View Full Version : Classical Liberals Create Anti-Ron Paul Website
Tywysog Cymru
01-15-2015, 09:34 PM
http://idontsupportronpaul.com/
They accuse Ron of being pro-Putin. In the comments there are a lot of people who say they agree with the analysis and no longer support Paul. Is this a large movement?
Justin Raimondo responses are excellent.
r3volution 3.0
01-15-2015, 10:16 PM
Accuse Ron of justifying Putin's crimes without citing a single example = fail.
They've also badly misinterpreted the events in Ukraine, if they think it was unprovoked Russian aggression.
Basically, this could have been written for the National Review...
green73
01-15-2015, 10:47 PM
SFL Activist Who Wants to Prevent Ron Paul From Speaking at SFL Calls for Military Confrontation with Putin
International SFL activist Egle Markeviciute, who as part of a ladies troika opposes Ron Paul speaking at SFL (http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/01/sfl-faction-starts-website-to-oppose.html), writes (http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/07/military-intervention-is-the-only-solution-to-russias-aggression/) at Daily Caller:
Military intervention is a taboo topic, especially for war-weary Americans in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan. However, as the free-market Russian economist Andrei Illarionov contends, “Putin must be confronted militarily. I do not mean acts of war. But the West should show a military presence in the Black Sea, for example. This is the only way to stop Putin.”...
Limited military presence, such as an increased NATO presence in the Baltic States and Poland or troop deployment in Ukraine, is something that liberty-minded individuals should reconsider as a preventive measure to stop the spread of Putin’s conquests further into Eastern Europe...
While it’s true that an overly aggressive military response from the Western world may only provoke Russia further, a lack of military response could only be worse by encouraging further land grabs.
Putin conquests? Does Markeviciute understand that Crimeans overwhelming voted to secede form Ukraine and sought Russian protection? Does Markeviciute understand that it is the US Empire, operating in Kiev, 4,243 miles from its capital of Washington D.C. That Ukraine borders Russia, not 1000 Massachusetts Avenue Northwest?
http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/01/sfl-activist-who-wants-to-prevent-ron.html
Christian Liberty
01-15-2015, 11:26 PM
http://idontsupportronpaul.com/
They accuse Ron of being pro-Putin. In the comments there are a lot of people who say they agree with the analysis and no longer support Paul. Is this a large movement?
Justin Raimondo responses are excellent.
I do think that LRC occasionally crosses the fine line of being too easy on foreign regimes as compared to the US. I think a certain amount of that is inevitable, its only natural, and right, to be hardest on the government that's actually taking away your rights. That said, I have seen a handful of LRC posts that I felt like were not "balanced" in this regard. I forget what they were. It certainly wasn't many. I prefer LRC over any other news source, easily.
That said... so what?
I agree with them, and Paul, over 98% of the time. Never going to agree with anybody 100% of the time. Even on abstract issues of NAP application, libertarians don't always agree. When it comes to specific geopolitics, we're always going to disagree on practical applications of libertarian theory. Call me when Paul actually supports tyranny. Until then, I don't care that he interprets certain world events differently than some other libertarians.
green73
01-15-2015, 11:44 PM
I do think that LRC occasionally crosses the fine line of being too easy on foreign regimes as compared to the US. I think a certain amount of that is inevitable, its only natural, and right, to be hardest on the government that's actually taking away your rights. That said, I have seen a handful of LRC posts that I felt like were not "balanced" in this regard. I forget what they were. It certainly wasn't many. I prefer LRC over any other news source, easily.
That said... so what?
I agree with them, and Paul, over 98% of the time. Never going to agree with anybody 100% of the time. Even on abstract issues of NAP application, libertarians don't always agree. When it comes to specific geopolitics, we're always going to disagree on practical applications of libertarian theory. Call me when Paul actually supports tyranny. Until then, I don't care that he interprets certain world events differently than some other libertarians.
What a weird response. Justin Raimondo writes for Antiwar.com.
Anyway, you're wrong about LRC. They are not too easy on them. They are anti-state. They often point out how horrible these other regimes are, but that takes a backsteat to the horrors of the empire, the worst, most out of control state on earth.
Origanalist
01-15-2015, 11:51 PM
Mark Read Pickens says:
January 15, 2015 at 2:15 am
Ron and Rand Paul, as well as Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute crowd, are social conservatives with a veneer of libertarian. As you say, they are an embarrassment to genuine libertarians.
I guess only people who aren't socially conservative are "genuine" libertarians. What a joke.
