Seperatism yes, nationalism no.

The alliance of quasi-skinheads and paleoconservatives you’re looking for just isn’t is not going to happen anytime soon. You don’t learn very well, do you?

I admit it, it’s both, and I’m a white nationalist.

“Why would the paleolibs support white nationalists who want the very police state they’re fighting against to round up illegals and deport them?”

Exactly, the paleolibs hate the state so much that they are weak on some issues.

“Any time the camapaign would do advertising or commercials on the immigration issue he lost support from dismayed libertarians who complained he wasn’t emphasizing his antiwar campaign enough.”

Exactly, paleolibs and paleoconservatives are not on the same page and are destined to have friction between them.
I have said all along that Paul focused too much on anti-war and economics and not enough on the cultural war.

Anyways, if I were the leader of the paleoCONSERVATIVE movement I would ignore the paleolibs and any other libertarians and reach out to the white nationalists and white evangelicals and form some sort of a culture war movement and by doing that it will in itself attract Reagan democrats (you know the majority of West Virginians and Kentuckyians that voted unhappily for Clinton just to reject Obama).

Wake up paleoCONSERVATIVES, your friends and allies are the white nationalists, white evangelicals, and Reagan democrats(who are mostly conservative Catholics), NOT libertarians.

CULTURE WAR MOVEMENT!!!!!!!!!!

A little context and history here, shall we? After the 1988 presidential election, LP nominee Ron Paul’s biggest supporters, Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell, decided that they had had it working with the “stoner wing” of the LP and the Kochtopus in Washington D.C. and wanted to move their claque of libertarians in the direction of a new forming movement of conservatives who had become ideological outcasts from the conservative movement, which by the late 1980s and early 1990s was becoming more cosmopolitan and establishment orientated. This movement was called “paleoconservatism” and thus they became known as “Paleolibertarians” as a result. The new alliance was joined through the founding of the John Randolph Club back in 1992.

We have to remember that the late 1980s early 1990s, at the end of the Cold War, was a time of increased racical tension across the country. You had the LA Riots of 1992, the rise of David Duke, the Civil Rights Bill of 1991, the rise of multiculturalism and PCism. You had the whole Martin Luther King papers plagerism controversy which Chronicles did much to ferret out into the open. Rothbard and Rockwell wanted libertarians to reach out to those of the middle and lower middle classes most effected by government policies in this area rather than worry about legalizing marijuana so the cosmos could smoke up with out fear of arrest. This is why they supported Pat Buchanan in 1992 and 1996 even thought they disagreed with him vehemtly on protectionism. This period from 1989-1996 was the point in time the infamous Ron Paul Newsletters came out.

However, that politics played itself out after Clinton’s re-election in 1996 so by then Rockwell had pretty much eschewed mentions of race and attack Buchanan and the paleocons for their protectionism and the paleolibs basically spun off into their own orbit in 1997.

So maybe it’s true Rockwell doesn’t talk a lot about race anymore because he thinks it’s irrrelevent to the real problems of the country, the war, the police state and the fed (I have to laugh when when I read statements such as “Justin Raimondo hasn’t made his position on race clear enough.”). It just doesn’t mean anything to them anymore because times change, issues change, the country changes.

You can talk about border security and tightened immigration controls all you want, and I certainly support such things, but even if both were accomplished, would you agree this ends the immigration problem? No, of course not. That’s going to have to be dealt with in thousands of communtities across the country. Why would the paleolibs support white nationalists who want the very police state they’re fighting against to round up illegals and deport them? Nationalists don’t want to admit immigration is a local issue as much as it is a national one.

Besides, look at how much trouble this issue needlessly caused Ron Paul. He didn’t write the newsletters yet he was tarred with their brush. You could tell his heart was not into border security and walls and yet he pushed himself to support such things because that’s where the party rank n’ file was on such issues. Any time the camapaign would do advertising or commercials on the immigration issue he lost support from dismayed libertarians who complained he wasn’t emphasizing his antiwar campaign enough. It was simply too long of a tightrope to walk.

