PDA

View Full Version : alt-right racism is Ron Paul's fault (Salon article)




undergroundrr
12-09-2016, 11:02 AM
It's not over yet. They're still after Ron Paul. Don't read this on a full stomach. -

h ttp://www.salon.com/2016/12/09/how-the-alt-right-became-racist-part-2-long-before-trump-white-nationalists-flocked-to-ron-paul/



In our next installment, Ron Paul's presidential campaign becomes the breeding ground for 50 shades of cray-cray
MATTHEW SHEFFIELD

How the alt-right became racist, part 2: Long before Trump, white nationalists flocked to Ron Paul
(Credit: AP/Reuters/Salon)
Read the first installment of “How the alt-right became racist” here.

While future neo-Nazi Richard Spencer was struggling with white nationalism in the world of political journalism, most of the people who would later comprise the alt-right’s online shock-troops were involved in a different venture. They were fighting hard to make former Texas congressman Ron Paul the Republican presidential nominee, first in 2008 and again in 2012. It’s more than uncanny how many current alt-right leaders backed the former Texas congressman in his quixotic bids to stop GOP mainstream candidates John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Pretty much all of the top personalities at the Right Stuff, a neo-Nazi troll mecca, started off as conventional libertarians and Paul supporters, according to the site’s creator, an anonymous man who goes by the name “Mike Enoch.”

“We were all libertarians back in the day. I mean, everybody knows this,” he said on an alt-right podcast last month. After Paul’s second campaign failed, he completely disengaged from politics, he added.

Paul was also the favorite of Paul Gottfried and Richard Spencer, the two men who created the term “alternative right” and formed the annual conference where old-school right-wing racists met and mentored young and disaffected conservative intellectuals.

The Texas congressman was also the preferred candidate of Jared Taylor and the readers of his white nationalist website American Renaissance.

That feeling of admiration was apparently mutual. In the 1990s, Paul repeatedly promoted Taylor in his famously racist newsletters as part of a “paleo-libertarian” strategy designed to attract racist white people. (Paul subsequently denied writing them, however.) Later on, American Renaissance wrote a featured article stating that “the race-realist section of the blogosphere is one of the most enthusiastic sources of support for Mr. Paul” and praised his “good instincts on race,” despite the fact that the author believed that Paul was no longer interested in catering to overt racists, as he formerly had.

Paul had non-racist supporters as well who would later become alt-right figures. (The self-described neo-Nazi types refer to them as “alt-lite.”)

Libertarian radio host Alex Jones of InfoWars, a man famous for his belief in “lizard people” and his elaborate 9/11 conspiracy theories, dislikes being identified with the alt-right. But he is an important figure in the movement’s history, and a key link from Ron Paul to Donald Trump.

Today Jones is known today as an ardent Trump supporter but his affection for Ron Paul and his son, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, was even greater during their respective presidential campaigns. In 2016, Jones and his team supported the younger Paul for the GOP nomination until the very end of Rand Paul’s short-lived bid.

Shortly after Trump declared his candidacy, Jones’s top lieutenant created his own anti-Trump conspiracy theory in which he declared the former television star to be a “stooge” for Democrats, designed to make the GOP lose to Hillary Clinton. Later, in January of 2016 shortly before the Iowa caucuses, a distraught Jones pleaded with Paul about any possible strategy to save his campaign.

“I’d really like to see you as president,” Jones said. “How do we get you elected president?”

In the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, Ron Paul was also by far the preferred presidential candidate of the racist “Politically Incorrect” board known as /pol/ on 4chan. Throughout both of his unsuccessful runs, the forum served as a critical organizing portal and talent incubator for Paul’s youthful, tech-savvy supporters to pull off fundraising and digital feats that many political observers incorrectly attributed to Paul’s official campaign staff.

The energy and enthusiasm of /pol/ and its associated imitators and rivals completely disappeared after Ron Paul’s candidacies ended. He did manage to become a meme within the site, however. The digital shock troops who would later become the alt-right were waiting for someone to re-energize them.

Rand Paul’s staff hoped that he’d be able to build on his father’s success in 2016. It didn’t happen, however. In some part, that was because the senator couldn’t galvanize the emergent alt-right after he started pushing anti-racist policies and rhetoric.

It was a road the younger Paul headed down after he faced an uproar in 2010 for saying that he opposed the Civil Rights Act’s public accommodation provision, which requires most private businesses to serve customers regardless of their race. Paul retracted the stance and began a minority outreach program. He also began telling his fellow Republicans that they could not remain a party exclusively for white people.

“If we’re going to be the white party, we’re going to be the losing party,” Sen. Paul said in 2014, at an event commemorating the 50th anniversary of the law.

He has stuck to his new position, even in Republican presidential debates. Paul has repeatedly embraced the campaign to equalize criminal sentencing, particularly for drug offenses, between whites and nonwhites. He has also called for police to wear body cameras when on patrol and for local governments to stop using law enforcement as a revenue generator, both positions favored by Black Lives Matter activists and mainstream libertarians like those at Reason magazine.

None of that went unnoticed by the online racists who formerly supported his father, especially since they had found a new champion in Donald Trump, after he descended his golden elevator and denounced Mexico for sending drug dealers and rapists across the American border. As one of them put it on his personal blog:

Ron Paul’s performance in the 2008 and 2012 elections was due to disaffected voters, including many White Nationalists who supported him, not ideological libertarians. All those people have since abandoned Rand Paul and thrown their support behind Donald Trump because of his foolish decision to go “mainstream.”

With 16 other Republican candidates competing in the Iowa caucuses, Paul’s loss of the white nationalists doomed his chances in the Hawkeye State, where every sliver of vote share mattered greatly. In the words of an anonymous Paul campaign strategist quoted by Politico: “Trump got in, Trump zoomed ahead, we collapsed, he had a massive impact in caging our people from us.”