Origanalist
01-15-2015, 11:56 PM
Noah says:
January 14, 2015 at 5:22 pm
Well put, and I’m glad someone has the guts to say it. I came to libertarianism because of Ron Paul, and I’m washing my hands of it because of him.
He outwardly condemns the fear-mongering of the U.S. government, and also the government’s ineptitude. But then he becomes a fear-monger himself, insisting the U.S. government is actually competent enough to pull off all kinds of crazy, dubious plots in places like Ukraine… even though the U.S. doesn’t even care enough about Ukraine to send them a Ukrainian-speaking ambassador.
Talk about having your frigging head in the sand, who the hell are these people? This whole think stinks of propaganda.
edit
Read the comments, this is pure propaganda. Justin Raimondo calls out one of the posters as a known neo-con imposter.
Christian Liberty
01-15-2015, 11:57 PM
What a weird response. Justin Raimondo writes for Antiwar.com.
Anyway, you're wrong about LRC. They are not too easy on them. They are anti-state. They often point out how horrible these other regimes are, but that takes a backsteat to the horrors of the empire, the worst, most out of control state on earth.
Its been awhile since I've seen a post that I felt that way about, and I don't remember the content of said post, so I'll let you know if I see another one.
The US is the most powerful state on earth, and thus capable of more destruction, but there are other countries that are even worse to live in. Which is that tricky balance.
green73
01-16-2015, 12:02 AM
Its been awhile since I've seen a post that I felt that way about, and I don't remember the content of said post, so I'll let you know if I see another one.
The US is the most powerful state on earth, and thus capable of more destruction, but there are other countries that are even worse to live in. Which is that tricky balance.
Well maybe you should stfu then before disparaging the best libertarian site there is. Oh, but it's ok because you have Asperger's, right? You can fuck up all you want, saying stupid shit all over the web.
Christian Liberty
01-16-2015, 12:12 AM
Well maybe you should stfu then before disparaging the best libertarian site there is. Oh, but it's ok because you have Asperger's, right? You can fuck up all you want, saying stupid shit all over the web.
I wasn't "disparaging" them, moron. My point was that I agree with LRC 99% of the time and that someone (in the opinion of the website linked in the OP) being overly soft on a country that isn't the US in one area is no justification for writing off dozens of years of pro-liberty work.
Ron Paul is not perfect. LRC is not perfect. But they are, as you say, the best and most consistent libertarians that I'm aware of on planet earth. And I don't write them off because of a handful of posts I don't 100% agree with. That was my point.
And: tell you what. When I use my non-neurotypical brain as an excuse for something, feel free to sarcastically attack me for it. Until then, please kindly shut up.
Christian Liberty
01-16-2015, 12:13 AM
I think some people on this site misunderstand the difference between rare/occasional disagreement and continual hostility:rolleyes:
green73
01-16-2015, 01:01 AM
I wasn't "disparaging" them, moron. My point was that I agree with LRC 99% of the time and that someone (in the opinion of the website linked in the OP) being overly soft on a country that isn't the US in one area is no justification for writing off dozens of years of pro-liberty work.
Ron Paul is not perfect. LRC is not perfect. But they are, as you say, the best and most consistent libertarians that I'm aware of on planet earth. And I don't write them off because of a handful of posts I don't 100% agree with. That was my point.
And: tell you what. When I use my non-neurotypical brain as an excuse for something, feel free to sarcastically attack me for it. Until then, please kindly shut up.
I'm happy to be a moron to you. I just wish you could understand when to shut up.
NewRightLibertarian
01-16-2015, 01:11 AM
I see 'libertarians' all over trying to throw Ron Paul under the bus because he won't toe the neocon line. Piss on all of them.
green73
01-16-2015, 01:15 AM
I see 'libertarians' all over trying to throw Ron Paul under the bus because he won't toe the neocon line. Piss on all of them.
Just the shit beltarians, no?
NewRightLibertarian
01-16-2015, 01:30 AM
Just the shit beltarians, no?
Randites and the CATO jerkoffs
green73
01-16-2015, 01:33 AM
Randites and the CATO jerkoffs
I suppose that was inevitable. So sad, but predictable.
thoughtomator
01-16-2015, 01:42 AM
Domain is owned by a young Lithuanian girl who has apparently advocated against the non-aggression principle.
In other words, an idiot who fancies herself libertarian but isn't.
NewRightLibertarian
01-16-2015, 01:44 AM
Big tent libertarianism needs to be rejected at all costs.
Ronin Truth
01-16-2015, 03:34 AM
When did Trotskyite neocon magically become Spencer and Bastiat classical liberal? :confused:
Christian Liberty
01-16-2015, 09:02 AM
I'm happy to be a moron to you. I just wish you could understand when to shut up.
