Press "Enter" to skip to content

Clint Bishop: Ain’t No Party Like a . . . Party!

parties2A Conversation with paleo-libertarians, minarchists, libertarian right,  classical liberals, conservatarians, fusionists, liberty leaning conservatives, paleo-conservatives, and constitutionists.

By Clint Bishop, American Third Party Report, September 7th, 2016:

Hey you! Yes you, the libertarian or conservative with libertarian leanings that doesn’t feel quite at home in the Libertarian Facebook groups. You aren’t alone. Most people aren’t comfortable with, nor find amusement in picking fights for fun. Sensible people, regardless of ideology, don’t typically revel in the type of chaos that we witness on a daily basis – the squabble with one goal in mind, to drive each other closer to anarchical views. Who wants to end every discussion being called a ‘statist’ simply because your views aren’t the most radical on the thread, or sacrificing your principles in order to be the one that gets to say it? Of those of us who are Christian or religious, what fun is it to fear literal persecution in groups intended to beget the opposite effect? I suspect that many endure the nonsense because we don’t necessarily mesh with the warmonger neo-conservatives that comprise the Conservative Groups or their hypocrisy of claiming to be for small government while promoting everything that keeps central government strong. On the same token, there’s never really been anywhere else to go that’s remotely viable, particularly as the Libertarian Party has finally garnered long awaited national recognition, despite squandering it away by nominating a moderate Presidential Candidate and a gun-hating, CFR loving VP Candidate, as well as having the Convention tarnished by images of a naked fat guy running across the stage for the world to see. Despite all of this, the LP and the libertarian groups still seem to be where all the ‘cool kids’ hang out.

All of that being said, I recently interviewed seven individuals from various liberty-minded, closely related philosophies in an attempt to determine a few things:

  1. Has the Libertarian Party moved too far to the left to represent prudent libertarians?
  2. Has the Republican Party moved too far center, and maintained such an authoritarian path that it can no longer represent paleo-conservatives, liberty leaning conservatives and conservatarians?
  3. Is there room between, or to the right of, those two parties for a another party to grow, properly represent them, and become a viable option for the near future?

One thing you’ll notice in the subtitle is that neo-conservatives, constitutional conservatives, and the newly identified “alt-right” were not mentioned. This was necessary for distinct reasons. First, neo-cons have altered the path of the Republican Party to an irreconcilable place in terms of interventionism and globalism. Despite their professed views regarding government, they embrace the state and its power structure and propensity for corruption. “Constitutional conservative” is probably one of the most misused terms among the political right. I can vouch for this because just months ago I , myself, was a neo-con who erroneously touted the term to describe myself. After a few months of studying the Constitution and the original intent of the founding fathers, I can honestly say that very few who claim the term for themselves today are deserving of it, rendering it practically useless. They can be educated and guided, but were not practical for the purpose of this article. As for the supposed “alt-right”, this seems to be a pejorative term referencing to Trumpidians, embraced by dissenting sects of the remaining Republican Party who are too afraid to leave. They are, therefore, useless to me as well.

The other thing you’ll notice is that the libertarian left and all forms of anarchists were left out. The reason is simple, I wanted adults. If you lie in Mommy’s basement on her laptop, or a phone on her plan, and argue abstract ideologies with likeminded dissidents who hide behind their keyboards then I have no use for your opinions. Let’s be honest, without the phenomenon of social media and your (ironically) state provided education then you likely would know zilch to little about the libertarian philosophy and movement. If you argued with the general public as much as you do online you’d end up on the bloody end of a disagreement more often than not, crying “But, but Muh NAP…”. Let’s face it. Not many truly believe that we’d be better off with absolutely no government. We believe in small government, but few are interested in reintroducing feudalism to the world.

So why paleo-libertarianism and the libertarian right? These dimensions of libertarianism seem to understand, even acknowledge important aspects of our society that their libertarian counterparts discount, or even disregard as views perilous and incompatible with liberty. Common sense and morality guide their reasoning. As Paleo-libertarian Tony Cansoneri, writer for Liberty Hangout,defined it, a Paleo-libertarian is “a libertarian who believes that culture and tradition are key components of freedom and that a free and voluntary society can uphold these and defend these better than state. [Paleo-libertarians] also believe in radical decentralization of government and many, if not most of us, are skeptical of multiculturalism and believe that to the extent it exists today, it is a nasty byproduct of government largess that leads to much turmoil.”

