# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  We Didn't Start the Movement (Alt Right Tribute Including R. Paul & M. Rothbard Appearances)

## AuH20



----------


## r3volution 3.0

You aren't continuing the movement either.

You're trying to co-opt it. 

(mod edit)

----------


## jllundqu

White Nationalism is not a movement.

----------


## jllundqu

I literally google alternative right, and one of the first things that pops up is the 'Alternative Right Blog' which is 100% white nationalist bull$#@!.... lol

----------


## A Son of Liberty

lol is this $#@! serious??  

Ron's not your ally, okay?  That $#@! pisses me off.  We had to spend all of 2008 and 2012 defending him from leftists trying to assert that he was a racist, and now we have to deal with it coming from these morons...

----------


## r3volution 3.0

On the blog "The Right Stuff" (one of the most trafficked alt-right blogs), you'll find the following article (I refuse to link it):

"Libertarianism and Marxism: Twin Offspring Of Liberalism"

In this article, you'll find that libertarianism and Austrian economics are really just Jewish conspiracies, among other, similarly brilliant insights...

If you choose to visit the blog, you'll notice how the header is decorated with charming black and white photos of smiling NAZIs.

----------


## phill4paul

> lol is this $#@! serious??  
> 
> Ron's not your ally, okay?  That $#@! pisses me off.  We had to spend all of 2008 and 2012 defending him from leftists trying to assert that he was a racist, and now we have to deal with it coming from these morons...


  SWJ*'s are like that.

  (State Worshiping Jingoists)

----------


## Danke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tpA8lnFG8o

----------


## r3volution 3.0

If not from libertarianism (and clearly not) whence came the alt-right?

The invention of the alt-right as a semi-coherent movement under that label is generally credited to a fellow named Richard Spencer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer




> *Richard Bertrand Spencer* (born May 11, 1978) is an American writer, publisher, and self-described "identitarian" known for promoting white supremacist views.[1][2][3] He is president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think-tank, and Washington Summit Publishers, an independent publishing firm.
> 
> Spencer advocates for a white homeland for a "dispossessed white  race" and calls for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to halt the  "deconstruction" of European culture.[4][5][6]
> 
> ...Spencer has been an assistant editor at _The American Conservative_ magazine and Editor of _Taki's Magazine_. In 2010, he founded _Alternative Right_, a website that he edited until 2012. Spencer has been published at _Right Now!_, _American Renaissance_, VDARE, _The Occidental Observer_, and others.


What's this "National Policy Institute"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Policy_Institute




> NPI was founded in 2005 by William Regnery II.[2] Until 2010, NPI's chairman was Louis R. Andrews. Andrews died in late 2011 and was replaced by Richard B. Spencer, who had been acting Director at the end of Andrews's life. NPI had been based in Augusta, Georgia, but was relocated to Virginia with the change in leadership.
> 
> The Institute's authors have produced a series of reports on affirmative action, race and conservatism, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and at least one annual report, entitled _The State of White America 2007_ by Vdare contributor Nicholas Stix.[3] MSNBC reported that Andrews voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 US Presidential Election  in order, he said, to help destroy the Republican Party so that it can  be reborn into a party that will support the "interests of white  people".[4]
> 
>  In September 2011, NPI hosted its first national conference, entitled  "Towards a New Nationalism". Speakers included Richard B. Spencer, Alex Kurtagic, Tomislav Sunic, and Jared Taylor.[5]
> 
>  In October 2013, NPI hosted another national conference, "After the  Fall". Speakers included some from the previous conference including  Spencer, Kurtagic, and Sunic, along with new speakers such as Alain de Benoist, Jack Donovan and William Regnery II.[6][7] In December 2013, NPI launched a new website, _Radix Journal_, which describes itself as, "a periodical on culture, race, meta-politics, critical theory, and society."[_citation needed_] The NPI reportedly [_clarification needed_] received a grant from the Pioneer Fund.[8]



What's this "Pioneer Fund"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund




> *Early history*
> 
> The Pioneer Fund was incorporated on March 11, 1937. The first five directors were:
> 
> 
> Wickliffe Preston Draper, heir to a large fortune and the fund's _de facto_  final authority, served on the Board of Directors from 1937 until 1972.  He founded the Pioneer Fund after having acquired an interest in the  Eugenics movement, which was strengthened by his 1935 visit to Nazi  Germany, where he met with the leading eugenicists of the Third Reich  who used the inspiration from the American movement as a basis for the Nuremberg Laws.  He served in the British army at the beginning of WWI, transferring to  the US Army as the Americans entered the war. During WWII he was  stationed as an intelligence officer in India.[8] Psychology professor and Pioneer Fund critic William H. Tucker,  however, describes Draper as someone who "aside from his brief periods  of military service ... never pursued a profession or held a job of any  kind."[2] According to a 1960 article in _The Nation_, an unnamed geneticist said Draper told him he "wished to prove simply that Negroes were inferior."[9] Draper funded advocacy of repatriation of blacks to Africa.[10][11] Draper also made large financial contributions to efforts to oppose the American Civil Rights Movement and the racial desegregation mandated by _Brown v. Board of Education,_ such as $215,000 to the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission in 1963.[2]Harry Laughlin was the director of the Eugenics Record Office  at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, New York, funded  by the Carnegie Institute of Washington. He served as the president of  the Pioneer Fund from its inception until 1941. He was one of the  eugenics movement's most energetic legislative activists. He worried  about miscegenation  and had proposed a research agenda to assist in the enforcement of  Southern "race integrity laws" by developing techniques for identifying  the "pass-for-white" person who might "successfully hide all of his  black blood". He singled out Jews as a group "slow to assimilate," a  problem related to his doubts that their loyalty was directed primarily  to "American institutions and people" rather than to "Jews scattered  through other nations." Eleven months after the enactment of the Nuremberg Laws,  Laughlin wrote an official at the University of Heidelberg (which had  awarded him an honorary doctorate) that the United States and the Third Reich  shared "a common understanding of ... the practical application" of  eugenic principles to "racial endowments and ... racial health."[2]Frederick Osborn wrote in 1937 that the Nazi Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring was "the most exciting experiment that had ever been tried".[12][13] Osborn was the secretary of the American Eugenics Society,  which was part of an accepted and active field at the time, the  Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Selective Service during World War II and later the Deputy U.S. Representative to the U.N. Atomic Energy Commission.Malcolm Donald was the Draper family lawyer, trustee of the Draper estate. He was a former editor of the _Harvard Law Review_ and a brigadier general during World War II.John Marshall Harlan II.  Harlan's firm had done legal work for the Pioneer Fund. He was the only  director whose name did not appear on the incorporation papers. He was  director of operational analysis for the Eighth Air Force in World War II, and was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. During his confirmation process, he voiced support for the decision in _Brown v. Board of Education_, but on the bench limited civil rights in _Swain v. Alabama_ and dissented on _Miranda v. Arizona_. 
> 
> The 1937 incorporation documents of the Pioneer Fund list two purposes. The first, modeled on the Nazi Lebensborn breeding program,[14]  was aimed at encouraging the propagation of those "descended  predominantly from white persons who settled in the original thirteen  states prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States  and/or from related stocks, or to classes of children, the majority of  whom are deemed to be so descended". Its second purpose was to support  academic research and the "dissemination of information, into the  'problem of heredity and eugenics'" and "the problems of race betterment".[13]  The Pioneer Fund argues the "race betterment" has always referred to  the "human race" referred to earlier in the sentence, and critics argue  it referred to racial groups. The document was amended in 1985 and the  phrase changed to "human race betterment."
> 
> ...