In Part 3: How the American conservative movement paved the way for white nationalism by embracing the Christian right

Unfortunately the libertarians aren't representing well in the comments. More alt-righters there than real libertarians and they're predictably either impenetrably nerdy or awkward and inarticulate.

angelatc
12-09-2016, 11:03 AM
Arguing on Salon is so 2007.

afwjam
12-09-2016, 11:56 AM
I liked our revolution coalition when it still had the LOVE.

heavenlyboy34
12-09-2016, 12:20 PM
Ugh, that article is painful. SMH. As the kids say nowadays, it's literally cancer.

liveandletlive
12-09-2016, 12:29 PM
they're gunning after Ron? Progressives are a sick bunch. Now I am personally glad that Trump won.

Sola_Fide
12-09-2016, 12:32 PM
I think it's great that so many "liberty" people defected from the Ron/Rand movement and started glombing on to white nationalism.

It's better that they did it now so freedom fighters know of another front they must fight against for eventual freedom.

Brian4Liberty
12-09-2016, 12:53 PM
It's interesting that some in the media have decided that this is a good time to attack Ron and Rand. Why would that be?

Peace&Freedom
12-09-2016, 06:13 PM
I think it's great that so many "liberty" people defected from the Ron/Rand movement and started glombing on to white nationalism.

It's better that they did it now so freedom fighters know of another front they must fight against for eventual freedom.

It's more like many Paul supporters defected from the broader liberty grassroots movement that fostered them, and started glombing for their own version of the very elitism that they were supposed to be fighting against. We went from a unified grassroots under one umbrella, inclusively tolerating the varied members of the coalition, to a "oh we can't we can't be too associated with truthers/birthers/tax honesty, or Tea Partiers/socons/10th amendment etc people" mindset that presumed the the grassroots must be top-down managed, instead of itself managing the movement.

Instead of embracing the populist end of the movement as expressed by the growth of the alternative media, they buy into and repeat the same smears and false narratives the MSM use to try to remarginalize it (e.g., wholesale dismissing the alt right as "white nationalist" or other forms of deplorable). Don't they understand the whole point of the old media creating the devil figure is to then "link" everybody and everything else they don't like (such as the Pauls) to the devil figure? The whole point is to stay in control of declaring what is deemed "mainstream" and what is not.

pcosmar
12-09-2016, 06:14 PM
It is the freakin' skinhead faction that was here back then,, attaching themselves to Ron's Name.

Some never left.

PierzStyx
12-09-2016, 06:35 PM
Hard truth time: There were white nationalists who were supporting Ron. Not because he was racist, but because they saw him as being the best candidate to loosen government laws and allow them to be more racist. Which, if we are honest with each other, he was. That is because we here recognize this truth: Has long as you aren't hurting others, you have a right to be a racist a$$hole.

The issue is that white nationalists eventually realized that instead of trying to get rid of government, which would open the way for as much anti-racist actions as it would racist ones, and embracing libertarian ideology, which if widely accepted would mean the end of their racism and nationalism, they just needed to embrace government. Us eit for their ends instead of the "enemy's" cause. The white nationalists constructed the Alt. Left and got Trump elected because he sounded like them, or at least gave them voice enough they were drawn to him.

TheTexan
12-09-2016, 06:39 PM
Plus there were the newsletters

presence
12-09-2016, 06:45 PM
Alex Jones of InfoWars, a man famous for his belief in “lizard people”

I thought that was David Icke

Anti Federalist
12-09-2016, 07:17 PM
I don't speak jive...WTF is "cray cray"?

Tywysog Cymru
12-09-2016, 07:23 PM
I think it's great that so many "liberty" people defected from the Ron/Rand movement and started glombing on to white nationalism.

It's better that they did it now so freedom fighters know of another front they must fight against for eventual freedom.

If only they had left earlier.

Anti Federalist
12-09-2016, 07:28 PM
That said...blarg blarg racist...blarg blarg xenophobe blarg blarg...homophobe...blarg blarg sexist...blarg blarg islamophobe...

Do not care anymore.

That's all they got, and even if you were the most "anti racist" person on the face of the earth, if you espoused limited government and free markets and free associations, you'd be called racist and blarg blarg blarg.

Fuck 'em all.

If Ron Paul created one "racist", assholes like the one posted in the OP created a legion of them, simply because of blowback.

Because of assholes like the one posted in the OP, we've also been set back 30 years in the battle against out of control cops, simply because the SJWs had to make it strictly about race and "white privilege".

Because of that, I have a special, hot hatred for every one of them, and their fellow travelers.

Anti Federalist
12-09-2016, 07:34 PM
It's more like many Paul supporters defected from the broader liberty grassroots movement that fostered them, and started glombing for their own version of the very elitism that they were supposed to be fighting against.

We went from a unified grassroots under one umbrella, inclusively tolerating the varied members of the coalition, to a "oh we can't we can't be too associated with truthers/birthers/tax honesty, or Tea Partiers/socons/10th amendment etc people" mindset that presumed the the grassroots must be top-down managed, instead of itself managing the movement.

Instead of embracing the populist end of the movement as expressed by the growth of the alternative media, they buy into and repeat the same smears and false narratives the MSM use to try to remarginalize it (e.g., wholesale dismissing the alt right as "white nationalist" or other forms of deplorable). Don't they understand the whole point of the old media creating the devil figure is to then "link" everybody and everything else they don't like (such as the Pauls) to the devil figure? The whole point is to stay in control of declaring what is deemed "mainstream" and what is not.

Oh boy this...this...this.

donnay
12-09-2016, 08:12 PM
“If you’re not catching flak you’re not over the target”

bunklocoempire
12-09-2016, 11:22 PM
The individual is minority number one.

"racist" pphht. Blow it out yer ass.

anaconda
12-10-2016, 12:46 AM
they're gunning after Ron? Progressives are a sick bunch. Now I am personally glad that Trump won.

