Nicholas Sarwark, Arvin Vohra call out Jeff Deist and the Mises Institute’s “blood and soil” politics

Via FB:

Nicholas Sarwark shared Arvin Vohra’s post.

Since so many are asking “What’s the big deal about Jeff Deist’s speech,” let me break it down.

The speech ends with, “In other words, blood and soil and God and nation still matter to people. Libertarians ignore this at the risk of irrelevance.”

Here’s what you need to know. First, “Blood and soil” is a central Nazi and nationalist idea. It refers to the idea that people of the same blood (i.e. race) and soil, (i.e. territory) are bound into a single nation. The obvious implication is that part of that goal is to keep that nation’s blood and soil “pure” and independent. It is a central idea to white nationalism, to the belief that the U.S. should be turned back into some pure, white, protestant, christian, vaguely theocratic, racially segregated, cultural backwater.

Ending a speech referring to “blood and soil” is about as innocuous as ending a speech with “hammers and sickles”. Adding “God and Nation” as things that people will fight and kill for is just adding redundantly to it. And yes, he does go into depth about what you should be willing to commit violence for.

On a pragmatic note, this means that at the current time, Mises Institute has been turned into a sales funnel for the White Nationalist branch of the Alt Right. I’m not talking about the troll or general asshole side of the alt right; I’m talking about the white nationalist side. The authoritarian, racist, nazi side. Like any effective cult, Mises will continue to put out useful information as bait. But that will be just the bait to lead unsuspecting people down this path of collectivist, racist lunacy.

I agree that statism is evil, and that it intentionally damages the family to weaken its most obvious opponent. I even agree with the value of each of us working, individually, to strengthen our extended family. But the idea that our race is some kind of extended family to whom we owe some violent loyalty is absurd. The idea that we should go from open free market capitalism, which includes the market of ideas and religions, to racial loyalty is nonsense.

In pointing this out, Nicholas Sarwark has served one of his most important strategic jobs as chair and leader of this party. He has found a threat to liberty, which intends to redirect developing libertarians into white nationalism. He has spoken about it, despite the historical popularity of the Mises Institute. And he has spoken clearly and powerfully against it.

And now I’ll do mine. Over the last years, I have warned many of you about strategic threats to the cause of individual liberty. This is one of those threats, perhaps the biggest we have seen so far. I add my voice to Chairman Sarwark’s in denouncing this racial nationalism masquerading as libertarianism, and encourage you to do the same.

Racial nationalism is the worst form of collectivism. Should it be allowed to exist? Sure. Should we, as supporters of individual greatness and opportunity, of individual rights and principle, even consider supporting racial tribalism? Absolutely not.

I will not fight to replace statism with racial nationalism. I will fight to replace both with true individual liberty.

I am sorry to see that Mises has been coopted in this way, and I hope it can find its way back to the light of individual liberty. Unless it does, it remains a pernicious enemy in our midst, one that is working to dupe young people into joining the cause of racial nationalism, and supporting it with violence.

In Liberty,

Arvin Vohra
Vice Chair
Libertarian Party

P.S.: If you want to see what “blood and soil” means in today’s politics, here’s a nice video:

92 thoughts on “Nicholas Sarwark, Arvin Vohra call out Jeff Deist and the Mises Institute’s “blood and soil” politics

  1. Andy

    Tom Woods addressed this on his show on August 2nd, 2017.

    I urge those who value rational thought to listen to this show, which contains the speech in question, before going along with the leftist over-reaction outrage.

    From the show description: “As usual, though, emotional hypochondria got the better of a small group of left- and establishment libertarians, who are denouncing the speech in hysterical terms.”

    Left-Libertarians and Their Endless Moral Outrage

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7I9V4ZgKoQ&t=2605s

  2. paulie Post author

    Tom Woods and Jeff Deist are dead wrong. Sarwark and Vohra are precisely correct. The link to the speech is already in the article above. “Libertarians” advocating fascist concepts like “blood and soil” deserve all the outrage they can get.

  3. Thomas L. Knapp

    To be honest, I found Deist’s speech generally unobjectionable. Not that I agreed with all of it, but he had a few sound points. Then at the end he:

    1) Decided to dog whistle to the fash that he was with them; or

    2) Tried to make a “blood and soil” joke, not realizing that his organization has already enough of a problem in that area that some people would take it seriously; or

    3) Had some kind of weird brain seizure that got him involuntarily talking like the paleoconservative equivalent of Dr. Strangelove.

  4. JamesT

    I don’t agree with everything in Jeff’s speech but calling it a “nazi” speech is just hyperbolic nonsense. Tom Woods podcast called out this stuff. They’re falling into the whole SJW read way to much into everything and then use that as a way to control opposition and exercise power.

  5. paulie Post author

    What does the term “blood and soil” mean to you? Swirling around in this mental toilet bowl is what leads the Mike Enochs of the world down the path from libertarianism to nazism.

  6. paulie Post author

    I confess that if I am asked to associate with Hammer and Sickle, I think of baking soda.

    LOL, I think you mean Arm and Hammer.

  7. paulie Post author

    Readers might consider that many Americans are less familiar with these weird European phrasings, and don;t recognize the reference.

    I don’t think Deist said it out of ignorance.

  8. paulie Post author

    If you want evidence as to the nature of the von Mises folks, you might also take note that they are Civil War historical reconstructionists.

    That’s a polite way to put it.

  9. Anthony Dlugos

    “To be honest, I found Deist’s speech generally unobjectionable. Not that I agreed with all of it, but he had a few sound points. Then at the end he:”

    I agree with your post, Thomas, and let’s be clear: the above description is likely how the white nationalist sympathizers will try and smuggle white nationalism into the LP, hoping we overlook the “then at the end” part.

    And f*ck you too Mises Institute. I’ve visited their site for the last time.

  10. Andy

    “JamesT
    August 15, 2017 at 11:24
    I don’t agree with everything in Jeff’s speech but calling it a “nazi” speech is just hyperbolic nonsense. Tom Woods podcast called out this stuff. They’re falling into the whole SJW read way to much into everything and then use that as a way to control opposition and exercise power.”

    Bingo!

  11. paulie Post author

    Bingo!

    Bullshit!