My point was that someone saying one thing you disagree with, especially on a topic that has no direct impact on anything, (ie. the correct policy on Russia is not to intervene regardless of whether Ron was being too cozy toward them or not), shouldn't be cause to write them off. I thought that was obvious. I wasn't "disparaging" LRC as you wrongly thought it.
Christian Liberty
01-16-2015, 09:02 AM
Big tent libertarianism needs to be rejected at all costs.
It depends on what we mean by "big tent."
jmdrake
01-16-2015, 09:27 AM
Noah says:
January 14, 2015 at 5:22 pm
Well put, and I’m glad someone has the guts to say it. I came to libertarianism because of Ron Paul, and I’m washing my hands of it because of him.
He outwardly condemns the fear-mongering of the U.S. government, and also the government’s ineptitude. But then he becomes a fear-monger himself, insisting the U.S. government is actually competent enough to pull off all kinds of crazy, dubious plots in places like Ukraine… even though the U.S. doesn’t even care enough about Ukraine to send them a Ukrainian-speaking ambassador.
Talk about having your frigging head in the sand, who the hell are these people? This whole think stinks of propaganda.
edit
Read the comments, this is pure propaganda. Justin Raimondo calls out one of the posters as a known neo-con imposter.
Ah. The retarded "The government is incompetent so conspiracies can't exist" argument. I guess the CIA was just lying when it admitted to staging terrorism to overthrow Mossadeh. There is a difference between the government failing to provide essential services and the government being incompetent. The people working at the DMV are not the same people doing black ops.
Tywysog Cymru
01-16-2015, 10:12 AM
I do think that LRC occasionally crosses the fine line of being too easy on foreign regimes as compared to the US. I think a certain amount of that is inevitable, its only natural, and right, to be hardest on the government that's actually taking away your rights. That said, I have seen a handful of LRC posts that I felt like were not "balanced" in this regard. I forget what they were. It certainly wasn't many. I prefer LRC over any other news source, easily.
That said... so what?
I agree with them, and Paul, over 98% of the time. Never going to agree with anybody 100% of the time. Even on abstract issues of NAP application, libertarians don't always agree. When it comes to specific geopolitics, we're always going to disagree on practical applications of libertarian theory. Call me when Paul actually supports tyranny. Until then, I don't care that he interprets certain world events differently than some other libertarians.
I'm just a little concerned that this might be a large movement and it might get a lot of media attention. I've met anti-Paul "Libertarians" online, there are actually quite a few of them.
On LRC I thought Lawrence Vance's WWII posts were very balanced, criticizing everyone.
Christian Liberty
01-16-2015, 10:31 AM
I'm just a little concerned that this might be a large movement and it might get a lot of media attention. I've met anti-Paul "Libertarians" online, there are actually quite a few of them.
On LRC I thought Lawrence Vance's WWII posts were very balanced, criticizing everyone.
Yeah, Vance is pretty much dead on. Maybe I'm just remembering my reactions to stuff back when I first saw it in 2012 or so, before I woke up more completely. But either way, what I said wasn't an "attack."
Natural Citizen
01-16-2015, 10:45 AM
I think that what we're seeing here is just a move to place some people like Ron and others in context with the geo-political info war that is happening. The west is losing that. It is apparant. But whatever.
What I take away from this part of the piece shared in the op...
This is part of Putin’s massive propaganda machine, which has convinced Russian citizens that Ukrainians have crucified a Russian boy and that the United States was behind Ukraine’s Maidan revolution. Putin has allocated $300 million of stolen money to bring this vile misinformation to the rest of the world’s TV sets in the form of Russia Today. The Russian state-funded ‘Sputnik’ propaganda group is currently opening offices in Tallinn, Riga, Vilnius and Warsaw.
Meanwhile, Ron Paul and his eponymous Institute for Peace and Prosperity have been unconscionably regurgitating this propaganda, feeding Putin’s narrative that Ukraine’s revolution was a fascist coup choreographed by the US.
...kind of reminds of this piece that I ran across the other day and reflects a phenomenon that we see evolving via social media to kind of try to combat it. Which won't work but that is beside the point....
"Peter Horrocks says Russian and Chinese state-owned news channels are financially outgunning the foreign language international service of Britain's public newscaster.
"Horrocks argues that British government ministers should free up extra money for the World Service to combat Moscow-backed propaganda from the Kremlin's English and foreign language service RT, according to a report (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/dec/21/bbc-world-service-information-war-russia-today) in The Guardian."