....Wait a minute, that sounds familiar. 

O, yea, it's the publisher of the video in the OP.

----------


## AuH20

> lol is this $#@! serious??  
> 
> Ron's not your ally, okay?  That $#@! pisses me off. * We had to spend all of 2008 and 2012 defending him from leftists trying to assert that he was a racist,* and now we have to deal with it coming from these morons...


I think that's your number one problem. You have become trapped in a herd game that you cannot possibly win.

Let me let you in on a little secret. They think WE ARE ALL RACISTS. Anyone who advocates for a smaller state or personal sovereignty is always affixed with a racist label by the propaganda organs in this country. 

 I have read articles outlining why Gary Johnson supporters are unabashed racists. Yes, squishy Penn Jilette like Gary Johnson supporters have been tarnished with the Scarlet 'R'. So stop worrying about what THESE HORRIBLE PEOPLE THINK and focus on the goals at hand. Stop lending power to the words that they so shamelessly use and the quicker they will flame out from overuse.

----------


## Kotin

> You aren't continuing the movement either.
> 
> You're trying to co-opt it. 
> 
> (mod edit)


This.

Ron Paul and the rest of us don't have much in common with you ignorant populists.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

SMFH@thread. OP can take a long walk on a short pier. :P

----------


## CaptUSA

Anyone else find it ironic that they used the music of a New York Jew?  lol.

----------


## phill4paul

Christ, what the forum has become. SMDH.

----------


## juleswin

> Christ, what the forum has become. SMDH.


The forum hasn't become anything. There are just a few loud voice piping white nationalist stuff into the forum but they have allies who support them because they oppose anyone trying to moderate the forum by telling them to go away. But once the few loud voice go away, their passive supporters also quiets down.

Remember the last time they banned AuH20, all this stuff went to a minimum. The passive supporters are not going to like it but if the mods can muster the courage to do that again, this stuff will stop if only for the duration of the ban

----------


## AuH20

> The forum hasn't become anything. There are just a few loud voice piping white nationalist stuff into the forum but they have allies who support them because they oppose anyone trying to moderate the forum by telling them to go away. But once the few loud voice go away, their passive supporters also quiets down.
> 
> Remember the last time they banned AuH20, all this stuff went to a minimum. The passive supporters are not going to like it but if the mods can muster the courage to do that again, this stuff will stop if only for the duration of the ban


Here's the problem. There is a double standard for some SJWs masquerading as libertarians on this forum. That's the problem. For whatever reason, the administration cozies up to them and lends them an incredible amount of line to seed falsehoods and other propaganda. For example, look at some of the past 'rep hunts' that were actually coordinated by the antiTrump faction. 

Now that's  not to say that there aren't those of the white nationalist stripe who have not violated the community guidelines, but there appears to be two set of rules. I had bans extended out of the blue to 3 and 4 months (WHILE I WAS STILL BANNED!) with no explanation! This place is under a dubious influence that scares me. Furthermore, no one has ever solicited for donations for Donald Trump or asked for campaign help, yet you would think by the hysterical reactions from the usual suspects, that this forum is being actively being used to recruit.

----------


## AuH20

Actually, I just arrived at an alternate theory. The emotional based SJW leaning 'libertarians' are more prone to complain and create a mountain out of a molehill with ADMIN. So the rising crescendo of outrage forces the administration to act in some instances, just to get them off their backs. Like they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. 

Take for example, this gem that I uncovered. I can only imagine the tripe that they receive daily from the special snowflakes who crave for their safe spaces.

http://www.acalltopaul.com/node/880

----------


## phill4paul

> Here's the problem. There is a double standard for some SJWs masquerading as libertarians on this forum. That's the problem. For whatever reason, the administration cozies up to them and lends them an incredible amount of line to seed falsehoods and other propaganda. For example, look at some of the past 'rep hunts' that were actually coordinated by the antiTrump faction. 
> 
> Now that's  not to say that there aren't those of the white nationalist stripe who have not violated the community guidelines, but there appears to be two set of rules. I had bans extended out of the blue to 3 and 4 months (WHILE I WAS STILL BANNED!) with no explanation! This place is under a dubious influence that scares me. Furthermore, no one has ever solicited for donations for Donald Trump or asked for campaign help, yet you would think by the hysterical reactions from the usual suspects, that this forum is being actively being used to recruit.


   And the Trump propaganda died out pretty much over those periods. Amazing. Personally I'm tired of the alt. right SWJ's that are trying to co-opt Ron Paul Forums. I think that you get away with to much $#@! since the site and members have determined that Trump, in no way, shape, or form is a liberty candidate. And in the end that is what this site is about. So cry some more. You definitely have the Trump "whine" down.

----------


## AuH20

> And the Trump propaganda died out pretty much over those periods. Amazing. Personally I'm tired of the alt. right SWJ's that are trying to co-opt Ron Paul Forums. I think that you get away with to much $#@! since the site and members have determined that Trump, in no way, shape, or form is a liberty candidate. And in the end that is what this site is about. So cry some more. You definitely have the Trump "whine" down.


If I was truly whining, I would have filed complaints.  You're entitled to your opinions. I'm not wired to be petty, just because we may disagree. 

I believe in freedom of speech to it's fullest, but I also recognize why the owners of the site can't go 100% down that route for obvious reason.

----------


## AuH20

> And the Trump propaganda died out pretty much over those periods. Amazing. Personally I'm tired of the alt. right SWJ's that are trying to co-opt Ron Paul Forums.* I think that you get away with to much $#@! since the site and members have determined that Trump, in no way, shape, or form is a liberty candidate.* And in the end that is what this site is about. So cry some more. You definitely have the Trump "whine" down.


Where are the threads proclaiming Trump to be a bonafide liberty candidate?

----------


## phill4paul

> Where are the threads proclaiming Trump to be a bonafide liberty candidate?


   He's not. Yet there are still those that profess he should be given a vote. Much the shame.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Where are the threads proclaiming Trump to be a bonafide liberty candidate?


The assertion presented ad nauseum by you Trumpkins is that he would somehow benefit the libertarian cause.

...the commonest version of that theory being that he will restrict immigration, and white = liberty, blarg blarg blarg.

----------


## AuH20

> The assertion presented ad nauseum by you Trumpkins is that he would somehow benefit the libertarian cause.


He would. We have a huge obstacle in our way in the form of a 500 pound gorilla known as the establishment. Trying to break it up or diminish it's influence, would be in our best interests, unless of course my peers secretly enjoy being relegated to the political wilderness? 

