He’s laughing at us, not with us.
1,346 words
Several news outlets are reporting that Ron Paul has been caught schmoozing with people on the racial right and parting them from their money. They’ve also confirmed what anybody paying attention has known for years: that a huge segment of Ron Paul’s supporters are racialists. This is a big scandal for the mainstream media, confirming their worst suspicions about his motives.
If, however, one moves beyond the revelation that Ron Paul is entangled with “racists” and actually lifts the sheets to spy on the nature of that entanglement, the real Ron Paul scandal emerges: Ron Paul is a libertarian ideologue without a shred of racial sentiment who’s been effectively redirecting White anxiety into a libertarian dead end for decades.
It all began in the early 90’s, when Ron Paul’s chief strategist Lew Rockwell had an epiphany:
Rockwell explained the thrust of the idea in a 1990 Liberty essay entitled “The Case for Paleo-Libertarianism.” To Rockwell, the LP was a “party of the stoned,” a halfway house for libertines that had to be “de-loused.” To grow, the movement had to embrace older conservative values. “State-enforced segregation,” Rockwell wrote, “was wrong, but so is State-enforced integration. State-enforced segregation was not wrong because separateness is wrong, however. Wishing to associate with members of one’s own race, nationality, religion, class, sex, or even political party is a natural and normal human impulse.”
The most detailed description of the strategy came in an essay Rothbard wrote for the January 1992 Rothbard-Rockwell Report, titled “Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement.” Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an “Outreach to the Rednecks,” which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes. (Duke, a former Klansman, was discussed in strikingly similar terms in a 1990 Ron Paul Political Report.) These groups could be mobilized to oppose an expansive state, Rothbard posited, by exposing an “unholy alliance of ‘corporate liberal’ Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America.”
To summarize, a Jewish ideologue named Murray Rothbard assembled a team of White gentile libertarian ideologues which included Ron Paul who went on to repackage ideological libertarianism with the imagery and innuendo necessary to exploit the growing racial anxiety of White Americans. The Ron Paul newsletter became a vehicle for this, seducing racialists with promises to rip the food stamps, health care, education, and everything else from “those people“: the (disproportionately Black) underclass. States’ rights were another opportunity to dog whistle to racial anxieties within the libertarian construct. Slowly and steadily, this faction which began as a small splinter group from generic libertarianism devised a rocket to launch themselves far above the movement they originally belonged to.
It was a strategic partnership of sorts with two halves: White frustration as the rocket fuel and race-blind libertarian policies as the warhead. For decades, Ron Paul has been siphoning off millions of dollars and millions of votes from those who are concerned about the fate of White people in this country for the cost of some winks, some nods, and probably a white lie here or there behind closed doors.
We’ve been cuckolded for decades by a man who favors increasing the rate of non-White legal immigration, favors granting amnesty and work permits to illegal immigrants, favors toppling the trade protections American workers need to compete with third world sweatshops, favors constructing the monetary system in a way which favors the wealthy oligarchs, and opposes–across the board–any and all efforts to deport the invaders or defend the citizenry as fascist.
Fortunately for White interests, Ron Paul’s unlikely to continue courting us. When the antifa hacked the A3P website and exposed Ron Paul’s intimate relationship with the movement stuckment, they did not uncover (as both the mainstream media and the White Nationalist movement assume) proof of Ron Paul’s racism. What they found in the closet was a silent partner in the Ron Paul revolution: the abused, cuckolded, and castrated White Right. Like so many hostages who’ve been locked away in closets, they suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. They sympathize with their captors and can’t bear to acknowledge the obvious: Ron Paul is hostile to White identity and survival. Ron Paul’s ideal future is a grim one for our people, a world of “sound money for the brown people.”
It’s not that Ron Paul’s consciously anti-White. He doesn’t see white, yellow, and brown people. He sees the world in only one color: green. He’s an admirably persistent and consistent Austrian economist, but the issues which aren’t within the scope of his radically mercantile worldview are for sale.
If he’s standing in front of Latinos, he’s an open borders anti-law enforcement libertarian. If he’s standing in front of Southerners, he’s a neo-Confederate secessionist libertarian. If he’s standing in front of Black people, he’s an anti-racist anti-War on Drugs libertarian. If he’s standing in front of Zionist Jews, he’s pro-Israel libertarian. When Ron Paul was palling around with racialists, he was surely a crypto-racialist antisemitic libertarian. Either Ron Paul contains multitudes of self-contradictory beliefs, or he’s a libertarian who pays lip service to whoever will listen to him, vote for him, or mail him a check.
Is the Latino who believes Ron Paul feels his pain of being a downtrodden illegal immigrant the useful idiot? Is the Black who believes he feels his pain of being persecuted by a wealthy White system the useful idiot? Are we, the racists who believe he feels the pain of being driven out of our communities by a hostile underclass the useful idiots? It’s a trick question: We’re all useful idiots.
Everybody who cares about something greater than economic theory yet actively supports Ron Paul with time and money is a useful idiot. There’s an argument to be made for passively voting for him as the lesser evil in elections, especially given how his ideologically libertarian opposition to military imperialism. But there’s a subtle yet important difference between riding the tiger and feeding it.