    And as I said before what does “blood and soil” mean to you? Do you know where that slogan comes from?

  12. George Phillies

    “And as I said before what does “blood and soil” mean to you? Do you know where that slogan comes from?”

    Most Americans who are asked will not have a clue what is being ranted about. It’s a really obscure line, from an American perspective.

    I am reminded of the early 1970s and the antiwar folks. I recall this fellow getting up and claiming that because the antiwar folks had black bunting, this proved they were evil anarchists. Amusingly, I was at MIT at the time, and the fellowin question with David Nolan was also closely associated with the MIT Radicals for Capitalism and the local Objectivist cult group.

  13. Pete Blome

    Something is seriously outta whack here. I find myself agreeing with Vohra about racial nationalism is NOT being libertarian, and then I read he blames the von Mises Institute for doing it! Hard to believe. I’ve been regularly reading stuff from the von Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell for at least ten years and I can’t see a connection between them and the nonsense known as “Unite the Right.” Not a one. From his past actions, I think Vohra lacks political sense and resorts to hyperbole. If Sarwark fell for this, all the worse.

    I find it disturbing a national chair and vice chair can’t keep themselves focused on the real centers of political power in this country, and work to influence them. They have to resort to attacking von Mises, of all places? I wish they would make friends for the LP and garner resources so candidates can run and win. I wish they would learn to find and help candidates. I wish they would stop producing internal dissention and start producing external competition with the major parties.

    Oh well, if wishes were nickels, we’d all be millionaires…

  14. Thomas L. Knapp

    Pete,

    One connection between LvMI and Unite the Right would be the League of the South. There are others, but if you are interested in digging that would be a good place to put your shovel in.

  15. paulie Post author

    “Blood and soil” is not that obscure. If you think Deist was unaware of its history, I think you are being far too generous.

    Trump should also have denounced the antifa non-nonviolent faction.

    What? Why?

    Sorry, you lost me there completely.

  16. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Trump should also have denounced the antifa non-nonviolent faction.”

    Libertarianism does not require pacifism.

    The white nationalists came to Charlottesville openly arrayed as an army and openly looking for a fight. They pre-announced their intentions, which were, in legal parlance, making an offer to do harm. Any violence directed at them was therefore clearly defensive in nature.

  17. paulie Post author

    If anything, I’d rather stand with Antifa and denounce Trump. The cops, the fascists, the racists, the nationalists, the reich wingers and all that enable them and make excuses for them should be denounced as well.

  18. dL

    Most Americans who are asked will not have a clue what is being ranted about. It’s a really obscure line, from an American perspective.

    Well, not anymore…

  19. Thomas L. Knapp

    There was a time, and it was only a few months ago, when Antifa were being the bad guys. They weren’t fighting the Nazis in the streets. They were fighting in the streets to prevent speeches they didn’t like from happening.

    But now the Nazis have announced the same strategy — they’re coming to town to throw hands. So it’s on. And since it’s on and there are sides to be chosen, well, I’m not going to be choosing the Nazis’ side.

  20. paulie Post author

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/political-pulse/os-augustus-invictus-charlottesville-20170814-story.html

    Excerpt:

    Augustus Invictus, a former Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. Senate from Orlando most famous for saying he sacrificed a goat and drank its blood, had an important role in the white nationalist “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville on Saturday.

    Invictus, 34, was listed as a featured marcher for the Saturday event, which was roundly condemned after marchers carried Nazi flags, performed Hitler salutes and chanted white supremacist and anti-Semitic sayings while carrying torches. He could not be reached for comment Monday.

    Invictus lost the 2016 Libertarian primary for U.S. Senate in Florida to Paul Stanton, but not before state Chairman Adrian Wyllie resigned in protest. The Libertarian Party of Seminole County also disbanded and its chair, Don Menzel, resigned in protest of his candidacy. Wyllie alleged at the time Invictus wanted to lead a civil war in the country, recruit neo-Nazis to the party and supported a eugenics program.

    Invictus denied he had white supremacist sympathies at the time, but the Tampa Bay Times reported Monday white nationalist leader Richard Spencer credited Invictus with writing a first draft of the “Charlottesville Statement.”

    The statement, according to the Times, has tenets including, “Jews are an ethno-religious people distinct from Europeans … whites alone defined America as a European society and political order .. [and] the so-called ‘refugee crisis’ is an invasion, a war without bullets, taking place on the fields of race, religion, sex and morality.’’

  21. Andy

    I agree with Pete Bloome.

    Instead of launching a frivolous attack against another libertarian organization, therefore creating more unnecessary infighting in the libertarian community, how about focus on electing more Libertarians in winnable races? The Libertarian Party only has 150 people in elected offices right now, which is way down from what it was back in 2003, when there over 600 Libertarians in elected public offices. The LP has not elected anyone to a seat in a state legislature since 2000, and the LP has not elected anyone to a seat in a state legislature that actually filled out their term as a Libertarian since either 1996 or 1998. The four LP state legislators in office now were not elected as Libertarians. How about let’s see if we can get these people reelected as Libertarians? How about electing a Libertarian as Sheriff, who can then appoint Libertarians as deputies? How about Libertarians takeover a city/town council and/or a county commission/board in an area where the population is low enough to achieve this?

    Party membership is slipping right now, and is way below what it was in 2000-2001 (while the population of the country has gone up) How about doing something about this?

    How about start talking about jury nullification? How come there aren’t more Libertarians aggressively promoting jury nullification of victimless crimes? This is a winning issue, yet there is not a peep about it out of party leadership, and you rarely hear anyone in the party in general talking about it. Jury nullification of victimless crimes ought to be one of the top issues for the party.

  22. Gene Berkman

    The reference to “Blood & Soil” in the speech by Jeff Deist really is unfortunate. The Lew Rockwell crowd is clearly aligned with neo-Confederate and pro-Southern tendencies, and has been enthusiastic in support of Donald Trump as candidate and as President. One would hope that the Ludwig von Mises Institute, as an academic operation, would be far enough removed from the political games that Rockwell & crowd engage in.

    For the record, I sell many titles published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and much of their work promoting Austrian economics is important. Ludwig von Mises himself was an outspoken opponent of Fascism and National Socialism, as he made clear in his book “Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War” published in 1944. Mises, Jewish and an atheist, left Austria in 1934 after the Nazi seizure of power in Germany. Mises well knew the meaning invoked by the phrase “Blood & Soil.”