If anything, the Tancredo camapaign was a success in that it forced candidates like Paul and McCain to be closer to his way of thinking on the issue even if he was a johnny-on-note performer. Maybe that’s what he intended all along. It’s sucks that it tripped up Paul in the process.

Theres no consistent way of separating “economic freedom” from “personal freedom”. In fact, the activities of businesses such as fast-food joints and many advertising agencies are often much less innocent and bring much more harm to Americans than some two-bit drug users.

I’ll never forget the time on here you stated your opposition to medicinal marijuana. I was pretty disgusted.

For the most part I agree with Libertarians on economic issues, that’s why I never had a problem with Ron Paul on economics.

But when it comes to social/cultural issues I have a big problem with Libertarians.

The primary focus of Barr’s campaign is civil liberties.

VDARE article on Bob Barr.
Basically saying that Barr is sliding further and further into the libertarian party platform which does not make true conservatives want to vote for him.

The last 2 paragraphs sums it up, here it is:

” But if he wants to attract the maximum number of disaffected Republicans, he should start sounding more like Tom Tancredo and less like John McCain.

As it is, it looks like the Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin will have the patriotic immigration reform vote entirely to himself.”

“As for the reparations stuff, I don’t think you see a whole lot of libertarians advocating for it, and I know of none would argue for a federal government transfer of funds to address grievances past, present or imagined.”

No, I don’t think they would support it, but some tend to argue that if racial IQ differences were widely accepted, that would increase the likelihood of our government adopting more intrusive policies to produce equal outcomes. Whereas as I’ve argued earlier on this thread, the acceptance of IQ differences ought to show people that trying to equalize outcomes among races is a fool’s errand, and people should stop trying.

“I suspect there is something to the argument that they may have been feeding morsels to the TNR crowd regarding the Paul newsletters. To be fair, I don’t think they were trying to tank the Paul campaign. In fact I think they were trying to force Paul into a more restrictionist stance on immigration and a broader populist position in order to attract the infamous MARs. But I do have reason to believe there may be truth to the accusation.”

That seems like a strange way to try to manipulate the Paul campaign. It doesn’t seem like it would achieve any obvious purpose that I can tell. You may be right, though. It just seemed to me at first glance that the libertarians were assuming that TNR would have never gotten wind of Paul’s writings if not for someone who was involved in the Buchanan movement, but had a grudge against Paul and spilled the beans to TNR. It would have been easy enough for someone to just do a few Google searches and find the most offensive thing Paul had ever written, wouldn’t it?

It’s probably because your post includes at least one word that the filter blocks posts for. “Socailism” (spelled incorrectly so the post goes through) is a big one.

By the way, I find the whole question of race a meaningless distraction. What matters is what you’ve done with your life, and not which minutely distinct subclass of the human species you happen to have been born into.

Forget the white nationalists. Ditch them. They’re jerks. Leave them in the isolation of their mom’s basements to remain completely insignificant in politics, as they have always been.

http://barelyablog.com/?p=634

She is just so brilliant!

I have written here and elsewhere that in the real and now I tend to agree with Hunter/Hawkins on trade issues, though if the decentralized utopia of our dreams were ever to come about, I suspect the libertarian position would become more attractive for a variety of reasons.

That said, I did not mean to denigrate all Hunter supporters with my comments. My point was that paleos of the Hunter/Hawkins ilk seem to be particularly likely to take big leaps from the sort of particular patriotism you refer to, to the form of military statism and empire worship that I find so appalling. On the Taki page of late there has been an uncomfortable amount of Lincoln admiring, WWII justifying, and even whacked out fears about radical Islam. I think we can agree these are not being made by Ron Paulian purists. I am a trade protectionist, but I must admit that the paleolibertarian view about the slippery-slope that such a submission to state power brings on, seems to be reasonably accurate within this segment of conservatism.

As for Raimondo, I’m not sure he has really even clarified his position on race to be honest. His main point seems to be that people should be judged and evaluated as individuals regardless of actual or assumed racial differences. Frankly, I find this hard to disagree with, even though I am far more candid about the obvious differences found between ethnic groups.