I think the liberal arguments are losing credibility across the board. People just aren't quite buying it as much. Almost seems to be sinking with the main stream media, to which they are somewhat attached. The guilt by association thing just isn't a very good argument and people seem to know it. And the liberal arguments seem to cause one to get their ass kicked in a general Presidential election.

dannno
12-10-2016, 01:02 AM
I don't speak jive...WTF is "cray cray"?

Crazy

tod evans
12-10-2016, 06:36 AM
I don't speak jive...WTF is "cray cray"?

Crayfish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crayfish) ?

Jamesiv1
12-10-2016, 06:47 AM
Hard truth time: There were white nationalists who were supporting Ron. Not because he was racist, but because they saw him as being the best candidate to loosen government laws and allow them to be more racist. Which, if we are honest with each other, he was. That is because we here recognize this truth: Has long as you aren't hurting others, you have a right to be a racist a$$hole.

The issue is that white nationalists eventually realized that instead of trying to get rid of government, which would open the way for as much anti-racist actions as it would racist ones, and embracing libertarian ideology, which if widely accepted would mean the end of their racism and nationalism, they just needed to embrace government. Us eit for their ends instead of the "enemy's" cause. The white nationalists constructed the Alt. Left and got Trump elected because he sounded like them, or at least gave them voice enough they were drawn to him.
When you wake up a shithead, what you have is an awake shithead.

Waking up to the realities Ron Paul talks about does not make a bad person good.

jmdrake
12-10-2016, 07:26 AM
It's not over yet. They're still after Ron Paul. Don't read this on a full stomach. -

hxxp://www.salon.com/2016/12/09/how-the-alt-right-became-racist-part-2-long-before-trump-white-nationalists-flocked-to-ron-paul/



Unfortunately the libertarians aren't representing well in the comments. More alt-righters there than real libertarians and they're predictably either impenetrably nerdy or awkward and inarticulate.

Break the link.

Break the link.

Break the link

How many times do we have to say this? The assholes that write this crap count on us to push them to the top of Google by posting backlinks to their trash. Break the link! The official RPF web protocol is hXXp://stoopidwebsite.com/trasharticle. Or better yet, put up your own blog, write an article trashing Salon dot com and link to that.

Jamesiv1
12-10-2016, 07:58 AM
I don't speak jive...WTF is "cray cray"?
cray-cray = crazy
Po-Po = police
doo-doo = feces
pee-pee = urine
yo-yo = neat toy you don't see much anymore. The most popular when I was a kid was made by Duncan, who used to sponsor contests and trick shows nationwide. (my favorite was the butterfly model!!) If you weren't at least competent with a yo-yo, every kid in the 5th grade would be ridiculing your lame ass.

Nice!
http://www.yoyoplay.com/duncan-yo-yos/?gclid=CLuX8MLk6dACFYJYfgodc8sJrA

tod evans
12-10-2016, 08:22 AM
cray-cray = crazy
Po-Po = police
doo-doo = feces
pee-pee = urine
yo-yo = neat toy you don't see much anymore. The most popular when I was a kid was made by Duncan, who used to sponsor contests and trick shows nationwide. (my favorite was the butterfly model!!) If you weren't at least competent with a yo-yo, every kid in the 5th grade would be ridiculing your lame ass.


Okay......

Whaddabout,

Weebees?

Wiff?

and

Axe?

Is there some logical reason to want to mispronounce words? Even to the point of adding more syllables?

The Northbreather
12-10-2016, 10:18 AM
The old "quixotic" is back I see....

Those mother fuckers

Superfluous Man
12-10-2016, 10:20 AM
It's up to all of us, and this website, to do our parts to repudiate the alt-right.

If we don't do that, then we have ourselves to blame for this reputation.

Brian4Liberty
12-10-2016, 11:42 AM
That said...blarg blarg racist...blarg blarg xenophobe blarg blarg...homophobe...blarg blarg sexist...blarg blarg islamophobe...

Do not care anymore.

That's all they got, and even if you were the most "anti racist" person on the face of the earth, if you espoused limited government and free markets and free associations, you'd be called racist and blarg blarg blarg.

Fuck 'em all.

If Ron Paul created one "racist", assholes like the one posted in the OP created a legion of them, simply because of blowback.

Because of assholes like the one posted in the OP, we've also been set back 30 years in the battle against out of control cops, simply because the SJWs had to make it strictly about race and "white privilege".

Because of that, I have a special, hot hatred for every one of them, and their fellow travelers.

SOP, smear and demonize all who oppose their leftist agenda.

Working Poor
12-10-2016, 11:46 AM
I thought that was David Icke
David Icke is the one who talks about it. Alex Jones has had him on his show and allowed him to talk about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNQlyxDa8g0

presence
12-10-2016, 12:18 PM
David Icke is the one who talks about it. Alex Jones has had him on his show and allowed him to talk about it.

I honestly don't see this as any more outlandish than catholics talking about demonic possession.

Its just another metaphor for the same phenomenon.

Anti Federalist
12-10-2016, 01:40 PM
It's up to all of us, and this website, to do our parts to repudiate the alt-right.

If we don't do that, then we have ourselves to blame for this reputation.

Be my guest.

Repudiate to heart's content.

You are in favor of limited government.

That makes you, de facto, a racist in today's world.

tod evans
12-10-2016, 01:51 PM
It's up to all of us, and this website, to do our parts to repudiate the alt-right.

If we don't do that, then we have ourselves to blame for this reputation.


I'm just me and I'll speak out about whatever bothers me not what somebody else thinks ought to bother me.

You'll learn after a while on here that folks will back good ideas without marketing them as inclusive, group type activities....

In fact most people here tend to run counter to groups instinctively.....

Superfluous Man
12-11-2016, 02:19 PM
I'm just me and I'll speak out about whatever bothers me not what somebody else thinks ought to bother me.