"'We are being financially outgunned by Russia and the Chinese, but there's no way we're being outgunned on the results [a global audience]. The role we need to play is an even-handed one. We shouldn't be pro one side or the other; we need to provide something people can trust,' Horrocks said."
"RT, formerly Russia Today — the Kremlin's well-funded foreign-language satellite channel — is expanding across the world. It recently announced the opening of a dedicated London bureau and is recruiting British journalists who can expect average monthly take-home pay of £4,300 ($6,720), according toSarah Firth, the British reporter for RT who resigned in July disgusted with slanted coverage of the downing of Malaysian Flight MH17 in a suspected rocket attack over Ukraine. Firth said she was sick of being used as a propaganda tool for Putin.
"American anchor Liz Wahl (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/russia-today-anchor-liz-wahl-686372), whose on-air resignation as Russia Today's Washington correspondent in March is now a YouTube hit, says RT understands it cannot reach the audiences of CNN or Fox News, but channel chiefs focus on "getting the message out."
"'Stories must conform to a basic principle: Make the U.S. and the West look bad. In doing so, you make Russia look better by comparison,' she said."
Continued - Former Director of BBC World Service: U.K. and U.S. "Outgunned" by Russia, China in Info War
(http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/director-bbc-world-service-uk-759816)
Relevant reading - BBC World Service fears losing information war as Russia Today ramps up pressure (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/dec/21/bbc-world-service-information-war-russia-today)
Natural Citizen
01-16-2015, 10:50 AM
I'm happy to be a moron to you. I just wish you could understand when to shut up.
Hm. You sure are a smart mouthed lil feller to people these days, aren't you? It seems like when we get a few rep bars that we start to think that it empowers us to be that way with people when we have some problem with what they contribute to discussion. Is unfortunate. I mean, I know that it is human nature and all. But it is still unfortunate. Makes the place look bad. Is improbable that in the real world that some would be so quick.
Tywysog Cymru
01-16-2015, 10:54 AM
I guess only people who aren't socially conservative are "genuine" libertarians. What a joke.
I find that many of those who say that Ron isn't a real Libertarian because abortion are completely fine with many parts of the welfare/warfare state.
Yeah, Vance is pretty much dead on. Maybe I'm just remembering my reactions to stuff back when I first saw it in 2012 or so, before I woke up more completely. But either way, what I said wasn't an "attack."
Some of his articles are used as sources for Wikipedia in WWII articles.
Ronin Truth
01-16-2015, 11:10 AM
I find that many of those who say that Ron isn't a real Libertarian because abortion are completely fine with many parts of the welfare/warfare state.
Some of his articles are used as sources for Wikipedia in WWII articles.
Isn't abortion a violation of the NAP?
Tywysog Cymru
01-16-2015, 11:37 AM
Isn't abortion a violation of the NAP?
Yes, but these "Libertarians" probably haven't heard about the NAP. They think it's all about "Republican who supports abortion, gay marriage, and most importantly, legal weed."
r3volution 3.0
01-16-2015, 11:37 AM
Isn't abortion a violation of the NAP?
Only if you assume that a fetus is a person, which is the very issue in contention.
ThePaleoLibertarian
01-17-2015, 03:06 PM
Domain is owned by a young Lithuanian girl who has apparently advocated against the non-aggression principle.
In other words, an idiot who fancies herself libertarian but isn't.
You don't have to believe in the NAP to be a libertarian. Was Milton Friedman not a libertarian? What about his son, David? You could criticize the former for giving far too much ground to the statists, but not the latter.
That being said, this website is idiotic. Anyone who self-identifies as a "classical liberal" should be regarded with suspicion, though I supose they might say the same about reactionaries like me.
ThePaleoLibertarian
01-17-2015, 03:11 PM
Big tent libertarianism needs to be rejected at all costs.
That is the complete opposite of what should be gleaned here. I'm very critical of certain sub-groups within libertarianism, but I'm certainly fine with putting our differences aside and smashing the state together. We can let our differences divide us when we actually start reducing state power. The problem with these "classical liberals" is that they want to splinter the movement, not they they're big tent libertarians.
NewRightLibertarian
01-17-2015, 07:53 PM
That is the complete opposite of what should be gleaned here. I'm very critical of certain sub-groups within libertarianism, but I'm certainly fine with putting our differences aside and smashing the state together. We can let our differences divide us when we actually start reducing state power. The problem with these "classical liberals" is that they want to splinter the movement, not they they're big tent libertarians.
Big tent libertarianism allows the co-opters, the connivers and the charlatans to waltz right in and wreak havoc. Remember Liberty.me with Jeff Tucker's attempt to hold hands with the feminists and alienate social conservatives and tea partiers to the message? There's also the Jack Hunter's and Austin Petersen's of the world who would happily sell out and steamroll dedicated activists to gain political power. We have to keep the message pure, or the entire movement will be lost. Ron Paul has luckily set a very good example for everyone to follow.