The disintegration of existing political power is essential if we want a seat at the table. It's akin to taking down a fanatical monarch and breaking down the country into little fiefdoms where we can exert influence. With the current establishment consisting almost exclusively of neoconservatives and neoliberals, we are treated like lepers. Trump will changes the entire political landscape if he can win. No longer will there be rigid political tests on foreign policy or religion in the GOP.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> He would. We have a huge obstacle in our way in the form of a 500 pound gorilla known as the establishment. Trying to break it up or diminish it's influence, would be in our best interests, unless of course my peers secretly enjoy being relegated to the political wilderness? 
> 
> Dissolution of existing political power is essential if we want a seat at the table. It's akin to taking down a fanatical monarch and breaking down the country into little fiefdoms where we can exert influence. With the current establishment consisting almost exclusively of neoconservatives and neoliberals, we are treated like lepers.


"Fighting the establishment" means opposing and trying to reverse their *policies*. 

....and Trump agrees with the bipartisan consensus in all important respects, except on trade and immigration, where he's actually _worse.

_"Fighting the establishment" does NOT mean have a series of childish personal food fights with them over trivia. 

....and that is the extent to the which Trump "fights the establishment."

----------


## Bryan

> Christ, what the forum has become. SMDH.


This is a third party video - posted without comment. There is a certain balance / value of understanding what is being said / done on the web vs letting there be open promotion and organization in favor of this. As said here, no one is soliciting for donations, setting up money bombs or the like. We're just not going to be a complete echo chamber and put our heads in the sand either. This video helps provide some context to the political movement that is out there, which is obviously not in line with our Mission.





> Here's the problem. There is a double standard for some SJWs masquerading as libertarians on this forum. That's the problem. For whatever reason, the administration cozies up to them and lends them an incredible amount of line to seed falsehoods and other propaganda. For example, look at some of the past 'rep hunts' that were actually coordinated by the antiTrump faction. 
> 
> Now that's  not to say that there aren't those of the white nationalist stripe who have not violated the community guidelines, but there appears to be two set of rules. I had bans extended out of the blue to 3 and 4 months (WHILE I WAS STILL BANNED!) with no explanation! This place is under a dubious influence that scares me. Furthermore, no one has ever solicited for donations for Donald Trump or asked for campaign help, yet you would think by the hysterical reactions from the usual suspects, that this forum is being actively being used to recruit.


There is no intent for there to be a double standard, you're welcome to PM me specific issues or just flag posts that violate the guidelines. Our goals is to moderate to the guidelines. Your bans have been for pushing white nationalism which is something that we have a major issue with since it can poorly reflect on the sites Mission.

----------


## AuH20

> There is no intent for there to be a double standard, you're welcome to PM me specific issues or just flag posts that violate the guidelines. Our goals is to moderate to the guidelines. Your bans have been for pushing white nationalism which is something that we have a major issue with since it can poorly reflect on the sites Mission.


I'm glad you weighed in, since I am not privy to the internal workings of your organization. However, I still stand by my contention that anti-Trump forces may garner the benefit of the doubt in terms of pushing falsehoods and creating a mob effect of conformity. But I understand that you and your staff may have not intended for that  trend to occur. 

Now to your point about my 'white nationalism' violations.  In my case, I believe that my disgruntled nature has been conflated as white nationalism because that's the easy scapegoat and there has been obvious transgressions by white nationalists in the past on this forum. One who wants to enforce national borders and refute Cultural Marxist lies does not make one a 'white nationalist.'  

With that said, I have shown the willingness to attack every precious subgroup, including whites for their self-inflicted flaws more often than not. If anything, I do plead guilty for being an insensitive misanthrope who will rip apart concocted lies that professional victims like to hide behind. Furthermore,  I have never pushed for a white only nation or anything resembling it. 

Anyway, I just wanted to communicate this to, since sometimes it's easier to fall back on what you heard from third parties. In closing, I appreciate the feedback and I will try to adhere to the guidelines.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

The alt-right is not a libertarian movement, though there are libertarian elements within the alt-right. Pretty simple stuff. A country can't demonize whites, flood countries with low IQ and remove conservative politics from the mainstream due to voter demographics without a backlash. Progressives, globalists, left-libertarians and anyone else who hates them should look in the mirror; they caused this.

BTW, #NRx>#altright.

----------


## Danke



----------


## John F Kennedy III

> The forum hasn't become anything. There are just a few loud voice piping white nationalist stuff into the forum but they have allies who support them because they oppose anyone trying to moderate the forum by telling them to go away. But once the few loud voice go away, their passive supporters also quiets down.
> 
> Remember the last time they banned AuH20, all this stuff went to a minimum. The passive supporters are not going to like it but if the mods can muster the courage to do that again, this stuff will stop if only for the duration of the ban


How do they not permaban a racist?

----------


## juleswin

> How do they not permaban a racist?


Forget about banning him for the race baiting stuff he posts all the time, how about the fact that he was hardcore Trump supporting while Rand was in the race and still contesting. He would come out here and post dozens of articles on why Trump is good for liberty even the OP article trying to connect Ron Paul with the alt right when the alt right abhors libertarianism. He does this knowing that the ideologies supported by the people he supports goes against the mission of the website and liberty movement and it annoys most members with the exception of passive supporters who apparently are more annoyed by people tell AuH2O what not to post on the website.

I would be just fine if all he did was post race baiting threads.

----------


## silverhandorder

I am a bit bothered by white nationalist stuff as well. I was saying last year that this will happen. I said wait till whites get scared then they will really f@ck $#@! up. And it is starting to happen. 

Honestly if we didn't have such bad enemies this stuff wouldn't be an issue. For example BLM is really nasty stuff. Its as bad as KKK. Now do you see KKK anywhere? No. But you see BLM. So I would say we need to destroy BLM before we police our own. Priorities people.

Edit: and like BLM I could think of another ten groups that need to be prioritized. LaRaza, Bernie Bros, Hillary and etc.

----------


## AuH20

> Forget about banning him for the race baiting stuff he posts all the time, how about the fact that he was hardcore Trump supporting while Rand was in the race and still contesting. He would come out here and post dozens of articles on why Trump is good for liberty even the OP article trying to connect Ron Paul with the alt right when the alt right abhors libertarianism. He does this knowing that the ideologies supported by the people he supports goes against the mission of the website and liberty movement and it annoys most members with the exception of passive supporters who apparently are more annoyed by people tell AuH2O what not to post on the website.
> 
> I would be just fine if all he did was post race baiting threads.


I post so-called 'race baiting' threads intentionally because I am disgusted that a certain group continuously blames their own cultural dysfunction exclusively on police as well as 'white' taxpayers. At some point, one has to look at the mirror and change.

*If 'x' is a constant, 'y' has to change or the same results will continue to manifest.* We live in a chaotic world in where the only modicum of control lies within the consciousness of an individual. Passing the buck consistently is both infantile and counterproductive. The scary thing is that this forum actually has enablers who help them pass the buck! We can all agree that police, the justice system and our entire societal system is hopelessly corrupt, but at the end of the day the individual makes the final determination to not play the fool. I could be burning down businesses too, but where does that get me?

