Santa Fe New Mexican on “Johnson: The candidate who’s something else”

ALBUQUERQUE — The guy in the “Build the Wall” T-shirt left about 10 minutes into Gary Johnson’s speech.

But otherwise, the crowd was stoked. Or at least curious.

As the former New Mexico governor held his first rally as the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate last week, some members of his administration from the 1990s felt like the old band was back together.

There were aides from the days when Johnson was a Republican. Then there were the Libertarians. There were the guys in Western wear who looked like they keep a lot of their money in gold bars, and guys who looked like they had skied a 100-day season and keep most of their money in cryptocurrency. There were advocates for election reform, drug reform and immigration reform. One woman even sang to the former governor during a question-and-answer period.

The event had all the zaniness befitting a third-party underdog.

But there was something else, too.

Johnson has electrified a boringly lopsided race that looked like a walk for Democratic incumbent Martin Heinrich. And Johnson is doing it by veering from the usual script — speaking to Libertarian-leaning voters who once fit inside the Republican Party but are not so sure about that in the age of President Donald Trump.

And as Democrats grapple with their own identity crisis and wring their hands over calls from the base to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Johnson questions aloud why the country has a Department of Homeland Security at all while arguing for more immigration and legalizing weed.

These disparate audiences are hard to pin down. And the big question is whether they are enough to elect Johnson.

Either way, Johnson’s voters could prove to be a bigger problem for both Republicans and Democrats than either party might want to admit.

Full article by Andrew Oxford @ http://www.santafenewmexican.com/elections/johnson-the-candidate-who-s-something-else/article_558ac354-52de-51c4-bd8c-63495fa1d1bb.html

97 thoughts on “Santa Fe New Mexican on “Johnson: The candidate who’s something else”

  1. Andy

    It’s great to see Gene Berkman back with an article. I’ve still got 11 articles here that are stuck in “pending” status, some of which have been stuck there for over a month. This is a shame, because these are all things that would be of interest to IPR readers.

  2. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    So is he on the ballot? Searched around and couldn’t find out. I’ll send him $10 if he is!

  3. Anthony Dlugos

    “He is on the ballot. In fact, he is out polling the GOP nominee.”

    Is this the first race of any significance where the Wasted Vote Syndrome will be in our favor?

    Maybe.

  4. Anthony Dlugos

    “I’ve still got 11 articles here that are stuck in “pending” status, some of which have been stuck there for over a month. This is a shame…”

    Look at it this way: now you and Supreme Nut Case Alex Jones have something in common. You’re being de-platformed for coming so close to the truth NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR!!!

  5. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Anthony: I think we should hear the titles of those articles before we agree it’s a shame. 🙂

  6. Paul

    I think it’s interesting that the Republican will likely play the role of spoiler in this race.

    The Republican nominee probably should drop out though, especially after his campaign manager resigned.

  7. Anthony Dlugos

    Carol: quite true.

    Paul: the Republican leadership might prefer their nominee running a futile campaign and losing the seat to the Dems rather than venturing into the unknown of:

    A) a political battlefield where one of their candidates shows weakness in the face of a Libertarian and drops out.
    B) a Libertarian in a roughly 50-50 Senate getting the libertarian message out, especially in the Trump era.

    That’s a whole lot of unknowns. If I am the Republican leadership, given that we have a 75% chance of holding the Senate anyway, I’m telling their candidate in New Mexico to take one for the team.

  8. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Reminder, Anthony: GOP doesn’t think LP part of THEIR team. Libertariaans are pro-choice, pro-immigration, pro-free trade, vs. military intervention, vs. corportate statism, etc…

  9. Paul

    Not necessarily true… Johnson could offer to caucus with the GOP, which would encourage the Republican to drop out – though that would likely alienate some Democratic and Independent voters.

  10. Anthony Dlugos

    He could make an offer to caucus with the GOP. Maybe behind-the-scenes. I could see that.

    Still, it would be a risk. The last thing the GOP needs is a pro-free trade, pro-immigrant Libertarian making speeches in the Senate, speeches sure to be covered by the segment of the mainstream media with no love loss for Trump.

    Would that lead to a Libertarian “Gold Wave?” Almost certainly not.

    Is it worth it for the GOP to caucus with a guy who is not going to go for Trump’s worst policy instincts? I’d think not.

    Would a Senator Johnson be enough of a factor to depress turnout among liberal Republicans in 2020 to cost the GOP the white house? Who knows?

  11. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    August 28, 2018 at 14:20
    uh oh, Andy’s head is gonna explode. Although, its not quite the shock to the paleo mindset that a Ron Paul endorsement would entail:

    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-mexico/articles/2018-08-28/sen-rand-paul-backs-libertarian-senate-candidate

    It is nice to see Rand Paul endorsing a Libertarian Party candidate for a change, but I wish that he had endorsed somebody else. The LP has plenty of candidates that are running for office right now who are better candidates than Gary Johnson. I will say that out of the Libertarian Party candidates who are running in high profile races right now, Johnson stands the best chance of winning due to the dynamics of this race. I’m skeptical that he actually will win, but I will say that he’s got a better chance of winning this race than does the typical Libertarian Party candidate for US Senate. This probably had something to do with Rand endorsing him.

    Ron Paul endorsed Libertarian Party candidate for US Senate in New Jersey, Muarry Sabrin, for this election. Sabrin is more libertarian than Gary Johnson, but he’s running in a less winnable race.

    I am not a fan of Gary Johnson, and I would not have endorsed him, especially after what he pulled in 2016, but I’m not going to hold this against Rand. I did not agree with some of Rand’s past endorsements, but in those cases I can see why he did it, as he was an elected Republican who was running reelection, and running for the Republican presidential nomination, and he needed to gain curry favors from other Republicans to get support.

    I would vote for Rand Paul over Gary Johnson, and I’d vote for Ron Paul over Rand Paul.

  12. robert capozzi

    aj: The LP has plenty of candidates that are running for office right now who are better candidates than Gary Johnson.

    Me: By “better,” do you mean “more consistently NAPist?” Who is more potentially electable than GJ?

  13. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “By ‘better,’ do you mean “more consistently NAPist?”

    Yes, by better I mean somebody who is more legitimately libertarian. I also mean somebody who does not come off as an unprepared goofball in interviews and debates.

    “Who is more potentially electable than GJ?”

    I think that the LP has people running for US Senate right now who are more principled, and in interviews and debates than Gary Johnson. They are just lacking money and name recognition. This is why the LP needs to build up its own people. The LP should be creating its own stars rather than relying on stars from other parties.

    The LP has people running for local offices and for seats in state legislatures who stand a better chance of winning than Gary Johnson does, like those sitting Libertarian legislators in New Hampshire and Nebraska.

    Yes, Gary Johnson has the best shot of anyone in the LP right now at getting elected to the US Senate, but given the cost of running for statewide office, the odds are still against him. He could possibly pull it off though, but I doubt it. If he does somehow win, I hope that he does not further damage the LP’s reputation like he did during his presidential campaign.

  14. Andy

    “and in interviews and debates than Gary Johnson.”

