Ron Paul, Racism, the Newsletters, and PaleoLibertarianism

Richard Spencer recently wrote, “I find it sad, however, how quickly the libertarians’ “right-wing” moment has been flushed down the memory hole.”  My sentiment exactly.  While leftists and neocons (is there a difference between the two?) are rushing to label Paul a “racist,” many libertarians are scrambling to prove their anti-racist bona fides. As noted by Paul Gottfried in his recent interview, is trying to become as politically correct as Reason or the Cato Institute.

But this wasn’t always the case.  In the 1990s, there was a right-wing libertarianism, and the Ron Paul newsletters are quite representative of the views of paleolibertarians of this era, especially Murray Rothbard who was the intellectual center of paleolibertarianism.  The “racist” quotes from the newsletters were in sync with the views of Rothbard, who was both a race realist and opposed to Third World immigration.

But since the 1990s, paleolibertarianism has drifted radically toward political correctness and anti-Western positions (such as support of Third World immigration), making it in many respects indistinguishable from cosmo-libertarianism, as noted in the infamous essay “Lew Rockwell And The Strange Death (Or At Least Suspended Animation) Of Paleolibertarianism.”  I don’t really know whether mainstream journalists know this when reporting on the newsletters, but they probably don’t care.  They primarily oppose Paul because of his foreign policy, so the “racism” charges are merely convenient.  (N.B. If Obama in 2008 were found to be vehemently anti-Israel, his dealings with the anti-white Rev. Wright could have been given the same press coverage as the Paul newsletters.)

All in all, the newsletters are defensible and it’s too bad that paleolibertarians are trying to brush under the rug things they wrote only two decades ago (and leaving it to more honest publications like VDare to do the dirty work).  Paleolibertarians apparently haven’t received the memo that no matter how PC they try to be, if they oppose the empire and endless nation building, they will be labelled as “racists,” so why not just be honest from the start?

Ron Paul is less than an ideal candidate (an ideal candidate would look like Pat Buchanan), as recently noted by Ellison Lodge.  Ron Paul’s recent support of mass amnesty in his new book is quite troublesome (contrary to his anti-immigration stances in 2008).   That said, Paul is infinitely better than the other clowns in the GOP primary (which isn’t saying much, considering how bad they are) and I plan to vote for him in the primary.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

12 thoughts on “Ron Paul, Racism, the Newsletters, and PaleoLibertarianism

  1. C Bowen

    One point being missed is that Rothbard wanted to strike at the heart of egalitarianism, which he had done in the seventies.

    He foresaw a libertarianism not filled with fringe characters, but the bourgeoisie; one that promoted the interest of the shop keeper, the worker, the American common man in flyover country. Spend lest time pondering the benefits of legalized drugs, and more time on what the State was doing to abuse the natives. It was a political, rather than intellectual, strategy.

    To call it ‘race realist’, okay, but the heart was anti-egalitarianism.

    There is some confusion over tactics–one cannot say until its over, and then its just speculation, what set of tactics might have worked.

    The younger masses are that much more accustomed to egalitarianism and all the bennies it provides everybody but white males under 40 (insert whatever age really.)

    As far as winning an election, under 40 white men are not going to leave Paul–we seem to get it and are tolerant if often frustrated on the presentation.

    Pat Buchanan was not an ideal candidate–he was an insider, a Nixon speechwriter of all things, with a CNN show. His famous battle against Larry McDonald (Democrat) on CNN limited his reach into the patriot/Constitution Party community (being Catholic never really helped that either) that folks like a Rothbard easily defended–granted prior to youtube many weren’t likely to recall.

    Mr. Buchanan’s failure, as Sam Francis noted (I am loosely recalling here) was inability to handle a response to the media attacks that former David Duke supporters were working for him at the State level. Rothbard had written a response to use, but Buchanan, his friend, never used it–likely insider handling of the issue.

  2. Walter Post author

    “Border security is inconsequential,and no one is going to round up the mestizos.”

    This is a straw man argument. Boarder security is always relevant. Just because some people have invaded your land it doesn’t mean that you want to allow more to do so. And, in reality, you probably don’t have to deport most of the illegals that are here. A policy of strong attrition would cause them to self-deport.

    “their kids are all that’s keeping a lot of the rural heartland public schools from closing.”

    This is one of the strangest arguments. If there aren’t enough people for the schools to stay open, then they should be closed. Why should European American tax dollars be used to keep open schools for the benefit of illegal mestizos? The reality of the situation is that Hispanics are destroying public school systems — as noted in California where the state went from having one of the best public school systems to its current ranking in the bottom four.

  3. Walter Post author

    CBowen and Brock,

    That is a good platform on illegal immigration you link to.

    The criticism aimed at Paul’s new stance on immigration is based on statements in his new book and primarily on his support of “guest worker programs” (i.e. amnesty) and his call for more legal immigration.

    And Paul isn’t helping himself generally by making comments like:

    ““I’m not a racist. As a matter of fact, Rosa Parks is one of my heroes, Martin Luther King is a hero — because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience, nonviolence.”