----------


## juleswin

> I post so-called 'race baiting' threads intentionally because I am disgusted that a certain group continuously blames their own cultural dysfunction exclusively on police as well as 'white' taxpayers. At some point, one has to look at the mirror and change.
> 
> If x is a constant, y has to change. We live in a chaotic world in which only the individual can control their behavior. Passing the buck is both infantile and counterproductive. The scary thing is that this forum actually has enablers who help them pass the buck! We can all agree that police, the justice system and our entire societal system is hopelessly corrupt, but at the end of the day the individual makes the final determination to not play the fool.


Didn't I say that I did not have a problem with that? Btw, a few days back, you posted a video of some black protester getting hit by a car. You comment on it was how funny the distraught camera gal videoing the effect was sounding. That was just pure garbage that had nothing to do with addressing one race's cultural dysfunction and blaming white tax payers for their problem and it wasn't funny at all.  

Another disturbing post of yours was when someone said something about Rand Paul's outreach to the black community, saying that Rand wants to unite the country and bring us together, you chimed in saying something to the effect of "we don't want to be united". I think for reasons that maybe very legitimate, you really do not like black people and I am OK with that. Its just that your race baiting posts goes way beyond addressing the cultural dysfunction and blaming white tax payers for their problem.

----------


## AuH20

> Didn't I say that I did not have a problem with that? Btw, a few days back, you posted a video of some black protester getting hit by a car. You comment on it was how funny the distraught camera gal videoing the effect was sounding. That was just pure garbage that had nothing to do with addressing one race's cultural dysfunction and blaming white tax payers for their problem and it wasn't funny at all.


I should have clarified what I specifically found amusing. I was not mocking the guy who got hit by the vehicle.  However, the hysterical woman's insinuation that police or another group were 'somehow' shooting at the protesters was what I found to be highly comical. It was later disclosed that a few idiots in that group decided it was a good idea to unload their weapons on the vehicle.




> Another disturbing post of yours was when someone said something about Rand Paul's outreach to the black community, saying that Rand wants to unite the country and bring us together, you chimed in saying something to the effect of "we don't want to be united". I think for reasons that maybe very legitimate, you really do not like black people and I am OK with that. Its just that your race baiting posts goes way beyond addressing the cultural dysfunction and blaming white tax payers for their problem.


The promise of Unification is a political platitude used for deceit more than not. We supposedly 'unified' for Obamacare and TARP. Some of the worst legislation has been rolled through under the guise of bipartisanship. I personally hate the language of the enemy so that struck a chord. I have no problem with people living together in harmony, while not exploiting each other.

Now to your second point. I don't hate black people. I hate what black people have fallen for. And this general distaste would probably apply to a a majority of the whites in this country. 

I also think that whites of today are looking at their future selves in the black community. You can already see it to a degree with the out of control heroin epidemic. Once learned hopelessness sets in, generational decline isn't far off. Go see the white ghettos that are springing up in Iowa and other midwestern locales.

----------


## TheCount

> For example BLM is really nasty stuff. Its as bad as KKK.


Please tell me this is sarcasm.





> So I would say we need to destroy BLM before we police our own. Priorities people.


Our own?  You and the mouse?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Forget about banning him for the race baiting stuff he posts all the time, how about the fact that he was hardcore Trump supporting while Rand was in the race and still contesting. He would come out here and post dozens of articles on why Trump is good for liberty even the OP article trying to connect Ron Paul with the alt right when the alt right abhors libertarianism. He does this knowing that the ideologies supported by the people he supports goes against the mission of the website and liberty movement and it annoys most members with the exception of passive supporters who apparently are more annoyed by people tell AuH2O what not to post on the website.
> 
> I would be just fine if all he did was post race baiting threads.


I'm no Rand supporter, but if someone thinks Trump is the better Liberty candidate, they are lying to themselves.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Please tell me this is sarcasm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our own?  You and the mouse?


I hope not. They are as bad as the KKK.

----------


## Danke

Tomorrow in Reno, Hillary Clinton will speak about—as her press office put it—"Donald Trump and his advisors' embrace of the disturbing 'alt-right' political philosophy." Whether or not that speech helps Clinton's presidential bid, it will almost certainly help the alt-right.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/24/cl...rump-alt-right

----------


## RandallFan

I think the relatively unknown Morrakiu youtube channel is the funniest & most interesting alt right website.




He does have videos where he agrees with traditional modern dem liberals.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Christ, what the forum has become. SMDH.


If you look at web traffic within the libertyverse over the last few months, you find some interesting trends.

RPF and LRC (lots of pro-Trump/alt-right content) are way down.

Reason, CATO, and the LvMI (little if any pro-Trump/alt-right content) are way up.

Coincidence? 

Maybe

...or maybe, despite monstrosities like "libertarians for Trump," most libertarians (online at least) still loathe him and what he represents.

Before Bryan feels the need to jump in, yes, I know, RPF is not officially pro-Trump (in fact it's officially anti-Trump). 

But a newcomer unfamiliar with that policy might be forgiven for thinking it's pro-Trump by looking at what's posted here on routine basis.

----------


## AuH20

> I think the relatively unknown Morrakiu youtube channel is the funniest & most interesting alt right website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He does have videos where he agrees with traditional modern dem liberals.


Did you see this one? The lyrics are hilarious. There is some sophistry & falsehoods thrown in, but some good points as well.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

^^^like that, for instance

----------


## CPUd



----------


## AuH20

Jack Hunter coined the term? I never knew this.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/24/wh...the-alt-right/




> The alt right is an online movement opposed to political correctness, multiculturalism, feminism and mainstream conservatism. It’s primarily comprised of young white men. While a large portion of its adherents are white nationalists, not all of the folks tweeting out the hashtag are concerned with enforcing Aryan supremacy. The alt right is an umbrella term which includes multiple ideologies — everyone from anarcho-capitalists, neo-monarchists, American nationalists, men’s rights advocates, “identitarians,” and even out-and-out neo-Nazis all claim to be apart of the alt right.
> 
> The main activity of the alt right is trolling. The Google definition of trolling is to “make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.” The alt right getting a speech from Hillary Clinton is a sign their trolling is working.
> 
> Where does the alt right come from? The term comes from “alternative right,” which was first formulated near the end of the Bush presidency to describe the anti-Bush Right. Ron Paul fans, paleoconservatives and anyone else who opposed the policies of the Bush administration — particularly the Iraq war — could be placed under this umbrella in the beginning. That was how it was described by future Rand Paul adviser Jack Hunter in a 2009 article urging for the movement to take a more libertarian turn.

----------


## silverhandorder

> If you look at web traffic within the libertyverse over the last few months, you find some interesting trends.
> 
> RPF and LRC (lots of pro-Trump/alt-right content) are way down.
> 
> Reason, CATO, and the LvMI (little if any pro-Trump/alt-right content) are way up.
> 
> Coincidence? 
> 
> Maybe
> ...


Your pearls sir.

