https://mises.org/mises-wire/southern-conservative-view-equality
Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, King James Only, Dispensational
Wednesday, September 17, 2025
Tuesday, September 16, 2025
Monday, September 15, 2025
Sunday, September 14, 2025
Saturday, September 13, 2025
Friday, September 12, 2025
Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings Volume 3: Eye of the Phoenix | Full Movie
My only disagreement with this documentary is Doc Marque saying Rothschild started The Illuminati. I have yet to find that Conspiracy Myth to be true. Only anti-Semitic anti-Jewish theorists seem to be the source of this claim. I believe that The Illuminati Satanists made up this claim to paint The Jews as evil and the tip of the Spear of whatever conspiring might be real. As well as any indication The Star of David is the same as the pentagram or hexagram.
Thursday, September 11, 2025
What is right-libertarianism/right-wing libertarianism?
https://mises.org/mises-daily/left-and-right-within-libertarianism
I have modified my copy of this newsletter removing unneeded incendiary comments about classical laissez-fairists and people in favor of minimal compulsory taxation over complete voluntary taxation. I also removed Rothbards defense of fetuscide (abortion) as the libertarian view. As well as unneeded hatred for people with a more neolibertarian foreign policy over the paleo one.
Recently, a bewildering and seemingly new phenomenon has burst upon the public consciousness, “right-wing libertarianism.” While earlier forms of the movement received brief and scornful attention by professional “extremist”-baiting liberals, present attention is, almost miraculously for veterans of the movement, serious and respectful. The current implication is “maybe they’ve got something here. What, then, have they got?”
Whatever their numerous differences, all “right-wing libertarians” agree on the central core of their thought, briefly, that every individual has the absolute moral right to “self-ownership,” the ownership and control of his own body without aggressive interference by any other person or group. Secondly, libertarians believe that every individual has the right to claim the ownership of whatever goods he has created or found in a natural, unused state: this establishes an absolute property right, not only in his own person but also in the things that he finds or creates. Thirdly, if everyone has such an absolute right to private property, he therefore has the right to exchange such property titles for other titles to property: hence the right to give away such property to whomever he chooses (provided, of course, that the recipient is willing); hence the right of bequest — and the right of the recipient to inherit.
The emphasis on the rights of private property of course locates this libertarian creed as emphatically “right-wing,” as does the right of free contract, implying absolute adherence to freedom of enterprise and the free-market economy. It also means, however, that the right-libertarian stands foursquare for the “civil liberty” of freedom of speech, press, and assembly. It means that he necessarily favors total freedom for pornography, prostitution, and all other forms of personal action that do not themselves aggress against the property of others. And, above all, he regards conscription as slavery pure and simple. All of these latter positions are of course now regarded as “leftist,” and so the right-libertarian is inevitably put in the position of being some form of “left-rightnik,” someone who agrees with conservatives on some issues and with leftists on others.
While others therefore see him as curiously fluctuating and inconsistent, he regards his position as virtually the only one that is truly consistent, consistent on behalf of the liberty of every individual. For how can the leftist be against the violence of war and conscription and morality laws while yet favoring the violence of taxes and government controls? And how can the rightist trumpet his devotion to private property and free enterprise while favoring conscription and the outlawing of activities he deems immoral?
While of course opposing any private or group aggression against the rights of private property, the right-libertarian unerringly zeroes in on the central, the overriding aggressor upon such rights: the State apparatus. While the leftist tends to regard the State as an evil enforcer of private-property rights, the right-libertarian, on the contrary, regards it as the prime aggressor on such rights.
In contrast to believers in democracy or monarchy or dictatorship, the right-libertarian steadfastly refuses to regard the State as invested with any sort of divine or any other sanction setting it up above the general moral law. If it is criminal for one man or a group of men to aggress against a man’s person or property, then it is equally criminal for an outfit calling itself the “government” or “State” to do the same thing.
Hence the right-libertarian regards “unjust war” as mass murder, “conscription” as slavery, and — for most libertarians — “taxation” as robbery. From such past mentors as Herbert Spencer (The Man vs. the State) and Albert Jay Nock (Our Enemy, the State), the right-libertarian regards the State as the great enemy of the peaceful and productive pursuits of mankind.