Ron Paul’s not the problem, as a faction as desperate and gullible as our own is bound to get fleeced in one way or another. You can’t con an honest man, and our own fantasies about having an “undercover lover” in the halls of power were tempting illusions. While we imagined the deception to be on all the rest of Ron Paul’s supporters who didn’t believe Ron Paul was a racialist, the deception was actually self-deception and the mark was actually us. Like the thousands of people who’ve been taken by 419 scams, we got giddy about scoring big dividends on our risk-free investment. Like a good share of those people, a good share of us will guard our egos by doubling down on self-deception, insisting that Ron Paul is still our man in the system despite a large and rising mountain of evidence to the contrary.
There are many lessons to be learned from this humiliating episode (namely about the importance of securing our internal communication), but the most important lesson is to stop entertaining the illusion that we can sneak up on our enemies with clever “implicit” angles. Our enemies are smarter than we are. Our enemies are organized more effectively than we are. Our enemies outnumber us. The one face card we have in this struggle is that we and we alone are the true representatives of the interests of the White American people. They’ve made it difficult to play that card, but it’s the only card we have. We should invest our time and money in figuring out how to play it, not in Murray Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalist fantasy of a world devoid of nation-states strong enough to curb his tribe’s limitless appetite for wealth and power.
61 Comments
Ron Paul doesn’t support war for Israel. Nuf said.
Neither did Al Sharpton. Did you support his presidential campaign in 2004?
On clicking the link to “favors incresing immigration” this came up:
“Now there’s a lot of antagonism and resentment turned just automatically on immigrants,” he continued. “You say, no not immigrants, it’s just illegal immigrants. I do believe in legal immigration. I want to have a provision to obey those laws. You have to understand this in the context of the economy.”
Paul said he’s not one of those politicians who believes that “barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems.” That’s not, he said, the American way. And he doesn’t think that a national identification card is the way to go.
What the country does need, he said, is “a much better immigration service” fed by more resources. Not that he’d “vote for extra money.” But he does, he told the crowd, have a plan.”
So where here does it say he favors more immigration?
I still say, the main thing is he doesn’t support Israel. That’s why JDL said “RP supporters should be shot.”
If Paul didn’t propose increasing immigration in front of a Hispanci group, you can bet he never did.
Bottom line, RP doesn’t support Israel so he gets panned.
Not stopping immigration means more immigration.
From the article:
“a man who favors increasing the rate of non-White legal immigration, ”
No Republican since Buchanan has supported immigration reduction.
So I doubt thats why RPaul is singled out here.
I wouldn’t spend a lot of money on RPaul, (I’ll probably vote constitution party or AP3)but if you vote in a Republican primary it should be for RPaul.
Maybe the way to reach knee jerk libertarians is to compare a nation to a business concern, with the citizens being the same as stockholders.
I’m not singling Ron Paul out. I just recently wrote a much more venomous screed on Newt, and even my Mitt Romney piece concluded against him. I’ve written hurtful things about Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann, too. My spite for Rick Perry started well before the election. The only candidate so far who has avoided my wrath is Santorum.
Phil,
I don’t mean to start this by sounding like I’m for the Jews (because I’m not), but your issue seems to be that you are more anti-Israel than you are pro-White. What is more important? Being anti-Israel or supporting White interests?
“Ron Paul doesn’t support war for Israel. Nuf said.”
Really? Nuf said? Personally, whether someone is anti-Israel or not holds no weight on my opinion of them. You need more than that in my view, you have to be Pro-White. I don’t think being anti-Zionist is our first and top priority, because the politics of one country in the Middle East does not affect our situation much. We won’t get a better society simply by having politicians who are only anti-Israel in our government. We first and foremost need people who will stop non-White immigration and will defend White interests. So no, I don’t think enough is said, Phil.
My short comment wasn’t meant to say R Paul deserves support for his anti-war stance. I was implying the reason he was panned was because he was an ideological threat to neo-con Jewish power.
I’ve not spent a lot of money on a candiate since Buchanan ran. Remeber his plan for an immigration moritorum? If only!
I think the 2nd Iraq war was a propaganda win for white nationalism in that dragging America into Jewish wars exposed Jewish tribalism in a way the sheeple can understand.
Once the sheeple see Jews as organized, self interested and destructive of Americas interest it will be much easier to show then Jewish self interest is why Jewish media constantly pushes for more third world immigration into every white country.
”Paul said he’s not one of those politicians who believes that “barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems.” That’s not, he said, the American way. And he doesn’t think that a national identification card is the way to go.”
That’s not quite it: this is what he actually said:
“The people that want big fences and guns, sure, we could secure the border…A barbed wire fence with machine guns, that would do the trick. I don’t believe that is what America is all about, I just really don’t…We could enforce our law IF WE HAD A HEALTHY ECONOMY [then] THIS WOULDN’T BE SUCH A BIG DEAL [it’s an issue only because] PEOPLE ARE WORRYING ABOUT JOBS…….” Paul then went on to talk utter nonsense about a border fence being used to keep Americans in thus stopping them from leaving with their capital in times of economic crisis!
I commend Matt Parrot (and Greg Johnson) for taking a stand against Ron Paul and his destructive ideas.