----------


## wizardwatson

> The alt-right is not a libertarian movement, though there are libertarian elements within the alt-right. Pretty simple stuff. A country can't demonize whites, flood countries with low IQ and remove conservative politics from the mainstream due to voter demographics without a backlash. Progressives, globalists, left-libertarians and anyone else who hates them should look in the mirror; they caused this.
> 
> BTW, #NRx>#altright.


BTW, #Christ>#NRx+(all other lame philosophy combined).

*"Liberty comes from the Creator."  - Ron Paul*

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

> BTW, #Christ>#NRx+(all other lame philosophy combined).
> 
> *"Liberty comes from the Creator."  - Ron Paul*


You can say the idea of Liberty comes from the Creator, but God does absolutely nothing to ensure people adhere, which kind of makes it irrelevant in everyday life. As in, it takes active believers living and promoting liberty to make it functionally relevant on earth. A person on welfare for example does not believe in liberty, they can't because they know 100% the money they receive is taken by threat of violence or actual violence. All welfare recipients are non-liberty believers. All government workers do not believe in liberty for the same reason. All people in the US MILITARY ARE ANTI-LIBERTY. All devout Islamic people do not believe in liberty. All extremists that believe in reparations are non-liberty believers. etc... etc.. etc.. As all those things require force to implement. 

If liberty requires adherence to the NAP, then all those groups are anti-Christian God, if in fact "Liberty comes from the Creator" as they all profit from force on their behalf.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> How do they not permaban a racist?


Wow, I thought you supported freedom of speech, and diversity of opinion?

Everything is now racist, so nothing is racist.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I think that's your number one problem. You have become trapped in a herd game that you cannot possibly win.
> 
> Let me let you in on a little secret. They think WE ARE ALL RACISTS. Anyone who advocates for a smaller state or personal sovereignty is always affixed with a racist label by the propaganda organs in this country. 
> 
>  I have read articles outlining why Gary Johnson supporters are unabashed racists. Yes, squishy Penn Jilette like Gary Johnson supporters have been tarnished with the Scarlet 'R'. So stop worrying about what THESE HORRIBLE PEOPLE THINK and focus on the goals at hand. Stop lending power to the words that they so shamelessly use and the quicker they will flame out from overuse.


Of course 'they' think we're all racists.  And of course even those who don't will happily perpetuate the notion because it undermines the credibility of the libertarian argument.  

However, surprising as it is to have to point this out, there are actual racists out there, and some of them with a rather poor understanding of the principles underlying libertarianism are attempting to latch onto the philosophy and it's luminaries.  

Ron Paul does not espouse a racist world viewpoint.  As libertarians (and I'm using that term rather broadly in this post in general), we recognize that racism is a collectivist viewpoint - I'm not a "race denier" in that I recognize there are distinct races; however, that in no way contradicts the fact that human beings are individually distinct and their race or ethnicity or any other superficiality determine their value.  We may recognize some generalities among certain categorized human beings, but a libertarian does not assess the worth of one human being based upon those arbitrary categories.  

Only simple-minded jackasses do.

You yourself may not be a racist - I don't know and I really don't give a $#@!.  And there may well be many folks who identify themselves as members of the "alt-right" who aren't racist, either.  But don't try to pretend that posting videos with all of this code language and imagery isn't racist.  Everyone knows what a "cuck" is, and it's not some coincidental use of a word.  It's an intentional signal, and it's racist in origin.  I mean, if I try to claim I'm not a racist I just happen to refer to black folks as 'monkeys', I'd be full of $#@!, and everyone would know it.  Same goes for you and the crowd you're choosing to run with.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Wow, I thought you supported freedom of speech, and diversity of opinion?


What the hell are you talking about?  You have no 'freedom of speech' here.  You post here on the good grace of the owner of this site and his moderators.  If he doesn't like what you're saying, you get thrown out, period.

And I for one would applaud him if he did.  Not because I don't want to debate you - no challenge there, really - but because the apparent pervasiveness of the garbage you and your ilk purvey in might be associated with Ron Paul and libertarianism generally by others who come here looking for information.

----------


## Danke

> Of course 'they' think we're all racists.  And of course even those who don't will happily perpetuate the notion because it undermines the credibility of the libertarian argument.  
> 
> However, surprising as it is to have to point this out, there are actual racists out there, and some of them with a rather poor understanding of the principles underlying libertarianism are attempting to latch onto the philosophy and it's luminaries.  
> 
> Ron Paul does not espouse a racist world viewpoint.  As libertarians (and I'm using that term rather broadly in this post in general), we recognize that racism is a collectivist viewpoint - I'm not a "race denier" in that I recognize there are distinct races; however, that in no way contradicts the fact that human beings are individually distinct and their race or ethnicity or any other superficiality determine their value.  We may recognize some generalities among certain categorized human beings, but a libertarian does not assess the worth of one human being based upon those arbitrary categories.  
> 
> Only simple-minded jackasses do.
> 
> You yourself may not be a racist - I don't know and I really don't give a $#@!.  And there may well be many folks who identify themselves as members of the "alt-right" who aren't racist, either.  But don't try to pretend that posting videos with all of this code language and imagery isn't racist.  Everyone knows what a "cuck" is, and it's not some coincidental use of a word.  It's an intentional signal, and it's racist in origin.  I mean, if I try to claim I'm not a racist I just happen to refer to black folks as 'monkeys', I'd be full of $#@!, and everyone would know it.  Same goes for you and the crowd you're choosing to run with.



Can you explain to me what a "cuck" is?  Or should I say, "cuckservative"?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Can you explain to me what a "cuck" is?  Or should I say, "cuckservative"?





> People are either being deceptive or are ignorant of the fact that the popular internet usage of the "cuck-" root is racist - a "cuckold" is an emasculated white men whose women prefer to have sex with black males.
> 
> Referring to people as a "cuck" infers that they're pussified, and are being dominated by teh negroes.


//

----------


## Danke

> //


Not quite,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckold

----------


## silverhandorder

> Please tell me this is sarcasm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our own?  You and the mouse?


Oh look at you clutch your pearls. I don't think you are conservative or libertarian. BLM is a good litmus test.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Not quite,
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckold


Okay.  The implicit racism is just a coincidence.  

Carry on.

----------


## Danke

> Okay.  The implicit racism is just a coincidence.  
> 
> Carry on.


Lol.  Someone has been watching too much porn.

Carry on.

----------


## silverhandorder

> Okay.  The implicit racism is just a coincidence.  
> 
> Carry on.


Oh the implicit racism. 

Well I explicitly think you are just grabbing at straws. It don't work anymore.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Please understand that I really don't give a s*** what either of you think. There's not a person on this forum that I know personally and I don't post here enough to care. It's clear that the alt Right Movement bears some strong racist undertones.  If you both want to pretend that the collectivist language of race, the Nazi inspired graphics, and the use of cuckold are poetic license or just coincidence that's fine I don't care.  I would say it's safe to assume that isnt the case. I would say it's safe to assume that you know exactly what it is. It's a shame you're too damned scared to just be honest about it.  

And for the record I don't give a f*** what the left or black people or anybody thinks of me either.  I'm calling a spade a spade on this.  Racial identity is a collectivist concept and has no place libertarian thought.

