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