Mr Paul’s brand of social nihilism, commitment to globalism, and dedication to usury, would bring on racial extinction faster than even the Marxists ever thought possible.
Disturbing news on the A3P hacking. I’m glad I never got around to signing up with them.
The Ron Paul deception knocks everything a little lower on the scale.
This crisp essay ought to be handed out to every RP supporter at CPAC and elsewhere.
To be fair to the AP3, unlike 1920’s Germany, in the U.S. I don’t think it’s praciatcal to have a political party that is anti-semitic. So they can’t have a formal policy of excluding Jews from membership.
I suppose it would be legal to have such a party and have it field a candidate, but you wouldn’t win.
I do believe that there could be an informal tradition that proposed leadership in the party be asked to identify their ancestry, and the members could vote on wether they get a top position. Heck even a solitary member could just query a suspcious applicant for a position of party power. Then if he got no response the questioner could spread the word that “so and so is mysteriously cagey about who his parents and grandparenst were and where he grew up.” Maybe you should go to a national AP3 convention your self and start asking questions.
All white nationalist grass roots organizations and communities are going to need to establish their own G3 section. Other wise you are going to be infiltrated by blue eyed Jews like the late Paul Newman.
I’ve proposed to the C of CC a couple of times that they ask top tier applicants three things, “Where and when were you born, were did you graduate from higshcool and what was your mothers maiden name.” So far the C of CC is acting like the early 20th century American offical, who, when the establishment of an American intelligence agency was proposed to him snorted “Gentlemen don’t read other gentelmens mail.” Roll Eyes.
Phil: The fact that A3P doesn’t oppose Jews or exclude them is not the reason I didn’t sign up. But, now that you mention it, although it wasn’t part of my thinking at the time, in my view that’s an excellent reason not to support them. Given they are operating as a political party that needs to meet requirements for ballot access, there are probably legal reasons as well as practical ones for not excluding them. But the A3P leadership could at least identify Jewish influence as a problem, if they wanted to. They obviously don’t want to either because they don’t regard Jews as a problem or because they believe in self-censoring tactics. I have no interest in supporting either approach. The reason I was reluctant to sign up was because of data security concerns, a concern that turned out to be founded.
@Lew — “They obviously don’t want to either because they don’t regard Jews as a problem or because they believe in self-censoring tactics.”
Are you kidding me? Kevin MacDonald (the guy who wrote the book on jewish influence in america…) is a director at A3P. I doubt their hiding much.
KMD is not the only board member. They also have members who appear to believe in the implicit approach to politics. And self-censorship on controversial matters such as Jews is a defining characteristic of this approach, perhaps the defining characteristic.
Mind you, I’m not saying don’t work with them or donate to them if that’s what you want. I just won’t do it myself. I have become aware of too much evidence that suggests the implicit path is a blind alley for White energy.
I suppose if you believe worse is better, he is not your man. He is definitely “not as bad”- against the Fed, etc. He does have the fascination with shiny objects (goldbugz) so prevalent with those somewhere on the autism spectrum. But he’s anti-war, anti-empire…he would ease our pain, but also prolong it.
Where the devils is our Pinochet, goddamn it? Can we please start adding testosterone to the water supply?
So you really like the idea of rounding up all liberals, building torture chambers, and peppering the countryside with the mass graves of political dissidents.
Interesting. I guess that’s the notion of political freedom embraced by many on the right these days.
I agree entirely with Flavia. Pinochet spoke the only language the left understands, and he spoke out of necessity.
He didn’t round up “liberals”; he rounded up Chilean Marxists, the Chilean heirs to the Jewish Bolsheviks, who were trying take over in Chile.
When I lived Miami in the 90s, I worked with an older gentleman from Chile who lived in Chile in the 70s. He was quite proud of Pinochet. So Pinochet had a few thousand Marxists shot? This is a problem how? You think he should have observed the rules of due process for people who don’t care about due process?
I’m not sure what your overall perspective is regarding White issues; however, perhaps you don’t realize that torture chambers, murders, and Bolshevik-style bloodletting against Whites is exactly what our enemies have in mind, for us.
Well said Lew and Flavia.
For white people this is a life or death struggle, but due to the scheming of those who control the miasma which in general, overwhelms and disarms us, we, as a race, now find ourselves in the last minute of the final round, and the truth is; we’ve yet to land a blow.
Excellent article, Matt. Well meaning but deluded White Nationalists like Jamie Kelso need to read this.
Sorry, but this is a very ignorant–and for me, who visits your website often–very disappointing essay. I was a good friend of Murray Rothbard for many years. To imply that Rothbard was working in the interest of “his tribe” is laughable. He was adamantly anti-Zionist and scathiing on the ingrained leftism, often pro-Communism–of American Jews. As for immigration, you might consider the writings of Rothbard’s chief follower, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, especially his Democracy: the God that Failed. Hoppe presents a sophisticated libertarian case against Third World immigration.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Ralph Raico in blockquote:
I think the issue is not that “Rothbard was working in the interest of ‘his tribe,'” although he certain was by doing what Chuck Pearson so eloquently described to Alex Linder:
“Jew don’t take one side of an issue. They take ALL sides of an issue, and control the outcome so that it is ‘good for Jews.'”
Solid, first-rate ethnocentric thinking, that.