----------


## wizardwatson

> You can say the idea of Liberty comes from the Creator, but God does absolutely nothing to ensure people adhere, which kind of makes it irrelevant in everyday life. As in, it takes active believers living and promoting liberty to make it functionally relevant on earth. A person on welfare for example does not believe in liberty, they can't because they know 100% the money they receive is taken by threat of violence or actual violence. All welfare recipients are non-liberty believers. All government workers do not believe in liberty for the same reason. All people in the US MILITARY ARE ANTI-LIBERTY. All devout Islamic people do not believe in liberty. All extremists that believe in reparations are non-liberty believers. etc... etc.. etc.. As all those things require force to implement. 
> 
> If liberty requires adherence to the NAP, then all those groups are anti-Christian God, if in fact "Liberty comes from the Creator" as they all profit from force on their behalf.


I only chimed in to remind certain people here on this thread that there are some of us who don't buy into this idea that Neo-Reactionary/Paleo philosophies are worth a crap, and also to remind those same people that Ron Paul, whose ideas this site was founded on, was not an amoralist, and would in no way condone these monarchist/nationalistic governmental systems/philosophies that people float around.

So on the surface, my comment wasn't meant to be insightful or "grasped" at all.  It was more of a way of reminding people that Ron Paul is a Christian and wouldn't at all approve of all these half-baked philosophies.  Just throwing some holy water at some of the demons lurking around here.

*But since you responded...*

We both posted a video, me of Ron Paul speaking more to the philosophical/theological roots of liberty, and you of Ron Paul broadly defining liberty in a very secular way, in relation to "not using force".

I think though, in the video you posted Ron is over-generalizing to that lady.  People who say "NAP" really mean don't "initiate" force.  And Ron I think is referring to "not using force", not so much in the NAP sense, but in the sense of not achieving political goals via the use of force.  As to whether taxes are part of that unjust force, I would say they don't have to be, but pretty much are now at this point in our nation.  If the taxes are constitutional, and the use of those revenues is for consitutionally delimited powers, then it doesn't necessarily have to be the case that "taxes are coercion" or otherwise unjust.  

Taxes, revenues should be raised in a just manner for a just cause.  If done that way, then they don't have to be in and of themselves an injustice.

Of course, given all the unconsitutional entities and programs that currently exist, the current tax system, welfare system, and military system are all part of this unjust system as you point out.

There are people who have tried to twist the idea of "liberty" to mean prosperity.  But liberty really just means "freedom from injustice", or "freedom from tyranny".  As Ron Paul outlines in Liberty Defined, "exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others".

Ron Paul says it that way to outline, not so much what you ought to do as what you ought not do.  "Interfering" with your neighbors "rights" is to oppress him.  So while nowadays people like to talk about "rights" rather than "justice", I believe justice is the better vocabularly.  Easier to say "don't oppress your neighbor" than "exercise your rights without interfering with the rights of others".  Because this just begs the question, "what DO I have the right to do?"  And the answer is, "well, you DON'T have the right to oppress your neighbor.  Rob him of his life, his property, enslave him, etc."

The two most obvious things are you don't take a man's property and you don't take a man's life.

So what is liberty, ultimately?  It's just not being unjust.  Being righteous.  Doing the right thing.  Adhering to the rule of law.  In this country, on a political level, that means following the constitution.  It's really only "special" in this time and place because no one is adhering, or adherence is rare at least.

Really it's common sense that you don't achieve your goals with blind oppressive force.  But current society is in such a state, where violence is looked upon as a virtue and they need to be educated better.




> You can say the idea of Liberty comes from the Creator, but God does absolutely nothing to ensure people adhere, which kind of makes it irrelevant in everyday life. As in, it takes active believers living and promoting liberty to make it functionally relevant on earth.


The whole point of laying all my thoughts on "liberty" out, was simply to make clear that to me, nothing is really new or special about the "philosophy" of liberty.  It's simply the enlightened view that the rule of law is preferable to tribalism/nationalism/collectivism with 'might makes right' at its root.

And when we talk about law, people will ask "what law?"  As in, who decides what law is?  Adherents of "natural law" will dance around the idea of the law coming from somewhere, but Christians know exactly where the law comes from, or at least, they believe it comes from somewhere particular.

It is true that we know right from wrong by our own conscious.  Even the bible says this:  Jeremiah 31:33 "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts".

But if you forget who put that law there, which nations and men most certainly have, it isn't good for you.  Far from being irrelevant, detaching the concept of righteousness, freedom, liberty, "goodness" from the Author of it, is precisely the root of the problem.  In His view anyway.

...

Now, I could go into a rant concerning the Christian mechanics of why man has fallen away, and God's reasons for allowing it but I think you're coming from a more pragmatic angle.  In essence, "Well, God clearly isn't showing himself so we're on our own to make a better world."

I'm also of this mindset, or at least have been historically.  Last couple years or so I've been in a more contemplative mindset, but I get it.

What I found though in my later attempts at furthering group action is that there indeed is a spiritual component (mental if you prefer) that prevents group action.  You mention "active believers living and promoting liberty" but where are they?  And what is the test?

It is a small matter to concoct strategies for group action.  I'm no expert but even I've outlined a few here and there.  But any rule-based economic idea invariably involves other humans imagining in their minds how others will participate in the system.  And the way they envision other humans participating is a good reflection on how they themselves would think and act in the system.  And even though people generally assume a minority of other humans are "bad actors", their actions and assessment of rule-based systems seems to indicate they believe the vast majority of people are either immoral, or prone to acting immoral where even a minimal incentive to act immoral exists.

This isn't to say the vast majority of humans aren't immoral or wicked.  Certainly a Christian can't argue here.

But what ARE we to do as individuals when we don't even know if we are around individuals who intend to do good in life?  Do we just give them the benefit of the doubt?  What is the test of goodness?  How do we know whether anyone on this forum is truly sincere about liberty and not simply filled with vanity and delighting in hearing themselves talk?

I used to think Ron Paul's ideas were the litmus test.  But now he's mostly a memory.  Because he was popular much of his vocabulary has been co-opted and everyone tries to sound like him, without taking the essence along with it.

So I take refuge in where all this "law" stuff ultimately originated:  The judeo-christian belief system.  It may not be truly "believed" but by a tiny minority these days, but it is indeed, in my opinion, intellectually unassailable for one who understands it correctly.  And I believe it's Paul's faith that has made him shining light in a sea of cookie-cutter corrupt politicians.

So I don't think it's "irrelevant" to mention liberty comes from the Creator.  It points to the root of the law.  Who gave you the life that you live, and wrote the commandments in stone that forbids others to destroy it.  

But I concede your point that from a pragmatic angle (rather than a spiritual angle, which might be useless to the secular and agnostic), in relation to "the state of the world and society" it might seem fruitless.  For that we do need strategies and plans and rule-based solutions.  But again, where is the men who would follow such a thing?  What is the test?  We're just Pitt talking to Willis in the asylum.

I haven't even been motivated to write/post much lately.  Don't know what to say anymore really.  Don't know who would hear.  Not despairing about it or anything, just don't have any ideas at the moment I think are worth speaking about.  Still reading and thinking as usual.  