CaptainAmerica
01-17-2015, 08:44 PM
http://idontsupportronpaul.com/
They accuse Ron of being pro-Putin. In the comments there are a lot of people who say they agree with the analysis and no longer support Paul. Is this a large movement?
Justin Raimondo responses are excellent.
I identify as a classical liberaal, what the heck ? they are just blowing steam up peoples asses.
westkyle
01-18-2015, 03:18 PM
You don't have to believe in the NAP to be a libertarian.
I find this strange. Explain, please?
ThePaleoLibertarian
01-18-2015, 05:35 PM
Big tent libertarianism allows the co-opters, the connivers and the charlatans to waltz right in and wreak havoc. Remember Liberty.me with Jeff Tucker's attempt to hold hands with the feminists and alienate social conservatives and tea partiers to the message? There's also the Jack Hunter's and Austin Petersen's of the world who would happily sell out and steamroll dedicated activists to gain political power. We have to keep the message pure, or the entire movement will be lost. Ron Paul has luckily set a very good example for everyone to follow.
Oh I certainly remember when Jeffrey Tucker went full-retard with that fool feminist Cathy Reisenwitz, decrying "libertarian brutalists". But again, I wouldn't describe them as big tenters; they want a small tent, away from the "brutalists" they decry. They want to move libertarianism in a decidedly leftist, cultural Marxist "social justice" direction. That's not big tent. Big tent is when you put those differences aside and work toward the goals you have in common. Feminists want to splinter the movement, and say "I'm a libertarian but I'm not one of those libertarians. The movement is too full of heteronormative cisprivileged white males, and we need to address this problem." I don't see how wanting the division of the movement is big tent; if you want a big tent you want lots of people who don't always agree working together, not splitting apart.
What's Jack Hunter been doing? I haven't kept up with him, but I used to admire him a great deal when he made youtube videos as the Southern Avenger.
ThePaleoLibertarian
01-18-2015, 05:40 PM
I find this strange. Explain, please?
You can advocate everything libertarians advocate without believing in non-aggression as axiomatic. Read The Machinery of Freedom by David D. Friedman; the book postulates a consequentalist theory of anarcho-capitalism with no invoking of the NAP (and is one of the absolute best books on the topic). Though I greatly admire natural lawyer-style ancaps like Rothbard, Hoppe, Rockwell and the like, I'm more of a Friedmanite ancap (and I also slightly prefer the Chicago School to the Austrian). I care about what makes civilization work, not axiomatic philosophy.
Feeding the Abscess
01-18-2015, 06:37 PM
Oh I certainly remember when Jeffrey Tucker went full-retard with that fool feminist Cathy Reisenwitz, decrying "libertarian brutalists". But again, I wouldn't describe them as big tenters; they want a small tent, away from the "brutalists" they decry. They want to move libertarianism in a decidedly leftist, cultural Marxist "social justice" direction. That's not big tent. Big tent is when you put those differences aside and work toward the goals you have in common. Feminists want to splinter the movement, and say "I'm a libertarian but I'm not one of those libertarians. The movement is too full of heteronormative cisprivileged white males, and we need to address this problem." I don't see how wanting the division of the movement is big tent; if you want a big tent you want lots of people who don't always agree working together, not splitting apart.
What's Jack Hunter been doing? I haven't kept up with him, but I used to admire him a great deal when he made youtube videos as the Southern Avenger.
Jack Hunter spent a year or so trying to drive off sections of the libertarian movement that he deemed undesirable due to beliefs they hold that may be politically incorrect, then was booted from the mainstream because his past, which was chock full of politically incorrect statements and beliefs, was brought to light.
Christian Liberty
01-18-2015, 06:44 PM
You can advocate everything libertarians advocate without believing in non-aggression as axiomatic. Read The Machinery of Freedom by David D. Friedman; the book postulates a consequentalist theory of anarcho-capitalism with no invoking of the NAP (and is one of the absolute best books on the topic). Though I greatly admire natural lawyer-style ancaps like Rothbard, Hoppe, Rockwell and the like, I'm more of a Friedmanite ancap (and I also slightly prefer the Chicago School to the Austrian). I care about what makes civilization work, not axiomatic philosophy.