Matt’s argument is a bit more subtle; after all, for them to win simply requires we continue to lose, by chasing false flags, false issues, and false ideologies, all of which serve the purpose of keeping us addressing all issues but the one that matters, “Does it fulfill the Fourteen Words?”
So, arguing over various gold standards, etc., has the same effect on some that Buckley’s “National Review” conservatism – Israel First Conservatism – did to Taft Conservatism, rendering it ineffective, impotent, and a laughing stock. How many people equal “Libertarian” with “pot-smoking hippie who thinks a gold standard will magically make us all wealthy”?
A philosophy and a platform that not even Rand Paul will defend, much less adopt. In the meantime, as the Reconquista proves, the demographic transition pretty much ignores Rothbard today, and the Pauls tomorrow.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
Are you the Ralph Raico who provided the excellent lectures on the history of Austrian Class-theory and how Marx (in essence) hijacked liberalism’s view and perverted it into a harmful ideology?
If so, I’ve greatly benefited from your work. You’ve offered me a useful foundation on which to build a “class” paradigm that is more conducive to my core values (as a racially self-conscious white Christian.)
While I share much of the caution (towards Austrian economics) that many here have indicated, I’m always quick to remember Gary North’s famous line: “Ya can’t beat something with nothing.”
In the absence of a coherent, systematic and fleshed-out nationalist economic theory, we’re going to have to draw from the best of the Austrians to inform our view. We nationalists cannot rely solely on Ropke, Schumacher and Belloc. We need to study “third-ways” in light of Austrian economic literature.
Then we’ll be able to provide a better analysis of Ron Paul’s contributions to contemporary political discourse. (I agree with the general thrust of Matt’s article, but I think more needs to be said: let’s not throw out the excellent theorum-baby with the Austrian bath-water.)
shotgun,
This is not just about Ron Paul being the wrong man for the job it’s also about Austrian economics being wrong no matter who is pushing it.
Economically, the road to Hell is not paved with good intentions it’s paved with gold. And with gold always in short supply it’s not long before those who choose to take that path arrive at their destination and discover to their painful loss that there’s no way back to the point from which they went awry.
Under gold: once its gone it’s GONE!
Henry,
You don’t expect me to abandon an Austrian-friendly analysis of Gold-backed currency, based solely on your say so, do you? (It’s rather ambitious to think that one can dismiss an entire economic paradigm with just a few words.)
I’ll reiterate what I implied above by asking this question:
Where is a thorough, consistent, systematic and serious Nationalist theory of value, currency and trade-cycles?
You let me know when you find one, Henry.
Until then, I’ll continue supplementing my “agrarian” economic house with Austrian lumber.
Shotgun,
Don’t abandon anything on my say so, instead, listen to the lessons of history.
One obvious example of Nationalist economics was buried in the rubble of World War Two, though I doubt it’s the kind of “Nationalist theory of value” that would satisfy someone bedazzled by the myth that gold, and only gold, represents “sound money.”
Can you give me an example of where the so called ‘Austrian School’ has brought economic joy to the world, to a single nation, or even, to a tiny Alpine pass?
Henry,
It would satisfy me if white nationalists quit prancing around in viking helmets and Nazi uniforms long enough to take philosophy and economics seriously.
Concerning your position: if we’re to take historical examples as indicators of the success or failure of any given economic paradigm, then we’d never be able to critique anything.
If you’ll allow a brief analogy: it would be like looking for a truly straight line in nature. Lines, points and planes only exist in the mind of the geometrician. Likewise, economists argue all the time over just where true examples of “Marxism” or “Capitalism” or “Socialism” have existed.
The fact remains (as Rothbard often reminds us) that economic theory is not equivalent with historical analysis. The economist is concerned with theory and formal laws of human action.
Do you know of a striking and thorough critique of Austrian economic theory (or any aspect thereof) written by a professing national socialist?
I don’t mind you disagreeing with Austrian Economic theory, or the gold-standard, or what have you — I’m just tired of cavalier rhetoric backed only by pot-shots and sweeping generalizations.
Economics is a topic we will be exploring in much greater depth at CC in the future. I recommend that you look at the following articles tagged Third Way economics:
https://counter-currents.com/tag/third-way-economics/
The material we have assembled so far indicates areas you might wish to research.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Shotgun in blockquote:
It is more accurate to note, “You can’t beat something with nothing BETTER.” What is better, much damn better, is the concept of ecological economics, and its counterpart, Natural Capitalism. There’s a book out with that title that is well worth reading.
No, we have to study and develop BETTER ways, using such sections of “Austrian” economic literature as are valid, without falling into their fallacies of using the magic of “free markets” as a goal, and “market clearing prices” as their hand showing the outworking of their invisible hand, their God who requires gold to make currencies work.
The events of the last decade put paid to the “efficient market hypothesis” these people used to keep us in line, while they distorted “market clearing information” at all possible points. Funny how the “efficient market” was not so efficient for us, but very, very effective, for them.
The fundamental flaws of the Austrian thinking come in the very beginning, where they posit frictionless transactions, homogeneous goods, multiple buyers and sellers with perfect market information, and a system that freely shares costs accurately through the price system. It requires ALL of them to be perfectly present for their God to work his market magic. PERFECTLY present.