On the extreme-right fringe of the movement, there are those who simply believe in old-fashioned, 19th-century laissez-faire; the major laissez-faire group is the Foundation for Economic Education, of Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, for which many of the middle-aged members of the right-libertarian movement have worked at one time or another.
The laissez-fairists believe that a central government must exist, and therefore that taxes must exist, but that taxation should be confined to the prime “governmental” function of defending life and property against attack. Any pressing of government beyond this function is considered illegitimate.
The great bulk of libertarians, especially among the youth, have, however, gone beyond laissez-faire, for they have seen its basic inconsistency: for if taxation is robbery for building dams or steel plants, then it is also robbery when financing such supposedly “governmental” functions as police and the courts.
If it is legitimate for the State to coerce the taxpayer into financing the police, then why is it not equally legitimate to coerce the taxpayer for myriad other activities, including building steel factories, subsidizing favored groups, etc.? If taxation is robbery, surely then it is robbery regardless of the ends, benevolent or malevolent, for which the State proposes to employ these stolen funds.
Moving on, we come to the Randian and neo-Randian movements, those who follow or have been influenced by the novelist Ayn Rand. From the publication of Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged in 1958, the Randian movement developed into what seemed to be destined as a mighty force. For the emotional impact of Rand’s powerfully-plotted novels attracted a vast following of young people into her “Objectivist” movement.
In addition to the emotional drawing power of the novels, Randianism provided the eager acolyte with an integrated philosophical system, a system grounded on Aristotelian epistemology, and blending it with Nietszchean egoism and hero worship, rationalist psychology, laissez-faire economics, and a natural-rights political philosophy, a political philosophy grounded on the libertarian axiom of never aggressing upon the person or property of another.
Even at its peak, however, the effectiveness of the Randian movement was severely limited by two important factors:
One was its extreme and fanatical sectarianism; Randians refused to have anything to do with any person or group, no matter how close in outlook, who deviated by so much as an iota from the entire Randian canon — a canon, by the way, that has a rigid “line” on every conceivable question, from aesthetics to tactics. (An odd exception to this sectarianism, by the way, is the Republican Party and the Nixon administration, which includes several highly placed Randians as advisors.) Particularly hated by the Randians is any former colleague who has deviated from the total line; these people are reviled and personally blacklisted by the faithful. Indeed, Rand’s monthly magazine, The Objectivist, is probably the only magazine in the world that consistently cancels the subscription of anyone on their personal blacklist, including any subscribers who send in what they consider to be unworshipful questions.
The second, associated factor is the totalitarian atmosphere, the cultic atmosphere, of the Randian movement. While the official Randian creed stresses the importance of individuality, self-reliance, and independent judgment, the unofficial but crucial axiom for the faithful is that “Ayn Rand is the greatest person who has ever lived” and, as a practical corollary, that “everything Ayn Rand says is right.” With this sort of ruling mentality, it is no wonder that the turnover in the Randian movement has been exceptionally high: attracted by the credo of individualism, an enormous number of young people were either purged or drifted away in disgust.
The collapse of the Randian movement as an organized force came in the summer of 1968, when an unbelievable bombshell struck the movement: an irrevocable split between Rand and her appointed heir, Nathaniel Branden.
Since then, the Randian movement has happily become polycentric; and Branden repaired to California to set up his own schismatic movement there. But the latter is still a movement confined to psychological theories and publications, and to book reviews in the occasionally appearing Academic Associates News. As an organized movement, Randianism, whatever variant, is a mere shadow of its former self.
But the Randian creed still remains as a vital influence on the thinking of libertarians, so many of whom were former adherents to the cult. Politically, Rand rejected taxation as robbery, and therefore illegitimate.
Randian political theory wishes to preserve the existing unitary state, with its monopoly over coercion and ultimate decision-making; it wishes to define its “government” as an institution which retains its State monopoly but gains its revenue only by voluntary contributions from its citizens. Rand infuses into the political outlook of herself and her charges an emotional devotion to the existing American government and to the American Constitution that totally negates her own libertarian axioms.
