Where did Donald Trump get his racialized rhetoric? From libertarians.

The intersection of white nationalism, the alt-right and Ron Paul

I saw this article the other day and immediately thought, "now they are branding Libertarians as white nationalist". I got to reading it and it turned out to be really informative.

How a lot of the libertarian platform has racist roots, and how some libertarian publications and even Ludwig von Mises had some rather interesting points of view.

There had always been some sympathy for racism and anti-Semitism among libertarians — the movement’s house magazine, Reason, dedicated an entire issue in 1976 to “historical revisionism,” including Holocaust revisionism. It also repeatedly ran articles in defense of South Africa’s then-segregationist government (though by 2016, the magazine was running articles like “Donald Trump Enables Racism”). But it was Rothbard’s founding of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in 1982 that enabled the fledgling political movement to establish affinity with the neo-Confederate Lost Cause movement.

Almost immediately after its creation, the Mises Institute (headquartered in Auburn, Ala.) began publishing criticism of “compulsory integration,” attacks on Abraham Lincoln and apologia for Confederate leaders. Institute scholars have also spoken to racist groups such as the League of the South. Rothbard even published a chapter in his book “The Ethics of Liberty” in which he said that “the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children,” although he didn’t specify the races of the children who might be sold.

While I'd say mainstream libertarianism in 2016 is a stronger proponent for oppressed individuals rights, it's still rather interesting to see these views from people who considered themselves pro-freedom and liberty.

a reply to: gpols

headquartered in Alabama?!?!?! must be racist. Love that tidbit of info added that typically would not be.

Looks like they are going all in on the racist narrative. They tried this during the brexit vote as well.
The racist shtick has not been working this election. Over half the electorate will be called racist by the time voting day comes.

a reply to: gpols

Actually it was not racism but more of the control that churches tried to have and hold as power over people based on belief instead of truth... liberty equates to freedom including that of thought so any religious organisation wishing to control thought no matter the racial make up of the group or it's origions would be seen as a threat to that very liberty or freedom itself.

Lincoln had to make a consession to end the civil war and that meant making a deal with the Republicans that held most power in the South so he moved from Whig to Republican because the Democrats had already selected who was going to run and didn't agree on the constitution of unifications wording... one of the deals struck at that time to try and end the sepratism by siding with the Republicans was with a Republican leader that slips my memory that wanted to run after Lincoln this man was already printing money with his face on it and planned it become a new federal reserve note after the civil war ended in his bid for presidency when there was a reunification of the union he was giving them away as the first political propaganda flyer in his bid for presidency after Lincoln... so of course money was doing a lot of talking and libertarians saw the deals being made as corruption not an advocacy of slavery.

It wasn't long after the civil war that the share cropper legislation etc became another power struggle in trying to find any exploitable loop holes in the law... Wilmington NC after the civil war ended the freed held most all political power, until of course the sepratists not liking the freed in power put a siege to the city... the federal government was contacted and asked for help in the city size civil war (in a major trading hub) and it fell on deaf ears as the supremists ceased power from those emancipated and has pretty much held it ever since... this is true of many of the stars and bars states that bore it on their flags, and why the South has been seen as a hot bed of inequality and intolerance ever since the civil wars end. It was more about power and econimics being in the hands of those feeling superior either by traditional cognitive dissonance or religious dissonance as an excuse which still gets used to this very day.

How bizarre that the party who plays the race card every time it's desperate, the party that has a HOT race war running amok in this nation with their PC / SJW agenda (even after getting it's black POTUS still not good enough for these people), with anti-racist libertarianism on the rise now they're grasping at straws to paint them as the ultimate racists in American history kind of non-sense.