You'll learn after a while on here that folks will back good ideas without marketing them as inclusive, group type activities....

In fact most people here tend to run counter to groups instinctively.....

And if you try to combine support for this website's stated mission with white nationalism, it's up to the rest of us to make it clear that you're a fraud who has nothing to do with us or Ron or Rand Paul.

tod evans
12-11-2016, 02:31 PM
And if you try to combine support for this website's stated mission with white nationalism, it's up to the rest of us to make it clear that you're a fraud who has nothing to do with us or Ron or Rand Paul.

:rolleyes:

Still having trouble speaking for yourself eh?

These exact same speech patterns have been exhibited by your 'alt-right' Nemesis's when they too claim to speak for others...

Interesting........

Sola_Fide
12-11-2016, 02:40 PM
:rolleyes:

Still having trouble speaking for yourself eh?

These exact same speech patterns have been exhibited by your 'alt-right' Nemesis's when they too claim to speak for others...

Interesting........

I agree with him. Ron and Rand have nothing to do with racism or nationalism. Anyone who is going to carry on their legacy or worldview has to confront that evil head on, or they themselves are to blame for being identified with it.

tod evans
12-11-2016, 02:45 PM
I agree with him. Ron and Rand have nothing to do with racism or nationalism. Anyone who is going to carry on their legacy or worldview has to confront that evil head on, or they themselves are to blame for being identified with it.

And you even start off by setting a good example speaking for yourself..........Until you decide to tell 'anyone' what you think they should do...

If you want followers, or even people who agree with you to act as you'd like, you'd be better off trying to lead by example instead of decree...

Sola_Fide
12-11-2016, 02:49 PM
And you even start off by setting a good example speaking for yourself..........Until you decide to tell 'anyone' what you think they should do...

If you want followers, or even people who agree with you to act as you'd like, you'd be better off trying to lead by example instead of decree...

I don't want anyone to follow me, but I just don't want the legacy of libertarianism to be tarnished without a fight. White nationalism is not a part of a freedom viewpoint in any way.

tod evans
12-11-2016, 02:58 PM
I don't want anyone to follow me, but I just don't want the legacy of libertarianism to be tarnished without a fight. White nationalism is not a part of a freedom viewpoint in any way.

Proclamations now?

Not much difference than a decree.

Freedom means something different to every man and we've both read where other self proclaimed libertarians have disagreed with your interpretation of libertarianism over the years, why would you try to speak for any of them?

LibertyEagle
12-11-2016, 03:04 PM
I agree with him. Ron and Rand have nothing to do with racism or nationalism. Anyone who is going to carry on their legacy or worldview has to confront that evil head on, or they themselves are to blame for being identified with it.

There you go again conflating nationalism and white nationalism. You must know they are not the same at all. Nationalism is putting your country first; as opposed to internationalism, where you put the world above your own nation. Internationalists are traitors. Ron and Rand most certainly are not that.

By the way, do you consider La Raza, Congressional Black Caucus, ADL, CAIR, Congressional hispanic Congress, US Council of Muslim Organizations, etc. to be "racist"? Just wondering, because I have never heard you utter a peep against them. But, oh, oh, oh, someone mentions the word white, and you wet your pants. Actually, that itself seems racist. Why are you being racist, sola?

Sola_Fide
12-11-2016, 03:08 PM
There you go again conflating nationalism and white nationalism. You must know they are not the same at all. Nationalism is putting your country first; as opposed to internationalism, where you put the world above your own nation. Internationalists are traitors. Ron and Rand most certainly are not that.

Libertarians aren't nationalists or internationalists. Somehow, you've merged nationalism into liberty. The two viewpoints are opposed to each other.

LibertyEagle
12-11-2016, 03:10 PM
Libertarians aren't nationalists or internationalists. Somehow, you've merged nationalism into liberty. The two viewpoints are opposed to each other.

Hardly. Libertarians, at least the ones who aren't traitors, are interested in their nation's sovereignty and refuse to sell it out to internationalists. Sorry for ya.

Sola_Fide
12-11-2016, 03:11 PM
Proclamations now?

Not much difference than a decree.

Freedom means something different to every man and we've both read where other self proclaimed libertarians have disagreed with your interpretation of libertarianism over the years, why would you try to speak for any of them?

Freedom means something different to everyone, for sure. I'm sure Marxists believe when the proletariat smashes the bourgeoisie, there will be real freedom, but we here should all know what freedom looks like.

That is not an excuse to tarnish Ron with white nationalism.

Sola_Fide
12-11-2016, 03:13 PM
Hardly. Libertarians, at least the ones who aren't traitors, are interested in their nation's sovereignty and refuse to sell it out to internationalists. Sorry for ya.

Libertarians are not interested in national sovereignty, they believe the individual is sovereign. Again, it's just not a liberty viewpoint.

tod evans
12-11-2016, 03:21 PM
Freedom means something different to everyone, for sure. I'm sure Marxists believe when the proletariat smashes the bourgeoisie, there will be real freedom, but we here should all know what freedom looks like.

That is not an excuse to tarnish Ron with white nationalism.

Nobody here has done as you claim.

The OP is a quote from some left wing site so it's out...

Besides nothing posted on this site reflects on Ron or Rand in any way, the opinions expressed belong to the person typing them and anybody who claims otherwise is being disingenuous.

Personally I don't mind debating alt-anybody on their views and don't think any of them should be discouraged from posting.

LibertyEagle
12-11-2016, 03:22 PM
Freedom means something different to everyone, for sure. I'm sure Marxists believe when the proletariat smashes the bourgeoisie, there will be real freedom, but we here should all know what freedom looks like.

That is not an excuse to tarnish Ron with white nationalism.

Where did anyone tie Ron with white nationalism?

tod evans
12-11-2016, 03:23 PM
Where did anyone tie Ron with white nationalism?