While Rand opposes the war in Vietnam, for example, she does so on purely tactical reasons as a mistake not in our “national interest”; as a result, she is far more passionate in her hostility to the unpatriotic protestors against the war than she is against the war itself. She advocated the firing of Eugene Genovese from Rutgers, on the grounds that “no man may support the victory of the enemies of his country.” And even though Rand passionately opposes the draft as slavery, she also believes, with Read and the laissez-fairists, that it is illegitimate to disobey the laws of the American State, no matter how unjust — so long as her freedom to protest the laws remains.
Finally, Ayn Rand is a conventional right-winger, as well, in her attitude toward the “international Communist conspiracy.”
Many neo-Randians, devoted as they are to logical analysis, have seen the logical clinker in Randian political theory; that if no man may aggress upon another, then neither may an outfit calling itself “government” presume to exert a coercive monopoly on force and on the making of ultimate judicial decision. Hence, they saw that no government may be coercively preserved, and they therefore took the next crucial step; while retaining devotion to the free market and private property, this legion of youthful neo-Randians have concluded that all services, including police and courts, must become freely marketable. It is morally illegitimate to set up a coercive monopoly of such functions, and then revere it as “government.” Hence, they have become “free-market anarchists,” or “anarchocapitalists,” people who believe that defense, like any other service, should only be provided on the free market and not through monopoly or tax coercion.
Anarchocapitalism is a creed new to the present age. Its closest historical links are with the “individualist anarchism” of Benjamin R. Tucker and Lysander Spooner of the late 19th century, and it shares with Tucker and Spooner a devotion to private property, individualism, and competition. Furthermore, and in contrast to Read and Rand, it shares with Spooner and Tucker their hostility to government officials as a criminal band of robbers and murderers. It is therefore no longer “patriotic.” It differs from the older anarchist in not believing that profits and interest would disappear in a fully free market, in holding the landlord-tenant relationship to be legitimate, and in holding that men can arrive through reason at objective law which does not have to be at the mercy of ad hoc juries. Lysander Spooner’s brilliantly hard-hitting No Treason, one of the masterpieces of antistatism and reprinted by an anarchocapitalist press, has had considerable influence in converting present-day youth to libertarianism.
It is safe to say that the great bulk of right-libertarians are anarchocapitalists, particularly among the youth. Anarchocapitalism, however, also contains within it a large spectrum of differing ideas and attitudes. For one thing, while they have all discarded any traits of devotion to the State and have become anarchists, many of them have retained the simplistic anticommunism, devotion to big business, and even American patriotism of their former creeds.
What we may call “anarchopatriots,” for example, take this sort of line: “Yes, anarchy is the ideal solution. But, in the meanwhile, the American government is the freest on earth,” etc. Much of this sort of attitude permeated the Libertarian Caucus of the Young Americans for Freedom, which split off or were expelled from YAF at the embroiled YAF convention at St. Louis in August, 1969. This split — based on their libertarianism and their refusal to be devoted to such unjust laws as the draft — led to the splitting off from YAF of almost the entire California, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and New Jersey sections of that leading conservative youth organization. These groups then formed “Libertarian Alliances” in the various states.
A group of older anarchocapitalists centered in New York founded the Libertarian Forum as a semimonthly, in early 1969, and formed the Radical Libertarian Alliance (RLA), which had a considerable impact in fueling and sparking the 1969 YAF split in St. Louis. Its ideas were propagated among the youth with particular effect by Roy A. Childs, Jr.
Childs had particular effect in converting Jarret Wollstein from Randianism to anarchocapitalism and then to a realistic view of the American State. Wollstein, an energetic young Marylander, had been ejected from the Randian movement, and had formed his own Society for Rational Individualism, publishing the monthly National Individualist. Finally, at the end of 1969, Wollstein’s SRI merged with the bulk of the old Libertarian Alliance members of YAF to form the Society of Individual Liberty, which has become by far the leading organization of libertarians in this country. SIL has thousands of members, and numerous campus chapters throughout the country, and is loosely affiliated with the California Libertarian Alliance, consisting largely of the ex-YAFers and which itself has over a thousand members within the state.