“Paleo-libertarians also believe in radical decentralization of government and many, if not most of us, are skeptical of multiculturalism…”

That sounds refreshing for levelheaded libertarians, doesn’t it? He continues, “I would say that a paleo-libertarian is essentially a very far right conservative at heart and typically believes in old school traditional values and western culture as necessary components and who sees social and cultural conservatism as a byproduct of a free society. The more free a society is, the more moral and virtuous it can truly be. . .We are strong supporters of religious liberty and the freedom of association. Yet we also hold that the individual right is supreme and the extension of the individual (private property) is what all rights truly stem from.”

It seems that traditionalism, even patriotism, isn’t highly regarded among libertarian circles; almost as though they’re believed to be incongruent with individual liberty, yet these are important Americanist ideals. One of the most surprising discoveries in my interviews was the fact that ALL SEVEN value patriotism and traditionalism (at least on a local level on one). Likewise, five of seven were religious and only one was agnostic. While I’ve never found solid, scientific polling on the religious makeup of the Libertarian Party, I’ve personally found it to be very unwelcoming to the religious, particularly Christians. The informal polling I have found suggest that a very high percentage of libertarians consider themselves agnostic or atheist – to, the tune  of 40% agnostic within the Party compared to 7-20% of the national population. Classical liberal Clay Hesketh, one of the Rand Paul supporters interviewed and the only agnostic of the seven, states “I believe that tradition and culture are important on an individual or community level, but not on a state or national level. I’m skeptical about multiculturalism because it can become a veiled form of segregation.”

Another staunch Rand Paul supporter and a minarchist libertarian, Paul Maurone, says in regards to traditionalism and patriotism, “They are positive. Patriotism should be defined as a vigilant allegiance to our nation and Constitution – NOT to our politicians who are running the show.” Unprovoked invocation of the Constitution is something you’ll rarely see among the libertarian left or anarchists, of whom usually hold our founding document in contempt.

As someone who considers myself a paleo-conservative Constitutionist, I was particularly interested in the conservative and Republican views. Christian and liberty leaning conservative, Nancy French, proclaims that ideally traditionalism and patriotism play an important role in our society. As for Christianity, she says “I think we as a country we are experiencing the problems that we are because we have systematically removed God and Christianity from our lives.” AMEN!


Long time Ron and Rand Paul supporter, and libertarian/constitutionalist Susie Clark declares, “I no longer call myself a Libertarian. They have gone liberal. I am pro-life and not for open borders. I am a little ‘L’ libertarian, but I like Constitutional Conservative. The Libertarian (Party) no longer upholds the Constitution, they worry more about drug policies, they mock Christianity, and that’s not what Rand or Ron Paul stand for. How can you hate religions and people because of their faith if you constantly put down Christianity? Therefore, they do not believe in the 1st Amendment.”

Regarding traditionalism and patriotism Susie says, “I am from Oregon and patriotism is loving your country and traditionalism, what our founding fathers stood for. I believe they built this country on Christianity. When they included religion in the 1st Amendment it was because of so many different denominations; such as Catholics, Protestants, Quakers, etc.” She continued, “I believe in the Bible and I honestly believe what is happening around the world today is written. . . I think we should put our faith in God. What we can do is to help people see and trust God, not politicians.”

When asked to what esteem she holds the Constitution, Susie  answered, “(It’s) 2nd below the Word of God. The Constitution was written by men who fought against a King. They gave us the Constitution to make sure it does not happen again.” This is a complaint I hear often relevant to the libertarian left and anarchists. They have no respect for the Constitution and consider the parchment barrier a failure, rather than grasping the concept that it can never serve its purpose without us doing our part. Unfortunately we aren’t.