    You can read an overview of the career of Ludwig von Mises @ http://www.antiwar.com/berkman/mises.html

    The Ludwig von Mises Institute in Canada has reprinted this by Jeffrey Tucker of FEE https://www.mises.ca/the-west-is-a-portable-idea-not-blood-and-soil/

  23. Tony From Long Island

    Jury Nullification is probably between 47 and 63 on the average American’s list of important issues.

  24. Anthony Dlugos

    “Jury Nullification is probably between 47 and 63 on the average American’s list of important issues.”

    100% correct. Shows you how much projection Andy does.

  25. robert capozzi

    aj: Instead of launching a frivolous attack against another libertarian organization, therefore creating more unnecessary infighting in the libertarian community, how about focus on electing more Libertarians in winnable races?

    me: While I would like to see the L tent be far bigger to include not just NAPsters but all lessarchists, being perceived as in league with haters is where I draw the line. If Cantwell, Invictus and possibly Deist have jumped from the “liberty maximization for all” train to the “liberty for white Protestants” train, then it seems appropriate to distance the LM from their hateful choice.

    I note: there were signs that their agendas were swerving toward Haterville.

    I pray that they wake from their confusion.

  26. Anthony Dlugos

    “Instead of launching a frivolous attack against another libertarian organization, therefore creating more unnecessary infighting in the libertarian community, how about focus on electing more Libertarians in winnable races?”

    a) The infighting is necessary to rid ourselves of the nationalist/racist/xenophobic scum.

    b) The races are all winnable with the right moderate message. Other than the unopposed, essentially none of them are winnable with utopian dogma.

  27. Andy

    Robert Capozzi, what does that have to do with anything that I said?

    Did you even bother to watch the Tom Woods video I posted above? The video contains the entire speech from Jeff Deist. What libertarian principle did he violate? Regardless of this, I do not know if Jeff Deist is, or ever had been, a member of the Libertarian Party?

    I find it to be rather hypocritical how the hyper-sensitive left leaning people in the LP’ and/or the establishment cosmotarians beltway crowd are so quick to throw out smears and engage in guilt-by-association (even when there is a lack of association), yet the very same people will have a “lovefest” with lefty Maxist groups, some of which are funded by George Soros, and the establishment beltway “libertarian” crowd will go gaga over Council on Foreign Relations members and/or other mainstream politicians like Bill Weld, who, if you examine his actual policy positions, are not that far off from being an actual Nazi (Weld supports domestic spying, government “secret enemies” list to deny gun rights, foreign wats of aggression, Eminent Domain (for corporate interests), etc…)

    This entire controversy in Charlottesville just illustrates why I have been right all along to advocate for a private property, anarcho-capitalist society. What we saw in Chrarlotesville was factions of people who disagree with use of commons spaces/infrastructure. If we lived in an anarcho-capitalist society, that park could have whatever statue the park owner’s wanted, and if people don’t like it, do not go there. If we had full freedom of association, the warring factions could just not associate.

    Problems like this will continue as long as people are forced to associate, and are forced to pay for common spaces/infrastructure.

  28. wolfefan

    Whether most people know what “blood and soil” means is irrelevant. Dog whistles aren’t aimed at most people – just at the ones that already know the phrase.

  29. Anthony Dlugos

    Amen to that, wolfefan.

    It also doesn’t take many of those dogs to f*ck up and tarnish a movement.

  30. robert capozzi

    aj: Did you even bother to watch the Tom Woods video I posted above?

    me: No. I’ve heard enough from both Wood and LvMI to get the gist of where they come from, generally. Notice that I was more referring to Cantwell and Invictus, both avid NAPsters. Apparently, even the most vociferous NAPster can fall into that vat of Haterade.

    In watching Cantwell on VICE, I noticed his accent, so I did a bit of research on him. He hails, as I do, from Suffolk County on Long Island. He attended Suffolk County Community College. I wonder: Was Cantwell a Tom Woods student at SCCC?

    aj: What libertarian principle did he violate?

    me: As a non-NAPster (in recovery), I understand the question, but it has very little meaning to me. Personally, I believe it’s a REAL bad idea for those interested in advancing liberty to associate with haters. That a political figure or public intellectual gives quarter to Haters suggests either deep emotional problems or are engaged in some devious behavior by appealling in any way to haters.

    aj: … very same people will have a “lovefest” with lefty Maxist groups, some of which are funded by George Soros, and the establishment beltway “libertarian” crowd will go gaga over Council on Foreign Relations members and/or other mainstream politicians like Bill Weld, who, if you examine his actual policy positions, are not that far off from being an actual Nazi (Weld supports domestic spying, government “secret enemies” list to deny gun rights, foreign wats of aggression, Eminent Domain (for corporate interests), etc…)

    me: If you don’t see any difference between Weld and Cantwell/Invictus, I probably can’t help you, in all sincerity. If you are really interested, I’ll take a stab at it, but it seems self-evident to probably 98% of humanity. I don’t mean this as an insult, though it may sound like one. It’s a function of NAPsterism, which is the lens through which it sounds like you’re making this assessment.

  31. DJ

    I’m on the Mises email list but I’ll admit to rarely reading it, they’re a bit verbose for me. I read Lew Rockwell daily and have to agree they sometimes border on the neocon, but, I really enjoy Jack Perry’s take on things and Becky Akers and I like Block’s commentary, and he did admit to supporting Trump over Hillary. The rest, when they don’t use video’s, have some interesting commentary as well.

  32. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    My analysis of the failures of his libertarian decentralist analysis and strategy which leads to his stupid support for “blood and soil” not to mention getting (which?) libertarian women to make a bunch of babies each.

    Carol Moore comment on Jeff Deist presentation “For a New Libertarian” delivered at the 2017 Mises University. At https://mises.org/blog/new-libertarian

    As a long-time libertarian decentralist promoting subsidiarity, nullification, self-determination and secession by communities of common interest, someone who actually worked with Murray Rothbard in the 1979-82 era, I was disappointed by Jeff Deist’s sloppy and off-target presentation relevant to the topic. He doesn’t seem to understand the difference between the right to be parochial in your self-determining community vs. some deluded view you have to be parochial to create a libertarian society!