In many ways, California, with the largest right-libertarian population, differs from the movement in the rest of the country. The movement there is led by the California Libertarian Alliance (CLA), of over a thousand members. Led by youthful former YAFers, the CLA is rightist and neo-Randian in tendency, although over the last year and a half it too has abandoned many of its Randian tenets.
Isolationism is Not an Option by Bruce McQuain
https://web.archive.org/web/20060218084116/http://neolibertarian.net/articles/isolation.aspx
In the 18th century, Thomas Jefferson famously said that the US should strive for "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Jefferson would probably be keenly disappointed that his advocacy for isolationism has, for the most part, been ignored by subsequent presidents. Still, Jefferson 's dictum has become the lynchpin of present day libertarian and Libertarian Party foreign policy.
There are serious defense and security concerns that arise from such a policy today. In Jefferson's day, America was protected by two very wide oceans. Mounting an effective and sustainable invasion of America was beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of nations. Self-defense was relatively easy and inexpensive for the US . In addition, America had and economically self-sufficient, agrarian economy. So, the Jeffersonian approach to foreign policy made some sense then. Today, however, it would be an extremely dangerous way to conduct foreign policy.
Libertarians are often accused of being Jeffersonian isolationists who want the US to withdraw inside its borders, stay out of international relations, refuse entangling alliances, and adopt a policy of non-intervention in others' affairs. But various libertarians such as David Bergland, author of "Libertarianism in One Lesson", claim that in reality "libertarians oppose isolationism". He contends, "Some people mistakenly confuse neutrality and non-intervention with "isolationism."
Unfortunately, that claim isn't reflected in the Libertarian Party's platform foreign policy plank which describes it in terms of classic isolationism: "The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade and travel."
Why then do Neolibertarians eschew this stance on foreign policy? Because the world and America 's role in it has changed dramatically since the 18 th century. Isolationism may have made some sense in a time where wide oceans and limited technology gave a young America an almost insurmountable protective geographic barrier, and the country was both agrarian and self-sufficient. But those conditions no longer apply.
Sufficient argument, therefore, can be made on purely pragmatic grounds that isolationism-or its libertarian redefinition as "neutrality and non-intervention"-is an impractical and dangerous a policy today, and that its implicit assumptions rest upon a false premise.
The premise, as Bergland states it is that "the globe is covered with governments of sovereign nations each having authority over their own area". He further states that the United States , or any nation, has no right to interfere in the business of another sovereign nation. Per libertarian foreign policy, it's none of our business what another nation does, be it war with a neighbor, extermination of its own people, or any other action which we find unpleasant.
Such a policy premise holds the sovereignty of nations above the sovereignty and rights of individuals. It places all nations on the same moral plane, be they a democracy or a totalitarian regime. That premise seems to be inconsistent with libertarian philosophy.
In the libertarian view which Bergland represents, one country's expansion into another country by force of arms would be none of our concern. As a neutral, our only concerns would be peaceful trade and self-defense, with the latter only implemented when the aggressor was actually on our borders.
Thankfully US policy makers eschewed this policy during the Cold War with Soviet Communism, and formed alliances by taking sides with our ideological friends against our ideological enemies. As a result, a threat to our sovereignty and freedom-as well as a threat to the rest of the world-was thwarted. Adopting a self-defeating policy of non-intervention would have allowed the Soviet Union a free hand to pursue its hegemony.
Ironically, Bergland characterizes the collapse of the USSR as one of the most important events in our lifetime before launching into a critique of the very interventionist foreign policy principles which led to the collapse. That sort of ideological blindness and unwillingness to rethink its principles has made libertarianism a less attractive alternative to the major parties.
Neolibertarians acknowledge the realities of the world today, not the 18 th century. Practical foreign policy in a neolibertarian world includes engagement with like-minded democracies through treaties and alliances. It also encourages peaceful and free trade among those nations. Neolibertarian foreign policy rejects the equal sovereignty premise of traditional libertarian foreign policy and differentiates between free countries and oppressed countries. It also holds as its highest standard the rights of free people, not the 'rights' of nations. Neolibertarians have no problem with condemnation of and, if necessary, intervention in those oppressed countries, if they pose a threat to our nation's security or citizens. Neolibertarian foreign policy also reserves for the US the right to preemptively act against any threat anywhere in the world in the name of national self-defense or critical self-interest.
