Murray Rothbard Was A Racialist And A Nationalist

[Sola_Fide]

No sola, you're a national socialist. Nah nah nah boo boo.

Grow up sola and learn to debate instead of trolling, name-calling and collectivist labeling.

Learn to....debate? Don't name call?

Have you read any of the quotes or links I posted? I can't imagine you have.

Rev 3.0 has debated in this thread. He thinks that Rothbard was not being genuine when he made the statements. Fine. But I think he was being genuine.

 

[TheCount]

See, I have no problem with people wishing to associate along ethnic or cultural lines with people of their own kind.

In fact, I think it is good thing, I think it tends to reduce strife and tension, especially when forced to otherwise by government mandate.

Over all of history, it's just moved the level of ethnic tension from local to international.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

You would make racial arguments? Why? What makes that any better than what the Trumptards are doing?

Means v. Ends

Racists racebaiting to advance racism =/= libertarians racebaiting to advance liberty

To be clear, I don't think anything like the paleo strategy (right half of equation above) would actually work.

I'd have advised Rothbard not to pursue it, but that's neither here nor there.

He made a strategic error, chose the wrong means; but he had the same ends as you and I have.

 

[Krugminator2]

Maybe because he didn't write them.

I can't resist posting in this thread.

Here is the article in the original post in and easier to read format. http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html

Below is a passage from the Ron Paul Political Report. The same person wrote both of these articles. Both articles use the similar facts (percentage of the white vote), make all the same arguments (Communist example, Duke's platform issues) and use similar phrases ("scared the blazes" and "scared the bejesus").

The Duke’s Victory
David Duke received 44% of the vote in the Senate primary race. In Louisiana, 60% of the white vote, and 9% of the black vote! This totaled 100,000 more votes than the current governor when he won.

Duke lost the election, but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment. If the official Republican hadn’t been ordered to drop out, he might have won. Certainly there would have been a run-off.

Duke’s platform called for tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing. “Tonight, we concede the election,” he said. “But we will never concede out fight for equal rights for all Americans.”

To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense. Duke carried baggage from his past, but the voters were willing to overlook that. And if he had been afforded the forgiveness an ex-communist gets, he might have won.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I can't resist posting in this thread.

Here is the article in the original post in and easier to read format. http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html

Below is a passage from the Ron Paul Political Report. The same person wrote both of these articles. Both articles use the similar facts, make all the same arguments and use similar phrases ("scared the blazes" and "scared the bejesus").

Excellent post. Thanks. Wow...really makes one think, doesn't it?

 

[Sola_Fide]

So your soul is out of whack if you utter something that offends the current prevailing winds of acceptance?

Of course not. Literally everything I say on these boards is against the prevailing winds of acceptance.

My rejection of racial arguments are theological, not political or anything else.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The obsession with race is the problem; the racists and the anti-racists are equally guilty.

The NAZI fucktards of the alt-right, or the SJW bolsheviks of the left....

....or the well-mannered libertarians who just think racism is unkind....

All are problematic.

Q. Hey r3vo, what do we do about the racial divide?
A. Who gives a fuck, protect property rights.
Q. But the NAZIs and the Bolsheviks are awfully excited, by gosh..
A. Who gives a fuck, use the army to calm them, protect property rights.
Q. But The People are expressing their views about government and they want...
A. Who gives a fuck what they want, they know less than nothing, use the army to calm them, protect property rights.

...so that's my position.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I can't resist posting in this thread.

Here is the article in the original post in and easier to read format. http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html

Below is a passage from the Ron Paul Political Report. The same person wrote both of these articles. Both articles use the similar facts (percentage of the white vote), make all the same arguments (Communist example, Duke's platform issues) and use similar phrases ("scared the blazes" and "scared the bejesus").

I want to bump this post again so everyone will read it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Oh, come on! Really? You're actually citing Stormfart as an authoritative source for ... well, for anything?

What's next? Are you going to join the "Mises was a racist" crowd, too? (That's another Stormfarter claim, BTW.)

Seriously - you need to get that Lew Rockwell hate-bug out of your nose. It's eating your brain ...

And you still haven't explained how those two sentences (or anything else) from the quotes in your OP demonstrate Rothbard to be an advocate of "racialist" secessionism.

Read this awesome thread:

Ludwig Von Mises Was Racially Aware
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t735928/

Are you kidding me? Are you deliberately making yourself look like a fool? Or are you doing it accidentally?

My whole point was that that "awesome thread" is exactly the kind of bullshit they spew at Stormfart.

So why are you giving them any credence? Are you really that hatefully and wilfully obtuse?

The alleged quote by Mises in the OP of that Stormfart thread has already been used to denounce Mises as a "racist" right here at RPFs.

I provided a link in my post ["Mises was a racist"] to my full and comprehensive analysis of that alleged "quote" ...