Ha!

Beat ya' to it.....;)

Sola_Fide
12-11-2016, 03:25 PM
Where did anyone tie Ron with white nationalism?

It's been going for years. How could you not have seen it?

LibertyEagle
12-11-2016, 03:25 PM
Libertarians are not interested in national sovereignty, they believe the individual is sovereign. Again, it's just not a liberty viewpoint.

Leftist libertarians may not be, but Ron is damn sure interested in national sovereignty.

Sola_Fide
12-11-2016, 03:27 PM
Leftist libertarians may not be, but Ron is damn sure interested in national sovereignty.

Do you believe the individual is sovereign?

LibertyEagle
12-11-2016, 03:28 PM
It's been going for years. How could you not have seen it?

Where did anyone post that Ron Paul loved white nationalism? Personally, I don't care if he did; just curious. He also has spoken to La Raza too, I believe.

How long have you hated white people?

LibertyEagle
12-11-2016, 03:29 PM
Do you believe the individual is sovereign?

Stop trying to change the topic. YOu claimed that Ron didn't care about national sovereignty. You are wrong. Admit it.

undergroundrr
12-11-2016, 03:30 PM
There you go again conflating nationalism and white nationalism. You must know they are not the same at all. Nationalism is putting your country first; as opposed to internationalism, where you put the world above your own nation. Internationalists are traitors. Ron and Rand most certainly are not that.

Nationalism could be considered a very temporary force for good only if it represented a reduction of the sphere of state power rather than an expansion of it. In practice, that doesn't ever happen.

In practice, nationalism is worship of a nation-state, a Hobbesian artificial man. It would seek to prevent a body of people from seceding. Once a nation (aka a territory under which a government has exclusive monopoly on force) reaches some fictitious condition of sovereignty, imperialism is certain to follow due to the natural impulse of the state. Nationalism is militarism, expansion.

Why not abandon this horrid word? Let white nationalists have it. It's appropriate to their cause. It's a tainted word and always will be because of it's ultimate end, subjugation of the whole of humanity.

LibertyEagle
12-11-2016, 03:34 PM
When are you going to abandon the words, anarchist and libertarian? They are tainted too.

Superfluous Man
12-11-2016, 03:38 PM
Stop trying to change the topic. YOu claimed that Ron didn't care about national sovereignty. You are wrong. Admit it.

He cares about it. But the version of the concept of national sovereignty he cares about is diametrically opposite to the version you care about. Don't misrepresent him by equivocating the terminology like that.

Sola_Fide
12-11-2016, 03:39 PM
Nationalism could be considered a very temporary force for good only if it represented a reduction of the sphere of state power rather than an expansion of it. In practice, that doesn't ever happen.

In practice, nationalism is worship of a nation-state, a Hobbesian artificial man. It would seek to prevent a body of people from seceding. Once a nation (aka a territory under which a government has exclusive monopoly on force) reaches some fictitious condition of sovereignty, imperialism is certain to follow due to the natural impulse of the state. Nationalism is militarism, expansion.

Why not abandon this horrid word? Let white nationalists have it. It's appropriate to their cause. It's a tainted word and always will be because of it's ultimate end, subjugation of the whole of humanity.

+rep

Sola_Fide
12-11-2016, 03:40 PM
Stop trying to change the topic. YOu claimed that Ron didn't care about national sovereignty. You are wrong. Admit it.

I'll take that as a "no" from you. I knew that you didn't anyway.

undergroundrr
12-11-2016, 04:27 PM
When are you going to abandon the words, anarchist and libertarian? They are tainted too.

Because their ultimate end isn't the subjugation of all of humanity.

Peace&Freedom
12-11-2016, 04:40 PM
Do you believe the individual is sovereign?

We believe in individual sovereignty, but that is not the only form of sovereignty that is compatible with liberty. The delegation of powers by a free people to a civil government implies that state also has sovereignty, as far as it defends and protects the rights or interests of the people. Nationalism can be libertarian (represents the people) or authoritarian in nature (state worshipping) in nature, but it is most often pro-liberty in practice, especially as expressed by figures like Ron Paul, and in the recent Presidential campaign.

Not only is nationalism distinguishable from white nationalism, white nationalism is distinguishable from white supremacy. Supremacists typically talk about their race as above all others and advocate for superior treatment, while white nationalists typically only seek to be able to talk as openly and positively about their race as other races do (be they La Raza, the Black Caucus, etc). The potential for crossover is obvious, but it is also obvious that the two need not be conflated. The real elitists seem to be determined to conflate these groups, however, and join in smearing most of the people who have mobilized to oppose the globalists and internationalists.

Superfluous Man
12-11-2016, 04:58 PM
We believe in individual sovereignty, but that is not the only form of sovereignty that is compatible with liberty. The delegation of powers by a free people to a civil government implies that state also has sovereignty, as far as it defends and protects the rights or interests of the people.

It only implies that that government have sovereignty with respect to other nations, not with respect to its own citizens, who, by your explanation must be sovereign over it, and not the other way around.

I think that the kind of national sovereignty that you just described is pretty much what Ron Paul seems to believe. But notice that this concept of national sovereignty leaves no room for that government regulating immigration or trade, which is precisely what LE wants when she refers to national sovereignty.

ChristianAnarchist
12-11-2016, 05:24 PM
salon is not worth my time...

Dr.No.
12-11-2016, 08:52 PM
I worked for RP's campaign in 2012. The man is not racist. He just isn't. Not really even in the ignorant/soft way that some older people are (like Joe Biden, for example).

Peace&Freedom
12-11-2016, 09:29 PM
I think that the kind of national sovereignty that you just described is pretty much what Ron Paul seems to believe. But notice that this concept of national sovereignty leaves no room for that government regulating immigration or trade, which is precisely what LE wants when she refers to national sovereignty.