It then requires all actors to act as homo economicus, perfect price-seekers.
Yet, there are “costs” that are externalized, and ignored for later generations.
A perfect example is the famous Leonard Reed article, “I, Pencil.” I showed it to my biochemistry professor, and he laughed. He went through a list of the chemicals used to make the materials in the pencil, and asked what Reed’s plans were when the toxic wastes hit the aquifer, and came back into the water system, and from there into the embryos that would become our sons and daughters.
I guess that’s one of those “we are all dead” long runs, except SOMEONE has to pay the medical bills for the illnesses and disease these materials create in the endocrine system. Someone.
In fact, new development in neuroscience, showing how the brain reacts to economic situations, called “neuroeconomics,” shows that, even given perfect information, we do not become perfect price-seekers. Usually, quite the contrary.
In short, Austrian economics is a logical economic system for Newton’s clockwork universe. Like Newton’s clockwork universe hypothesis, it is dead, and useful only as a dead hand to convince people to accept a fatalistic role in the universe.
It Is Not By Accident that “Austrian” economists tend to be followers of Ayn Rand and can quote sections of “Atlas Shrugged” verbatim. “Atlas Shrugged” is the book all sixteen year olds read and think, “DAMN! There It IS! I’ve got it! I understand it all, now!”
Same for “free markets,” and the visible hand of their God, “market clearing prices.” Like “Atlas Shrugged,” a great work of fiction, with useful sections of insight here and there. However, it is not the religion its followers make it out to be, and their God only lives on a Cross of Gold. Remove the gold, and God is replaced by Satan – the demon of inflation.
Speaking of inflation, what is the role of usury in this religion masked as “Austrian” economic theory?
As Covington reminds us, “We must Do Better, much damn better.”
The Northwest Republic exists, as it see it, as a blended system: national capitalism, natural socialism, and “Family First, Foremost, Forever.”
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
Shotgun said:
“It would satisfy me if white nationalists quit prancing around in viking helmets and Nazi uniforms long enough to take philosophy and economics seriously.”
That’s a fine example of Reductio ad Hitlerum: for a moment I thought I heard Basil Fawlty scream “don’t mention the war!”
You asked for an example of a “thorough, consistent, systematic and serious Nationalist theory of value, currency and trade-cycles” and so I mentioned one that had worked until destroyed by the holders of gold. Perhaps I should have mentioned modern China which has lifted itself from the paddy field without help from gold.
What China has discovered and what Hitler learnt from Gottfried Feder and others, is that ‘’value’’ lies not in the medium of money but in the goods and services that a nation is able to produce.
Under Gold, unless a system of fractional reserve issue is employed, the purchasing power of a nation is fixed to the amount of gold held on account and so unless gold is found and made available in at least relative proportion to any increase in population then that gold based economy will be in terminal decline due to the lack of bullion. New cities will never be built and old ones will not be maintained and machines and men will stand idle while their families starve for the food that producers are ordered to destroy for fear the markets would suffer if it were used to feed those who cannot afford to buy. Of course, those that have no gold could always borrow from those that do, they’ll just need to lower their expectations and compete with sweated industries abroad for the few crumbs on offer at usurious rates.
This ‘’competition’’ that you wish for is a most interesting thing. When, in 1944, Hayek published The Road to Serfdom it was reviewed by George Orwell who wrote the following: “…he [Hayek] does not see, or will not admit, that a return to ‘free’ competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because [it is] more irresponsible, than that of the State. The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them. Professor Hayek denies that free capitalism necessarily leads to monopoly.” Orwell concludes: “Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war.”
There is another grave problem with the gold standard that being, the drain of bullion, something that can never be ignored. Indeed, Ron Paul doesn’t ignore it he welcomes it and says it will teach the US to compete by lowering wages and prices!
The initial basis or model for central banking and gold standard issue comes down to us from a British act of parliament, ’The Bank Charter Act 1844’. The purpose of this Act was to compel the Bank of England to issue its banknotes pari pasu with changes in its bullion reserves, and this remains the accepted practice today. Therefore, the US and other Western nations, which on balance are now importers rather than exporters must face the prospect of having their gold bullion (meaning the basis for their economy) drained off into Chinese and Indian coffers, as an amount of issue equal to the bullion sent abroad must always be withdrawn from domestic circulation. It must be recognised that the effect of this policy on Western economies, given their subservient relationship within the global market place, would be fatal, this fact alone should end any interest that a nationalist might have in the nefarious ideas of this so called ‘’Austrian School.’’
As for the effect of libertarian ideas on society? One need look no further than the UK and Margaret Thatcher’s premiership to get a taste of what’s in store. During her many years in office, Thatcher, who was a committed follower of Hayek, went about her exercise with such zeal that her own party was forced to step in and force her out, so strong were their fears that revolution was about to break out in the wake of her wholesale destruction.
In celebration of libertarianism Thatcher declared ‘’there’s no such thing as society’’ then closed down British industry and sold everything off to foreign speculators who now dominate Britain and what pathetically remains of its markets. Meanwhile, millions of white people have had their life expectancy greatly reduced by the neglect and decay forced on them in the name of ‘’free market economics’’ and ‘’liberty’’.