    Better to say something ambiguous (if he needs cover) or make no comment at all or defend what he originally said (as Buchanan has done) than to grovel before the shrine of political correctness. This just makes RP appear a flip-flopper and weak.

    But, as I said above, I’m voting for Paul in the primary. He’s by far the best of all the options.

  4. C Bowen

    When you say, “better” Walter, what do you mean? Do you think that would get him more votes? Turn the South?

    It’s a vague throwaway point without some context.

    If you mean that you would feel better about yourself, or feel better about support for Paul, one gets in line with the calculus of democracy Leviathan studies. Tactics are not about ‘you’. It might frustrate me, but when I support someone, I expect them to be a politician.

    I cannot believe that there is seriously someone out there who has decided, “I am not supporting Paul, because he said something nice about MLK and Rosa Parks. Granted, the Iraq invasion was bad, and bombing Iran is probably not a good idea, but what he said about MLK, that draws the line.”

  5. RonL

    I don’t see Paul defending the newsletters. Instead he is claiming that he is an incompetent manager and should not be held accountable for an eponymous newsletter.

  6. stevetrent

    There is no better counter to any and all the anti-white attacks than the white genocide mantra:

    Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY!

    Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

    The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

  7. mpresley

    Unfortunately, one problem for Paul is that he cannot win for losing. Establishment Republicans criticize his negative foreign policy proposal which they rightly perceive as being anti-Israel, even though it would be an “evenly applied” policy. And it is difficult to be anti-Israel, since the next call will be antisemitism, and who wants that?

    Although no one will say it, implicit in his domestic policy is a recognition that dismantling of the welfare state would affect Negroes “disproportionately;” it would destroy the black underclass and lead to more violence on their part, and also decimate a black middle class created by government patronage. However it is difficult to be anti-Negro, since the next call will be racism, and who wants that?

    To counter these typical reactions Paul’s followers must ramp up the anti-racism and anti anti-Semetic meme, pointing out that his “theoretical equality” and “non-interventionism” treats all equally. In addition, to fight back preemptively his supporters often criticize an “immoral apartheid” regime (that is, Israel), and in reaction often feel sympathy and empathy toward Palestinians.

    It is all wrongheaded. In fact, what we really need is more apartheid, and less equality, but to say so is impossible.

    All of this underscores the problem with both Paul and his mainstream detractors. For instance, his mainstream Republican opponents understand the raison d’être of American foreign policy as total and unconditional support for Israel. For them, Israel must somehow be the 51st state. Many Americans no longer understand or agree with this view, either from a strictly nationalistic standpoint, or from an economic ground, especially now that the US Treasury is out of real money.

    Yet in order to capitalize on this sentiment, and in an effort to disengage from Israel, a pro-Palestenian stance has developed among certain of Paul’s supporters. Their naïvety toward Islam is appalling. The idea that if we simply left Muslims “alone,” then all would be well for us does not very much explain the situation throughout the former Soviet Union, most of Europe and Scandinavia, the Philippines, Northern and Central Africa, the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, Thailand, India, parts of Minnesota, and other places where Islam asserts its dominance.

    With the exception of possibly Minneapolis, it has never been explained how George Bush, Dick Cheney, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz and the others are responsible for Islamic trouble in these other places. Wherever Islam exists, there will be existential problems for Westerners.

    This, of course, does not argue for American interventionism, but only for our disengagement from Muslims, both foreign AND domestic. Neither Paul nor the mainstream could ever support such a view, though.

    The Paul candidacy underscores a peculiar chimera of American politics. No one can discuss real issues (such as the effects of Zionism on US policy, white dispossession from AA, Negro violence and their inability to adapt to Western conventions, the internal Islamic traditional threat, and so forth). Instead, discussions become peripheral, theoretical, and often ad hominem. Nothing will change for the better.

  8. RedPhillips

    “I don’t see Paul defending the newsletters.”

    Ron, I don’t think anyone is saying he is defending them. I think they are bemoaning the fact that he is not.

    I have said all along that he should have apologized for the language but largely defended the content in context. By so completely disavowing them he essentially conceded to the charge that they are “racist” which now goes unchallenged.

  9. RedPhillips

    Walter, I think Savrola is making a white nat argument for a separate white ethno-state, not throwing up his hands.

    I find it rich that people who advocate for a white ethno-state lecture paleos about facing reality. If such a thing were to happen it would happen by accident when the US breaks up as a political unit and some of the nations that arise from that happen to be demographically mostly white – the Pacific Northwest, the central grain belt, etc.

  10. MatthewS.


    So being Anti-Racist (which I am) is being Anti-White? So be it , I don’t care if you or others consider me a race traitor.’ll gladly embrace that lable. I’m white & love white people..or more correctly people of European heritage. I could care less for race,I may be of European heritage, but I’m American first & foremost. I do oppose open border policies that would flood America & Europe with third world peoples (what ever their ethnicty). If America & the various Europeans countries & their native cultures are to survive. They need strong immigration policy & border defence. They also need to assimilate those non-white people & non-British Europeans into our society n’ bolster what makes American culture great. Not alliegance to race..but to freedom , the constitution & the principles that made America great.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>