I actually don't take the NAP as axiomatic either, I derive it from Scripture. I would say that as long as you think the NAP is at least broadly what should be the basis of law in society that you're a libertarian regardless of HOW you get it. And I'd freely agree there can be a few variations there. I don't think we should accept people as libertarians just because they're "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" though. I also see foreign policy (for the most part, its one thing to have slight differences, its another thing to be generally interventionist) as unnegotiable.
Jack Hunter spent a year or so trying to drive off sections of the libertarian movement that he deemed undesirable due to beliefs they hold that may be politically incorrect, then was booted from the mainstream because his past, which was chock full of politically incorrect statements and beliefs, was brought to light.
Something I found out recently, his views were also likely based off bad history. That doesn't really matter to me, though.
Christian Liberty
01-18-2015, 06:45 PM
You don't have to believe in the NAP to be a libertarian. Was Milton Friedman not a libertarian? What about his son, David? You could criticize the former for giving far too much ground to the statists, but not the latter.
That being said, this website is idiotic. Anyone who self-identifies as a "classical liberal" should be regarded with suspicion, though I supose they might say the same about reactionaries like me.
David, even though I don't know much about him, is an ancap so I'm pretty sure I'd say he is. Milton I'm less sure about.
ThePaleoLibertarian
01-19-2015, 01:34 AM
I actually don't take the NAP as axiomatic either, I derive it from Scripture. I would say that as long as you think the NAP is at least broadly what should be the basis of law in society that you're a libertarian regardless of HOW you get it. And I'd freely agree there can be a few variations there. I don't think we should accept people as libertarians just because they're "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" though. I also see foreign policy (for the most part, its one thing to have slight differences, its another thing to be generally interventionist) as unnegotiable.
You don't have to get to the NAP at all to be a libertarian. NAP libertarians don't have a monopoly on the term. I am a reactionary, so I believe that might makes right (in a descriptive sense). I'm still an ancap though (proudly one of the relatively few within the neoreaction).
ThePaleoLibertarian
01-19-2015, 01:39 AM
David, even though I don't know much about him, is an ancap so I'm pretty sure I'd say he is. Milton I'm less sure about.
David Friedman may be my favorite living ancap. It's either him or Hoppe, and it's a close one. The Machinery of Freedom is an excellent book, I put it over Man, Economy and State.
Milton Friedman was certainly a libertarian. He wasn't a radical libertarian or an anarchist, but he was definitely one of us. Despite my admiration for Rothbard, he came down way too hard on old Milton. That was the contradiction with Rothbard; he chastised Friedman for not being ideologically pure enough, but allied himself with The Black Panthers and Pat Buchanan at different points in his life.
ThePaleoLibertarian
01-19-2015, 01:42 AM
Jack Hunter spent a year or so trying to drive off sections of the libertarian movement that he deemed undesirable due to beliefs they hold that may be politically incorrect, then was booted from the mainstream because his past, which was chock full of politically incorrect statements and beliefs, was brought to light.
That's a real shame. I remember his un-PC statements I'd wager, and some of them are what made me like him so much.
Suzanimal
01-19-2015, 07:51 AM
Libertarian Student Activists Whine: Ron Paul Advocates 'Russian Aggression'
So this is what Students for Liberty has become?
Three SFL activists Egle Markeviciute (Lithuania), Alexandra Ivanov (Sweden) and Irena Schneider (USA/Russia) are out with an essay at a web site they have named "I Do Not Support Ron Paul".
In the essay, they first tell us:
Students For Liberty (SFL) is a big-tent organization that focuses on inclusion rather than division.
But, in their view, this tent is not big enough to get Ron Paul under it:
The organization‘s decision to invite Ron Paul as a keynote speaker to the annual International Students For Liberty Conference (ISFLC) is upsetting for some of SFL’s counterparts in Europe.
And then they pull the trigger:
Despite his previous achievements, Ron Paul has been irrevocably destroying this discourse. He and his institute have crossed the line from a position of US non-intervention in international affairs to the outright promotion of tyrants and the lies they weave.
By pursuing a campaign of misinformation in the name of liberty, peace and prosperity, Ron Paul is flying in the face of everything SFL stands for, undermining a movement of students fighting against brutal regimes at the risk of life and freedom.
In doing so, Ron Paul is morally abetting the ratcheting repression of civilians and psychological warfare waged ruthlessly by Vladimir Putin.
We strongly oppose SFL’s decision to host an advocate of Russian aggression at an event with this noble purpose. It compromises not only SFL’s mission, but the endeavours of millions of people in the world to live in freedom.
Their "evidence" of this advocacy:
Ron Paul and his eponymous Institute for Peace and Prosperity have been unconscionably regurgitating this propaganda, feeding Putin’s narrative that Ukraine’s revolution was a fascist coup choreographed by the US.