Think about Emma West sitting on that tram completely surrounded by predatory aliens who are stripping her land of what few assets remain and that will give a practical rather than your preferred abstract idea of the libertarian legacy of Thatcher and Hayek.
I think it’s revealing that the social and economic ideas behind this tragedy came directly from the spawn which you have described as ‘’the excellent theorum-baby’’[sic] .
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
In further reply to Shotgun:
The Daily Bell website is featuring an interview with Catherine Austin Fitts in which she deals (peripherally, but effectively) with some of these issues. Fitts is just perfect as she describes how various groups destroy market perfection for their own ends. To her credit, she thinks big. Her unit of currency is a solari, after the unit of currency in the book “Dune.” Her discussions are very informative, and well worth your while.
Solari.com is a good place to start.”The Spice Must Flow!”
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
Mr. Johnson,
I appreciate the link. I’ve long benefited from the work of Counter-Currents, even when I disagree with the occasional article (they’re always well-written and informative.)
I’ve been interested in “Third-way” economics for awhile, especially the work of Wendell Berry, the Southern Agrarians, the British Distributists and ultimately the writings of Wilhelm Ropke whose “economics as if people mattered” seems a more systematic analysis of what the other writers I’ve mentioned, were offering.
There is much work to be done in this area.
To both Fourmyle and Henry,
I’m not impressed with the arguments offered by either of you gentlemen. I would have to spend time correcting and clarifying an Austrian theory of value and monetary policy to avoid straw-man caricatures and that’s something I’ll not take up thread-space to do. If that’s not satisfying, then please feel free to visit my blog and pound on me (verbally) as much as you’d like.
I respectfully bow out of further exchange.
An important article. Thanks.
This reminds me the 2010 debate of “going mainstream” which moved Trainspotter out of Occidental Dissent. It now looks that Trainspotter was right. “Implicit” WN is just not possible.
A good assessment, Matt. Ron Paul is a diversion, at most, possibly someone to cast a protest vote for. Definitely not someone to invest time and money in. Tilting at “conservative” wind mills has got White America nowhere in the last 60 years, only deeper in shit. The moral of the story is quite simple: accept no substitutes. Support only White racial advocacy groups, period!
WNs amaze me. They’d cut off their mother’s arm if it wasn’t coddling them every second of the day.
Conspiracy theory and libertarianism aside, you have to ask yourself – what do we have to lose?
What we have to lose is time and money and credibility, as documented by Jamie Kelso’s correspondence dumped on the net by hackers.
Every hour and every dime spent on Ron Paul, the Tea Party, and the like means money and time siphoned out of our cause.
If we are every going to create an alternative to the present system, we have to take our scarce resources and concentrate them on that task, rather than diffuse them into the mainstream.
None of those things will be lost by casting a vote for Ron Paul.
I appreciate Matt Parrott’s writing and work, and this is not an attack on him personally.
I think he makes some important points and criticisms here.
However, I do think Matt is biased by his commitment to Mormonism. He has suggested before that even though he may not really believe in it, he believes it is useful in terms of organization and for its prophecy, which heralds and motivates major change following a Mormon becoming president. In addition to this article, he has written an article here endorsing Romney for all intents and purposes.
Well I am not a Mormon, and I think that this Paul piece is worth publishing. So can we deal with the arguments now?
Claiming that Romney is an anti-White disaster waiting to happen is somewhat shy of an endorsement, methinks.
In my opinion, Santorum is due for a surge as the most credible threat to Romney’s coronation, so my critical articles on Paul and Newt would appear to be working at cross-purposes with my supposed intention of getting Romney elected.
What does this have to do with the article, and how is that not a personal jab at Matt?
And why would it even matter if Matt preferred Romney to Paul? He clearly understands that they both offer us nothing, that they are not the answer. So are we supposed to all look down on Matt because he doesn’t share what I am assuming is your preference for Ron Paul? Yours was a pointless comment that serves (intentionally or not) only to distract from the main point of the article.
I say yes for Four Years. Within the narrow limits of his Ideology, Ron Paul may well be an honest man. That’s something, isn’t it? And if he is, he will take on their great engine of war, the Federal Reserve. Could he stop it? Doubtful. But imagine what he might uncover and make known to the oh so proud doubters of Conspiracy.
And keeping us out of another War for Israel is something too. And they hate him for it, Murray Rothbard or no.
You don’t get to sit down with Ron and Rand Paul for free, which means that if WNs are sitting down with them, they are giving them money. And that means that they think that they are getting something for their money, which means that they are being deceived. And it cannot all be a matter of self-deception. Thus Ron and Rand Paul are grifters. They lead on racially conscious whites, even though they will do nothing to benefit whites as whites.
We’re not dealing with honest men here. We’re dealing with politicians, just politicians of a different stripe. Sure, they believe their ideology. But that does not mean that they are honest when raising money. When they sit down with donors, they tell them what the donors need to hear to write their checks.
I hope the revelation that Ron and Rand Paul have been stealing cookies from the A3P might dissuade them from future grifts.
Agreed, and I say this as a former libertarian who actively campaigned for Ron Paul in 1988, the first presidential election I was eligible to vote in. Ah, misspent youth!