An interesting and informative interview was one conducted with Michael Stevens, a fusionist. Fusionism is a philosophy popularized by Frank Meyer in the mid to late 1900’s. Many say that it has faded out of existence, while others claim that politicians such as Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are modern day, prominent fusionists. The most distinguished fusionists of all were Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater. Describing fusionism, Michael states that “Fusionism is an idea that combines the ideas of libertarianism and conservatism into a pro-liberty and pro-morality philosophy. We are for limited government, economic freedom, individual responsibility, and no gun restrictions. We value federalism on issues like drug legalization or decriminalization. . . Fusionists see that one has to have morality to have liberty. You also cannot have liberty without life. Ronald Reagan said in 1975 that ‘…the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.’ I believe fusionism is true conservatism. Its roots date back to our founding as a Republic where our roots have both a conservative and libertarian foundation. The individual is the highest form in this philosophy. We believe in reducing the role of government (per) the Constitution. The government’s job is to protect individual rights in the Bill of Rights and (as) outlined in the Declaration of Independence. We believe in a Christian founding but believe in the separation of church and state, as Jefferson intended, not as it is interpreted today. We believe in one where the Federal government is on one side of the divide and the State and local governments, as well as the Churches, are on the other. . . On issues of the economy, leave the government out but enforce a moral compass in the economy. In terms of ideology, between libertarianism and conservatism the thin line on the political ideological scale is where fusionism or libertarian-conservatism lies. It’s more of a balanced philosophy that believes in the idea of liberty that coexists with the rule of law.”

Along with other differences I have discussed, I believe that the “balanced philosophy that believes in the idea of liberty that coexists with the rule of law” is an important distinction. The libertarian left and the anarchist purists seem to believe that the ideology of libertarianism, as an absolute, is the only ideology worth advocating. The problem is that the experience that is taken into account by the conservative ideologies and paleo-libertarianism can’t be ignored, especially when compared to an ideology of concept only. With regards to religion and government, Michael continues, “On the issue of school prayer and religion in schools and displays of it in public places like a courthouse, I think it solely rests on the states. If the state constitution allows for it, I think it is fine. The 1st Amendment was created out of fear of the federal government creating a state church, much how Britain had the Anglican Church. The first words of the 1st Amendment are, ‘Congress shall make no law…’, not the state or local governments. . . At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, many states had state churches…” Great point! Michael went on to explain that he doesn’t believe that prayer or religious teachings at public schools these days are a great idea, and that it’s a duty of the Church and families to teach religion.


Constitutionist Sandi Kirk declares, “Good solid morals are the cornerstone of our Constitution. It’s impossible to assure liberty for all unless we hold the same principles for others as we want them to hold for us. The human morality is the same as the Christian morality, and vice versa. The founding fathers acknowledged that our inalienable rights are given to us by our Creator at birth. They do not come from man or documents, not by governments, but from our Creator. The principles of self governing also cannot be changed by man, government, or document. Every official takes an oath to God that he/she will protect and defend our Constitution.”

When asked whether or not there was room for another party outside of the three largest, I received a wide array of answers. Some were disgusted with partisan politics altogether; one thinks there isn’t room outside the top two, much less three; and a few think there is definitely room for more parties. None seemed privately content with the leftward move of the Libertarian mainstream. From the outside looking in, I’m not sure how the Libertarian Party is amassing so much support since the right side of their base seems so disenfranchised. It’s quite analogous to the Republican Party, to be honest. It, too, has maneuvered leftward, yet misrepresented right-wingers continue to stick around. The contrast with the Republican Party supporters, I suppose, is that they are stationary due to fear or apathy. The Libertarian Party, contrarily, has garnered its latest wave of support due to momentum it has obtained over the past two to four years due to an excited base. It simply seems, now, to be suffering growing pains as its rapid leftward shift is alienating Christian supporters, the right side of the movement, and those who have evolved from their previously neo-conservative views to a more libertarian perspective.

Irreconcilable Differences?

A summary of these differences doesn’t give the initial impression of incompatibility between the Libertarian Party and movement, and the libertarian right and liberty leaning conservatives. Yet upon more meticulous review of the actual disparities, it seems more grave. The acrimony that many libertarians have with regards to Christianity, traditionalism, patriotism, and even the Constitution, is tough to swallow for many. Add the pro-life sentiment held firmly by most of the libertarian right, at odds with the libertarian left, and you get quite a rift. Many recent articles by respectable libertarian publishers and statements by influential personalities have begun calling for fellow libertarians to cease the vitriolic treatment of libertarian Christians and the libertarian right. These differences don’t include others that many of the aforementioned philosophies hold in direct conflict with the Libertarian Party and it’s platform, such as the damaging consequences of weak border security, the adverse effects that the platform’s (figurative) open border policy would precipitate, the perceived obsession with drug legalization, the perpetual evolution towards the outright promotion of anarchy by the purists, and the widely embraced dogma of the NAP – which along with anarchy, places far too much confidence in and grossly overestimates the goodness of man. We are not benevolent beings by nature. We are very much opportunistic and that leads to greed, violence, etc. What virtue we possess seems to not be ascribed to the proper places by the libertarian left; those consisting of our founding of Christianity, our culture, God’s natural law, etc. These reflect our morals, not humanism or progressivism.