    Sure, most humans retain their “stubborn ideas about family and tribe”, about “religion and faith”, “ethnic or nationalist or cultural alliances” and even their “sexual hangups and bourgeois values.” However, what matters to libertarians is that despite these attributes, humans adhere to the non-aggression principle, the Golden Rule advanced in similar language by most religious and many philosophical views. Libertarians do not see being “fragile and fallible and hierarchical and irrational and suspicious and herd-like” as being an impediment to understanding that principle. What hope is there of voluntary solutions and a true civic society among fallible humans without it?

    Deist’ assertion there is some great number of libertarians “appearing hostile to family, to religion, to tradition, to culture, and to civic or social institution” (civic society) seems like a straw man. Sure, there are some, but Deist does not bother to name or quote even one.

    I feel like the real target of Mr. Deist’ wrath is women. After all, billions of women worldwide are rejecting the deep set “traditions” and “institutions” of “patriarchy”, otherwise known as male rule and female subservience; male competition for recognition and power, without the humiliation of being bested by women; male resort to violence to prove their manhood, without females carping about “domestic violence” and “toxic masculinity.” Most enraging to some men is women asserting they can control their own bodies and abort any fetus they find inconvenient, without even bothering to consult their all-powerful fathers or husbands. (Abortion actually is a 10,000 year old tradition among women.)

    Deep familial loyalties certainly are a defense against the state, but “blood” is not the only criteria that defines family, or we would have intermarried ourselves to extinction long ago. I agree that “government wants us atomized, lonely, broke, vulnerable, dependent, and disconnected”. However, the degree to which anti-family results are intended or unintended consequences of government policies, and whether some of those policies and programs would exist in a free market anyway, is worth debating.

    The truth about the breakup of American families is that 70 percent or more of divorces are initiated by women. Why? Could it be they are fed up with males who just can’t give up their old traditions of expecting women to follow their orders? Who expect them to suffer in silence when they learn husbands are having affairs or sexually abusing their children? Surprise, Mr. Deist! Few libertarian women are interested in becoming brood mares so that alleged libertarian males can create an army of 100 million people!!

    However, there are lots of single mothers who would love to form “single moms” communes and communities to help each other bring up children who have been abused, neglected or abandoned by their fathers. Of course, creating such communities is illegal under most zoning regulations, something all libertarians should decry.

    Nevertheless the family will survive and many families will create relatively conservative communities to protect kids from perverse outside influences. But in a society based on private property, not state territories and laws, these residential communities still will have all sorts of non-parent approved alternatives within a few miles distance. Ones that already may spied upon by a 12 year old’s toy drone.

    As for religion, conservative Christian religion has been forced on people by the state for at least 1700 years. Judaism, Islam and Hinduism, among others, all have enforced religion through the state. The freedom from state-enforced religion which libertarians seek means freedom to start new religions, shades of the 1960s when psychedelic drugs led to religious inspiration, before they were crushed as being immoral by the Christian state’s war on drugs.

    I certainly hope humans will evolve religions based on the libertarian metaphysics of free will, and thus principles akin to consciousness, being inherent in reality. And all true libertarians believe that the libertarian nonaggression “golden rule” must be the basis for governmental as well as private morality. But Mr. Deist evidently falls back on the old patriarchal religious and even nationalist myths which most libertarians realize encourage centralization and authority.

    Mr. Deist ends with a call for libertarians to decide “what would you physically fight for” and base their strategy on his assertion that “blood and soil and God and nation still matter to people.” The national socialist sloganeering aside, this seems to be little more than an appeal to pre-libertarian macho emotions over rational thought, certainly nothing new or libertarian. And certainly nothing that would convince his preferred audience of the case for libertarian ethics, subsidiarity, nullification, self-determination and secession by communities of interest.

  33. Thomas L. Knapp

    That may be the best commentary I’ve ever seen from you, Carol.

    Libertarianism (of the non-aggression constraint variety) is neutral as to how people might choose to live, to associate, to organize themselves collectively, etc. Anything goes except aggression.

    Deist’s libertarianism is “thick” insofar as it theorizes an inherent symbiotic relationship between “traditional” social values, by which he means a social conservatism anchored at, roughly, the pre-New-Deal era, and libertarianism proper — that social mores not conforming to that simply couldn’t have given birth to the libertarian impulse or libertarian theory. That’s the paleo thesis in a nutshell, although some of them take it further back and try to drape it in science (Hoppe once publicly asserted that it was the evolutionary pressure of the European climate that made white people the ones able to develop capitalism — the Mediterranean, rural England, etc. being so much more environmentally harsh than, say, sub-Saharan Africa or the Arctic Circle, you know).

    No problem with that, I guess, except that there’s the temptation to make common cause with those who are impatient that things keep not turning out according to theory and willing to resort to force (of the state or non-state varieties) to “set things right.” Thus the “paleo strategy” of throwing in with the Jim Crow/Blood and Soil crowd. Having made that feces-covered bed, they seem determined to lie in it.

  34. dL

    I read Lew Rockwell daily and have to agree they sometimes border on the neocon

    Neocon they are not…

  35. paulie Post author

    Instead of launching a frivolous attack against another libertarian organization,

    It’s not frivolous. We need to get the fascists and fascist sympathizers out of the libertarian movement so nobody confuses the two. That would help, not hinder, the mission of getting elected.

  36. paulie Post author

    If Cantwell, Invictus and possibly Deist have jumped from the “liberty maximization for all” train to the “liberty for white Protestants” train, then it seems appropriate to distance the LM from their hateful choice.

    I note: there were signs that their agendas were swerving toward Haterville.

    Yep.

  37. paulie Post author

    Whether most people know what “blood and soil” means is irrelevant. Dog whistles aren’t aimed at most people – just at the ones that already know the phrase.

    Exactly.

  38. Gene Berkman

    It is important to note that in German, you can combine words to make a longer word with a more complete meaning. So the syndrome of invoking “blood & soil” as part of your political strategy can be collapsed into the single word: “Blutundbodenscheiss” or, approximately “Blood and Soil Syndrome.” The last word is not the normal translation for the German last word.