In March of last year, Ron Paul stated that the occupation and referendum of Crimea was approved and in accordance with the will of the people.
It is unclear how up-to-date , these ladies are with current events, but the Ukraine revolution was a coup, encouraged, if not outright planned by the US, That is a fact. Assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt were caught on tape discussing the new Ukranian leadership before the coup actually took place. SEE: An Important Second Listen to the "F--k the EU" Ukraine Recording.
Second, the people of Crimea did in fact vote to become a part of Russia and Russia did have a contract with Ukraine to maintain forces in the area.
None other than NYT explained, the vote:
The outcome, in a region that shares a language and centuries of history with Russia, was a foregone conclusion even before exit polls showed more than 93 percent of voters favoring secession.
Here's RT on the long history between Russia and Ukraine and dealings over Crimea:
1) A Russian naval presence in Crimea dates to 1783 when the port city of Sevastopol was founded by Russian Prince Grigory Potemkin. Crimea was part of Russia until Nikita Khruschev gave it to Ukraine in 1954.
2) In 1997, amid the wreckage of the USSR, Russia & Ukraine signed a Partition Treaty determining the fate of the military bases and vessels in Crimea. The deal sparked widespread officer ‘defections’ to Russia and was ratified by the Russian & Ukrainian parliaments in 1999. Russia received 81.7 percent of the fleet’s ships after paying the Ukrainian government US$526.5 million.
3) The deal allowed the Russian Black Sea Fleet to stay in Crimea until 2017. This was extended by another 25 years to 2042 with a 5-year extension option in 2010.
4) Moscow annually writes off $97.75 million of Kiev’s debt for the right to use Ukrainian waters and radio frequencies, and to compensate for the Black Sea Fleet’s environmental impact.
5) The Russian navy is allowed up to
- 25,000 troops,
- 24 artillery systems with a caliber smaller than 100 mm,
- 132 armored vehicles, and
- 22 military planes, on Crimean territory.
Ukrainian marines look at a Russian ship floating out of the Sevastopol bay on March 4, 2014 (AFP Photo / Viktor Drachev)Ukrainian marines look at a Russian ship floating out of the Sevastopol bay on March 4, 2014 (AFP Photo / Viktor Drachev)
6) Five Russian naval units are stationed in the port city of Sevastopol, in compliance with the treaty:
- The 30th Surface Ship Division formed by the 11th Antisubmarine Ship Brigade. Comprises the Black Sea Fleet’s flagship guard missile cruiser Moskva as well as Kerch, Ochakov, Smetlivy, Ladny, and Pytlivy vessels, and the 197th Landing Ship Brigade, consisting of seven large amphibious vessels;
- The 41st Missile Boat Brigade includes the 166th Fast Attack Craft Division, consisting of Bora and Samum hovercrafts as well as small missile ships Mirazh and Shtil, and 295th missile Boat Division;
- The 247th Separate Submarine Division, consisting of two diesel submarines – B-871 Alrosa and B-380 Svyatoy Knyaz Georgy;
- The 68th Harbor Defense Ship Brigade formed by 4 vessels of the 400th Antisubmarine Ship Battalion and 418 Mine Hunting Ship Division respectively.;
- The 422nd Separate Hydrographic Ship Division boasts the Cheleken, Stvor, Donuzlav and GS-402 survey vessels and hydrographic boats.
7) Russia has two airbases in Crimea, in Kacha and Gvardeysky.
8) Russian coastal forces in Ukraine consist of the 1096th Separate Anti-Aircraft Missile Regiment in Sevastopol and the 810th Marine Brigade, which hosts around 2,000 marines.
9) Russian naval units are permitted to implement security measures at their permanent post as well as during re-deployments in cooperation with Ukrainian forces, in accordance with Russia’s armed forces procedures.
To somehow claim that Russia is an "aggressor," when the majority of Crimeans are of Russian background and Russia had a legitimate agreement with Ukraine to maintain forces in the region, is quite stunning. And to do this, when the U.S. Empire is meddling - far away from its shores - on the border of Russia, suggests that this SFL Ladies Troika has an odd way of presenting current events.
To be sure, no libertarian will stand in support of any measures of any government that interferes in the free exchange and actions of individuals and all governments violate the non-aggression principle to various degrees.
But to stand in support of the current greatest aggressor on the planet, the US Empire, against any other country, is an outrageous position. Empires are ultimately the most dangerous and evil.
To object for a great libertarian such as Ron Paul to speak, when he is merely pointing out the actions of the Empire, does not suggest a big tent philosophy. It suggests, in this case, that lady skunks have gotten in under the tent, not to expand the tent, but to spray stink on those who justifiably belong in the tent and who should be honored for their advocacy of liberty and the opposition to the Empire.