A foreign policy that consists of hiding in the 18th century is both dangerous and impractical. Instead, the Neolibertarian policy is to engage the world proactively in order to maximize liberty and freedom.
September 10, 2025 9:58AM Are Neoliberalism and Globalization Undermining Democracy? By Jeffrey Miron
https://www.cato.org/blog/are-neoliberalism-globalization-undermining-democracy
From recent research:
Neoliberalism and globalization are two distinct yet interrelated processes that began to spread across the world in the 1970s and 1980s. Neoliberalism aims to limit the role of the government in the economy; globalization creates an interconnected world and removes barriers between countries. Some scholars argue that these processes have contributed to the democratic recession—the current weakening of democratic institutions around the world—by giving rise to populism. Our research evaluates this claim using data from more than 140 countries between 1980 and 2022. … [We] find no evidence to corroborate this claim. In fact, increases in economic freedom and globalization are positively correlated with several measures of democracy.
The research emphasizes that its results may not be causal; and the research does not address whether democracy is “better” than the alternatives; see here, here, and here for discussions of this issue.
The new research nevertheless undermines a standard critique of neoliberalism and globalization; at a minimum, the critics have not made their case, given their assumption that promoting democracy is the right goal.
Why True Conservatism Means Anarchy | Alexander William Salter Mar 12, 2019
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-true-conservatism-means-anarchy/
For the sake of preserving liberty and tradition, conservatives should reject the "current" state’s legitimacy.
“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” These words are Patrick Henry’s, uttered in the course of his famous oration known for its powerful closing words “give me liberty or give me death.” Although Henry probably did not intend it as a sociopolitical axiom, the Anglo-American conservative tradition has adopted it as such. Conservatives rightly look to the past to influence their views of the future. Change in the basic structure of society’s institutions is inherently perilous, and must be guided by the “lamp of experience” lest reform lose its way.
But experience accumulates as time marches on. Proposed changes to public life that seem radical and dangerous in one era can embody wisdom and stewardship in another. Applied conservatism is nothing less than continual constitutional craftsmanship. And in that context, “constitution” refers not to whatever is formally drawn up in a document, but the actual procedures and practices that comprise a society’s public sphere.
In this spirit, I propose a position that seems extraordinary, but I am convinced is vindicated by historical experience: the state is a fundamentally anti-conservative force, and in order to preserve the good, true, and beautiful things in society, it’s got to go. In short, I argue that conservatives should seriously consider anarchism.
I realize such a position seems absurd, at least on its surface. Conservatism has long held that the existing political order deserves respect precisely because it is the result of custom, habit, and experience. Massive changes in basic social institutions almost always create chaos. How then can one be both conservative and anarchist?
First, let’s reflect on the nature of conservatism. Its master theoretician remains Russell Kirk, the founder of post-war American conservatism. I am fond of this Kirk quote: “The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.”
Thus conservatism is really a habit of mind or orientation of sentiment. It is a way of thinking about man, society, and the relationship between the two. It has much more to say about how we treat these topics than what we say about them. It would be wrong to conclude that any position can be conservative so long as it is theorized in the “right” way. But it nonetheless remains true that conservatism is primarily a modifier, an adjective. This is why the phrase “conservative liberal” need not be a contradiction in terms. In fact, many of the greatest thinkers in the conservative tradition—Acton, Tocqueville, even Burke himself—are best classified under this label.
Now let’s consider anarchy. Kirk had this to say about that particular form of social organization: “When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.” Thus anarchy is equated with lawlessness. It is obvious, then, that conservatives cannot embrace a social organization that repudiates all governance institutions. Such institutions are necessary and proper to constrain man’s baser impulses and channel his potentially destructive passions towards the common good.