... and then I explicitly identified it as "another Stormfarter claim" ...

... and then, incredibly, you turn right around and cite that very same Stormfart claim at me as if it were some kind of rebuttal to anything I said ...

WTF???

Now please remove your head from your hindparts and answer my questions:

(1) Are you really so intellectually petty and bankrupt that you regard Stormfart as being an authoritative source for anything?

(2) How do those two sentences (or anything else) from the quotes in your OP demonstrate Rothbard to be an advocate of "racialist" secessionism?

 

[RJB]

Learn to....debate? Don't name call?

Have you read any of the quotes or links I posted? I can't imagine you have.

Rev 3.0 has debated in this thread. He thinks that Rothbard was not being genuine when he made the statements. Fine. But I think he was being genuine.

From your history of collectivist name calling and labeling (as a former Catholic I experienced plenty of your bigotry) I tend not to take your threads seriously. Especially when you pretend to be against bigotry.

 

[Sola_Fide]

4.*Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.

5.*Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.

Wow. Rothbard was out of his mind.

 

[Sola_Fide]

From your history of collectivist name calling and labeling (as a former Catholic I experienced plenty of your bigotry) I tend not to take your threads seriously. Especially when you pretend to be against bigotry.

It's not the same at all. The same theological foundation I have drives me to reject racialism, and at the same time reject Roman Catholicism.

Take a deep breath. Read the quotes. Read the links. And comment on them. That's all I'm asking you to do.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Wow. Rothbard was out of his mind.

I fail to see the insanity.

Wanting the state (or the private defense agency, if one is anarchically inclined) to crush crime is a perfectly sound libertarian impulse.

...libertarians tend to focus on the crimes of the state, which is not unreasonable given the horrors of the last century, but...

...every single mugging, rape, murder, etc, is also aggression: to be minimized, same as state aggression.

and at the same time reject Roman Catholicism

Tell me about the Taborites, the coercive Anabaptists, the Fifth Monarchy Men, the Diggers.

...then tell me how Catholicism is the cause of the problem.

Sola Scriptura = theological democracy (with predictably horrific consequences)

Martin Luther = Robespierre

 

[Christian Liberty]

I fail to see the insanity.

Wanting the state (or the private defense agency, if one is anarchically inclined) to crush crime is a perfectly sound libertarian impulse.

...libertarians tend to focus on the crimes of the state, which is not unreasonable given the horrors of the last century, but...

...every single mugging, rape, murder, etc, is also aggression: to be minimized, same as state aggression.



Tell me about the Taborites, the coercive Anabaptists, the Fifth Monarchy Men, the Diggers.

...then tell me how Catholicism is the cause of the problem.

Sola Scriptura = theological democracy (with predictably horrific consequences)

Martin Luther = Robespierre

Your comment basically treats Martin Luther as if he were an anabaptist or a radical Reformer, he is not. There is a middle way (albeit rarely traveled) between Catholicism and evangelicalism.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Your comment basically treats Martin Luther as if he were an anabaptist or a radical Reformer, he is not. There is a middle way (albeit rarely traveled) between Catholicism and evangelicalism.

Thomas Müntzer

 

[Jesse James]

Rothbard wasn't a nationalist or racialist, but he did work a strategy to pander to them.

Certain latter day libertarians, like Lew, appear to have actually bought into the propaganda Rothbard was promoting back in the 90s.

why
do you say that?

 

[Jesse James]

Were you around in 2008? Yes Ron did distance himself from Reconstructionism and white nationalism. And Lew stubbornly refused to take credit for the racist newsletters and let Ron get destroyed by the media. Lew Rockwell is one of the reasons Ron Paul is not president. Lew is a coward.

source?

 

[Jesse James]

Youre wrong. This has nothing to do with any liberal critique of "neoconfederates" or anything like that. This is an in house debate that libertarians themselves had decades ago, and are now having again.

The only problem is, that on this website in particular, there are so little libertarians left. The name of the website should be changed.

that's cause it's not a real thing

 

[Jesse James]

Because he could have saved Ron the embarrassment of having to constantly attempt to explain the newsletters away in the media. Yet Lew refused.

Its partly because he unapologetically holds these racist feelings in his heart, and partly because of his defective character. He could have helped Ron when Ron needed him the most, and he didn't.

nobody besides us knows who the fuck Lew is. they don't give a shit. even if Lew said that, I highly doubt it would have gotten to the media. and they wouldn't care. they would attack Ron for his lifelong friendship with Lew, which is clearly not what either of them want.

 

[Jesse James]

Yes there is. Murray Rothbard said black people were the parasitic underclass. Do you agree? I don't. The statement itself is ignorant, racist, and completely refuted by the facts. I live in rural Indiana and the parasitic underclass here are white meth heads.

black and latino meth heads are cool though?

who is the real racist here?