I'm always reluctant to engage in the internecine feud amongst libertarians. It takes so much time explaining why you're right. Apparently an off the cuff comment I made on Last Free Voice was enough to evoke a complete entry from the vaunted activist and blogger Thomas Knapp, (aka Knappster). 
To wit;
There seems to be an unwritten meme going around that Rockwell is responsible for the RP newsletters (Knapp, McArdle, Balko, now Holtz). The hope being that blatant racist sentiment will undo a hardcore message and the hip and/or 'trinity' crowd can assume the mantle.
While this didn't relate exactly to the post initially started by Mr. Holtz, if it had been a postulated entry on my own blog I might have put a question mark after the second sentence to emphasize the real snark that LFV demands. The 'hope' being that a long tirade about this whole affair would be avoided as even the MSM has skipped past the idea or issue on any meaningful level in the context of the race. But libertarians take umbrage with everything and can get 'froggy' (a term the locals here use for a person that is on the verge of a bar room brawl and showing it) about some things. Has someone from the movement, party or an institute pounced on Kinsley yet ? Of course I go on to explain in a second post, but by then Knapp has his red meat of indignation on the sharp pike of Roman metaphor and I suppose Olympian rebuttal is required. If you've ever read the book by the author in my title you're used to better fare in this regard. If I was really looking for a fight, I might have titled this et tu Knapp Hey ?
I have no doubt that Knapp is as radical as he says. But he does go out on a limb and does say (see the final footnote);
My guess -- and it's only a guest -- is that Rockwell edited the newsletters, and that the most offensive excerpts were authored by Gary North. But I repeat, that's just a guess.
Thus I'm not off base suggesting that Knapp feels Rockwell might be responsible. As I had to make a second post on the entry I'm full into it myself because the 'snark' wasn't hung on a question mark.
So far there's no real evidence against Rockwell, just nudge, nudge, wink, wink stuff. My point being that there are plenty who would like to assume the mantle of the libertarian message (Reason, Cato, etc.) at the expense or opportunity of those who have carried it with some affect.
Thus, I don't think old Tom and I are in any tizzy about this. I agree that he hasn't curled up in a fetal position over the issue, but there is an element of hyper extended worry about what Paul has adequately described and taken as his responsibility. Nothing Clintonesque about responding with a classic libertarian assertion, that rights are for the individual, not groups. With any luck Mr. Paul's, tertiary point about the drug war will resonate with the communities and people it has so adversely affected. As Stan Lee says . . . .
This is a list of articles about the fallout in the libertarian movement.
http://sandefur.typepad.com/freespace/2008/01/the-libertarian.html
Apparently Walter Block has responded to Kinsley.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block96.html
Doherty also piles on;
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-doherty17jan17,0,7220617.story?coll=la-opinion-center