Regardless of whether a person finds oneself at odds with the majority of the stances listed in the previous paragraph or whether it’s all of them, plus more; it’s quite a fissure in any relationship. I don’t find it necessary to enter into such detail with regards to the Republican Party but I will touch vaguely on the subject – only vaguely because the targeted audience of this article has likely already left the GOP or are only there in support of specific officials, such as Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie. Of the many issues that one may have with the GOP, major ones include these: the Party has shifted further left over the past decade, to the middle, away from its base; it has also shifted more towards authoritarianism, moving away from the nation’s shift back towards individual rights; the neo-conservative movement has pervaded the Party and the result has been an extra-marital affair with perpetual war; and the Party has seemingly acquired amnesia relating to its supposed affinity for godly governance, forgetting God.

Belaboring the points? I shall, but only a little…

If I haven’t stated so yet, I’m very fond of the Constitution. To my pleasant surprise, all seven of those interviewed hold the Constitution in high esteem. My personal disdain for the libertarian left is its disregard for the Constitution, in spite of the document’s quintessence of our great core philosophies, such as classical liberalism, paleo-libertarianism, and paleo-conservatism. This unique combination, coupled with our Judeo-Christian founding and principles, has created the greatest (yes flawed, but greatest) nation in the history of mankind. I wonder where we would be now had we begun with the theoretical leftist side of libertarianism, absolute voluntaryism, and utopian anarchy, founded in secular humanism. A modern day feudal system? Most likely, or something similar. If enacted now? I see corporate monopolies replacing government and forming a global government. Well, that’s close to what we have now so perhaps not the best argument, but you get the point…

Room for More Parties. An Epiphany

So we have a group of mostly Christian, patriotic libertarians and conservatives with no party to closely represent their values. Both no longer acknowledge God (for the religious ones), one wants perpetual war and loves big government, and one doesn’t value traditionalism, patriotism, pragmatism, or the Constitution (in many cases). Many that do value the Constitution in both parties aren’t originalists when referencing it, several only use it where it is deemed beneficial in context to their current argument. One has shared power for far too long, only to become the epitome of corruption from localities and states up to Congress and the Executive Branch. The other, after 45 years has finally reached relevancy nationwide, but seems to only have space for those willing to be stifled in their religious and traditionalist beliefs in exchange for humanism and multiculturalist activism. I have news. There is another choice…


It isn’t cool to say I’m a member of the Constitution Party. Your libertarian friends who reside on the left side of the spectrum or who don’t understand the meaning of the word will likely call you a theocrat. You aren’t going to find many college friends rushing to join their campus YAConstitution instead of YAL or YAFJulie Borowski isn’t likely to be caught binge tweeting pro-Darrell Castle tweets. There probably won’t be any Constitution Party hotties featured in Babes for Liberty and it’s doubtful that you’ll find a notification on your Facebook account informing you that Liberty Laura has spontaneously stopped in her car to orchestrate a pro-Constitution Party live stream (as much as we’d all love that!). One thing you will see is people toeing the party line over principle for the Libertarian Party this cycle. I kind of understand. They have worked hard, are getting national attention, and it’s not their fault that a far less than perfect libertarian earned the nomination. Wait…yes it is! What if the liberty leaning Republicans did the same? And the Democrats, for that matter? The LP would still be garnering 1% of the popular vote instead of polling at 5-13%. The point is, go where you feel represented and get involved. The Libertarian Party has taken 45 years. The Constitution Party is entering its 25th year. The Green Party has passed the 15 year mark. The two party system has given us nothing but a headache, complete and utter cronyism and a largess and incompetent government. The political spectrum is far too broad to be represented by two or three parties.