No, I don't notice that, because it's not so.

Superfluous Man
12-11-2016, 09:46 PM
No, I don't notice that, because it's not so.

It is so.

Since I am sovereign, and the only powers the government can have are those I delegate to it, it can't dictate to me that I can't have people on my property because they didn't jump through the hoops someone else wanted them to.

That's why Ron Paul repudiates your views.

LibertyEagle
12-12-2016, 01:17 AM
He cares about it. But the version of the concept of national sovereignty he cares about is diametrically opposite to the version you care about. Don't misrepresent him by equivocating the terminology like that.

No it isn't, bucko.

osan
12-12-2016, 08:54 AM
It's not over yet. They're still after Ron Paul. Don't read this on a full stomach. -

h ttp://www.salon.com/2016/12/09/how-the-alt-right-became-racist-part-2-long-before-trump-white-nationalists-flocked-to-ron-paul/



Unfortunately the libertarians aren't representing well in the comments. More alt-righters there than real libertarians and they're predictably either impenetrably nerdy or awkward and inarticulate.

What human with an IQ in the positive integers bothers with salon.com?

Reading tripe like this seems mostly an exercise in bothering oneself.

Superfluous Man
12-12-2016, 09:40 AM
No it isn't, bucko.

Yes it is. You believe in protectionism, requiring passports to enter the USA, deportation, a wall, and punishing people who hire unlawful immigrants, all of which Ron Paul repudiates. His idea of national sovereignty is as something subordinate to individual sovereignty. Your version makes the government sovereign over us.

In reality, while you use the same words, you actually support the exact opposite view of Ron Paul.

Peace&Freedom
12-12-2016, 11:47 AM
It is so.

Since I am sovereign, and the only powers the government can have are those I delegate to it, it can't dictate to me that I can't have people on my property because they didn't jump through the hoops someone else wanted them to.

That's why Ron Paul repudiates your views.

It's still not so. Among the powers delegated to civil government by the people is providing for its self-defense, and the enforcement of contract. By bypassing the lawful procedures, these supposed migrants never entered into a contract to become Americans permanently domiciled here. Thus they can't dictate to US that they must be recognized simply because they are on an American's property, any more than a tourist can, or an invading combatant can.

National and individual sovereignty are equal in their acknowledgement of the relevance or contract, or two-way agreement about the migration, between the relocating party and the new host country. You are disavowing the need for two-way consent, while trying to describe a forced invasion as a voluntary situation. That is not Ron Paul's position.

Superfluous Man
12-12-2016, 05:52 PM
It's still not so. Among the powers delegated to civil government by the people is providing for its self-defense, and the enforcement of contract. By bypassing the lawful procedures, these supposed migrants never entered into a contract to become Americans permanently domiciled here.

If they enter a contract with me, then their contract is with me, not someone else. And the powers I delegate to the government are up to me, not you. If the government tries to stop me from entering a contract to hire an unlawful immigrant, then that government is not acting as my agent with powers I delegated to it.

Apparently you don't actually believe that individuals are sovereign. And if you think you do, then your concept of that is the diametric opposite of Ron Paul's.

Whether they have any intention of residing here permanently is irrelevant. No contract with some abstract corporate American population is necessary for them to do that if they want to. Nor is any contract with such an abstraction necessary for them to reside here for any short period of time, nor to work here. These arrangements with unlawful immigrants are ones that each sovereign individual American has a right to make for themselves.

seapilot
12-12-2016, 10:27 PM
It's interesting that some in the media have decided that this is a good time to attack Ron and Rand. Why would that be?

They can no longer ignore alternative medias influence. Ron and Rand are trusted sources for alternative media.

Peace&Freedom
12-13-2016, 12:02 AM
Apparently you don't actually believe that individuals are sovereign. And if you think you do, then your concept of that is the diametric opposite of Ron Paul's.

Apparently you have confirmed you don't actually believe that the government has been delegated powers from sovereign individuals, and thus embodies that same sovereignty. Your every utterance puts down or characterizes as irrelevant the delegation of sovereignty you claim to defend. Your position innately denies a minarchist government, or the ability of a free people to choose such an order to establish the contract for migrants.

In fact, you never established under your concept that the migrant even consented to your contract. It's all you letting them onto American soil unilaterally, not them ever evidencing that they entered a contract to become Americans. I say again, this is not Paul's concept of immigration:


The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally. All federal government business should be conducted in English. More importantly, we should expect immigrants to learn about and respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government.

Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual — including a potential terrorist — can enter the United States...We need to allocate far more of our resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.

If we took some of the steps I have outlined here — eliminating the welfare state and securing our borders — we could effectively address the problem of illegal immigration in a manner that would not undermine the freedom of American citizens.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/08/ron-paul/immigration-and-the-welfare-state/

ChristianAnarchist
12-13-2016, 07:39 AM
It's still not so. Among the powers delegated to civil government by the people is providing for its self-defense, and the enforcement of contract. By bypassing the lawful procedures, these supposed migrants never entered into a contract to become Americans permanently domiciled here. Thus they can't dictate to US that they must be recognized simply because they are on an American's property, any more than a tourist can, or an invading combatant can.

National and individual sovereignty are equal in their acknowledgement of the relevance or contract, or two-way agreement about the migration, between the relocating party and the new host country. You are disavowing the need for two-way consent, while trying to describe a forced invasion as a voluntary situation. That is not Ron Paul's position.

Beside the fact that it would be immoral to allow a fiction to infringe on people's rights, you neglect to note what was written in "The Constitution" (or rather what was NOT). You will find no mention of regulating immigration within that document and indeed this whole idea of regulation is maybe 100 years old or so. Borders were signs that you rode past on your horse as you went to trade in a town of your choosing and no one asked your "citizenship" and for the most part they new it the first time you spoke.