    Should read, “and better in interviews and debates than Gary Johnson.”

  15. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    So what steps are you proposing should be taken to punish the leadership of the NMLP for violation of the NAP and LP’s reputation in its election of GJ to run for the Senate? Should Harlos, Hogarth & Woods be dispatched to Albuquerque to set up re-education camps for these wayward troglodytes? Should the NatCom disaffiliate the NMLP for moral turpitude?

    More importantly, what is your diagnosis for why the LP does so poorly electorally with 45 years of practice fielding homegrown candidates?

  16. Anthony Dlugos

    “Should Harlos, Hogarth & Woods be dispatched to Albuquerque to set up re-education camps for these wayward troglodytes?”

    lol.

    “I think that the LP has people running for US Senate right now who are more principled, and better in interviews and debates than Gary Johnson.”

    Its easy to be “principled ” (i.e., take positions that have zero chance of getting turned into policy). and sound like a lunatic when you have zero chance of winning. What do you got to lose?

    The irony about the purist attachment to “principle” is that its the most pragmatic thing a zero candidate with no resume could ever do when faced with a more intelligent, more successful opponent with a better resume, Of course a guy like Kokesh is going to argue for “principle.” What else is he going to say? “When I was governor, I…”

  17. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    August 29, 2018 at 14:55
    AJ,

    So what steps are you proposing should be taken to punish the leadership of the NMLP for violation of the NAP and LP’s reputation in its election of GJ to run for the Senate? Should Harlos, Hogarth & Woods be dispatched to Albuquerque to set up re-education camps for these wayward troglodytes? Should the NatCom disaffiliate the NMLP for moral turpitude?”

    I am not suggesting that any punishment be issued like that. This situation is just a symptom of problems that have been going on in the Libertarian Party for a long time. I would say that it boils down to a lack of principles, a lack of strategic sense, and a lack of willingness to put in the work that it would take to build a more successful and principled Libertarian Party. There are too many LP members out there who want to “take the easy way out,” as in they want to nominate a “big name” who will be a “savior” who will get them a lot of votes, and rescue them from third party obscurity. There are too many LP members out there who think that libertarian means, “socially liberal and physically conservative,” and they don’t really understand the deeper underlying principles of property rights and the Non-Aggression Principle. There are too many LP members out there who are political “fanboys” and wannabe serious “political consultants,” and who will latch onto any con-artist that has “shiny badge” credentials or big promises they can’t deliver. There are too many LP members who obsess over political offices that are not realistically in reach for LP candidates, while putting little to no effort into electing people to city/town or county or state legislature races where LP candidates stand a much more realistic chance of being elected, if the actual work is put into doing what it takes to win these races, but these people are not willing to actually do that work, as they’d rather obsess about presidential races and gubernatorial races where they have no chance to win.

    Gary Johnson is just a symptom of this problem. A healthier Libertarian Party would have rejected Gary Johnson as a candidate, if not in 2012, then certainly in 2016. A healthier Libertarian Party would have a lot more Libertarians elected to local offices and to seats in state legislatures. The LP had over 600 people elected to local offices in 2003. 15 years later the LP has less than 200 people in elected offices. If the Libertarian Party had been steadily growing over the last 15 years, I don’t think that it is unrealistic to say that we could have over 2,000 people in elected offices by now, and that this figure would include numerous state legislators, and that we’d have Libertarians controlling some low population cities/towns and/or counties by now, as in that a majority of the local government officials in these places would be Libertarians. A healthier Libertarian Party might have even elected one or more persons to the US House by now. A healthier Libertarian Party would attract a stronger, and more principled field of candidates for its presidential ticket. A healthier Libertarian Party would have booed a candidate like Bill Weld out of the room instead of nominating him to be its candidate for Vice President.

    “More importantly, what is your diagnosis for why the LP does so poorly electorally with 45 years of practice fielding homegrown candidates?”

    The LP is capable of electing people to local offices and to seats in state legislatures. The reason that this does not happen more often is because too few people in the party are willing to do the work to make it happen. If the LP did more of this, the party would have a much larger field of homegrown candidates from which to select people to run for higher level offices.

    Also, there are too many people in the LP who prefer to attach themselves to established stars rather than building up people within the party in order to create new stars.

  18. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    OK. So the experiment has been running for ~50 years now. In your mind, is there a timeframe in which you’d agree that the NAPist approach is deemed a failure?

  19. Chuck Moulton

    Robert Capozzi wrote:

    OK. So the experiment has been running for ~50 years now. In your mind, is there a timeframe in which you’d agree that the NAPist approach is deemed a failure?

    Okay, the “run Republican retreads instead of actual libertarians” experiment has been running for 3 presidential election cycles now. In your mind, is there a timeframe in which you’d agree that the shiney badge approach is deemed a failure?

  20. robert capozzi

    more…

    My gut tells me GJ has a 20% chance of winning this race. In a way, I’d say that outcome alone would be validation of the Shiny Badge (i.e., qualified candidates) approach by itself. Thus far, the metrics have looked good to me.

    He’ll need a great chief of staff. A lawyer/economist might fit the bill. Interested?

  21. Chuck Moulton

    So 2 more presidential elections?

    I’m interested in helping to enact libertarian policy. Gary Johnson does not seem to work well with others though (in policy or media coaching), and I have no illusions that he would be interested in hiring me if he got elected — given that I vocally opposed his nomination in convention 2016 (though I supported him in convention 2012 and voted for him in the general election both years).

  22. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    August 29, 2018 at 17:10
    more…

    My gut tells me GJ has a 20% chance of winning this race. In a way, I’d say that outcome alone would be validation of the Shiny Badge (i.e., qualified candidates) approach by itself. Thus far, the metrics have looked good to me.”

    You are forgetting that the purpose of running for office as a Libertarian Party candidate is not to get votes for the sake of getting votes, or even to win for the sake of winning, it is to promote the libertarian philosophy, and if a Libertarian Party candidate wins the election, it is to implement the libertarian philosophy as an elected official.

    I am not opposed to a candidate having a “Shiny Badge” to wave around, and I can even seen benefits to a candidate having one or more of them, so long as the candidate fulfills the objectives that I mentioned above.

  23. robert capozzi

    CM,

    Yes, 2 more cycles. But if GJ wins this race, ask me then. I’d want to see how he might affect political dynamics for 2 years or so.

    Plan C might be bottom-up lessarchism vs bottom-up, dogmatic NAPism vs. the Shiny Badge approach.

    You might not be the best choice, then, given your history.

    Maybe Danny Klein can recommend someone. He seems to have things well scoped….

  24. Anthony Dlugos

    “I’d say that outcome alone would be validation of the Shiny Badge.”

    And that would be true even if we limited the analysis to only people who have run as Libertarians.

    Obviously, if our objective is to win elections, we would need to expand the analysis to include the candidates who typically win elections. Do they have a badge? Is it shiny?

    We all know the answer to that question.

    Then again, if your gonna have a fantasyland set of policy prescriptions, I guess you might as well have fantasyland c.v. requirements.