Final Pitch

Finally, for those on the libertarian right, the liberty leaning conservatives, and everything between, you CAN bake your own cake (not a Nazi one if you’re a Jew, unless you want to) and eat it too! There is a party that holds the founding fathers’ principles, teachings, intent, and vision for our posterity dear. There’s a party that believes in ending the Fed, staying out of other countries’ affairs, ending perpetual war, repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments, leaving the UN and other organizations and treaties that surrender our sovereignty to foreign and international courts and organizations, dissolving the unconstitutional conglomerate of acronym Alphabet Soup federal agencies, that is anti-Agenda 21, and is for small government, besides the Libertarian Party. This same party holds our foundation (not establishment of religion) of Christian morals and principles, traditionalism, patriotism, and the importance of the 10th Amendment in high esteem. It holds our Constitution as its namesake and focal point, unlike any other party.

We may not have the current organization in place that the Libertarian Party has, but it’s the most organized of any minor party, right of center. Chances are the platform won’t be absolutely perfect for you, there are planks I’d like to see changed and others I wouldn’t mind worded differently. The Constitution isn’t the most hip document among our nation’s youth, and isn’t understood remotely enough to affect the type of change we need. But one thing is certain, with every new member and every dedicated new constituent we get closer to changing every one of those categories. Don’t worry about what your anarchist friends will say. Don’t fall for the tired old argument that only a two party system will ever be in place, or that there is only room for a third party. Don’t think that parties don’t matter at all. It’s much easier to be an activist in numbers rather than riding solo. Become a Constitutionist, join the Constitution Party!

Clint Bishop is a Constitution Party member, Darrell Castle supporter and ATPR contributor.

About Post Author

Krzysztof Lesiak

I've been a contributor for IPR since January 2013. I consider myself to be a paleoconservative. I'm also the founder of American Third Party Report. Email me at


  1. A Left Libertarian with a Job A Left Libertarian with a Job September 8, 2016

    Further proof of the damage that the Paul family has had on the libertarian brand. The Libertarian Party hasn’t gone “left,” and if you think so, you were probably not a libertarian in the first place. And I don’t mean that in a “no true Scotsman” way. A big tent is great. Defining libertarianism as a new form of conservatism is not.

  2. Chuck Moulton Chuck Moulton September 8, 2016

    langa wrote:

    And by the way, Woods and Hoppe are both anarchists, so I guess the author thinks they’re losers who live in their parents’ basement.

    Yeah, that’s when I stopped reading the article (that’s very rare for me… I usually read IPR articles and comments cover to cover). I agree that it seems like it was written by a sixth grader. He clearly has no understanding whatsoever of libertarianism or underlying issues and he wants to appropriate the term for his ideology. He fails the ideological Turning test.

  3. JamesT JamesT September 8, 2016

    Basically. I guess my point is a more libertarian society would breed a more rugged individualist culture. Cultures like that historical were pretty traditionalist. Plus the state controls education, has huge influence of academia and media so I don’t think our current culture would exist as it does without the state. I have tremendous respect for Hoppe. Even if I don’t agree with all of his points. You should read his article about how left-libertarianism always just devolves back into statism.

  4. Krzysztof Lesiak Krzysztof Lesiak Post author | September 8, 2016

    JamesT, I think what you’re saying is the point that Hoppe made – that culture and traditional social norms flourish in the absence of the state, while the state impedes them. I need to read all the Hoppe books I can, but yes, I wouldn’t doubt for a minute that government plays a role – a very large role, actually- in negatively affecting and demoralizing a nation and its people. I need to read much more and learn in order to make better articulated and more coherent statements, though.

  5. JamesT JamesT September 8, 2016

    So you think our culture would exist as it does today without the state celebrating, enforcing and teaching it? That seems naive to me. Our culture is fruit of the poison tree of the modern social democratic state. There is a solid argument that without that state there to enforce and mandate it as it exists today it would be fundamentally different and probably more socially conservative. People would not be shielded by the state from the consequences of their actions and culture would be adopted based off tradition, markets, and non violent advocacy. ‘Liberal’ culture has been mostly enforced and promoted by the state. I’m not saying cultural Marxism is all wrong or all bad but it is very much the religion of the state and would not exist in the way or have the influence it does without out the modern system existing as it does.

  6. AMcCarrick AMcCarrick September 8, 2016

    Continued…. Anybody that holds “paleolibertarianism” as a legitimate ideology is suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance and logical fallacy.

  7. AMcCarrick AMcCarrick September 8, 2016

    Paleolibertarianism isn’t a thing… there is no reasonably logical way to conclude that you can impose social conservatism without a police force arresting people for violating arbitrary government rules on morality. Social conservatism is ENTIRELY incompatible with libertarianism.