    In 2002, I correctly determined that the original German for “Department of Homeland Security” is “Heimatsicherheitsdienst.” If you google using the German, it will take you to the website of DHS.

  39. Anthony Dlugos

    “In 2002, I correctly determined that the original German for “Department of Homeland Security” is “Heimatsicherheitsdienst.” If you google using the German, it will take you to the website of DHS.”

    ok that’s funny.

  40. paulie Post author

    But now the Nazis have announced the same strategy — they’re coming to town to throw hands. So it’s on. And since it’s on and there are sides to be chosen, well, I’m not going to be choosing the Nazis’ side.

  41. dL

    Instead of launching a frivolous attack against another libertarian organization,

    It’s not frivolous. We need to get the fascists and fascist sympathizers out of the libertarian movement so nobody confuses the two. That would help, not hinder, the mission of getting elected.

    Technically, Mises.org is an Austrian Economics resource organization. Austrian Economics and libertarianism are not synonymous. The website replaced its former mainstay tag lines, “Tu Ne Cede Malis” and “Advancing the scholarship of liberty in the Austrian Tradition” 2 years ago with a much more neutral “Austrian Economics, Freedom and Peace.”

  42. dL

    “In 2002, I correctly determined that the original German for “Department of Homeland Security” is “Heimatsicherheitsdienst.” If you google using the German, it will take you to the website of DHS.”

    ok that’s funny.

    Funny in a tragische Ironie sort of way. The establishment of DHS(and all that I knew it would eventually entail) is what caused me to make a fundamental reevaluation of my political libertarianism. From something that previously was ~ Cato/Milton Friedman/Minarchist to Benjamin Tucker/Bastiat/de Jasay/anarchist.

  43. dL

    Blood and Soil” was a response to Jeff Tucker’s very recent, widely circulated article, entitled (get ready)

    “The West Is a Portable Idea, Not Blood and Soil”

    Given that Tucker’s piece associated “Blood and Soil” with dog whistling some of the uglier collectivist aspects of the german romantic tradition, I don’t find that line of defense particularly compelling. Of course, it should be noted that none of this is taking place in some isolated vacuum. This stuff has existed on and off at the margins since Rothbard’s “strategic” paleo phase and has since been dressed up in a postmodernist drag by Hans Hoppe who turned a strategy into a “critical theory” underpinning of Misean praxeology itself . This “who, me?” victim pose is comical. Dishonest and execrable.

    I also agree in large with Carol’s comment above. But I arrived at that conclusion in a bit of more crass way. In looking at elements of the “alt-right,” the only socio-economic factor in common I could find that could explain such resentment was the simple inability to get laid.

  44. dL

    Deist’s libertarianism is “thick” insofar as it theorizes an inherent symbiotic relationship between “traditional” social values, by which he means a social conservatism anchored at, roughly, the pre-New-Deal era, and libertarianism proper — that social mores not conforming to that simply couldn’t have given birth to the libertarian impulse or libertarian theory.

    Yep…following Hoppe. Hoppe’s fusion of critical theory w/ Austrian Economics is something along the lines that the aprioristic rationality of Praxeology requires a dominant social commitment to white male patriarchy. He categorically rejects “thin libertarianism,” particularly as it relates to duties owed to no one. For Hoppe, you have a duty to act in away to preserve white heterosexual male dominance.

    In light of this, as a right-libertarian, I would of course first say to my children and students: always respect and do not invade others’ private property rights and recognize the State as an enemy and indeed the very anti-thesis of private property. But I would not leave it at that. I would not say (or silently imply) that once you have satisfied this requirement “anything goes.” Which is pretty much what ‘thin’ libertarians appear to be saying! I would not be a cultural relativist as most “thin” libertarians at least implicitly are. Instead, I would add (at a minimum): be and do whatever makes you happy, but always keep in mind that as long as you are an integral part of the worldwide division of labor, your existence and well-being depends decisively on the continued existence of others, and especially on the continued existence of white heterosexual male dominated societies, their patriarchic family structures, and their bourgeois or aristocratic lifestyle and conduct. Hence, even if you do not want to have any part in that, recognize that you are nonetheless a beneficiary of this standard “Western” model of social organization and hence, for your own sake, do nothing to undermine it but instead be supportive of it as something to be respected and protected.

    What a crackpot…

  45. Thomas L. Knapp

    “even if you do not want to have any part in that, recognize that you are nonetheless a beneficiary of this standard ‘Western’ model of social organization and hence, for your own sake, do nothing to undermine it but instead be supportive of it as something to be respected and protected”

    A nice example of Hoppe’s approach — standard McIntoshian “privilege theory,” but his recommendation for putting it into practice is the opposite of the usual (embrace, rather than denounce, the asserted privilege). So much for the people who think he’s kidding around when he says he’s a Marxist.

  46. Anthony Dlugos

    “In looking at elements of the “alt-right,” the only socio-economic factor in common I could find that could explain such resentment was the simple inability to get laid.”

    Indeed.

  47. JamesT

    Thanks for all your feedback. I now think Jeff’s reference was incredibly stupid. I mean I get his point that people fight for family, community, and culture way more than they do for abstract concepts. Thinking otherwise is human nature denial-ism. Which is a key staple of left wing political beliefs. That being said. Man he should have phrased it differently. I’m not gonna attack his character or motive as I don’t know him but yes you are all right it was very harmful way of expressing the idea. He should have the decency to clarify or something.

    But again the LP is a useless cabal that has never accomplished anything in the last 40 years. Them obviously attack other more successful organization (like Ron Paul) is pathetically obvious in its jealous motives. The total failure for the LP to capitalize on his 2 campaigns and then the fiasco that was 2016 shows that it is a useless enterprise. Pity really. I know a lot of good people who put a lot of time and effort into the organization for it be blundered away. I’m just done with libertarian movement. Battle between purists and sellouts will never accomplish anything. I wish I knew what would work better but I don’t. But Sawark pandering to SJWs and Deist using idiotic phraseology sure isn’t gonna work.

  48. Anthony Dlugos

    “Them obviously attack other more successful organization (like Ron Paul)…”

    In case you haven’t been keeping up on current events, the party is starting to distance itself from that old guy and his paleocon sensibilities.