    Maybe we can assemble Libertarian candidates in a factory and install the LP platform as a basic operating system. I smell an Asimov novel. Doesn’t end too well for the actual human beings we’re trying to indoctrinate…er, I mean help.

  25. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    August 29, 2018 at 16:27
    AJ,

    OK. So the experiment has been running for ~50 years now. In your mind, is there a timeframe in which you’d agree that the NAPist approach is deemed a failure?”

    The LP has been around for almost 47 years now, but given all of the things that the Libertarian Party has botched, like not putting enough focus on getting more people elected at the city/town and county level (there is really no reason why the Libertarian Party could not have taken majority control over one or more local governments by now), and to seats in state legislatures, and running unprincipled people, some of whom acted like buffoons, on its last three presidential tickets, is not what I’d call doing a good job of running the experiment.

  26. Chuck Moulton

    Andy is right. Step 1 is for a candidate to have libertarian positions. You only get to step 2 of looking at credentials if the candidate passes step 1.

    That said, I give a much wider latitude to lower level candidates — including U.S. Senate — than to presidential candidates. We should invite candidates with a multitude of communication and policy strategies to try and let the marketplace of ideas show what works and what doesn’t. Gary Johnson is a wonderful candidate for U.S. Senate and I wish him the best.

  27. Anthony Dlugos

    Step 1 is purely subjective. I think Governor Johnson had libertarian positions in the 2016 campaign for the LP nomination. Others think he did not.

    So we voted.

    There is no other way to look at this.

    (Of course, we’re all allowed to change our opinions. That still doesn’t change the fact that Step 1 will always be a personal decision, to be resolved in a political party by casting votes.)

    Andy is allowed to support an ex-felon with no experience in office who wants to abolish the government on Day One as his preferred 2020 candidate for the LP nomination. He’s not allowed to decide Step One for anyone other than himself.

  28. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    August 29, 2018 at 18:00
    Step 1 is purely subjective. I think Governor Johnson had libertarian positions in the 2016 campaign for the LP nomination. Others think he did not.

    So we voted.

    There is no other way to look at this.

    (Of course, we’re all allowed to change our opinions. That still doesn’t change the fact that Step 1 will always be a personal decision, to be resolved in a political party by casting votes.)”

    I’d wager that some of those delegates who voted for Johnson, particularly the ones who signed up for the LP shortly before the convention, or even at the convention, were not legitimate libertarians at all.

    Just because a group of people came together and voted that 1 + 1 = 3, it does not make it so.

    “{Andy is allowed to support an ex-felon with no experience in office who wants to abolish the government on Day One as his preferred 2020 candidate for the LP nomination. He’s not allowed to decide Step One for anyone other than himself.”

    I do not know who all is going to be running for the LP’s presidential nomination in 2020. The only candidates I know of right now are Adam Kokesh and Bill Weld. If this is what the contest ends up being, then I’d certainly vote for Adam Kokesh, but I assume that more people will jump in the race, so I’d have to see who else jumps in the race, and what kind of campaigns are run for the nomination before I can say for sure who for whom I’d cast my vote.

    Also, Adam’s platform is not to shut the federal government down in one day, but rather to begin the process of shutting it down on day one. The process would likely take a few years to complete. He is also not naive enough to think that he, or anyone else on the LP ticket, is going to win the White House in 2020. He wants to build support for the concept, so that maybe by 2024 or 2032 that concept will be a more realistic option.

  29. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “Andy is allowed to support an ex-felon with no experience in office who wants to abolish the government on Day One as his preferred 2020 candidate for the LP nomination. He’s not allowed to decide Step One for anyone other than himself.”

    Yeah, for a short period of time in a small town in Utah back in the 1980’s. Few people outside the LP even know that this happened. There was no internet like there is today back then.

    Now just imagine if Libertarians took control of a city/town or county today, with it being promoted over the internet. Imagine if there were enough libertarians in this area in order to keep it under Libertarian control.

    Libertarians in Keene, New Hampshire got a lot of publicity with Free Keene. Just imagine how much more they’d have gotten had they actually been able to take over the local government in Keene, or in some other place in New Hampshire.

  30. Andy

    “Andy
    August 29, 2018 at 18:31
    Robert Capozzi said: “Andy is allowed to support an ex-felon with no experience in office who wants to abolish the government on Day One as his preferred 2020 candidate for the LP nomination. He’s not allowed to decide Step One for anyone other than himself.”

    Whoops. I actually was responding to this quote in the previous post:

    “robert capozzi
    August 29, 2018 at 18:23
    AJ: there is really no reason why the Libertarian Party could not have taken majority control over one or more local governments by now

    Me: It’s happened already.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Water,_Utah

    Nice, although of almost no consequence.

    GIGO.”

  31. robert capozzi

    CM,

    Further thought on SB LP prez candidates….it’s been tried 4x.

    RP1 in 88 (which, btw, I was instrumental in pitching him to run. I even announced him at his very first campaign event in DC). Unfortunately, that one went poorly. Mired with embezzlement.

    BB in 08. Last-minute deal.

    GJ in 12. Last-minute deal also, as GJ’s first attempt was quickly stymied because he is pro-choice.

    GJ in 16. Here the machine was reasonably well-oiled. In some ways, 16 was the first real test. We should expect some failure along with success, kinda like the Wright Brothers did.

    Now, if GJ wins the Senate race (which I give him a 20% chance), AND he gets more Rs endorsing him, I’d say this could be an 1854 moment. I put that possibility at maybe 5%.

    Good odds for Ls!

    I expect much ugliness at 1600 Penn over the next year, and so the potential for lessarchism to rise is growing. Rear-guard NAPist sniping could derail this particular spontaneous order, but I take it as self-evident that truth ultimately wins the day. The journey toward truth, however, usually has many twists and turns.

  32. Andy

    I would not lump Ron Paul in with Bob Barr and Gary Johnson. Ron Paul had a long history in the libertarian movement prior to running as an LP candidate, and he had a much better record as an elected official as well. He also ran on a much stronger Libertarian platform than Barr and Johnson.

    There was also a 20 year gap from when Ron Paul ran as an LP candidate to when Bob Barr ran.

    If you are going to bring up Ron Paul, you might as well bring up Roger McBride’s campaign from 1976, since he had been a Republican presidential elector in 1972. He was a “faithless” Republican elector, but he was none the less still a Republican.

  33. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    August 29, 2018 at 19:10
    RP1 possessed a ‘Shiny Badge.’ MacBride didn’t. As I see it.”

    I just looked up Roger MacBride, and it turns out that he had been elected as a Republican to the state legislature in Vermont prior to running for President as a Libertarian Party candidate. So he had that as a “Shiny Badge,” along with having been a Republican presidential elector, and a producer of Little House on the Prairie.

  34. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    Marrou was a state legislator as well. Also not a Shiny Badge holder. Shiny Badges go to governors, senators, and congressmen/women when running for prez.

    State legislators get Shiny Badges when running for lower offices, e.g., governor, House, Senate.

