        • MichaelWDean says:

          I do. But I’m not a fan of tribalism, venerating “great men” or considering slave owners to be “liberty guys.”

          • Halsingen says:

            Honestly, I think you read Tom Woods like hell reads the bible.

            Is namedropping venerating great men?

            Does someone being a slave owner imply that we should therefore ignore everything the man ever said?

            Is it tribalism to prefer the City- or Regional flag over the central government flag? The state-nationalistic dogma says “One person – one (major) identity”. But let’s face it, we all have multiple identities, like ripples on water. Is there anything strange about identifying oneself simultaniously as for example Bostonian, Massachusite, New Englander, American etc, and can’t these identities be equally strong?

          • MichaelWDean says:

            “Does someone being a slave owner imply that we should therefore ignore everything the man ever said?” YES. 100%.

            “Is there anything strange about identifying oneself simultaniously as for example Bostonian, Massachusite, New Englander, American etc, and can’t these identities be equally strong?” not as offensive as slave owning, but still suspect. I’m a citizen of the world. American by accident of birth. Don’t care what my great x 5 grandpa did. It’s not me.

            Most people who identify as being from Boston or New York are really annoying about it. They often have horrible attitudes and can’t go five minutes without reminding you where they’re from. He Who Cannot Be Named is a perfect example.

          • MichaelWDean says:

            If New Yorkers were as tough as they all claim, they all would have stormed city hall when the mayor treated them like little kids by outlawing large sodas.

          • Halsingen says:

            @ MWD

            In relation to secession, it was exactly by trying to identify a potential race-hater and extremist behind every person who prefered the regional flag over the State’s, that the Court Intellectuals at the media and universities managed to puncture the debate about secession in Sweden in its crucial stage around year 2000.

          • MichaelWDean says:

            I’m not a race baiter. I feel like you’re saying I am. Questioning someone forming a southern secessionist organization is not race baiting. Read the website of that org. It’s not outright racist, but it’s nowhere near voluntaryist either. They want to “take back” a whole region regardless of the wishes of other people who own property there.

            And I still maintain that liking a “liberty lover” who owned slaves is twisted. Jefferson talked a good talk, but so did Ronald Reagan. Jefferson owned people, and also jailed people who used free speech against him. He was a fucking hypocrite and a tyrant. No liberty in him at all.

          • Halsingen says:

            @ MWD

            Libertarians advocate secession. Racists advocate secession. Ergo libertarians are just as suspicious as them, because they have this view in common with the racists?

            This is exactly the reasoning set out by the Swedish Court Intellectuals in their veritable Drive against secession around the turn of the millennium.

            Regarding that we should ignore everything Jefferson said because he owned slaves: that is IMHO to discuss the personal and not the matter. Or as we Scanians say “to go after the man and not the ball”.

          • MichaelWDean says:

            We could do this all day. You think you’re right. I think I’m right. I’d really rather let you believe you are right and have me go work. I’ve stated my case. I won’t change your mind. Plus I’m sick as a dog today with the flu (you could hear it in my voice coming on in the show last night). I’m not in my right fighting weight. I’m gonna let Ben take this one.

        • MichaelWDean says:

          Intersting thing I’ve never talked about on the show. My brother (who lives in the US South) is a member of this organization:

          He had to jump through a lot of hoops to join, proving that his great great great great great grandfather fought on the American side of the American Revolution. I think that’s one of the silliest thing anyone could waste energy on.

          My brother and I have the same great great great great great grandfather, but I don’t think about it much, and certainly not enough to go out of my way to prove it to join a bunch of other tribalists. Especially a tribalist “America First” patriot group that brags about how many US Presidents have been members:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.