Not closing the door either, if I see someone with real interest to talk, or alternatively, I see some idiot spreading evil and lies.  That tends to motivate me too.

----------


## Origanalist

> I hope not. They are as bad as the KKK.


Absolutely. And better connected.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

lol Danke neg rep'd me with the comment, "Idiot".  

Yeah.  I'm the idiot.  I'm the one who can't support my position logically.  

I'm not going to neg rep you back.  I'm going to tell you publicly - go fist yourself.

----------


## Danke

> lol Danke neg rep'd me with the comment, "Idiot".  
> 
> Yeah.  I'm the idiot.  I'm the one who can't support my position logically.  
> 
> I'm not going to neg rep you back.  I'm going to tell you publicly - go fist yourself.


Idiot.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Idiot.


Compelling.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Wow, I thought you supported freedom of speech, and diversity of opinion?
> 
> Everything is now racist, so nothing is racist.


1. Who are you?

2. I do support freedom of speech, but if you had been here over the years, it's crazy to think AUH20 hasn't been permabanned when countless others have been for far less.

----------


## AuH20

> 1. Who are you?
> 
> 2. I do support freedom of speech, but if you had been here over the years, it's crazy to think AUH20 hasn't been permabanned when countless others have been for far less.


I dance between the raindrops. (In all seriousness, I've served my time honorably)

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> 1. Who are you?
> 
> 2. I do support freedom of speech, but if you had been here over the years, it's crazy to think AUH20 hasn't been permabanned when countless others have been for far less.


The future of America and Liberty.

Really, the "He is a "racist" so ban him" supports freedom of speech, how odd..

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> The future of America and Liberty.
> 
> Really, the "He is a "racist" so ban him" supports freedom of speech, how odd..


Work on your reading comprehension.

----------


## Origanalist

> The future of America and Liberty.
> 
> .....


Oh holy hell, now I really don't like you. You're just another true believer. You have come in a multitude of forms over history and always caused misery. Get $#@!ing Lost.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The future of America and Liberty.


No.  You're a moron.  You wouldn't know 'liberty' if it bit you on the ass.  




> Really, the "He is a "racist" so ban him" supports freedom of speech, how odd..


Please see above.

----------


## CCTelander

> The future of America and Liberty...



Full of yourself much?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Oh holy hell, now I really don't like you. You're just another true believer. You have come in a multitude of forms over history and always caused misery. Get $#@!ing Lost.


No, I am staying, if you love "diversity" so much then move to Mexico or South Africa.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

ahhh FFS.  Why for the love of Pete are we, in 2016 having to defend Ron Paul against _former allies_ trying to paint him as a f'n neo nazi?

Just because YOU love the Nazis doesn't mean everyone else does, and just because YOU think Nazis are cool doesn't auto-magically make everyone you don't hate a Nazi.

Tolerating this crap will not only kill this site, but also set back our entire movement by decades.

----------


## Smitty

> a.set back our entire movement by decades.



Decades?

Unless something happens to turn the country off of its current path, the future of western culture in America will be measured in increments much smaller than decades.

If Hillary gets elected, the Democrats will grant citizenship to enough Democrat voting illegals to turn Texas blue,...then you can forget about anything remotely resembling liberty in this country forever.

----------


## AuH20

> Decades?
> 
> Unless something happens to turn the country off of its current path, the future of western culture in America will be measured in increments much smaller than decades.
> 
> If Hillary gets elected, the Democrats will grant citizenship to enough Democrat voting illegals to turn Texas blue,...then you can forget about anything remotely resembling liberty in this country forever.


If libertarians think that the odds are stocked against them now, just wait until Hillary is done. Ron Paul may be battling Lyndon Larouche for the same street corner after these megalomaniacs are done.

----------


## AuH20

> ahhh FFS.  Why for the love of Pete are we, in 2016 having to defend Ron Paul against _former allies_ trying to paint him as a f'n neo nazi?
> 
> Just because YOU love the Nazis doesn't mean everyone else does, and just because YOU think Nazis are cool doesn't auto-magically make everyone you don't hate a Nazi.
> 
> Tolerating this crap will not only kill this site, but also set back our entire movement by decades.


Godwin's Law. You were the last one who I thought would violate it.

----------


## juleswin

> Godwin's Law. You were the last one who I thought would violate it.


So is there ever a good time to invoke Hitler during a conversation or are we never to invoke Hilter inorder not to violate some internet law?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Godwin's Law. You were the last one who I thought would violate it.


Do you understand the meanings of the words you use?

Gunny did not "violate" Godwin's Law. If anything, he "obeyed" it.

In order to "violate" it, he would have had to NOT reference Hitler or the Nazis.

And as Mike Godwin himself has pointed out, satisfying the conditions of his "law" is NOT a valid basis for objecting to such references.

I hereby propose Godwin's Meta-Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability that some lamer will invoke Godwin's Law (because he has no rebuttal to offer) approaches one."

----------


## AuH20

> So is there ever a good time to invoke Hitler during a conversation or are we never to invoke Hilter inorder not to violate some internet law?


These hysterical accusations are spurious at best. Do you really think there are actually Nazis that frequent this board for kicks? 

Hitler died on April 30, 1945. So the specter of Nazism is chasing us 71 years later in the mainland United States? Seriously...........

And for the record, I've been on this site for little over 7 years and I've only really seen one overtly 'Nazi' like thread. It was entitled 'Hitler wasn't a bad guy' or something along those lines.

----------


## Origanalist

> No, I am staying, if you love "diversity" so much then move to Mexico or South Africa.


Your choice. But I'm not going anywhere either. I have 5 grandsons and 3 step grandkids and I'm not letting little Bolsheviks like you take control any more than your photographic negatives.

----------


## AuH20

Nazis have come to Ron Paul forums to recruit persons who can't even agree amongst themselves, never mind submit to a completely anti-libertarian platform. These are some brilliant Nazis. Sounds like they would put Wernher von Braun to shame.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Godwin's Law. You were the last one who I thought would violate it.


Uhh, _you_ are the one posting things here associating _Ron Paul_ with a group that includes Stormfront, an association which he himself rejects, and all I did was point that out.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Your choice. But I'm not going anywhere either. I have 5 grandsons and 3 step grandkids and I'm not letting little Bolsheviks like you take control any more than your photographic negatives.


"Anyone who does not want open borders and to be replaced is s statist" yeah,no.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> "Fighting the establishment" means opposing and trying to reverse their *policies*. 
> 
> ....and Trump agrees with the bipartisan consensus in all important respects, except on trade and immigration, where he's actually _worse.
> 
> _"Fighting the establishment" does NOT mean have a series of childish personal food fights with them over trivia. 
> 
> ....and that is the extent to the which Trump "fights the establishment."


Yet, you are supporting an open borders, gun-grabbing, world government, establishment candidate team of Johnson/Weld.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> ahhh FFS.  Why for the love of Pete are we, in 2016 having to defend Ron Paul against _former allies_ trying to paint him as a f'n neo nazi?
> 
> Just because YOU love the Nazis doesn't mean everyone else does, and just because YOU think Nazis are cool doesn't auto-magically make everyone you don't hate a Nazi.
> 
> Tolerating this crap will not only kill this site, but also set back our entire movement by decades.