No, in "The Constitution" (which you claim to hold so dear) there is only a short passage on "naturalization" and this has ZERO to do with "immigration". And if I'm wrong, please enlighten me...

helmuth_hubener
12-13-2016, 10:20 AM
Break the link
The official RPF web protocol is hXXp://stoopidwebsite.com/trasharticle

http://archive.is

Better.

ChristianAnarchist
12-13-2016, 11:01 AM
http://archive.is

Better.

I like it... We all should be using this resource often!

helmuth_hubener
12-13-2016, 11:14 AM
I like it... We all should be using this resource often!

Yeah, no reason to drive traffic (and thus fund) our enemies, The Media.

helmuth_hubener
12-13-2016, 11:17 AM
Very important truth to keep in mind:

If the press could interview the Founding Fathers (or any pre-1960s national leaders) on their racial views today, they would deem them Evil Nazi White Nationalist Supremacists.

So..... should we care? Why should I care again?

tod evans
12-13-2016, 11:41 AM
Very important truth to keep in mind:

If the press could interview the Founding Fathers (or any pre-1960s national leaders) on their racial views today, they would deem them Evil Nazi White Nationalist Supremacists.

So..... should we care? Why should I care again?

Reported...:cool:

The Gold Standard
12-13-2016, 11:42 AM
Apparently you have confirmed you don't actually believe that the government has been delegated powers from sovereign individuals, and thus embodies that same sovereignty.

This can only be done with a contract, and I've never signed one. And no, a fairy tale "social contract" does not count.

Peace&Freedom
12-13-2016, 02:56 PM
No, in "The Constitution" (which you claim to hold so dear) there is only a short passage on "naturalization" and this has ZERO to do with "immigration". And if I'm wrong, please enlighten me...

My exchange with Superfluous involved that passage on "naturalization," and the fact that he didn't even think migrants were obligated to do that much, in order to become Americans. What you called a "fiction" is the means by which our country gives consent, their following it is how their right is exercised. Migrating is a two-way voluntary action, as with other human transactions. A one way action is simply force, upon the party that did not volunteer.

ChristianAnarchist
12-13-2016, 09:26 PM
My exchange with Superfluous involved that passage on "naturalization," and the fact that he didn't even think migrants were obligated to do that much, in order to become Americans. What you called a "fiction" is the means by which our country gives consent, their following it is how their right is exercised. Migrating is a two-way voluntary action, as with other human transactions. A one way action is simply force, upon the party that did not volunteer.

No, your "fiction" claims the Constitution as it's "authority". There's NO authority to regulate immigration. If some immigrant (after many years living here) wishes to become a "citizen" then and only then does the constitution have anything to say about this immigrant. If you don't believe me you can check any history book on life in the 1800's...

osan
12-14-2016, 12:49 AM
they're gunning after Ron?

They have to. There is too much in the written/video record from RP that could serve to discredit the progressive agenda. Therefore, they need to keep as many eyes away from that record as possible. Survival 101 because as stoopid as most Americans are, they are not stupid. That means they are capable of rejecting the stupidities to which they have subscribed themselves, which is the one thing the progressives cannot survive. Therefore, the best defense is to always be on the offensive. Just look at how Theye still go after McCarthy. Why? Because McCarthy was 100% right about the communist infiltration; every last one of the names on his infamous little list proved to be Kremlin assets, and many more as proven by Venona. But the good senator erred greatly in his tactics and it is upon that which progressive attacks remain focused, sixty five-plus years later.

osan
12-14-2016, 01:08 AM
There's NO authority to regulate immigration.

Your statement ignores context.

In the normatively proper world, you are correct.

In a world poisoned with the filth of inept/malevolent governmental interferences that give rise to welfare states, such authority arises implicitly because people retain the right to protect themselves against the sorts of results as those under which we currently suffer.

And in the even broader context of a world polluted with cancerous Empire, which in turn has given rise to the avarice of "rival" nations who would have us as their property in one manner or another, the same right to self-preservation arises with great vigor. Like it or not, we the people of this world are partitioned, and some partitions are demonstrably better than others. Regardless, the people of any given region may validly act to defend themselves against the threats they perceive as issuing from those of another. Even the ham-fisted Red Chinese and the blithering Soviets retained the right to defend themselves against competing political systems, regardless of how much "better" those rivals may have been, as judged by a given objective standard.

Put more than one person into a room and politics arise. This is the mean observable habit of humans as they currently tend to comport themselves. Politics tends to give rise to problems, real or imagined, against which people feel the need to take defensive measures. That is the reality of the twenty-first century human animal, and so long as people feel threatened, they rightly exercise their inborn authority to act. That such action has given rise to such vast tragedy worldwide, it does not follow that the stated authority does not exist, but only that it is misapplied; further testament to the pathological state of mean human perception, as shaped under the influences of the cancerous condition of Empire.


If some immigrant (after many years living here) wishes to become a "citizen" then and only then does the constitution have anything to say about this immigrant. If you don't believe me you can check any history book on life in the 1800's...

Again, this is valid only in the proper context. Alter that fundamentally, as the reality of a welfare state has, and all bets are off. I deplore this truth, but there it stands, naked, ugly, and smelling as foully as anyone might ever imagine.

helmuth_hubener
12-14-2016, 10:26 AM
You will find no mention of regulating immigration within that document and indeed this whole idea of regulation is maybe 100 years old or so.
...
And if I'm wrong, please enlighten me...

OK, if you insist. Please understand: I'm not trying to convince you. But I kind of regret putting this viral talking point out there about the Constitution that so many have taken up. I have since taken a hiatus from debating immigration, but by leaving the debate stand as it is, I may have given disproportionate ammo to one side and not the other.