But which institutions? There are a myriad of ways human societies can be governed. In fact, for most of human history, societies were not governed by states as we currently know them. The word “state,” meaning a unitary actor that embodies the formal apparatus of government, probably originated with Machiavelli. Prior to the rise of the state, which began during the Renaissance but reached its culmination with the end of the Thirty Years’ War in the mid-17th century, Europe was governed by several authorities whose jurisdiction was fractured, overlapping, and concurrent. The polylegal system of the High Middle Ages, in which the authority of kings, local nobility, trade guilds, free cities, and the Roman Catholic Church competed and often checked the abuses of each other, is an important example and one that should be of obvious interest to conservatives.
Thus an anarchist is not one who opposes law and order. Nor is an anarchist a violent revolutionary. An anarchist opposes the specific institution that claims the right to provide these important social goods: the state. And a conservative anarchist opposes the state on the grounds that it, by its nature, is hostile to the goods and practices necessary not only for law and order, but also for a flourishing associational life on the part of its citizenry. Conservative anarchism is not a contradiction in terms, but a recognition that conservative goals are systematically disfavored by modern institutions of formal government.
Establishing this claim requires digging in to what makes a state a state. Many have quibbled with Max Weber’s famous definition; none have proposed a better one. The state is the entity that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of coercion within a specific geographical territory. The monopoly aspect is crucial. Precisely because the state is sovereign, both de facto and de jure, whoever captures the state is in a position to affect all other social institutions and practices. This is not to claim that political fiat can instantly re-order civil society. Instead it is the recognition that the state, by legally favoring some interests within its jurisdiction while disfavoring others, tilts the playing field such that, over time, the favored interests gain wealth, power, and prestige, while the disfavored interests lose it.
What interests will have a comparative advantage at capturing the state? Especially in democratic societies, political coalitions whose goal is to liquidate existing orders and put new ones in their place will be more adept at getting and keeping power. For one, liquidating existing orders provides access to material wealth that can be redistributed to the supporters of the political coalition. But the sources of wealth do not have to be material. Political movements organized to diminish the status of existing cultural institutions, such as those of traditional religions, also provide benefits to those movements’ supporters. Status is zero-sum: if cultural mores change such that traditionalists are seen as supporting an outdated way of life, while radical innovators are seen as the champions of justice and progress, then the latter will have acquired a benefit from political organization, one that in many contexts is seen as more valuable than mere mammon.
This explains why the state is almost always at the forefront of social innovation. Precisely because of its monopoly on force, it is the perfect tool for radical reformers to employ as a means to advance their social engineering projects. As I have argued elsewhere:
Historically, there has been no more radical…innovator and destroyer of intermediary institutions than the state. From the state-building projects of early modernity, to the absolutist periods in England and on the Continent, to nationalist aspirations in the late nineteenth century and the totalitarian regimes of the early twentieth, the state has been singularly hostile to the primary institutions and folkways that constitute a nation and are the proper objects of its primary loyalty. …It was the state, and the massive force at its disposal, that was ultimately responsible for the terrible social leveling that has occurred in some form since the French Revolution. It was the state that tried, and often succeeded, at erasing any other sources of man’s loyalty, rendering him as a mere cog in the social machine, with no value or dignity except that derived from utility to the state. It took Constant’s “liberty of the ancients” and stripped it of its few redeeming graces, creating an engine of death and destruction the likes of which the world had never seen.
Conservatives have gradually come around to two troubling conclusions. The first is that, over time, they lose and progressives win. At best, conservatives temporarily stall progressives in their dismantling projects, but even when progressives win slowly, they are still winning. The second is that the Overton window shifts left with each passing generation, meaning conservatives are left scrambling to re-package their arguments in a form that is publicly acceptable, while progressives enjoy normative and cultural continuity. Given these facts, it’s no wonder that conservatives are left wondering why they can’t seem to hold the line, let alone advance.
While not sufficient, a necessary part of the explanation is that the state is constitutionally hostile to conservatism. This may not have been evident in 1648 or 1783. But it is now. For the sake of preserving ordered liberty and protecting inherited faith and folkways, conservatives should reject the state’s legitimacy. Failure to do so is fighting a war on the enemy’s terms.