  8. JamesT JamesT September 8, 2016

    I am bothered by the lack of research in this of paleolibertarianism itself. Most of them Woods, Rockwell, Hoppe, Rothbard, Raimondo etc are all anarchists. But yeah Baldwin was more appealing than Barr and Castle is more appealing than Johnson with Weld. But I have no interest in joining the CP unless they change some of the social stuff on their platform. But LP is basically just SJWs who occasionally get triggered by high taxes. Actual libertarians disavowed themselves of the party long ago. I wish they would nominate more people like Badnarik. He was a good compromise between, paleo, minarchist and anarchist. I wish the broader liberty movement could come together but its mostly made up of malcontents so I wonder if there will ever be another Ron Paul moment.

  9. itdoesntmatter itdoesntmatter September 8, 2016

    Krzysztof Lesiak Post author
    September 8, 2016 at 04:13
    “Free Keene ” is one of the many reasons I don’t call myself a libertarian anymore. If libertarianism is to be pursued, it needs to be hard-right paleolibertarianism, and when I say hard-right, I mean it has to be as right-wing as possible, sure keep the Austrian Economics stuff, the foreign policy stuff too, but oppose the radical libertinism and stand for socially conservative family values, strong borders – Borders, Language, Culture”

    Yeah, none of that is libertarian. Do you support “street justice” (police brutality to keep minorities in line like LRC) and stoning kids for talking back to their parents (Gary North, various LRC/Paul family and friends), too?

    Sounds like you just support a more conservative conservatism to me. It’s your prerogative and right to do so, but doesn’t sound libertarian at all.

  10. Cody Quirk Cody Quirk September 8, 2016

    “I’m not going to call myself a paleolibertarian anymore…”

    Your choice, Chris.

  11. wolfefan wolfefan September 8, 2016

    Regardless of the merits of the article, I love the graphic that accompanies it!

  12. Krzysztof Lesiak Krzysztof Lesiak Post author | September 8, 2016

    “Free Keene ” is one of the many reasons I don’t call myself a libertarian anymore. If libertarianism is to be pursued, it needs to be hard-right paleolibertarianism, and when I say hard-right, I mean it has to be as right-wing as possible, sure keep the Austrian Economics stuff, the foreign policy stuff too, but oppose the radical libertinism and stand for socially conservative family values, strong borders – Borders, Language, Culture – as Michael Savage says on his talk radio show. Traditional Catholicism should play a key role in paleolibertarianism – Tom Woods is one, don’t forget, he’s socially conservative – and basically cultural norms and traditions are respected. Cultural, religious and ethnic homogenity is mainatined within the nation, and God, Family, Nation is the credo of all the people. Hedonism and materialism are rejected in the same way socialism, be it national or international, is rejected. I guess that veers into the nationalist quadrant, but that’s okay. Hard-right paleolibertarians can cooperate with nationalists on many fronts.

    Of course, what one chooses to do in the personal lives is fine as long as it does not interfere with the close-knit community around him or her – however, unity, patriotism and shared values are emphasized throughout the society.

    I’m not going to call myself a paleolibertarian anymore -even a hard-right paleolibertarian anymore, it’s of no use – I am much more interested in Polish Catholic nationalism -but the important thing to realize as well is that American realities are different from European ones. Left-libertarians don’t acknowledge that European countries have the right to preserve their cultures and heritage and traditional Christian values – let’f be honest, Christianity built Europe, while paganism held it back in the dark ages. If you advocate Third World invasion of European countries – especially the ones that are still extremely homogenous for the most part – I’m talking of course about Central-Eastern Europe – especially the Baltic countries – Lithuania, Latvia Estonia – they are literally 99.9% European – Poland is doing well aslo – then that’s an issue. If you want to destroy the Europe’s diverse heritage, languages and cultures by bringing in Third World invaders, then you are a Diversity Supremacist, and your views should be condemned absolutely.

    Do you want to see Poland overrun with Africans? Do you want mosques on every corner in Warsaw and Krakow and historic Churches to be headed for the NWO mercantalist wrecking ball? Do you want to see the 3 million Lithuanians breeded out of existence by Sub Saharans who have absolutely nothing in common with those of this tiny nation. There’s even less Estonians around. Here’s how it should be: Africa for the Africans (check) Asia for the Asians (check – at least Japan is not big on third world invasion either) and – gasp!- Europe for the Europeans. Hoppe writes about how closed borders and immigration restricitionism is perfectly compatible with free trade – not that I’m a fan of free trade, but Hoppe’s libertarian credentials are literally indisputable except by those left-libertarians who seek to criminalize thought divergent from theres and pontificate on who “is” and who “isn’t” a real libertarian.