    Turns out he was more downside than upside, given that he attracts people, (mostly men), with paleocon tendencies, which sometimes bleeds into straight up alt-right tendencies.

  49. paulie Post author

    But again the LP is a useless cabal that has never accomplished anything in the last 40 years.

    I strongly disagree. I believe we’ve kept things from becoming more authoritarian, more quickly than they have, often in ways that we don’t even know due to second, third etc order effects. I believe we have had a lot to do with the growth of the libertarian movement as a whole, being one of its most effective funnels. I don’t believe Ron Paul would ever have been a main stage Republican presidential candidate without the efforts of the LP over the years, for that matter. He may have gotten his congressional seat back after his US Senate attempt more easily, but would have most likely remained a fairly obscure congressman.

    Battle between purists and sellouts will never accomplish anything.

    It’s part of what every party and movement faces, but this is a different battle. I don’t think either Sarwark or Deist is a sellout – both are true to their beliefs. It’s just that those beliefs are very different in some important respects that can’t and shouldn’t be swept under the rug.

  50. Thomas L. Knapp

    Anthony,

    Yes, there was some negative fallout from Paul’s Republican presidential campaigns. That’s not surprising since one of the initial fundraising bases for those campaigns were the subscriber lists from his old newsletters, which — per the “paleo strategy” — dog whistled to the “solid south” segregationists, openly praised David Duke and other white supremacist leaders, etc. That history blew up in his face, of course. There was presumably a certain amount of “pass-through”: White supremacist becomes Ron Paul for President supporter, attaches to libertarian movement after campaigns end.

    BUT!

    Since the lights went off on his 2012 presidential campaign, Paul seems to have personally moved on. There wasn’t any big public falling out so far as I can see, but he either edged away (or was edged away) from the Rockwell gang. LewRockwell.com used to be Ron Paul Central. Now he’s barely mentioned there, and he certainly didn’t jump on the Trump Train with them.

    Since he’s moved on from that, I think it’s time for the rest of the libertarian movement to move on with respect to his association with it. To the extent that he may have been linked to the enemy, that no longer seems to be the case. We do have to deal with the racist/fascist fucksticks his campaigns helped push in our direction, but bashing him doesn’t seem to be a good strategy for doing that.

  51. paulie Post author

    “In looking at elements of the “alt-right,” the only socio-economic factor in common I could find that could explain such resentment was the simple inability to get laid.”

    Indeed.

    Well there is some of that, but it’s unfortunately not universally true. Invictus has had his share of girlfriends and kids – presumably, not all of them by rape. Ramsey has a wife and kid. Mike Enoch got in trouble with his fellow nazis when his real life identity was unmasked because his wife is Jewish (they married before he became a nazi), but he didn’t divorce her as of the last time I read anything about it. I believe they have kids also. And so on.

  52. JamesT

    Yeah I used to read Rockwell a lot but he got super alt-righty. It was disappointing. But I am happy to be corrected about how irresponsible Jeff’s phrasing was. I think Ron Paul is mostly focused on foreign policy at this point. Nader and Kucinich are on the board of his org no? He definitely made mistakes. I’m not a true believer. I don’t agree on immigration. He was just hands down better at funding, attention, and visibility than the LP ever was. I was in college for his first campaign and there was a fire I’ve never seen in the LP. His 2nd campaign too. It’s very frustrating to see that movement fracture then dissipate. the LP should have been a natural home but that didn’t happen.

    Paulie I meant the purist v sellouts battle as the state of the party the last 40 years. Not this current situation between Deist and Sawark. I think they are both just pandering to groups they ought not.

    Sawark and Tom Woods twitter war is just childish.

  53. Anthony Dlugos

    That’s a fair post at 9:19, Thomas.

    “We do have to deal with the racist/fascist fucksticks his campaigns helped push in our direction, but bashing him doesn’t seem to be a good strategy for doing that.”

    100% true.

  54. dL

    Well there is some of that, but it’s unfortunately not universally true.

    well, someone has to sell the book, “The Definitive Blood and Soil Guide to Picking Up Girls .”

  55. Pingback: Orlando Sentinel: ‘Goat-blood drinking Orlando man had key billing for Charlottesville rally’ | Independent Political Report

  56. Andy

    I don’t know how many people here bothered to listen to the speech from Jeff Deist, which is contained in full in the video from Tom Woods that I posted above (which also contains some commentary from Tom Woods), but I listened to it again last night, just for a refresher (I originally listened to it when Woods put the above video out, which I believe was on August 2nd of this year).

    Jeff Deist was talking about decentralization of power. He said that a lot of libertarians do not value things like religion and family and culture, but that a lot of people do, so rather than wasting time trying to turn people away from these things, that libertarians could use these things to encourage people to accept decentralization of power. If people can rely on family or religion, they don’t have to turn to the state. If people like their culture, they can keep it, and he used the example of micro states like Liechtenstein (I believe this was the example he gave). He said something to the effect of that there are 7.5 billion people in the world, and ideally, this would mean 7.5 billion micro states (as in each person on the planet being like their own state), but he said that this is not likely to happen anytime soon, so that a better option than big states would be for smaller states because it would decentralize power. He did not make the comment about “blood and soil” until the end of the speech (in reference to things like family and culture being important to some people), and it was in no way meant to promote national socialism or fascism or something like that.

    Perhaps we could get in touch with Jeff Deist and/or Tom Woods (I do not know how difficult either of them are to get a hold of; I met Tom Woods in Orlando last year, but I only spoke to him briefly, so it is not like I really know him, and I doubt that he remembers me) and set up some kind of public debate, or a forum where people can ask them questions.

  57. Tony From Long Island

    Andy (quoting Jeff D) ” . . . . this would mean 7.5 billion micro states (as in each person on the planet being like their own state), but he said that this is not likely to happen anytime soon . . . ”

    . . . . or ever

  58. paulie Post author

    don’t know how many people here bothered to listen to the speech from Jeff Deist,

    Why listen when you can read it? The full written text is, once again, at a link in the very article we are commenting on.

    He did not make the comment about “blood and soil” until the end of the speech

    As everyone here already acknowledged.

    and it was in no way meant to promote national socialism or fascism or something like that.

