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.