  35. Anthony Dlugos

    “Also, Adam’s platform is not to shut the federal government down in one day, but rather to begin the process of shutting it down on day one. The process would likely take a few years to complete. ”

    Oh, thank god. That’s so much more reasonable. lol

    How’s he gonna do that? By magic wand? Be nice if he tried to accomplish such a task at a lower level first, to at least prove he can do it. Hell, to at least prove he can get ELECTED with such a platform. Maybe get elected Governor of California and shut that government down? You know, something a little more do-able.

    Luckily, grifters like Kokesh or Petersen in 2016, have their own guileless dupes willing to apparently argue in favor of flushing down the toilet thousands of volunteer man-hours and millions in donations by Libertarians all over the county, kicking us back to square one again, in order to facilitate a vanity run for President by their preferred candidate.

    These con artists must thank god for their good fortune when they hear their own victims say, “we know the snake oil is not going to work, but we should take it anyway.”

    Its like a pyramid scheme built on the backs of political dingbats.

  36. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Agreed, except if we view extremist NAPism as a jihad. Those who hold high the nonarchist banner will be rewarded in the next life for fighting their quixotic fight. The “principled” yet hopeless cause is good for the immortal soul.

  37. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    I hate to be hard on them. Some of them I don’t mind being hard on, because they want to take the party in some dark directions. I think you’ve alluded to the idea…which I agree with…that rank-and-file NAPists are by and large good people, as opposed to those arguing their understanding of the NAP makes them qualified for leadership positions/public office. These are typically either NOT good people, or they are people with seriously questionable/chaotic backgrounds who think the NAP is some kind of philosophical Lourdes, able to wash them free of any past criminal records, sketchy employment, or seriously deficient resumes.

    But, I’ll fully admit many genuine NAPists put in far more man-hours than I do. What can I say? I probably arrived at the same point you did one fine Saturday afternoon at a gun show in Northeast Ohio, spending 8 hours there, winding up with a couple dozen signatures, and realizing the wretched futility of the current path.

  38. robert capozzi

    AD,

    re: Person hours, yes, NAPists seem to often wear the time they put in as somehow proof of their superiority and standing. I find it to be a silly viewpoint. The hamster on the wheel is making no more progress than the one lolling about in the wood chips on the cage floor.

    Petitioning-as-penance is part of the jihadist mindset.

  39. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    August 30, 2018 at 09:00
    ‘Also, Adam’s platform is not to shut the federal government down in one day, but rather to begin the process of shutting it down on day one. The process would likely take a few years to complete. ‘

    Oh, thank god. That’s so much more reasonable. lol

    How’s he gonna do that? By magic wand? Be nice if he tried to accomplish such a task at a lower level first, to at least prove he can do it. Hell, to at least prove he can get ELECTED with such a platform. Maybe get elected Governor of California and shut that government down? You know, something a little more do-able.”

    Nobody who is going to run on the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket has a realistic platform from the standpoint that nobody who runs on the Libertarian Party’s ticket stands a chance at getting elected President in 2020, and the same will likely be true in 2024, and unless there are some major changes in this country beforehand, the same will likely be true in 2032.

    Adam Kokesh is not naive enough to think that he, or any other Libertarian, will get elected President in 2020 or in 2024. He thinks that it would take several elections to build enough support for his idea to even have something resembling a chance at winning an election.

    His point in running is to build support for his platform so that it will one day become realistic to implement. He sees this as a long term process.

    “Luckily, grifters like Kokesh or Petersen in 2016, have their own guileless dupes willing to apparently argue in favor of flushing down the toilet thousands of volunteer man-hours and millions in donations by Libertarians all over the county, kicking us back to square one again, in order to facilitate a vanity run for President by their preferred candidate.

    These con artists must thank god for their good fortune when they hear their own victims say, ‘we know the snake oil is not going to work, but we should take it anyway.’

    Its like a pyramid scheme built on the backs of political dingbats.”

    You call Adam Kokesh and Austin Petersen grifters and con-artists, yet the exact same things could be more accurately said about the campaigns of Bob Barr and Gary Johnson, and about Bill Weld right now.

  40. Paul

    RC,

    That’s not true. Third party candidates are best at bringing attention to positions on issues ignored by the main two candidates, often forcing them to at least pander. Pushing the public dialogue is an important part of the way American democracy works.

    At the end of the day though, if candidates can’t even do that, then what’s the point?

  41. robert capozzi

    P,

    I’m sorry, what’s not true?

    I’m not sure that the highest and best use of a third party is to highlight ignored positions. It certainly can be, though. But what I’d like to see is an LP that pulls the public dialog in a lessarchist direction on a range of issues. This could involve many approaches, but as GJ/WW demonstrated, they were able to offer a plausible (possibly even MORE qualified) ticket that stretched the politics in a decidedly freer direction, on balance. (They were not, in my view, perfect in their execution, but they were pretty darned good at playing actual politics, versus ideology proselytizers that the LP generally offers.)

    What is wrong with being relevant and sane?

  42. Anthony Dlugos

    “Adam Kokesh is not naive enough to think that he, or any other Libertarian, will get elected President in 2020 or in 2024. He thinks that it would take several elections to build enough support for his idea to even have something resembling a chance at winning an election.“

    Does Adam normally apply for jobs he’s not qualified for, and excuse the time suck he is offering to the company by suggesting that he’s just building support within the company for his ideas, so that, in 15 years the company will be ready for HIM? lol

    And I guess that doesn’t count as a vanity project.

  43. Paul

    RC,

    I have no doubt that Johnson and Weld offered a much better alternative to Trump and Clinton, and personally went to great lengths to try to make their campaign as successful as possible. That being said, while they offered a viable alternative – sane alternatives to the main two – I’m not certain that they really made a huge impact on policy alternatives. Rather, what Johnson/Weld did was greatly enhance the Libertarian brand to help future candidates push those issues. (They even proposed a new tax scheme – while only being “revenue neutral.”)

    Even if the LP has the most pragmatic candidates, even if they get more votes, if they can neither win nor push policy that’s being ignored, then they still lose and it was likely a waste of resources. The difference is, they didn’t even make people think, “Could we do this with less government?” Instead, the GOP (welfare) and DEMs (ICE) seem best able to do that.

  44. Andy

    According to the US Constitution, Adam Kokesh is qualified to be. President of these united States of America.

  45. robert capozzi

    P,

    I agree: J/W made no difference on policy. Ls never have, because with very rare and low-level exceptions, they don’t get elected. They don’t get elected because the LP runs unelectable candidates who far too often offer extremist views that are easily dismissed by voters.

    In July of 16, I figured GJ might have had as high as a 10% chance of winning. Momentum was building. The combination of his gaffes and a takedown operation took the wind out of the sails, and his polling flagged and he didn’t get into the debates. Honestly, I’m not sure whether he could hold his own in the debates, but he might have been able to contrast himself and his Jimmy Stewart persona enough to really contend.

    It’s all well and good to talk about intellectual property rights or occupational licensing, but that’s wonkery, not politics. Politics is marketing and branding first, energized by a political point of view.