    BS, and you know it. He knew exactly where it came from and what it means and so do you. He did not use those words by accident.

  59. Thomas L. Knapp

    Woods has already debated Deist’s speech with e.g. Cory Massimino.

    Like I said, when I listened to the speech I didn’t find a lot wrong with it except to the extent that it was a “thick” libertarian speech pretending to be a “thin” libertarian speech. As a “thin” libertarian, I don’t like seeing the brand image distorted.

    The big problem with the speech, IMO, is that Deist decided to close with a reference (“blood and soil”) that has pretty much the same effect as “Sieg Heil” on people who recognize it. My guess is still that he was making a joke in reference to Tucker’s article and probably didn’t expect to blow up in his face like that. And my opinion is that, therefore, people are making too much of it. But they’re probably going to continue it now that “blood and soil” got a big boost as a slogan from the fuckface fascist scumbags in Charlottesville.

  60. paulie Post author

    http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/16/charlottesville-race-and-the-mishnory-ro

    At its most basic, racism consists of denying a person his or her individuality. To be racist is to view members of one demographic cohort as essentially all alike within the group, and essentially all different from all other people outside that group. The racist believes the essence of a black man is his blackness, and the essence of a white woman is her whiteness, and those two essences are not merely distinct but discordant.

    In fact (says the racist), the difference between those color-coded cohorts is so great that it overwhelms whatever differences might exist within the cohorts: Colin Powell, Ben Carson, Condoleezza Rice, Jean-Michel Basquiat—no matter how accomplished such individuals might be, they are still, in the end, just mud people. Untermenschen. N-words. And therefore, they have less intrinsic worth than some illiterate, swivel-eyed yahoo doing a 20-year stretch for raping his little sister. “I might be an illiterate, swivel-eyed rapist,” the yahoo can tell himself, “but at least I’m better than them.”

    To all right-thinking people, this is lunacy.

    But many of those who would recoil in horror at such notions when espoused by a gap-toothed moron wearing a Confederate flag find similar notions strangely beguiling when they are dressed up in more genteel language.

  61. Andy

    Here’s a report on Liechtenstein from Reason Magazine (Nick Gillespie is the person from Reason in the video). Since this is from Reason Magazine, it is safe for all of the cosmotarians here who stick their fingers in their ears when it comes from anyone associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

    Is Liechtenstein a Libertarian Utopia?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGeOGnsSayc

  62. Andy

    Oh wow, here’s a big piece of irony. Adolph Hilter admired Abraham Lincoln, and he opposed the concept of states’ rights and decentralization of power in general.

    Lincoln or Lee? What Would Hitler Say?

    https://www.unz.com/imercer/lincoln-or-lee-what-would-hitler-say/

    This is from the article: “Of this, Adolf Hitler wholly approved.

    CNN’s Brooke Baldwin will be shocked—OMG! kind of shocked—to know that in his Mein Kampf, Hitler ‘expressed both his support for Lincoln’s war and his unwavering opposition to the cause of states’ rights and political decentralization.’

    Hitler vowed that in Germany as well, he and his National Socialists ‘would eliminate states’ rights altogether,’ political decentralization being the greatest obstacle for all dictators. ”

    LOL! So much for Jeff Deist supposedly having given a Nazi speech. His speech was actually the opposite of a Nazi speech.

    Also, those idiots who are tearing down those Confederate statues are doing something that Adolph Hitler would have done. Oh the irony! LOL!

  63. paulie Post author

    Blood and soil was an explicitly nazi slogan. And the statues were not put up to celebrate decentralization – they were put up to celebrate the restoration of white supremacy under Jim Crow, the rebirth of the KKK and the struggle by the southern elite to stop desegregation. They still represent the racial tilt of the criminal injustice system today. Hitler, like the antebellum south and the modern prison-industrial complex alike, ran a slave empire. As for decentralization Hitler was a situationist. Had he won the Bavarian Beer Hall Putsch, he would have led a secessionist Bavaria out of Germany. Once he seized central authority of course he did not want local authority in conflict with his. One thing that stayed consistent with him was “blood and soil.”

  64. paulie Post author

    Also, those idiots who are tearing down those Confederate statues are doing something that Adolph Hitler would have done. Oh the irony! LOL!

    You’re right. Hitler probably would not have tolerated statues put up to people who had fought a war against Germany and killed lots of Germans. Then again who would?

  65. paulie Post author

    LOL! So much for Jeff Deist supposedly having given a Nazi speech. His speech was actually the opposite of a Nazi speech.

    Which is why they were both all about blood and soil.

  66. paulie Post author

    We’ve been over this. The issue with the confederate statues was not simply that they were racists. Lincoln was a racist, almost anyone of any note back then was a racist. The issue is that they led and fought a slaveholders rebellion against the US to preserve slavery, as their letters of secession make clear. They waged war against the US and killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, just like the nazis that the fascist Charlottesville marchers also idolize. Who that did do that do we have a bunch of statues to in this country? Should we put up statues to Hitler and nazi generals and ministers too?

    The other issue with these statues was why they were put up when they were. They were put up as a specific statement about resurgent white supremacy decades after the people depicted in the statues died. Their placement had to do with the reimposition of Jim Crow and segregation, the rebirth of the KKK and the fight to stop desegregation. They sent a message loud and clear, and it’s a message that continues to be sent as our racist criminal “justice” system continues to disproportionately kill, humiliate, harass and enslave the descendents of slaves, and to keep them “in their place” the same ways that the overseers did.

  67. paulie Post author

    KRS One – Sound of da police

    Lyrics:

    Chorus:

    Woop-woop!
    That’s the sound of da police!
    Woop-woop!
    That’s the sound of the beast!

    Verse One:

    Stand clear! Don man a-talk
    You can’t stand where I stand, you can’t walk where I walk
    Watch out! We run New York
    Police man come, we bust him out the park
    I know this for a fact, you don’t like how I act
    You claim I’m sellin’ crack
    But you be doin’ that
    I’d rather say “see ya”
    Cause I would never be ya
    Be a officer? You WICKED overseer!
    Ya hotshot, wanna get props and be a saviour
    First show a little respect, change your behavior
    Change your attitude, change your plan
    There could never really be justice on stolen land
    Are you really for peace and equality?
    Or when my car is hooked up, you know you wanna follow me
    Your laws are minimal
    Cause you won’t even think about lookin’ at the real criminal
    This has got to cease
    Cause we be getting HYPED to the sound of da police!