The question that must be asked now is: Has the empire infiltrated the International Students For Liberty, so that it has becoming nothing but another propaganda outlet for the empire?
There are certainly currently some odd goings on around some "libertarian" organizations. First, there was the firing of Vacalv Klaus at the Koch-funded Cato Institute SEE: Vaclav Klaus Fired By Cato.
The Klaus dismissal came after he pointed out the involvement of the Empire in the Kiev coup. And now we have this SFL Ladies Troika pissing on the great Ron Paul.
http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/01/17/2497
Christian Liberty
01-19-2015, 10:45 AM
You don't have to get to the NAP at all to be a libertarian. NAP libertarians don't have a monopoly on the term. I am a reactionary, so I believe that might makes right (in a descriptive sense). I'm still an ancap though (proudly one of the relatively few within the neoreaction).
How does that work?
Anti Federalist
01-19-2015, 12:13 PM
Putin must be confronted militarily. I do not mean acts of war.
Huh?
Yeah, go ahead and engage the Russian Bear head on.
The USG's forces will get an ass beating they haven't seen since Cold Harbor.
Suzanimal
01-20-2015, 08:59 AM
Looks like another Classical Liberal is throwing Ron, Lew, and Mises under the bus. I broke the link, no sense giving his site hits. Also, I think this guy commented on the story in the OP.
He also provides these links at the bottom of his rant.
WEB SITE
http://idontsupportronpaul.com/
LOU ROCKWELL GETS OFFENDED
http://www.lewrockwell.com/…/troika-seeks-to-purge-ron-paul/
TARGET LIBERTY GETS OFFENDED
http://www.targetliberty.com/…/sfl-faction-starts-website-t…
I Don’t Support Ron Paul Either
Ron Paul committed political suicide, in an act of profound moral cowardice, joining the Mises Institute in their decades of ideological suicide, by using the hardship of real people as an excuse to produce propaganda against the monopoly bureaucratic state – a fight in which the Ukrainians themselves are more the victim of than any other people.
...
The low-trust, free riding, Rothbardian ethic of the Ghetto mandates that we walk away from all fights that are not directly initiated against us. But under this ethic, not only would the west never have arisen, but neither would have liberty, because liberty was the result of this system of ever-expanding alliances between families, tribes, city states, and nation-states: the reciprocal grant of sovereignty over life and property in exchange for reciprocal insurance in the defense of life liberty and property.
...
So, leave Ron Paul, and his marxist-inspired allies. Return to classical liberalism and abandon the immoral ethics of the Ghetto. Unless you prefer to live in one. Because the ghetto is the result of those ethics libertines espouse.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
Comments are closed.:rolleyes:
hxxp://www.propertarianism.com/2015/01/16/i-dont-support-ron-paul-either/
NewRightLibertarian
01-20-2015, 11:49 PM
Oh I certainly remember when Jeffrey Tucker went full-retard with that fool feminist Cathy Reisenwitz, decrying "libertarian brutalists". But again, I wouldn't describe them as big tenters; they want a small tent, away from the "brutalists" they decry. They want to move libertarianism in a decidedly leftist, cultural Marxist "social justice" direction. That's not big tent. Big tent is when you put those differences aside and work toward the goals you have in common. Feminists want to splinter the movement, and say "I'm a libertarian but I'm not one of those libertarians. The movement is too full of heteronormative cisprivileged white males, and we need to address this problem." I don't see how wanting the division of the movement is big tent; if you want a big tent you want lots of people who don't always agree working together, not splitting apart.
What's Jack Hunter been doing? I haven't kept up with him, but I used to admire him a great deal when he made youtube videos as the Southern Avenger.
Single-issue coalitions are a great idea, and should be pursued but not if it means jettisoning the liberty message to do so. When we compromise the liberty message, we surrender the movement. Lots of people out there want to make us Republican-lite. We must aggressively resist that at all costs.
green73
01-21-2015, 12:08 AM
Hm. You sure are a smart mouthed lil feller to people these days, aren't you? It seems like when we get a few rep bars that we start to think that it empowers us to be that way with people when we have some problem with what they contribute to discussion. Is unfortunate. I mean, I know that it is human nature and all. But it is still unfortunate. Makes the place look bad. Is improbable that in the real world that some would be so quick.
Dude, I have no time for you since you said you have Occam's Banana on ignore. Seriously, who the fuck puts that guy on ignore?
And no, I don't think my 20K+ rep points empowers me. :rolleyes:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.