    Non-academics can engage in wonkery by getting involved in single-issue groups. Politics is about getting elected with an agenda for positive social change on a range of issues.

    As I see it.

  46. robert capozzi

    aj: According to the US Constitution, Adam Kokesh is qualified to be. President

    me: Not quite.

    “shall be eligible to the office of President”

    “Eligible” is not the same thing as “qualified.” To be qualified is a non-legal, subjective standard. Aside from Trump and Ike, the Shiny Badge standard has been what the body politic considers “qualified.”

    There are perhaps 200 million people “eligible” to be prez. It’s not much of a standard.

  47. Anthony Dlugos

    There’s also zilch in the way of evidence demonstrating that a political party proper has ever successfully “buil[t] support for [its] platform so that it will one day become realistic to implement,” absent nefarious means like a coup or violent revolution, In fact, the evidence supports an opposite conclusion; political parties can only effect change at the margin and even from that limited perspective what a particular party is able to get in bargaining will be less than what they wanted.

    That is not to say what political parties can achieve is not worthwhile. For people in a society at the margins, it can mean everything.

    A Johnson-Weld administration would not be harassing the nascent marijuana industry. What could be accomplished by cannabis entrepreneurs in such an environment?

    A J-W administration would not be separating refugee/asylum families at the border. They would not be implementing draconian immigration limiting policies. Would such immigrants care that a J-W administration would not be as “libertarian” as the NAPists or more Purist elements describe it? I seriously doubt it. Yet, American society WOULD benefit from those immigrants, as we always do.

    A J-W administration would not have gone down the road of a catastrophic trade war with tit-for-tat tariffs. How beneficial would a more open (more open than either dinosaur party) trade policy be at this time? I think very beneficial.

    Of course, we’d lose out on the fantasy of “a world set free in our lifetimes.” Oh, well.

    Heck, if one was inclined to a world set free, effecting marginal positive change as described above and demonstrating that the world doesn’t end would perhaps be a great way to get people thinking about AnCapistan.

    Probably better than scaring the hell out of them from the get go by our likely neophyte candidate announcing radical change, to be implemented with alacrity.

  48. robert capozzi

    AD,

    I actually don’t have a problem with general aspirational statements like “a world set free in our lifetimes,” so long as most recognize that it’s ASPIRATIONAL, not a specific policy prescription. True Norths are important for direction. They are dysfunctional as strict litmus tests.

  49. Anthony Dlugos

    That’s a fair statement.

    I presume you mean that it then comes out of the platform, both explicitly and implicitly (via Dallas Accord engendered clauses like “where governments exist”)?

  50. robert capozzi

    AD,

    “Where governments exists” is an insane statement, but, thankfully, most don’t know what this code actually means. Personally, I’d like to see both the SoP and platform to be deep-sixed in favor on my general statements about relevant issues of the day.

  51. Andy

    American society is not benefiting from most of today’s immigration. Statistics show that the majority of today’s immigrants, and their offspring, who, under the current idiotic interpretation of Birthright Citizenship (which was meant to apply to former black slaves), are counted as being American citizens, a majority of them are on welfare. A majority of them also vote to increase the welfare state and pass more gun control laws (which is why the Democrats want these people here so badly). Some of these immigrant groups commit crimes that are disproportionately higher than most of the rest of the population. Physically removing these people, and their offspring, is a good thing, and it is exactly what private property owners would do if we lived in a private property anarcho-capitalist society. A recent survey indicated that 81% of Americans want to see immigration reduced.

  52. NewFederalist

    Andy- if you can cite qualified sources for your assertions I would like to see them. I am not trying to bust your balls but you make some very bold claims. If they are true there must be a source or sources. Thanks.

  53. Anthony Dlugos

    “Andy- if you can cite qualified sources for your assertions I would like to see them.”

    oof. That’s not a rabbit hold I suggest going down. The tendentiousness of his sources is matched only by their virulent xenophobia and frequently outright racism.

    Andy is as bad, or worse, than your typical Trumpster. Let that sink in.

  54. Andy

    NewFederalist, I have posted multiple links here on many occasions that back up what I say about immigration (and a lot of other things). You have been posting here for a long time. I find it hard to believe that you have not seen where I have posted these links.

    It sounds like you are pulling a Robert Capozzi, as in Capozzi frequently asks to see sources, even after they have already been provided multiple times. He’s also too lazy to do his own research.

  55. Anthony Dlugos

    The closest resident xenophobe/soft-core racist Andy has come to a qualified source is the hard-right Center for Immigration Studies, which has been cited favorably by Trump, has been reported to have links with white supremacy groups, has been repeatedly criticized for shoddy work, and was founded in part by John Tanton, who opposed immigration on racial grounds and “desired a white ethnic majority in the United States and advocated for eugenics.” (per Wikipedia).

    Other than that, he sources outright racists/supremacists and various internet idiots.

  56. Anthony Dlugos

    read the story. the report referred to is from the Center for Immigration Studies.

  57. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    August 31, 2018 at 13:58
    read the story. the report referred to is from the Center for Immigration Studies.”

    And I’m sure that the “right wing extremists” from USA Today (sarcasm intended) are going to be sure to spread false data from a “right wing extremist” organization.

  58. Andy

    The video below features a Democrat by the name of Ari Berman, who is just giddy over the wild demographic shifts that are happening in this country via the current mass immigration. Why is he so happy about this? Because he knows that it will be good for Democrats to win more elections, and it will make it easier for them to ram through their welfare statist and gun control agenda.

    Leftists Are Planning to Rig Elections (Exposed)

  59. Andy

    This is from Pew Research.

    Now before anyone jumps down my throat, I want to once again point out that I am approximately 12.5% Hispanic. Hispanic is not a race, it just means someone from a Spanish speaking country. I had a Spanish ancestor who came to the USA from South America in the early 1900’s as a legal immigrant. This was pre-welfare state, and this person did speak English.

    Hispanic encompasses a very large, and diverse group of people, and I am not indicating that all Hispanics favor big government, but the statistics indicate that a majority of the ones coming here today (and their offspring) do in fact favor big government.

    Hispanics Favor Bigger Role for Government

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2012/04/20/hispanics-favor-bigger-role-for-government/

    From the article: :When it comes to the size of government, Hispanics are more likely than the general public to say they would rather have a bigger government which provides more services than a smaller government which provides fewer services.

    Some 75% of Hispanics hold this view; just 19% say they prefer a smaller government. By contrast, just 41% of the public at large voice support for a bigger government.

    Support for a larger government is highest among immigrant Latinos, with 81% holding this view. This share falls to 72% among second-generation Hispanics and 58% among third-generation Hispanics.”

  60. Andy

    I have posted this article from the Washington Post numerous times here, but since NewFederalist must have missed it, I am posting it again.

    This article ought to scare the shit out of anyone who cares about liberty. You won’t have any liberty without the right to keep and bear arms.

    Notice how the same leftists and globalists who want to pass more gun control laws are also the same people who are pushing for the current mass immigration? This is not a coincidence.