    I think the anarchist and minarchist debate is completely irrelevant – anarchism seems to honestly be just the logical extension of minarchism that is an idea worth thinking about but that will never happen on a large scale, and is ultimately therefore irrelevant. The real divide is hard right paleolibertarians and left-libertarians. Paleolibertarians are close to extinction in the U.S. – literally tethering on the edge of being wiped out – but like I keep emphasizing, paleolibertarianism exists in Europe. Left-libertarians tried to create their own party, the Libertarian Party of Poland, in 2013, and what’s left of that party is a semi-active Facebook page. Not popular. Hard right paleolibetarianism manifesting itself in Partia KORWiN and the Congress of the New Right and even in certain factions of Kukiz ’15 rules the day.

    Lastly, I have issues with crafting a comment with care, proper demeanor and in a respectabile manner, and it’s something I have to improve, muy rapido, but here’s my main point – hard-right paleolibertarianism can ally itself with nationalist schools of thought to reach a common goal. Hard-right paleolibertarians can help nationalists inclined towards (national) socialism (not Hitlerism per se, though) and work towards building the ideals of strong families, communities and nations. Like I said, the hard-right paleolibertarian credo should be the same as the Catholic nationlist one – God, Family, Nation.

    Here’s another video of Free Keene you may not have seen – “Help Cover-Up Bud’s Swastika Tattoo!”:

    As a practicing Buddhist, when Warren “Bud” Royea got a tattoo of a swastika, a traditionally Buddhist symbol, in the hopes it would start conversations. Turns out it’s the people who won’t ask questions are the ones jumping to understandable conclusions about it. Please visit Warren’s GoFundMe page and contribute if you’d like to see it removed! We’ll post an updated video when it’s done. Thank you!

    The only thing I appreciate about Keene is that it serves as the base for Chris Cantwell’s Radical Agenda radio show, which is way more popular than Free Talk Live by the way – Cantwell gets 250-350 llisteners on livee broadcasts, Free Talk Live between 6-30, and the views on the YouTube videos give it away, too. I’m skeptical that FTL gets thousands, or even just hundreds, of listeners on its 170 AM/FM stations.

    That’s besides the point. The only antidote to the very real threat of globalism is nationalism -paleoconservatism and hard-right paleolibertarianism can serve as tactical allies. Libertarian libertinism and open borders nonsense plays in perfectly to the New World Order propaganda of a one world totalitarian state where the plebs toil as mindless drones for slave wages and while traversing from WalMart to McDonald’s to their drug dealers and alcohol providers in their go karts due to overly inflated Body Mass Indexes and have lost their sense of identity, humility, empathy, family, community, ethnicity culture and heritage – and most importantly, faith in God – and replaced it with the love of money – the root of all evil, i.e. $atani$m.

  13. Cody Quirk Cody Quirk September 8, 2016
  14. Cody Quirk Cody Quirk September 8, 2016

    “A Conversation with paleo-libertarians, minarchists…”

    More like a one-sided conversation with unverifiable claims and talking points.

  15. Cody Quirk Cody Quirk September 8, 2016

    “Another long, idiotic screed that reads like it was penned by a 6th grader.”

    For once langa, I think we are in agreement on this aspect. But do remember that this author is a Darrell Castle supporter.

  16. T Rex T Rex September 8, 2016

    Yes, but they do not fit the “Free Keene” left-wing anarchist mold – at least that’s my impression.,

    What’s wrong with Free Keene?

    They do awesome activism like this:

    This *is* radical libertarianism, par excellence.

  17. T Rex T Rex September 8, 2016

    “The Libertarian (Party) no longer upholds the Constitution, they worry more about drug policies, they mock Christianity”

    Tldr on most of this, but let’s be clear: anyone who wants to continue the war on drugs can simply get the hell out!

    And when exactly did the Libertarian Party issue its press release on how much its members enjoy ‘mocking Christianity?’

    Oh yeah, never.