To me the worst aspect of all of this is the use of writings and comments written by the deceased Murray Rothbard in a very fast and loose fashion. Rothbard was obviously more honest about racial differences than Justin appears to be, but he was also known to blame the managerial state for the worst aspects of the urban ghettos, was a open proponent of black power (to be honest most paleos should be, as it offers easy, non-coercive integrationist solutions to common problems) and in his book, The Betrayal of The American Right, argued that the Garissonesque abolitionists were predecessors to the “Old Right”. All of this has been ignored by the race realists, because they want to claim Rothbard as one of their own, when in fact he wasn’t.

John Savage,

Normally I am immediately dismissive of conspiracy theorizing, but I must admit that based on private conversations I have had with white nationalists and race realists, I suspect there is something to the argument that they may have been feeding morsels to the TNR crowd regarding the Paul newsletters. To be fair, I don’t think they were trying to tank the Paul campaign. In fact I think they were trying to force Paul into a more restrictionist stance on immigration and a broader populist position in order to attract the infamous MARs. But I do have reason to believe there may be truth to the accusation.

As for the reparations stuff, I don’t think you see a whole lot of libertarians advocating for it, and I know of none would argue for a federal government transfer of funds to address grievances past, present or imagined.

On the other hand I do think that many race realists and white nationalists have an extreme faith in government power and their willingness to toy with ideas like state mandated sterilization is something that is far more disturbing to me, than any whacked out belief in the divinity of free markets one finds amongst the libertarians.

In other words the libertarians may point to historic grievances too often for some and in a way that comes across as ultra-pc. On the other hand they are pretty consistent on not expanding state power in draconian ways. I can’t say the same for racialists.

You voted for Hunter instead of Ron Paul? You should be ashamed.

I have written here and elsewhere that in the real and now I tend to agree with Hunter/Hawkins on trade issues, though if the decentralized utopia of our dreams were ever to come about, I suspect the libertarian position would become more attractive for a variety of reasons.

That said, I did not mean to denigrate all Hunter supporters with my comments. My point was that paleos of the Hunter/Hawkins ilk seem to be particularly likely to take big leaps from the sort of particular patriotism you refer to, to the form of military statism and empire worship that I find so appalling. On the Taki page of late there has been an uncomfortable amount of Lincoln admiring, WWII justifying, and even whacked out fears about radical Islam. I think we can agree these are not being made by Ron Paulian purists. I am a trade protectionist, but I must admit that the paleolibertarian view about the slippery-slope that such a submission to state power brings on, seems to be reasonably accurate within this segment of conservatism.

As for Raimondo, I’m not sure he has really even clarified his position on race to be honest. His main point seems to be that people should be judged and evaluated as individuals regardless of actual or assumed racial differences. Frankly, I find this hard to disagree with, even though I am far more candid about the obvious differences found between ethnic groups.

To me the worst aspect of all of this is the use of writings and comments written by the deceased Murray Rothbard in a very fast and loose fashion. Rothbard was obviously more honest about racial differences than Justin appears to be, but he was also known to blame the managerial state for the worst aspects of the urban ghettos, was a open proponent of black power (to be honest most paleos should be, as it offers easy, non-coercive integrationist solutions to common problems) and in his book, The Betrayal of The American Right, argued that the Garissonesque abolitionists were predecessors to the “Old Right”. All of this has been ignored by the race realists, because they want to claim Rothbard as one of their own, when in fact he wasn’t.

John Savage,

Normally I am immediately dismissive of conspiracy theorizing, but I must admit that based on private conversations I have had with white nationalists and race realists, I suspect there is something to the argument that they may have been feeding morsels to the TNR crowd regarding the Paul newsletters. To be fair, I don’t think they were trying to tank the Paul campaign. In fact I think they were trying to force Paul into a more restrictionist stance on immigration and a broader populist position in order to attract the infamous MARs. But I do have reason to believe there may be truth to the accusation.

As for the reparations stuff, I don’t think you see a whole lot of libertarians advocating for it, and I know of none would argue for a federal government transfer of funds to address grievances past, present or imagined.