    The NRA will fall. It’s inevitable.
    Just look at the demographics.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/19/the-nra-will-fall-its-inevitable/?utm_term=.e3368807ec14

    From the article: “The recent deadly shooting at an Oregon community college, like so many before it, isn’t likely to lead to new federal laws designed to curb dangerous people’s access to guns. While this understandably frustrates supporters of gun safety legislation, there is reason for them to be hopeful. The National Rifle Association’s days of being a political powerhouse may be numbered.

    Why? The answer is in the numbers.

    Support for, and opposition to, gun control is closely associated with several demographic characteristics, including race, level of education and whether one lives in a city. Nearly all are trending forcefully against the NRA.

    The core of the NRA’s support comes from white, rural and relatively less educated voters. This demographic is currently influential in politics but clearly on the wane. While the decline of white, rural, less educated Americans is generally well known, less often recognized is what this means for gun legislation.

    Polls show that whites tend to favor gun rights over gun control by a significant margin (57 percent to 40 percent). Yet whites, who comprise 63 percent of the population today, won’t be in the majority for long. Racial minorities are soon to be a majority, and they are the nation’s strongest supporters of strict gun laws.

    An overwhelming majority of African Americans say that gun control is more important than gun rights (72 percent to 24 percent). While the African American population shows signs of slow growth, other racial minority groups are growing more rapidly — and report even greater support for gun control.

    The fastest-growing minority group in America is Latinos. Between 2000 and 2010, the nation’s Latino population grew by 43 percent. Hispanics, which make up 17 percent of the population today, are expected to grow to 30 percent of the population in the coming decades.

    Gun control is extremely popular among Hispanics, with 75 percent favoring gun safety over gun rights.

    Asian Americans also represent a growing anti-gun demographic. Although only about 5 percent of the population today, the Asian American population is predicted to triple over the next few decades. A recent poll of Asian American registered voters found that 80 percent supported stricter gun laws.”

  61. Andy

    I’ve said it before and I will say it again, and that is that the large influx of foreigners into this country, combined with the mass increase in kids being raised by single mothers, and the rise of the “big city liberal Social Justice Warriors,” is leading to the death of the right to keep and bear arms in this country.

    Half the firearms in the U.S. are owned by 3% of adults, and that means trouble for the NRA

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-debrabander-nra-demographic-20161201-story.html

    From the article: “To the exasperation of its opponents, the National Rifle Assn. has expanded its influence in recent years and pushed an increasingly radical agenda. States have expanded open-carry laws, thanks to NRA pressure, as well as the number of public places where people can carry guns — such as university campuses. Since 2004, 10 states have enacted so-called campus carry measures, with Kansas set to do so next year. The NRA has also pushed 23 states to pass stand your ground statutes in the past decade; these expansive self-defense laws effectively allow gun owners to escalate confrontations and turn them into deadly affairs. More recently, the NRA has pushed permitless carry, which, as the term suggests, allows people to carry firearms in public with no permit — and no safety training.

    Nevertheless, this radical gun rights agenda sits on an increasingly shaky house of cards thanks to demographic change.

    Half the guns in the U.S. are owned by 3% of adults. So says a revelatory new study on the demographics of gun ownership by Harvard Public Health researchers. These ‘superowners,’ as some have dubbed them, own on average 17 guns apiece. The study also points out that the share of Americans who own a gun has fallen from 25% to 22% in the last 20 years, even as the population as a whole has grown and gun sales have boomed. Clearly a lot of the same people keep buying guns.

    Gun ownership in the U.S. is highly concentrated, and the trend promises to continue. The most recent General Social Survey, released in 2015, revealed that gun ownership among young adults has fallen to 14% from 23% in 1980. This is a considerable drop among what should be the NRA’s future membership.”

  62. Andy

    Yes, Virginia, Immigration Is Turning The Country Blue

    https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2017/11/15/yes-virginia-immigration-is-turning-the-country-blue-n2410060

    From the article: “Hey, Republicans! Did you enjoy Election Night last week? Get ready for a lot more nights like that as immigration turns every last corner of the country blue.

    When Ed Gillespie lost in Virginia, liberals crowed about how they’re winning the war of ideas. The country has thoroughly, emphatically rejected Trumpism!

    Republicans, being idiots, played along, arguing only about whether Gillespie’s problem was that he didn’t embrace Trump enough or embraced him too much.

    Gillespie’s campaign was fine. No cleverer arguments, community outreach or perfectly timed mailings would have changed the result. Contrary to The New York Times’ celebratory article in last Sunday’s magazine, “How the ‘Resistance’ Helped Democrats Dominate Virginia,” it wasn’t Democratic operative Kathryn Sorenson’s savvy use of Facebook, Google and Eventbrites that carried the day. “The Resistance” didn’t win.

    What happened was: Democrats brought in new voters. In 1970, only one out of every 100 Virginians was foreign-born. By 2012, one in nine Virginians was foreign-born.

    The foreign-born vote overwhelmingly, by about 80 percent, for Democrats. They always have and they always will — especially now that our immigration policies aggressively discriminate in favor of the poorest, least-educated, most unskilled people on Earth. They arrive in need of a LOT of government services.

    According to the Pew Research Center, 75 percent of Hispanic immigrants and 55 percent of Asian immigrants support bigger government, compared to just over 40 percent of the general public. Even third-generation Hispanics support bigger government by 58 percent.

    Polls show that immigrants are far more likely to support Obamacare and affirmative action than the general public, and are far less likely to support gun rights and capitalism.”

  63. Andy

    Why do you think that the Democrats are so gung ho about bringing all of these people into the country? Is it because they really want to expand individual liberty, or is it because they want more people who will support the welfare state and gun control laws? I think that the evidence is pretty clear that the answer is the latter.

    Leaked Memo: Dreamers are ‘critical’ to Democrats ‘future electoral success’

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/08/leaked-memo-dreamers-are-critical-to-dems-future-electoral-success/

    From the article: “The Center For American Progress (CAP) Action Fund circulated a memo on Monday calling illegal immigrants brought here at a young age — so-called ‘Dreamers’ — a “critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success.’

    The memo, co-authored by former Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri, was sent around to allies calling on Democrats to ‘refuse to offer any votes for Republican spending bills that do not offer a fix for Dreamers and instead appropriate funds to deport them.’

    President Donald Trump’s administration moved to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy in September, which former President Barack Obama instituted through executive order to keep immigrants who came here as children from being deported.

    Trump called on Congress to find a legislative fix for young immigrants, or ‘Dreamers,’ facing deportation. House lawmakers recently put forward a bipartisan DACA compromise bill that also claims to address worries over chain migration. However, it’s unclear if the bill will pass.

    CAP Action’s memo says protecting DACA is not only a “moral imperative” for Democrats, it also key to getting votes.

    ‘The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,’ reads Palmieri’s memo, obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

    ‘If Democrats don’t try to do everything in their power to defend Dreamers, that will jeopardize Democrats’ electoral chances in 2018 and beyond,’ reads the memo. ‘In short, the next few weeks will tell us a lot about the Democratic Party and its long-term electoral prospects.'”