  18. Krzysztof Lesiak Krzysztof Lesiak Post author | September 8, 2016

    I’m currently on page 200 of Hans Herman Hoppe’s The Great Fiction. After I finish reading it, my goal will be to procure a copy of Democracy: The God that Failed. Hoppe really doesn’t seem radical to me at all so far. I don’t even think that nationalist or so-called “far-right” circles would accept much of anything that he has to say. I think there may be some misconceptions about HHH floating around.

    Yes, but they do not fit the “Free Keene” left-wing anarchist mold – at least that’s my impression. Actually, in Woods’ case that’s a guarantee – he wrote “How the [Catholic] Church Built Western Civilization” a few years ago, by default he has to be in the paleolibertarian crowd just on account of that book. However, I really don’t have any knowledge on any of these subjects whatsoever. I need to read and memorize things to form more coherent and fact-based opinions on everything that has been mentioned so far.

  19. langa langa September 8, 2016

    And by the way, Woods and Hoppe are both anarchists, so I guess the author thinks they’re losers who live in their parents’ basement.

  20. langa langa September 8, 2016

    Thanks, but I don’t have much free time at the moment. I actually didn’t mean my comment as a criticism of your decision to post the article (though I can see how it could come off that way). I was more trying to express my frustration with people like the author, who take it upon themselves to issue long-winded denunciations of ideas that they clearly haven’t put the least bit of effort into trying to understand. I mean, seriously, consistent application of the NAP = feudalism? Sheesh.

  21. Krzysztof Lesiak Krzysztof Lesiak Post author | September 7, 2016

    Langa, you’re welcome to contribute for IPR by posting at ATPR, I will repost your content to IPR. Email me at if you are interested.

    I strongly disagree with your assessment as well. As far as IPR publishing “a lot of these,” you’d be referring to me in that case, and if you want to elaborate, feel free to- I value your opinion as well as that of the others in the IPR community, though I did go off on Deran a few days ago, and I really should have used a much more calm approach in my response to his attack on Baldwin. It was quite immature.

    Please do not hold back criticism unless you want to, feedback is essential, always.

    And again, why is paleolibertarianism being tossed on into the proverbial ashtray of history? Last time I checked, Tom Woods is still writing and doing his radio show, and Hans Herman Hoppe celebrated his 67th birthday a few days ago. Castle is arguably a paleolibertarian, or at worst a paleoconservative/paleolibertarian mix.

    Even if paleolibertarianism goes extinct in America, it will still be kicking around in Europe until we enter the Biblical Last Days, whenever that will come. It’s going strong in Poland – led by Janusz Korwin Mikke. There are other paleolibertarian parties, movements and figures in Europe as well.

  22. langa langa September 7, 2016

    Another long, idiotic screed that reads like it was penned by a 6th grader. IPR seems to have run a lot of these lately.

    How is it possible to waste so many words while making so few legitimate points? He could have summed up the whole article by saying, “If, like me, you’re a disgruntled conservative who wants to pretend at being a libertarian, then come join me in the CP, and we’ll have fun hurling ad hominems and non sequiturs at actual libertarians!”

  23. AMcCarrick AMcCarrick September 7, 2016

    What it’s time for is the Libertarian Party to go away and break into three parties. A Centrist/Classical Liberal Party, a Minarchist Party, and an Objectivst Party. The word libertarian is far to broad and we consistently see people trying to re-define the word to fit their own little personal niche; so much so that the word libertarian has come to have no formal meaning whatsoever (ask a paleo-conservative and Darrel Castle is a Libertarian and Johnson is not; ask a Classical Liberal and Johnson is a libertarian and Castle is not). In order to move forward in any concise way without bickering between minarchists, classical liberals, objectivists, paleo-conservatives, etc. we must, MUST, split the party into its corresponding factions and remove the word Libertarian from party names. We completely forgo the “I’m libertarian and you’re not” bickering forever by removing the word libertarian from the discussion forever.

    We need the Green Party and Constitution Party to stay where they are ideologically (although I would prefer to see the Constitution Party merge with the New York Conservative Party and take the Conservative Party name, it’s far more concise), and break apart the Libertarian Party into a Minarchist Party, an Objectivist Party, and a Classical Liberal Party. In addition we need to convince one of the Socialist Parties to move towards becoming a libertarian Socialist Party. Without this happening, this ‘party’ is dead.

Comments are closed.