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, LewRockwell.com 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.