On the other hand I do think that many race realists and white nationalists have an extreme faith in government power and their willingness to toy with ideas like state mandated sterilization is something that is far more disturbing to me, than any whacked out belief in the divinity of free markets one finds amongst the libertarians.

In other words the libertarians may point to historic grievances too often for some and in a way that comes across as ultra-pc. On the other hand they are pretty consistent on not expanding state power in draconian ways. I can’t say the same for racialists.

It’s interesting, too, that they blame the white nationalists for somehow bringing down the Ron Paul campaign by alerting the folks at The New Republic to Paul’s past statements on race. I can’t understand why they think white nationalists would have been motivated to hurt Paul, when a good number of them were for him. But this is a rumor that’s being passed around.

Also, I think some of them take it for granted that admitting racial differences will actually justify some enormous program to bring about equal outcomes in spite of the differences. Commenter Cognate comments:

“A more interesting question, because of the association of race and slavery in America is: do the descendants of slaves have rights to any kind of restitution? Similarly does the state owe anything to the Native Americans (“Indians”) whose ancestors were nearly exterminated and who were chased off the land?

Should the state transfer income or implement some form of preferential treatment in order to redress past wrongs? If so, how much and for how long?”

The libertarians just seem inclined to assume that the answer is “yes”.

the libertarianish sentiments you mention are confounding.

Dylan Waco,

Marcus Epstein is libertarian leaning I think, though he’s perhaps more honest and intelligent than most of such a persuasion. However, I’m admittedly unfamiliar with the detailed views of most who post there.

Your comments there were, as usual, exemplary.

Raimondo should have not said anything with regards to race. Instead, he has lost his credibility with me. It’s understandable that he would not wish to take an unnecessarily divisive and controversial stand, but lying shouldn’t be the only alternative.

If one can’t say something honestly, don’t say anything at all.

“a disturbing number of statist paleos of the William Hawkins/Duncan Hunter ilk”

Now, I’m a statist, I voted for Hunter, and I read Hawkins on trade semi-regularly… However, I agree their loyalty to the state is troubling and misguided. Nevertheless, it is a short step from such loyalty to the state to loyalty to smaller, more real ties, ties that will resist globalism. And too, most Americans who are not globalist are loyal to the US state… The modern problem seems more those who are individualists and globalists without any other particular ties. And the cure would seem the restoration of particular ties and roots. Some of those loyal to the US state are so loyal in a particularist manner.

Rothbard was right about slavery: it was America’s original sin. It’s akin to today how mega corporations import masses of foreign workers for cheap labor, to undermine domestic wages.

It provided some undeniable positives, e.g. the production of a very capable aristocracy, but its negatives outweighed the positives since it was destined to collapse in my opinion. There was the constant threat of a slave revolt, and the North used it against us during and after the war. It was of course immoral as well, though blacks perhaps had it as bad or worse in their native homes… where slavery and war were rife.

It sounds like for many of these libertarians, America is supposed to be a haven for runaway children or something. Those of us who would prefer not to live among runaway children are somehow betraying the tradition of our country.

Well, at least the sheep are being separated from the goats!

First of all, I am NOT a paleolibertarian, as I have written on this website more than once. The main reason that I don’t like that name is because people may assume I’m an anarchist and I definitely am not (I do realize that there are testifiably non-anarchist paleolibs like Ron Paul and Ilana Mercer). I’ve become a lot more apathetic when it comes to choosing what to call myself, to tell you the truth. Maybe the best designation for myself is the phrase “an extreme conservative arch-liberal”, which comes from Erik von Kuenhelt-Liddihn. If you don’t know who that was, look him up. He was truly brilliant.