There’s one more argument against a Ron Paul/WN partnership.
White nationalists shouldn’t promote Ron Paul or libertarianism because what we stand for is so much more popular than the never tried never elected impossible fantasy ideology of Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard.
George Wallace WON the south as an open racialist in the lifetime of many reading this. How many states have libertarians won? How many have they got more than 5% of the vote?
White nationalism is subject to media blackouts because if Whites ever heard about it they’d vote for it by the tens of millions and once it gained momentum it couldn’t be stopped.
Libertarians with all their money and decades of experience in politics can’t elect a mayor under their own hated brand name.
Norman Mailer (of all people!!) once said that fascism was the most natural political system.
He was right.
Jaego, You were wondering about Ron Paul and the Federal reserve. In “gold bug” and “silver bug” circles Ron Paul is one of the good guys who will “save the dollar” by switching to a gold back currency. Allegedly, http://www.newmoney.gov is the official site featuring the new bill. I’m don’t live in the US (although I love to visit) so it is all Greek to me but if any of you bona fide Yankees have any comments to make on your new currency I would appreciate it – and of course a share of all profits will go to C-C (honest).
I would suggest this:
https://counter-currents.com/2012/01/money-for-nothing/
Great article Matt. You’ve really come a long way on the Ron Paul/Libertardian Question from the last time I remember you talking about him. I have been meaning to write a piece like this for some time but you beat me to it.
This was a solid piece and will be my go-to piece to send WNs who are still under Libertardian delusions.
I would like to add that the Libertarian worldview is very Jewish in nature and was more or less created and promoted by Jews for gentile consumption, specifically aimed at white gentiles given our apparent predisposition towards individualism. One of Ron Paul’s biggest influences, if not his biggest, was Ayn Rand, a Jewess. Ron Paul named his son (Rand Paul) after a Jew.
I could go on about Capitalism (especially the “free market” brand promoted by Paulberg & co.) and the Gold Standard and how neither are beneficial but harmful to us but I think I would end up writing a good portion of that article I have been meaning to write. Maybe I should get around to it with a focus more on Libertarianism and less on Ron Paul.
I think this article is a very valuable contribution to our movement that will help our people get their heads straight.
I think how you mention people’s tendency to double down on self-deception when faced with the truth in this article will be especially effective. By explicitly mentioning this, you prompt people to look inwards and question themselves to see if they are doing it, which makes it just a little more difficult for them to ignore.
It’s not easy to get people to admit they’ve been duped. Shame is a very, very powerful human emotion. One of the most powerful. I personally find it more shameful to continue in folly than to deny having made a mistake when I know otherwise. The fact is, everyone makes mistakes. There is little need to be ashamed of making them. The shame should be in not learning from them and not being able to admit it, let go, and move on.
Ron Paul named his son (Rand Paul) after a Jew.
Wrong. His name was Randy, and his wife shortened it to Rand.
I stand corrected.
If I were you Greg I wouldn’t be so quick to abandon your initial position.
‘Ben Tilman’ claims he is ”Randy” (I make no comment) but elsewhere we are told he is ”Randall.” …But has anyone actually seen his Obama like ‘long form’ birth certificate?
It’s too much of a coincidence for an old sceptic like myself.
As things stand: it’s a bit like a young George Lincoln Rockwell calling a son Adolf and then years later claiming he was actually named Adolphe in honour of the inventor of the saxophone!
I don’t think George was that big a fan of the Sax…..do you?
Mr. Parrott, you have all my sympathies after what those creeps did to you and the A3P; actually I’m a member too, but didn’t spot my address in the data dump, so either they missed me or are saving the best for a second release!
However, I don’t think the initial about Ron Paul laughing at us was justified by the article. As far as I can tell, Paul never deceived us outright; nothing in the article was news to me, and I still support him. Every politician has to try and appeal to different factions; as I remember Paul saying after the New Hampshire primaries, he doesn’t plan on compromising his libertarian principles, but rather on making liberty more appealing to all interests for their own purposes should he become president.
One doesn’t have to be a libertarian ideologue to support Ron Paul, even knowing he is one. He still seems by far the best to this pro-white, traditional Catholic paleoconservative. I do not understand the problem so many of you commenters have with his desire for a gold standard: it would not be perfect, but the Fed is much less perfect still.
And Greg Paulson, stop repeating that silly lie. His name, as you may read on Wikipedia, is Randal, and he was called Randy growing up. Or is that a Ron Paul deception too?
Ron Paul is not the problem. He is not the solution, but he is not the problem. I caucused for him.
In terms of white interests, he is a net benefit.
I do not know enough about Rand Paul to have an opinion. Rarely, if ever, is the son a carbon copy of his father. He might turn out to be better or worse, but probably not identical.
Sen. Robert Taft, Jr. (R.-Oh.) was no Sen. Robert Taft (R.-Oh.).
On the other hand, Sen. Harry Byrd, Jr. (D.-, later Independent-, Va.) was an honorable successor to his father, Sen. Harry Byrd, Sr. (D.-Va.).
Andrew,
In my opinion, he is indeed the problem if we as a movement invest our hope in him.
Can you quantify that?