  64. Anthony Dlugos

    “I’ve said it before and I will say it again, and that is that the large influx of foreigners into this country, combined with the mass increase in kids being raised by single mothers, and the rise of the “big city liberal Social Justice Warriors,” is leading to the death of the right to keep and bear arms in this country.”

    You’ve been making late night calls to the Republican Dial-a-Prayer line again, haven’t you?

  65. Paul

    Fun fact Andy:
    Marx supported gun rights and hated immigrants just like you. He strongly disagreed with liberals as well.

    So tell me again why you’re not a crypto Marxist?

  66. William Saturn

    Paul, please stop peddling that BS. The Nazis supported gun control and the killing of undesirables. Isn’t that exactly the same as modern day progressives?

  67. dL

    Paul, please stop peddling that BS.

    It’s not BS. Marx is on the written record opposing both gun control and immigration.

    The Nazis supported gun control and the killing of undesirables. Isn’t that exactly the same as modern day progressives?

    No. Modern progressives do not advocate the round up and mass murder of undesirables.

  68. DJ

    Andy, some observations.

    First and foremost- in this forum anyone the width of a period to the right of Allinsky is alt-right fascist and ceases to be a person worth noting.

    Second- the polls can be questioned because they are “polls” and polls are known for wording their questions to elicit the answers they want.

    Third- the articles are from mostly allinsky lovers and use his tactics to accomplish their objective(s).
    Marxist? I doubt it- allinskyites definitely.

    Fourth- those tactics can backfire.

    Fifth- I doubt the hispanic population will cause much trouble though they are used as tools by the allinskyites. Asians? We’ll have to see. The greatest threat to gun control are city dweller leftist who think meat comes from the grocery store which equates to ignorant uneducated fools who can be easily defeated with the Marine mantra- one shot, one kill. All it takes is practice.

    Sixth- we all know the allinskyite leftist are pure as the driven snow (see ANTIFA for confirmation) and they have only our best interests at heart. We have over 100 years of recent History to confirm that.

  69. wolfefan

    I don’t know where the idea that Alinsky was a leftist comes from. Certainly not from Alinsky. He was not particularly about ideology, but to the extent that he was he was probably more an anarchist than anything else. The left adopted many of his tactics early on since they were at the forefront of the struggle for social change, but Alinskyite is also a good description of the way the right has demonized Nancy Peolosi or Hillary Clinton and sought to make them an exemplar of the evil, evil leftist, ignoring the fact that there really isn’t much of a left as the rest of the world understands it here in the US. Social Democracy is too far left for us right now, even though some social democracies have greater economic freedom than we do.

  70. Andy

    “Paul
    August 31, 2018 at 19:02
    Fun fact Andy:
    Marx supported gun rights and hated immigrants just like you. He strongly disagreed with liberals as well.

    So tell me again why you’re not a crypto Marxist?”

    When have I ever said that I hated immigrants? I have never made such a statement. Two years ago, right here on IPR, I endorsed Chinese immigrant Lily Tang for the US Senate race in Colorado.

    Immigration is the act of one person moving from one place to another, and in this case, from one country to another. I have no blanket dislike for any people in any country. I do think that there are a lot of people in the world, including here in the USA, who are destructive people. I prefer to not be around these type of people whenever possible. I also think that there are people around the world who come from different cultures, and some people in other countries are going to be more compatible with American culture than others. I also think that there is such a thing as having too many people come in at once. It too many people enter in too short a period of time it can overwhelm the existing population of a country, and this is something that most people oppose.

    Immigration in and of itself is neither good or bad. Some immigration is good, some immigration is bad. I think that the statistics clearly indicate that a majority of today’s immigration is bad. This does not mean that all immigration is bad. We don’t live in a private property anarcho-capitalist society. We don’t even live in a society where government is really being restrained by its own constitution. We live in a democratic welfare state with forced association laws and lots of public property. The existence of the welfare state is attracting a lot of the wrong kind of people to come here, and these people are clearly being used as pawns by Marxists and globalists to further their political agenda.

    Now as far as your comment about borders and immigration, I have already posted multiple links that prove that “open borders” and mass immigration has long been a goal of socialists.

    Why Socialists Have Always Fought for Open Borders

    http://www.leftvoice.org/Why-Socialists-Have-Always-Fought-for-Open-Borders

    From the article: “The capitalists and their states use migration to divide workers and increase the rate of exploitation. But workers have no interest in limiting the movement of their class sisters from other countries. As the history of capitalism has shown, restrictions on migration don’t really stop anyone from moving – xenophobic laws simply deny immigrants their rights, and therefore lower wages even further.

    Socialist traditions

    The socialist movement has been debating this question for more than a century. Over 100 years ago, an international congress categorically rejected all border controls. A resolution passed by the majority of the delegates at the International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart from August 18-24, 1907 declared categorically:

    ‘The congress does not seek a remedy to the potentially impending consequences for the workers from immigration and emigration in any economic or political exclusionary rules, because these are fruitless and reactionary by nature. This is particularly true of a restriction on the movement and the exclusion of foreign nationalities or races.”‘[1]

    The resolution included the demand:

    ‘Abolition of all restrictions which prevent certain nationalities or races from staying in a country or which exclude them from the social, political and economic rights of the natives or impede them in exercising those rights. Extensive measures to facilitate naturalisation.’

    A right-wing minority at the congress wanted to only place limits on deportations, proposing the amendment: ‘Regulation of the expulsion of foreigners, which must not be ordered for political reasons, and not by administrative means either, but only by court order.’ But this was rejected in favor of opposition to all border controls.

    The German socialist Karl Liebknecht – later world-renown for his brave opposition to the imperialist war – spoke a month later at the congress of the Social Democratic Party of Germany in reference to this debate (our translation):

    ‘Down with the Damocles sword of deportation! This is the first condition for foreigners to stop being predestined to squeeze wages and break strikes. The discussions with the question of migration is a glorious chapter of the International Congress. The problem, however, has not yet been decided. The Stuttgart Resolution is just a first step in this area.’ [2]

    Liebknecht spoke for the then left-wing majority in the Socialist International. V.I. Lenin, writing in 1913, similarly argued that “only reactionaries can shut their eyes to the progressive significance of this modern migration of nations”. The Russian revolutionary observed how migration was ‘breaking down the musty, fusty habits of local life, breaking down national barriers and prejudices, uniting workers from all countries in huge factories and mines in America, Germany, and so forth’. [3]

    Stringent opposition to all restrictions on workers’ freedom of movement – this is the Marxist tradition. When the capitalists and their states use immigrant workers as wage squeezers and strikebreakers, our answer is to fight for equal rights and common organizations for all, with or without papers.'”

  71. Andy

    Lenin on Open Borders

    http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2016/10/lenin-on-open-borders.html

    From the article: “Here is Lenin speaking about mass immigration in 1913:
    ‘Capitalism has given rise to a special form of migration of nations. The rapidly developing industrial countries, introducing machinery on a large scale and ousting the backward countries from the world market, raise wages at home above the average rate and thus attract workers from the backward countries.