Now, has paleolibertarianism become more PC? I would say yes. First, it is important to remember that few people especially nowadays actively identify as paleolibertarian, and Rockwell doesn’t even consider himself a paleolibertarian anymore. Why should he? The bigger his shadow gets, the more of a cosmopolitan “big tent libertarian” he’s grown into. That effectively means he’d take Cindy Sheehan or Noam Chomsky over William F. Buckley, Jr. because he’s a wild-eyed hippie like that. I would say yes because it is obvious that in the past few years as readership has spread to different demographics Rockwell has made tremendous concessions and compromises in what kinds of writers he allows on his site. Don’t bother writing Rockwell ANY e-mails of criticism. He will concede nothing. Rockwell really is happy to be all things to all people, as long as those people still happen to be anti-war and anti-fed.

There are few genuine paleolibertarians now, and most of these are people that actually actively identify themselves as such. These include Ilana Mercer, and of course paleolibertarian maestro Hans-Hermann Hoppe. You will not find a more outspoken and eloquent opponent of the clown Rev. Wright than Mrs. Mercer. Go to her website or her blog and see what I mean. And no, none of these people are against free trade, since being a protectionist requires you to have a terrible understanding of basic economics.

Have a good day.

P.S.: Weaver, no one supposes that the South was anything close to classically liberal, only that it was right to defend itself against Lincoln. There could not possible be a more illiberal institution than chattel slavery.

I love Ron Paul as the “Paul Revere” of a new political movement, but, “Where was the statistical and factual evidence of illegal immigration against Senator S-2611 McAmnesty?”

Libertarians believe that they combat “Leviathan” within the realm of PC created by liberals and their step-brothers, the neocons, and it will not work!……The middleclass responds better to “Where in the hell did all of these Mexican Citizens/Illegal Alliens come from!”

Paleos should not allow Liberals/Libertarians/Neocons to choose their field of battle if they intend to win, or at least survive?………I think it’s so late that it boils down to a stall tactic to determine where to move to!

Exactly, paleolibertarians are so opposed to the state that they tend to oppose preserving the white race/the founding stock of this country.

“Tragically, one of the victims of this is Ron Paul himself. Despite a brave campaign, the plain fact is that he did not do as well in the GOP primaries as the paleoconservative insurrectionary Pat Buchanan did in 1992 and 1996. Paul could easily have countered McCain’s military/patriotic appeal by emphasizing how awful McCain is on immigration, which polls showed was an important issue in many primary states.”

Exactly, Ron Paul did NOT run as a culture warrior, Pat Buchanan DID.

“Instead of accusing the neoconservatives of transforming conservatism into a universalistic and internationalist war machine, Mises Institute VP Jeff Tucker wrote that the root of the problem was that all conservatives are nationalists.”

People really need to learn what nationalism truly is.

Many are libertarians who bash Lincoln from a libertarian and not from a Southern view. An enemy of Lincoln does not a friend of the South make.

Some perhaps wish to defend the South in the eyes of their liberal critics, but their readers are Southerners and what they perhaps help to accomplish, if anything, is to rewrite Southern history and to create propaganda.

In front of a Radical Republican congressional committee:

From Emory Thomas, Robert E. Lee: A Biography (New York: Norton, 1997), pp. 382-383:

Blow: ‘Do you think the State of Virginia is absolutely injured and its future impaired by the presence of the black population there?’ Lee: ‘I think it is.’ Blow: ‘And do you not think that it is particularly adapted to the quality of labor which would flow into it, from its great natural resources in case it was made attractive by the absence of the colored race?‘ Lee: ‘I do.’

—

Douglas Southall Freeman, R. E. Lee: A Biography, 4 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1936 [Pulitzer Prize ed.]), vol. 1, p.373. The letter is dated December 27, 1856.

In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former.

—

There is a great deal more I could quote from too, and I might ought to gather a list of such quotes in the CHT forums. That the South was such does not of course make such right, but it does make the South what it was.

I’m sick and tired of the South being rewritten as a multicultural, libertarian paradise. It was not.

The South was not classically liberal.

He is typically boring on the other issues. While there is definately a PC component to the LRC blog, we are talking about the preeminent Lincoln bashing site on the web here. Not exactly a place looking to make friends with the SPLC.

Also the narrow reading of Rothbard trotted out in that piece is pretty shameful. I’d write under a pseudonym too if I had to trot out that garbage.