So, to even the playing field a little, as well as to give a more balanced and truthful perspective on the Founder's views and the situation in Early America:

Actually, the fact of the matter is that very early in American history, in fact almost immediately after the Revolution was won some of the first laws that were passed were laws restricting immigrants. They restricted naturalization to people of sound moral character, means to provide for themselves, etc., and of course excluded all the various and sundry races of the world other than whites. Many of the states (perhaps all?) passed laws also forbidding anyone who fled (as what we would perhaps call a "refugee") during the war from ever coming back. Basically: "You wanted to go hide in Canada? You can stay there! Enjoy the snow!"

Congress passed -- and passed it unanimously! -- this resolution: "Resolved, That it be, and it is hereby, recommended to the several states to pass laws for preventing the transportation of convicted malefactors from foreign countries into the United States." In the vernacular of today: "They're not sending their best. We're getting their murderers, their rapists. Out! Out! Out!" :D

In fact, even before -- and even long before -- the Revolution, the colonies were passing and enforcing many laws restricting, forbidding, and limiting immigration in various ways. The Pilgrims themselves, in 1639, passed a law forbidding the arrival of foreign paupers, charging any shipmasters who tried to bring them hefty fines, and of course expelling any paupers who somehow did make it or who were already there. No paupers. The pilgrims were, by today's standards, roughly millionaires (it cost about a million just to ride the boat, inflation-adjusted), and they didn't need any poor, any hungry, any losers. Didn't want 'em, wouldn't take 'em. People of means (upper-class) only.

There are many other examples of laws restricting immigration I could put here, but at some point it would perhaps start to tilt the debate too far the other direction. So suffice it to say that there were many, many laws restricting and forbidding immigration in the early days of this Land of the Free, America, made with the intent of keeping it the Land of the Free. And, in my opinion, they were either all or almost all Constitutional. Obviously in the opinions of those who wrote the Constitution also, as well as those who fought and risked their lives for Independence, who are perhaps even more credible. If they didn't know what they were fighting for, then who knows better?

Hopefully this post has helped to impart a more balanced and truthful perspective.

ChristianAnarchist
12-15-2016, 09:51 AM
OK, if you insist. Please understand: I'm not trying to convince you. But I kind of regret putting this viral talking point out there about the Constitution that so many have taken up. I have since taken a hiatus from debating immigration, but by leaving the debate stand as it is, I may have given disproportionate ammo to one side and not the other.

So, to even the playing field a little, as well as to give a more balanced and truthful perspective on the Founder's views and the situation in Early America:

Actually, the fact of the matter is that very early in American history, in fact almost immediately after the Revolution was won some of the first laws that were passed were laws restricting immigrants. They restricted naturalization to people of sound moral character, means to provide for themselves, etc., and of course excluded all the various and sundry races of the world other than whites. Many of the states (perhaps all?) passed laws also forbidding anyone who fled (as what we would perhaps call a "refugee") during the war from ever coming back. Basically: "You wanted to go hide in Canada? You can stay there! Enjoy the snow!"

Congress passed -- and passed it unanimously! -- this resolution: "Resolved, That it be, and it is hereby, recommended to the several states to pass laws for preventing the transportation of convicted malefactors from foreign countries into the United States." In the vernacular of today: "They're not sending their best. We're getting their murderers, their rapists. Out! Out! Out!" :D

In fact, even before -- and even long before -- the Revolution, the colonies were passing and enforcing many laws restricting, forbidding, and limiting immigration in various ways. The Pilgrims themselves, in 1639, passed a law forbidding the arrival of foreign paupers, charging any shipmasters who tried to bring them hefty fines, and of course expelling any paupers who somehow did make it or who were already there. No paupers. The pilgrims were, by today's standards, roughly millionaires (it cost about a million just to ride the boat, inflation-adjusted), and they didn't need any poor, any hungry, any losers. Didn't want 'em, wouldn't take 'em. People of means (upper-class) only.

There are many other examples of laws restricting immigration I could put here, but at some point it would perhaps start to tilt the debate too far the other direction. So suffice it to say that there were many, many laws restricting and forbidding immigration in the early days of this Land of the Free, America, made with the intent of keeping it the Land of the Free. And, in my opinion, they were either all or almost all Constitutional. Obviously in the opinions of those who wrote the Constitution also, as well as those who fought and risked their lives for Independence, who are perhaps even more credible. If they didn't know what they were fighting for, then who knows better?

Hopefully this post has helped to impart a more balanced and truthful perspective.

So what you are saying is that congress started passing laws that are not authorized by the constitution right away... I think we already knew that. Most of the laws congress passes are not "authorized" by the constitution. I thought that's why we are all "Ron Paul" people here-because we get this one simple fact.

No, nothing in your examples (and I guarantee even I could find many more of them) disputes the fact that the constitution does not authorize restriction on immigration. Chapter and verse please...

helmuth_hubener
12-15-2016, 10:27 AM
So what you are saying is that congress started passing laws that are not authorized by the constitution right away... I think we already knew that.Some that were, some that weren't, but you are glossing over the fact that it was mostly states passing immigration laws. The states.


No, nothing in your examples disputes the fact that the Constitution Yeah, not a coincidence nor oversight! What I was "disputing" (really just clearing up, with the truth) was your statement that: "this whole idea of regulation is maybe 100 years old or so." That's all! :)

ChristianAnarchist
12-17-2016, 07:41 PM
Some that were, some that weren't, but you are glossing over the fact that it was mostly states passing immigration laws. The states.

Yeah, not a coincidence nor oversight! What I was "disputing" (really just clearing up, with the truth) was your statement that: "this whole idea of regulation is maybe 100 years old or so." That's all! :)

Oh, if that' all you are trying to dispute is that "regulation" is maybe 100 years old" being incorrect then I will give you that point as that was simple an estimate and certainly NOT my primary premise. It's obvious that you cannot dispute the primary premise (as I know you cannot).

The primary premise (in case you missed it way back there) was that the "constitution" does not authorize it. That much is a given fact...