What's most telling is that the initial responses from the Trumpkins didn't deny anything with regard to their affinity for the radical European right.

----------


## silverhandorder

> What's most telling is that the initial responses from the Trumpkins didn't deny anything with regard to their affinity for the radical European right.


SPLC labels Mises Institute "White Supremacist Organization" Headline in New Posts today. Yeah welcome you can join us.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> SPLC labels Mises Institute "White Supremacist Organization" Headline in New Posts today. Yeah welcome you can join us.


Yes, of course.  

The difference is that there is nothing at all racist about LvMI, whereas there are obvious, overt racist tendencies within the so-called Alt-Right movement.  

How $#@!ing hard is this?

----------


## silverhandorder

> Yes, of course.  
> 
> The difference is that there is nothing at all racist about LvMI, whereas there are obvious, overt racist tendencies within the so-called Alt-Right movement.  
> 
> How $#@!ing hard is this?


It's so hard that I can't sleep at night.

Edit: *Son* of Liberty sounds a little bit racist to me.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> SPLC labels Mises Institute "White Supremacist Organization" Headline in New Posts today. Yeah welcome you can join us.


You do realize that you just provided evidence that supports ASoL's claims, don't you?




> Of course 'they' think we're all racists.  And of course even those who don't will happily perpetuate the notion because it undermines the credibility of the libertarian argument.





> [...] the garbage [...] might be associated with Ron Paul and libertarianism generally by others [...]

----------


## silverhandorder

> You do realize that you just provided evidence that supports ASoL's claims, don't you?


No his argument is that we should police our own when the enemy never does and uses that to club us over the head for it.

You are like gallant British lining up in lines to shoot while Americans are taking cover.

----------


## Origanalist

> No his argument is that we should police our own when the enemy never does and uses that to club us over the head for it.
> 
> You are like gallant British lining up in lines to shoot while Americans are taking cover.


Bad analogy. You're the ones supporting the crown not us. Not to mention also being the ones who traveled here in support of something we don't want.

----------


## CCTelander

> No *his argument is that we should police our own when the enemy never does and uses that to club us over the head for it.*
> 
> You are like gallant British lining up in lines to shoot while Americans are taking cover.



Awww. Does the precious little snowflake need a safe space? What are we in Kindergarten? "He did it too!"

Grow up.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> No his argument is that we should police our own when the enemy never does and uses that to club us over the head for it.


The fact that "the enemy never does" is one of the things that makes them "the enemy."
(If "the enemy" jumped off a bridge, would you jump off a bridge, too?)

Just SMH ... "We should become what our enemies gratuitously, opportunistically and falsely accuse us of being" ...

Yeah, good luck with that. That won't play right into their hands at all ...

----------


## silverhandorder

The idea that people on the right are more racist than left is ridiculous. They have BLM enough said.

----------


## AuH20

> No his argument is that we should police our own when the enemy never does and uses that to club us over the head for it.
> 
> You are like gallant British lining up in lines to shoot while Americans are taking cover.


Battered spouse syndrome in some respects. Look what the TPTB did to Ron Paul and we still have people perpetuating the establishment's game on others.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> The idea that people on the right are more racist than left is ridiculous. They have BLM enough said.


Now you're just pulling $#@! out your ass.

No one said that people on the right are more racist than the left.

The BLM racists and the Alt-Right racists deserve one another.

They're all a bunch of goddam collectivist $#@!s.

$#@! 'em all. $#@! 'em all with rusty spikes.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> No his argument is that we should police our own when the enemy never does and uses that to club us over the head for it.
> 
> You are like gallant British lining up in lines to shoot while Americans are taking cover.


If you want to align yourself with collectivists such as those who trawl the "alt-right" waters, by all means please do.  Par for the $#@!ing course anyway.  Just don't try associating Ron with it.  

AGAIN, please note that I'm not specifically calling you a racist, or calling the entire "alt-right" (I swear, these names...) racist.  However, there's no denying that a notable percentage of folks within that movement are all too comfortable with it.  And again, racism is a collectivist worldview and therefore obviously has no place in an individualist philosophy.  

The alt-right, as far as I can tell, is just another run-of-the-mill nativist right wing movement.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Battered spouse syndrome in some respects. Look what the TPTB did to Ron Paul and we still have people perpetuating the establishment's game on others.


You're being purposefully obtuse.  That, or you've suffered a brain injury since I last posted here regularly.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Battered spouse syndrome in some respects. Look what the TPTB did to Ron Paul and we still have people perpetuating the establishment's game on others.


The difference is that Ron Paul is not a race-obsessed hack like so many among the BLMers and Alt-Righters are. But by all means, go on dancing to the tune called by the $#@!s on the other "side" by offering excuses for the $#@!s on your "side." I'm sure that "TPTB" sincerely appreciate your active compliance with and willing cooperation in the maintenance and further advancement of their dialectic ...

----------


## CCTelander

> The difference is that Ron Paul is not a race-obsessed hack like so many among the BLMers and Alt-Righters are.
> 
> But by all means, go on dancing to the tune called by the $#@!s on the other "side" by offering excuses for $#@!s on your "side."
> 
> I'm sure that "TPTB" sincerely appreciate your active and willing cooperation in the maintenance of their dialectic.



"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again."

----------


## CPUd

Video recap of this thread:

----------


## Origanalist

nvrmnd...

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The idea that people on the right are more racist than left is ridiculous. They have BLM enough said.


Suppose, for the sake of argument, that BLM types are vastly more racist than the alt-right.

...why would that matter?

Race games are obviously a sideshow.

What actually matters is the number of chickens in each pot.

...and whether the state police can seize said chickens from said pots without due process.

...or kill everything in the vicinity of said pot by use of tomahawk missiles. 

Those things (life, liberty, and property) are what actually matter. 

Not which tribe most insults the other...

...or do you disagree?

----------


## silverhandorder

> Suppose, for the sake of argument, that BLM types are vastly more racist than the alt-right.
> 
> ...why would that matter?
> 
> Race games are obviously a sideshow.
> 
> What actually matters is the number of chickens in each pot.
> 
> ...and whether the state police can seize said chickens from said pots without due process.
> ...


You can't discount it. All I hear day and night is race race race. I don't give a f@ck about it. And the more it gets pushed down my through the more I want to go scorched earth on it.


I am inclined not to vote. And after this election I am going to go back to doing just that.

----------


## AuH20

> You can't discount it. All I hear day and night is race race race. I don't give a f@ck about it. And the more it gets pushed down my through the more I want to go scorched earth on it.
> 
> 
> I am inclined not to vote. And after this election I am going to go back to doing just that.


This country has been destroyed through deceptive policies involving race and gender. And some people still haven't gotten the memo so to speak. It's always advertised as being for 'altruism' & 'equality' and then the masterminds  hastily leave with their spoils through the backdoor. Just look at what they did with the 14th amendment and the anti-liberty monstrosity they created.

----------