HERE'S LIBERTARIANISM:

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Go to 8:00, and see Ron Paul argue how libertarianism destroys racism:

[BILL MOYERS: No. They don't-- no, they don't. But there's just-- there's some pieces I've been reading on it that accuse you of illiberal sentiments on race, Israel and other topics. They say that you've demeaned black perhaps by some of your references, the Civil War and to slavery. And that you are always attacking the Jewish lobby-- the Israeli lobby--

RON PAUL: Oh, I think that that's completely wrong. And, you know, libertarianism is the enemy of all racism, because racism is a collectivist idea is that you put people in categories. You say, "Well, Blacks belong here, Whites here, and women here." Well, we don't see people in form-- or gays. You don't have rights because you're gays, or women, or minorities. You have rights because you're an individual. So, we see people strictly as individuals. And we get these individuals in a natural way. So, it's exactly opposite of all collectivism. And it's absolutely anti-racism, because we don't see in those terms.
www.pbs.org...

]

HERE'S PROGRESSIVISM:

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
In short, it's this Political Correctness (PC) Culture taken to extremes, where a lot of this new SJW brand found it's roots in radical Feminist theories.

In short, the basic tenets of it derive from "Critical Race Theory" and its gender & sexuality based extension called the "Progessive Stack". Those 2 concepts (which I will refer to as "CRT/PS"), along with the profoundly obtuse sort of reasonings behind them, and the whole ordeal underpinning how all of this SJW extremism came about lately, are well beyond the scope of this presentation. But it should be fair to say it's all about this intense sort of reasoning where everybody besides straight white males (SWM) are deeply oppressed by... straight white males (SWM).

Even if a SWM isn't racist, prejudiced or bigoted, the logic follows that we still are so anyways merely for being SWM, is basically the narrative you'll often find when observing the arguments of these folks. This is based on what they call the "Patriarchy" (which you are a part of inherently if you are SWM no matter what).
The Hypocrites Iron Fist - The PC Movement in light of the War on Drugs

Any questions???

a reply to: jellyrev

While the article is informative and well written, it seems like the intention is to paint libertarians as racists and to link Libertarians to Trumpism too.

Washington Post is a pro Democrat paper so it doesn't really surprise me.

Actual philosophy of liberty:

a reply to: gpols

Agreed it's a pander piece twisted to win that demographic...

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: gpols

It was more about power and econimics being in the hands of those feeling superior either by traditional cognitive dissonance or religious dissonance as an excuse which still gets used to this very day.

Nice bit of history there.

You are correct in the last bit about people with lots of money or see themselves as morally superior to justify their entitlement mentality and why people should listen to them and they should be the community leaders.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

You're right the two are completely opposite ideologies. The basic premise of Libertarianism is take responsibility for your own actions, if you want to world to be a better place then make it so. Progressivism is to lay down a set of rules that free's you from responsibility so long as you adhere to the rules that have been laid down.

They are also completely incompatible with one-another.

a reply to: gpols

There's no equality in such things... no material gain nor spiritual gain can ever place one life over another except by some twisted ideology

a reply to: gpols

Exactly, secularism and ethics is the pathway to that... yet all the various ideologies want their rules on the table too even if people don't argee with them the more rules the less freedom. Congress needs sessions to reform laws but yet every session is pumping out more and more... and the more ideological influence in a town, city, district the more that platform is going to pander leaving secularism and ethics completely out of the game and anyone not towing such lines is the outcast the problem and not seen as equal it's complete and utter bullsh!t and only serves to keep the same problems and same issues continually arising.

originally posted by: gpols
a reply to: jellyrev

While the article is informative and well written, it seems like the intention is to paint libertarians as racists and to link Libertarians to Trumpism too.

Washington Post is a pro Democrat paper so it doesn't really surprise me.

Yeah . another stealth anti-Trump thread is all it is...

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: gpols
a reply to: jellyrev

While the article is informative and well written, it seems like the intention is to paint libertarians as racists and to link Libertarians to Trumpism too.

Washington Post is a pro Democrat paper so it doesn't really surprise me.

Yeah . another stealth anti-Trump thread is all it is...

I am not actually sure what it is, oither than it makes no sense.

American politics haven't been this interesting for as long as I've followed it.

www.washingtonpost.com...

I found that article way more interesting.

A political paradigm shift, a new level of the dialectic game.