Wednesday, September 10, 2025
Paleolibertarians Anti-Semitism problem
I have been finding it harder and harder to stomach the anti-Jew hatred within the paleolibertarian movement. At least within the Lew Rockwell faction of the movement. Unfortunately, it is feeding into the idea that paleolibertarianism political philosophy is somehow just a smoke screen for rabid anti-Semitism in the guise of being pro-peace, pro-capitalism/pro-market and anti-State.
The website is filled with anti-Jewish acolytes and anti-Semitism including Holocaust revisionism/WW2 denial. Unfortunately Murray Rothbard whom himself was no anti-Semitism proponent being himself Jewish and not a self hating one also supported unvetted World War 2 revisionists due to being rightfully pro peace against unjust Wars. Having read the majority of his content I know he was in no way a defender of Hitler nor a denier of the Holocaust himself.
However, there is some evidence his lack of vetting his sources caused him to at times unwittingly praise anti WW2 authors that were outright Holocaust deniers and Jew haters. As he was so concerned with being non-interventionist and isolationist in foreign policy he would easily believe anyone that stood against the World Wars and spoke of their being a military industrial network/complex.
Lew Rockwell himself is not a Holocaust Denier as far as I am aware. If it turns out he is I will call him out on it. My blessing Israel as The Bible teaches comes before political agreements on other issues. Not too mention it is just plain evil to hate someone because they are a Jewish person. Assuming the Jews are behind everything evil is exactly True Nazi ideology and dangerous. You are free to be a Nazi, but that does not mean you are not a disgusting human being and demonic.
These views do not come naturally from being a paleolibertarian. I am domestically very much within the Christian paleolibertarian tradition. It is simply being personally socially or culturally conservative while agreeing with not breaking the non-aggression principle in the means to a Culturally conservative end. I am, however on Foreign Policy Affairs (National Defense/Security) a staunch neolibertarian.
Paleolibertarianism is a school of thought within American libertarianism founded by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, and closely associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. It is based on a combination of radical libertarianism in politics and cultural conservatism in social thought. Austrian economics, anti-federalism, Misesian libertarianism, and anarcho-capitalism heavily influenced the movement’s attitudes toward ideas on trade, commerce and statecraft.
“Paleolibertarianism holds with Lord Acton that liberty is the highest political end of man, and that all forms of government intervention — economic, cultural, social, international — amount to an attack on prosperity, morals, and bourgeois civilization itself, and thus must be opposed at all levels and without compromise. It is ‘paleo’ because of its genesis in the work of Murray N. Rothbard and his predecessors, including Ludwig von Mises, Albert Jay Nock, Garet Garrett, and the entire interwar Old Right that opposed the New Deal and favored the Old Republic of property rights, freedom of association, and radical political decentralization. Just as important, paleolibertarianism predates the politicization of libertarianism that began in the 1980s, when large institutions moved to Washington and began to use the language of liberty as part of a grab bag of ‘policy options.’ What’s more, paleolibertarianism distinguishes itself from left-libertarianism because it has made its peace with religion as the bedrock of liberty, property, and the natural order.” – Lew Rockwell
Neolibertarians acknowledge the realities of the world today, not the 18th century. It encourages peaceful and free trade among nations. Neolibertarian foreign policy rejects the equal sovereignty premise of traditional libertarian foreign policy and differentiates between free countries and oppressed countries. It also holds as its highest standard the rights of free people, not the ’rights’ of nations. Neolibertarians have no problem with condemnation of and, if necessary, intervention in those oppressed countries, if they pose a threat to a nation’s security or citizens. Neolibertarian foreign policy also reserves for the The Federal Government the right to preemptively act against any threat anywhere in the world in the name of national self-defense or critical self-interest.
A foreign policy that consists of hiding in the 18th century is both dangerous and impractical. Instead, the Neolibertarian policy is to engage the world proactively in order to maximize liberty and freedom in the 21st century.
The problem with the Rockwell paleolibertarianism faction is they accept anything that is anti mainstream and anti war. No matter the reason for being for those causes. They have no discernment and that is a big problem.
Tuesday, September 9, 2025
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)