    Hundreds of thousands of workers thus wander hundreds and thousands of versts. Advanced capitalism drags them forcibly into its orbit, tears them out of the backwoods in which they live, makes them participants in the world-historical movement and brings them face to face with the powerful, united, international class of factory owners.

    There can be no doubt that dire poverty alone compels people to abandon their native land, and that the capitalists exploit the immigrant workers in the most shameless manner. But only reactionaries can shut their eyes to the progressive significance of this modern migration of nations. Emancipation from the yoke of capital is impossible without the further development of capitalism, and without the class struggle that is based on it. And it is into this struggle that capitalism is drawing the masses of the working people of the whole world, breaking down the musty, fusty habits of local life, breaking down national barriers and prejudices, uniting workers from all countries in huge factories and mines in America, Germany, and so forth.

    America heads the list of countries which import workers. ….

    The bourgeoisie incites the workers of one nation against those of another in the endeavour to keep them disunited. Class-conscious workers, realising that the break-down of all the national barriers by capitalism is inevitable and progressive, are trying to help to enlighten and organise their fellow-workers from the backward countries.’

    V. I. Lenin, ‘Capitalism and Workers’ Immigration,’ Za Pravdu No. 22, October 29, 1913.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/oct/29.htm

    I think this passage is the key to understanding why so many Marxists and Communists love open borders.

    It is quite clear from this passage: they see mass immigration and the destruction of national differences as ‘progressive’ and think that once people have been mixed up into multicultural or multi-ethnic states, this will create a huge class-conscious proletarian movement, which will then overthrow capitalism.

    Notably, this was also the vision of Engels in The Principles of Communism (written in 1847) for the Communist world he envisaged:
    “What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?

    The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.’
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
    History shows us that this is a dangerous and unhinged Marxist fantasy.

    The vast majority of people have an in-group preference: generally speaking, people of the same culture, same nationality, same religion or same ethnic group prefer to live together. This explains why many people, generally speaking, when left alone, prefer to self-segregate.”

  72. Andy

    This is for those who thinks that all people are compatible with all cultures, and that all immigration is “peaceful people crossing borders,” and that there’s no such thing as bad immigration.

    Syrian Migrant Admits To Stabbing German Woman, Claims It Is Acceptable in His Culture

    https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/08/28/syrian-migrant-admits-stabbing-german-woman-says-acceptable-his-culture/

    From the article: “A 17-year-old Syrian asylum seeker has admitted to stabbing a 24-year-old German woman, claiming that stabbing and potentially killing someone who insulted him is acceptable in his culture.”

  73. Andy

    Doug Casey is a multi-millionaire investor, a world traveler, and one of the most sensible libertarians that there is. I’d love to see Doug Casey run for President, but I don’t think he’s interested.

    Doug Casey – Migrants and the Future of the West

  74. robert capozzi

    aj: This is for those who thinks that all people are compatible with all cultures, and that all immigration is “peaceful people crossing borders,” and that there’s no such thing as bad immigration.

    me: My feedback is that the CLAIM of a Syrian in this case says NOTHING about THE INDIVIDUAL who immigrates. Son of Sam CLAIMED that dogs told him to kill people. Does that mean that everyone named Berkowitz is going to be a mass murderer?

    Are there, IOW, Syrian immigrants who are now model US citizens or green-card holders? If there are, then we can say that all people are potentially compatible with not “cultures” but rather our rule of law.

    Are there really people who say ALL immigrants are “peaceful people crossing borders”? Who? Seems kind of a ridiculous standard. NO bad immigration? Really? Who is naive enough to say that? We’d only need to point to ONE immigrant who does a crime to show just how ridiculous their position is, IF such a person exists.

  75. Paul

    Is that the same fraudulent charlatan Doug Casey who makes money on phony advice, thinks the slave empire should have won the Civil War, and that American taxpayers have it as bad as Jews in Nazi Germany?

    Yup, someone Andy would like but find boring. Lol.

  76. Paul

    You know, statists seem to believe in the false dichotomy: The government must either ban or force every issue. And when the government does not do the one they want, they accuse it of the other. My favorite example is immigration. If we have a disgustingly difficult immigration system, xenophobic statists accuse the government of bringing in immigrants, because there isn’t a stricter ban.

    Also Andy, as an observation: When you say you don’t hate immigrants, then continue posting hateful Marxist rhetoric, I can’t help but take you as anything but an insincere Marxist.

  77. DJ

    wolfefan: The left adopted many of his tactics early on since they were at the forefront of the struggle for social change, but Alinskyite is also a good description of the way the right has demonized Nancy Peolosi or Hillary Clinton and sought to make them an exemplar of the evil, evil leftist, ignoring the fact that there really isn’t much of a left as the rest of the world understands it here in the US.

    Me: Yes, conservatives also adopted his tactics proving the “left” (as the US understands it) has taken over in the rhetoric category, and regardless of how he thought of himself, very few people see themselves the way others do- and people in the US don’t align with the ‘original’ European leftist- Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are the perfect picture of what most in the US call the left- never mind their policy touting rhetoric defies the individualism this country is supposed to be proud of. Their mouth(s) are the reason people point to them with crap like “the will of the people”/”it takes a village” tripe as their “astro-turf” rhetoric of their public persona, again, pointing out :very few see themselves the way others see them”- AND my point is that here, in this forum, the pejorative slinging (allinsky tactic) leftist are what Andy (and anyone else a period width to his US perceived right) is dealing with- mud slinging vs discussion- that leads a thinking person to believe that is all they have, ala, leftist tactic, albeit adopted by conservatives proving there isn’t a dimes worth of difference in ANY Party- that’s what happens when group think (leftist ideology) replaces individualism which advocates for ALL- not just noisy wheels-

    Andy has some valid points- I stated mine vs his latest, which is what I do- but, the US allinsky style leftist (most posters here), prefer to sling mud and use pejoratives- leftist style adopted by BOTH sides of the non-existent inside the beltway aisle. The ‘influential’ (and most prolific) in this forum use the ‘accepted’ in the US leftist (ala allinsky) styled rhetoric and then start arguing with each other about how to grow the Party- just like BOTH Party’s = absolutely no difference and they aree too blind to their own bullshit to admit they are no different outside their rhetoric-!

  78. DJ

    Paul,

    yes I “we’re”- your point? In case you didn’t notice, I addressed Andy’s post w/o it- did you?
    I also don’t have status here as influential, prolific, or eloquent or ‘well read’- I make no claims about being pure as the driven snow (as US leftist persona do)- I don’t belong to any groups, political or otherwise, especially political Party affiliation. I’m not trying to grow a Party either. My ‘voice’ doesn’t count. I’m an Individual who despises group think- who knows it is the antithesis of Individual- I make no pretense about who or what I am- US leftist do and that includes those on the right who pretend their self-righteousness is better because- Clinton, Pelosi etc, though they do have valid points as those are the face of evil and recognized as such in the US-

  79. Paul

    DJ,

    Ah yes, autocorrect got me again. Did you now just make a self-righteous case as to your purity while saying the opposite?

Leave a Reply

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