Have you considered the possibility that Ron Paul and his libertarian followers are the useful idiots? They are not intentionally pro-White, but their general policy of decentralization of power amounts to a disempowerment of the Jewish community and a concomitant empowerment of the White population.
Centralized power = Jewish power.
Decentralized power = White power.
Yes, but isn’t it a shame that libertarianism would be pro-white only by accident?
And wouldn’t race-blind libertarian individualism, free trade, globalization, etc. more than offset any accidental racial boons?
And isn’t it academic, since Ron Paul will never win?
And if he will never win, and his campaign is about spreading his ideas, well why don’t we focus on spreading our ideas?
”Centralized power = Jewish power.
Decentralized power = White power.”
I disagree because either way the Jew seeks to dominate and thus far has.
Jewish influence on Ron Paul has been profound: from Rand and Rothbard through to Mises and all the way to back to Spinoza.
Link to the video below @ 11.00 minutes to hear Ron Paul describing the ”Austrian School” in terns of Jewish influence and then tell me that Jewish thinking has played little or no part in Ron Paul’s development http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0lf-Y7s7-I
Now I understand why Greg took such a strong stand a while back saying he will shun people who donate to RP and withdraw invitations from the glittering dinner parties. I took it as a warning for people not to pursue a flawed strategy. I didn’t realize there were so many veteran nationalists already giving serious time, money and consideration to RP.
Another element of the scandal is on the Kelso and A3P side. While RP was doing some skeazy grifting here, Kelso clearly showed very poor judgment. Based on email dump, it’s clear Kelso was working the “implicit” approach. Part of the scandal here is that the people who donated time and / or money to the A3P probably did so on the assumption the leaders were pursuing White goals, not coordinating with a Republican who has never publically and explicitly endorsed White goals. Those low-level people *did keep* their time and money in the movement, and some of it may have gone mainstream anyway. Bad bad judgement by Kelso. Sorry, but I think it needs to be said. I would be pissed if I donated to A3P. I don’t want to say any more or cause unnecessary rancor, and if this remark is not appropriate for CC public comments it won’t appear anyway.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Lew in blockquote
Linder has this right: we are NEVER going to “sneak up and take over” anything in the conventional political system. Quite the contrary, as all parties concerned continue to active support policies and practices that work DIRECTLY against our ethnocentric interests, from openly supporting illegal immigration to Affirmative Action, and much, much more.
Paul, in practice, scorns us, but will certainly take our money, and our efforts, to support a discredited ideology that only works in the pages of “libertarian” philosophers.
Remember, even Ron Paul is not running on the Libertarian Party ticket. As the most nominal of Republicans, he can still have some political presence, and some political power. Now, he has the power to force a division in the Republicans that would make Obama even more of a shoo-in than he already is. Think of Whigs versus Republicans in 1856, and Whigs versus Republicans versus Constitutional Union Party in 1860.
I would argue the foremost politician of our time, by magnitudes, is Bill Clinton. His depth of mastery of the issues Even Clinton, with all of his precisely developed philosophical and political formulations, said, in effect, “The best ideas in the world mean nothing if you do not have the political power to implement them.”
The Brand Called “White” has been thoroughly discredited by the last fifty years of mass communications, and the public indoctrination system. Our people have intentionally been demoralized to such an extent that the wholesale retreat into fantasy realms – WoW, heavy prescription tranquilizer use, the list goes on. This can only be countered by the functional equivalent, not of a political “reform party” (small “r” small “p”).) A3P showed even the most remote hint of support for us is not remotely politically feasible. Remember the other RP, the Reform Party?
The answer is not “reform.”
The answer is “Reformation.”
Remember this, Charlie Brown: as long as you play THEIR Game, by THEIR Rules, with THEIR (Invisible) Rule Books, and with THEIR Referees, you will ALWAYS lose.
Oh, you might be allowed to “win” something small, now and again, using the principle of intermittent reinforcement to give your impotence the Form of legitimacy, without the Substance of effectiveness. If the outcome is even remotely close to being favorable to you, you will lose, ten out of ten times.
The answer ocmes from the old movie, “War Games”:
“The only way to win the Game is not to play the Game.”
That takes us to the Northwest Republic – OUR Game, with OUR Rules.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
This is valid as far as it goes and may stand as a sobriety measure for racialists too deep into Paul. On the other hand, politics has been about promising everything to everyone going back to antiquity. You can abolish that if you want to, but then you’re waging war, at which point it becomes about literal physical victory, which no one here can yet achieve.
So, there’s necessary and worthwhile documentation here. But how depth, scope, and humiliation of our fleecing strikes me as exaggerated.
I could not have said it better myself. The only thing I can appreciate from Ron Paul is some of his analytical critics, that is about it. None of his solutions make sense; and obviously much of his philosophy is based on a Jewish created intellectual moverment that carries theoretical sophisms to new heights. TOO had an article that did put the Austrian School and Hayek’s work through the MacDonald filter, and it demostrated that it meets exactly that definition of: another jewish intellectual movement that is party to the Culture of Critique born from the Frankfurt School. Paul is a master politician and he abuses his audiences with this talent by lacking sincerity. When he does not want to answer a difficult question which he knows will jeopordize his sales pitch to a potential audience, it’s always: “… the markets are going to take care of it…”.
Great article Matt!