As I see it, aside from being a reaction to SJW's and political correctness, the alt-right is also a conservative offensive in the cultural and social sphere. Two areas that mainstream conservatives have entirely ceded to progressives and cultural Marxism creep. Aside from the extremist Nazi contingent and the troll like offensiveness this is generally why people are predisposed to call them racist. Because they are challenging the cultural norms that have been steadily normalised for decades now. A complete reevaluation and rational scrutiny of our norms and all the social engineering we've been subjected to is in order. We've been passively lapping up what the media and popular culture has been selling for years and years now without scrutinising this spoon-fed liberal narrative for underlying agendas. As I see it the social engineers and the elite have showed their hands, they've jumped the shark. Their goal and their agenda is becoming increasingly clear to the public and they are being exposed big time.

Not only is the alt-right challenging our social consensus culture, but conspiracy theorists too are increasingly challenging mainstream conceptions of everything from ancient history to geopolitical power relations and even the very foundations of science. This is such an incredibly interesting time to be alive, dangerously provocative and volatile.

I think it's exciting and as an European living in a culturally Marxist nation I can certainly sympathise, neither the media or the government actually engages their opponents in debate about immigration. Instead they censor and call people racist for disagreeing with them. The very act of even questioning immigration policy automatically gets you labelled a racist or a Nazi.

Now.. if only I had a girlfriend to share all this controversial joy with. Someone like Lauren Southern.. or Maria Orsitsch... kidding, kidding. No, but she was pretty much a perfect ten. And yeah, this is my lame attempt to be provocative and offensive.. since that's the latest trend, gotta keep up with the times. (Someone tell me to shut up already)

a reply to: reldra

It's a troll article to get libertarians all up in arms about their movement having racists roots and linking them to the alt-right and Trumpism.

a reply to: Gothmog

It's actually about libertarianism's roots and Washington Post's efforts to link libertarianism to racism, the alt-right and Trumpism.

a reply to: gpols

I'd have to say that EVERY political party that has been formed in the US has certain 'racist' ideals, most of which carry forth to the present. After all, This country has a racist past. Through much of our development, we have held onto at least a part of our history of separateness and suspicion about people who are different from the white European settlers who founded this country.

Blaming our racial issues on one person, one party or one entity is really meaningless. Sure, there are plenty of racial issues today, but is Trump's proclamation that blacks have horrible neighborhoods, awful schools, and no jobs really all that different from the liberal assumption that blacks don't have the same opportunities as white people do, so they need the government's help with certain programs?

I'm the first person who supports helping people who need it, but to assume that the people who need it are those who are the non-white, is pretty messed up, in my opinion. To make race the deciding factor as to who needs help, is a mistake.

I know we have a lot of racial issues today. But the first thing to do is to realize how completely we all have screwed up any and all attempts to 'make right' the shameful history of this country's participation in slavery. No one person or party owns it, but we ALL are responsible for making it better.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I agree with you that there isn't a difference between what Trump is saying and the liberal assumptions of blacks in general.

But it goes back to the Washington Post trying to lump libertarians into Trumpism, and the alt-right. I'd say most libertarians wouldn't vote for Trump if their life depended upon it, because his policies go against what libertarians believe. Which makes this more of a hit piece on libertarianism.

As far as making it better there are a lot of things that need to change, and I'm sure everyone has different ideas on how to do that which presents a different problem, because not everyone sees the issues the same. Which goes back to libertarianism and letting people live, within reason, how they want to live.

originally posted by: gpols
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

You're right the two are completely opposite ideologies. The basic premise of Libertarianism is take responsibility for your own actions, if you want to world to be a better place then make it so. Progressivism is to lay down a set of rules that free's you from responsibility so long as you adhere to the rules that have been laid down.

They are also completely incompatible with one-another.

Yes.

Social liberals want the state to make things equal,fair and safe. Libertarians are against the state doing this and we want for state to be as small as possible or no state at all.

We are minimizing and privatizing the same state they rely on to equalize society.