    Chorus

    Verse Two:

    Now here’s a likkle truth
    Open up your eye
    While you’re checking out the boom-bap, check the exercise
    Take the word “overseer,” like a sample
    Repeat it very quickly in a crew for example
    Overseer
    Overseer
    Overseer
    Overseer
    Officer, Officer, Officer, Officer!
    Yeah, officer from overseer
    You need a little clarity?
    Check the similarity!
    The overseer rode around the plantation
    The officer is off patroling all the nation
    The overseer could stop you what you’re doing
    The officer will pull you over just when he’s pursuing
    The overseer had the right to get ill
    And if you fought back, the overseer had the right to kill
    The officer has the right to arrest
    And if you fight back they put a hole in your chest!
    (Woop!) They both ride horses
    After 400 years, I’ve _got_ no choices!
    The police them have a little gun
    So when I’m on the streets, I walk around with a bigger one
    (Woop-woop!) I hear it all day
    Just so they can run the light and be upon their way

    Chorus

    Verse Three:

    Check out the message in a rough stylee
    The real criminals are the C-O-P
    You check for undercover and the one PD
    But just a mere Black man, them want check me
    Them check out me car for it shine like the sun
    But them jealous or them vexed cause them can’t afford one
    Black people still slaves up til today
    But the Black police officer nah see it that way
    Him want a salary
    Him want it
    So he put on a badge and kill people for it
    My grandfather had to deal with the cops
    My great-grandfather dealt with the cops
    My GREAT grandfather had to deal with the cops
    And then my great, great, great, great… when it’s gonna stop?!

  68. paulie Post author

    Much like the nazis, the confederates and neoconfederates’ position on decentralism is… situational. Sure, they were all for the right of slave states to secede from the union. But they were not so much in favor of the right of counties such as those that went on to form West Virginia and Winston, Alabama to secede from those slave states as they had no slaves to speak of and no interest in fighting to preserve slavery. Nor did they support the radically decentralist right of slaves to escape from their masters.

    In the mid 19th century, especially after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, there was a movement by some radical abolitionists to have the North secede and stop cooperating with the enforcement of fugitive slave laws. Had that movement succeeded, do you think the people who went on to lead the confederacy would have been in favor of decentralism? I don’t. I’m sure they would have fought a bloody war to keep the northern states from being able to secede or to allow their slaves to escape.

    In Alabama, home of the Mises Institute, the reimposition of southern white rule, Jim Crow and segregation around the turn of the 19th to 20th century came with taking away home rule from cities and counties and concentrating it in the hands of the legislature and the governor. That’s why Alabama has by far the longest constitution of any state with over 700 amendments. Property taxes are the lowest in the US, but income taxes have no exemptions for basic necessities and start at a punishingly low level of income, well below even the federal basic survival exemption. The Big Mules and their descendents only applied decentralism to Alabama vs the federal government, not so much to counties and cities and individuals vs the state of Alabama.

    Blood and soil, indeed.

  69. Andy

    Check out this excellent interview that Jeff Deist recently conducted with Dave Smith. Dave Smith is a libertarian comedian from New York City. Dave was raised in a leftist environment, but was inspired to get into libertarianism after hearing Ron Paul speak while Ron was running in the Republican presidential primaries. Although his last name does not imply it, Dave is Jewish.

    This flies in the face of the “Ron Paul and Jeff Deist and Tom Woods and anyone else connected with the Mises Institute are mean, nasty even Nazi racists who want to do all kinds of bad things.” hysteria that is being repeated by some people.

    Dave Smith: Libertarians and the Culture Wars

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhTQAzE4raI

  70. Anthony Dlugos

    That’s what I am trying to figure out about it.*

    *The author of this statement is half Italian, although his cooking does not imply it

  71. Andy

    “Chuck Moulton
    September 2, 2017 at 14:21
    Why do you feel the need to point out that people are black or Jewish or hispanic?”

    Why do some people feel the need to claim that some people are racists or fascists when they are not?

    It was claimed that Jeff Deist gave a “Nazi” speech, when in reality, his speech was anti-decentralization of power, which was the exact opposite of what Nazis believed.

    Also, if you’d actually watch the interview before posting a comment. Dave Smith said during the interview that he’s Jewish and from New York City and was raised in a leftist environment, and that it was hearing Ron Paul that he got into libertarianism. Now he’s a fan of the Mises Institute.

    So let’s see, it is OK for left libertarians and cosmotarians to go off on these political correctness witch hunts where they make accusations against people, but it is not OK to point out any evidence that goes against their political correctness witch hunt accusations.

  72. Thomas L. Knapp

    “the ‘Ron Paul and Jeff Deist and Tom Woods and anyone else connected with the Mises Institute are mean, nasty even Nazi racists who want to do all kinds of bad things.’ hysteria that is being repeated by some people.”

    If that’s being repeated by some people, presumably you can name a few of them.

  73. paulie Post author

    As already pointed out on another thread, the fact that Rothbard was Jewish did not keep him from praising David Duke. And absolutely no one here has said anything even close to that Ron Paul, Tom Woods and anyone associated with the Mises Institute is a nazi.

    As for Deist’s speech, sorry, but when you take a crap on stage at the end of your speech, wipe it with your hand and lick it clean while laughing like a maniac, whatever you said before that becomes irrelevant. You don’t have to like it, but it’s true.

    And as I also pointed out earlier, nazi approaches to decentralism were sort of like their approach to free speech and a lot of other things: situational. When Hitler led the Beer Hall Putsch, presumably he was in favor of Bavarian autonomy. When he led the Third Reich, not so much. When alt right neo nazis find themselves out of power in a small-l liberal society they are all for decentralism and free speech. When they get in power, not so much. When confederates want to secede from the Union or defend segregation they want decentralism, but when counties wanted to secede from confederate states or slaves wanted to secede from slave owners….not so much.

  74. Pingback: Paul Frankel: Why Libertarians need to denounce the Alt Right and white nationalists and don’t need to worry about libertarian socialists and antifa | Independent Political Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *