Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #758 The Adventures of Eddie the Friendly Spook, Part 5: Dramatis Personae, Part 5 (Deep Fifth Column)

Listen: MP3

 

Eddie the Friendly Spook's Presidential Candidate of Choice

Side 1  Side 2  (Note that the show is misidentified as “Eddie the Friendly Spook, Part 4: Dramatis Personae, Part 4”–it is actually part five.)

Introduction: The program begins with a Bill Moyers op-ed piece, in which he correctly identifies the anti-democratic process being manifested by the GOP as secession. We we have seen, the milieux of Eddie the Friendly Spook [Snowden], Ron Paul and the Ludwig von Mises Institute are inextricably linked with the neo-Confederate movement. The latter not only justifies African-American slavery during the years prior to the end of the Civil War, but favors a “re-secession” of the Southern states.

Like Alex Karp (CEO of Palantir, the company that apparently makes the PRISM software at the center of Eddie the Friendly Spook’s “disclosures”), Hans Hermann-Hoppe was a student of Juergen Habermas, discussed in FTR #757. Like Ron Paul, Snowden’s Presidential candidate of choice and the man whose super PAC was financed primarily by chief Palantir investor Peter Thiel, Hans Hermann-Hoppe is a darling of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

The von Mises Institute also has a tangible pro-monarchist bent, with particular favor shown toward the Habsburg dynasty and its successors.

A paper which presents a “Hoppean analysis” was published through the Ludwig von Mises Institute’s website. It extols Liechtenstein as an ideal example of “libertarian” values. As we have seen in FTR #530, Liechtenstein was home to many of the Al-Taqwa related firms that were deeply involved in the funding of the 9/11 attacks. One of those fronts was the Asat Trust, which was headed up by Martin Wachter, a distant relative of the ruling family of Liechtenstein. As we saw in FTR #536, Liechtenstein is a lean, mean, money-laundering machine, with three corporate fronts for each of its 30,000 citizens.

Liechtenstein’s royal family is very close to the Habsburgs, whose UNPO inclines in the direction of the breakup of the United States. (That would, of course, be delightful to the neo-Confederates of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.)

After a review of Hitler’s speech to the Industry Club of Dusseldorf, the program highlights the profound similarity between the views of Hans Hermann-Hoppe and those expressed in Hitler’s seminal address.

Program Highlights Include: Hitler’s view that democracy automatically leads to communism; Hitler’s opinion that the politics of personality and achievement trumped a need for democracy, which he viewed as a mob-beast; Hoppe’s view of democracy as “mob rule;” Hoppe’s contempt for universal health care, something which clearly resonates with the GOP fanatics holding the U.S. government hostage.

1. The program begins with a Bill Moyers op-ed piece, in which he correctly identifies the anti-democratic process being manifested by the GOP as secession. We we have seen, the milieux of Eddie the Friendly Spook [Snowden], Ron Paul and the Ludwig von Mises Institute are inextricably linked with the neo-Confederate movement. The latter not only justifies African-American slavery during the years prior to the end of the Civil War, but favors a “re-secession” of the Southern states.

“Let’s Call The Shut­down What It Is: Seces­sion By Another Means” by Bill Moy­ers; TPM Cafe: Opin­ion; 10/08/2013.

Repub­li­cans have now lost three suc­ces­sive elec­tions to con­trol the Sen­ate, and they’ve lost the last two pres­i­den­tial elec­tions. Nonethe­less, they fought tooth and nail to kill Pres­i­dent Obama’s health care ini­tia­tive. They lost that fight, but with the cor­po­rate wing of Democ­rats, they man­aged to bend it toward pri­vate interests.

So, we should be clear on this: Oba­macare, as it is known, is deeply flawed. Big sub­si­dies to the health insur­ance indus­try, a bonanza for lob­by­ists, no pub­lic option and, as the New York Times reported this week, “Mil­lions of Poor Are Left Uncov­ered by Health Law” — largely because states con­trolled by Repub­li­cans refused to expand Medicaid.

[…]

Despite what they say, Oba­macare is only one of their tar­gets. Before they will allow the gov­ern­ment to reopen, they demand employ­ers be enabled to deny birth con­trol cov­er­age to female employ­ees; they demand Obama cave on the Key­stone pipeline; they demand the watch­dogs over cor­po­rate pol­lu­tion be muz­zled and the big bad reg­u­la­tors of Wall Street sent home. Their ran­som list goes on and on. The debt ceil­ing is next. They would have the gov­ern­ment default on its oblig­a­tions and responsibilities.

When the pres­i­dent refused to buckle to this extor­tion, they threw their tantrum. Like the die-hards of the racist South a cen­tury and a half ago, who would destroy the union before giv­ing up their slaves, so would these peo­ple burn down the place, sink the ship.

[…]

At least, let’s name this for what it is: sab­o­tage of the demo­c­ra­tic process. Seces­sion by another means.

2. Like Alex Karp (CEO of Palantir, the company that makes the PRISM software at the center of Eddie the Friendly Spook’s “disclosures”, their disclaimers to the contrary notwithstanding), Hans Hermann-Hoppe was a student of Juergen Habermas, discussed in FTR #757. Like Ron Paul, Snowden’s Presidential candidate of choice and the man whose super PAC was financed primarily by chief Palantir investor Peter Thiel, Hans Hermann-Hoppe is a darling of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Explicitly opposed to democracy, explicitly in favor of the Confederacy, inextricably linked to the pro-secessionist neo-Confederate movement and favorably disposed toward slavery itself, the von Mises Institute is the source for the economic ideology of Ron Paul, his son Senator Rand Paul and Eddie the Friendly Spook.

The von Mises Institute also has a tangible pro-monarchist bent, with particular favor shown toward the Habsburg dynasty and its successors.

A paper which presents a “Hoppean analysis” was published through the Ludwig von Mises Institute’s website. It extols Liechtenstein as an ideal example of “libertarian” values. As we have seen in FTR #530, Liechtenstein was home to many of the Al-Taqwa related firms that were deeply involved in the funding of the 9/11 attacks. One of those fronts was the Asat Trust, which was headed up by Martin Wachter, a distant relative of the ruling family of Liechtenstein. As we saw in FTR #536, Liechtenstein is a lean, mean, money-laundering machine, with three corporate fronts for each of its 30,000 citizens.

Liechtenstein’s royal family is very close to the Habsburgs, whose UNPO inclines in the direction of the breakup of the United States. (That would, of course, be delightful to the neo-Confederates of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.)

 “Freedom and Prosperity in Liechtenstein: A Hoppean Analysis” by Andrew Young;Journal of Libertarian Studies; Volume 22 (2010); pp. 274, 291.

. . . . The work of economist and political philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe, specifically his seminal book Democracy—The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order gives us a framework for analyzing Liechtenstein’s development. In his
. . . .

. . . . Liechtenstein’s freedom and prosperity also gives libertarians an idea of what may be the most tolerable form of state in existence today. This study suggests that, if there must be a state in its modern, democratic form—a return to the old regime, in which the state is the monarch’s property, seems impossible—then the most tolerable form is a constitutional monarchy, with the monarch retaining extensive powers to discourage demagoguery. The state should also be restricted to a small area (in both population and territory), giving politicians little incentive to expand the state. Under such a situation, as Liechtenstein shows us, monarchy is, in the words of Charles Maurras, “the least evil and the possibility of something good.” . . . .

3. The program features an excerpt from Miscellaneous Archive Show M11, Side 3. Highlighting Hitler’s Speech before the Industry Club of Dusseldorf in 1932, the broadcast underscores Hitler’s point that democracy was counter-evolutionary and led to communism. The essence of Hitler’s argument was that people of wealth and means were clearly superior–hence their elevated economic status.

If “inferior” people were allowed to run the political process, they would produce a degeneration of society, by structuring things after their own fashion.

4. Compare what Hitler said in his Industry Club of Dusseldorf speech with the doctrine espoused by Hans Herman-Hoppe. In addition to his overt contempt for democracy, Hoppe favors a quasi-eugenics viewpoint eerily reminiscent of the Nazi eugenicists and their intellectual and political backers in the Western elites.

Note, also, Hoppe’s fierce opposition to universal health care. It is no mystery that Hoppe’s views would resonate among the “Paulistinians.”

In addition, Hoppe favors small, idiosyncratic states, not unlike the landscape favored by Peter Thiel and other seasteaders, as discussed in FTR #744.

“Anarcho-Fascism: the Libertarian Endgame” by “DowneastDem”; Daily Kos; 6/15/2010.

. . . .But most of Professor Hoppe’s ideas on the evils of democracy can be found in his book Democracy: The God that Failed, large chunks of which can be accessed via Google Books. Democracy: the God that Failed starts out with a revisionist analysis of World War I. If only, Hoppe writes, the United States had not entered the war the European monarchies would have been preserved. As mentioned earlier, Hoppe is an anarcho-fascist where the ideal system would be a confederation of small privately-owned units controlled by “natural elites” – i.e. Herrenmenschen. But until anarchy is possible, a monarchy is far superior to a democracy:

Democracy, Professor Hoppe tells his readers (and presumably his students at UNLV) is nothing more than mob-rule, and has resulted in a serious decline in civilization:

The mass of people, as La Boetie and Mises recognised, always and everywhere consists of “brutes”, “dullards”, and “fools”, easily deluded and sunk into habitual submission. Thus today, inundated from early childhood with government propaganda in public schools and educational institutions by legions of publicly certified intellectuals, most people mindlessly accept and repeat nonsense such as that democracy is self-rule and government is of, by, and for the people. (Democracy: The God that Failed)

Even worse than the statist capitalism of the United States is European social democracy and its myriad social programs. Universal health care, for example, is especially evil according to Professor Hoppe:

As a result of subsidizing the malingerers, the neurotics, the careless, the alcoholics, the drug addicts, the Aids-infected, and the physically and mentally challenged through insurance regulation and compulsory health insurance, there will be more illness, malingering, neuroticism, carelessness, alcoholism, drug addiction, Aids infection, and physical and mental retardation. (Democracy: The God that Failed)

Democrats, in this radical libertarian philosophy, are no better than communists, since democrats rely on statist solutions that are antithetical to the “natural order” and the cult of private property. So Professor Hoppe has the following words of advice for the “natural elites”, the Herrenmenschen, who would build his anarcho-fascist utopia: . . .


 

 

Discussion

5 comments for “FTR #758 The Adventures of Eddie the Friendly Spook, Part 5: Dramatis Personae, Part 5 (Deep Fifth Column)”

  1. Greenwald is heading up a new media venture funded by Ebay CEO Pierre Omidyar. I posted a link to a story about this on another one of Dave’s posts (to be honest I forgot which one. It’s “Hades” being old). Anyway, here an interesting item in a story from the Atlantic Wire:

    Until reports named Omidyar as Greenwald’s backer, speculation on possible investors included Facebook supporter Peter Thiel and the $40 million funding round Vox Media just amassed for no particular reason.

    Here is the link to the Atlantic story:

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/10/glenn-greenwald-leave-guardian-new-media-outlet/70575/

    Hmmmm. Is it possible things are NOT as they present themselves? Hmmmm…..

    Posted by Kathleen | October 17, 2013, 1:53 pm
  2. @Kathleen–

    Your speculation about Thiel isn’t far off.

    Omidyar isn’t the CEO of Ebay, he’s the founder. Ebay bought PayPal about 10 years ago, which places him in the same milieu as Peter Thiel.

    Thiel is the “capo” of the “PayPal Mafia” as they are known. Thiel was one of the founders of Paypal.

    A recent CEO of Ebay is Meg Whitman, now CEO of Hewlett-Packard.

    Same string, different yo yo.

    Best,

    Dave

    Posted by Dave Emory | October 18, 2013, 4:35 pm
  3. With a growing chunk of the GOP field now advocating for repeal of the 14th amendment in order to constitutionally allow the deportation of children born in the US to undocumented immigrants, here’s an example of the kind of “solutions” we should expect to follow:

    MediaMatters
    A Radio Host Jan Mickelson: Enslave Undocumented Immigrants Unless They Leave
    Mickelson, Who Recently Hosted Walker, Fiorina, Carson, And Santorum, Asked, “What’s Wrong With Slavery?”
    Blog ››› 8/19/2015 ››› DANIEL ANGSTER & SALVATORE COLLELUORI

    Iowa radio host and influential conservative kingmaker Jan Mickelson unveiled an immigration plan that would make undocumented immigrants who don’t leave the country after an allotted time “property of the state,” asking, “What’s wrong with slavery?” when a caller criticized his plan.

    On the August 17 edition of his radio show, Mickelson announced that he had a plan to drive undocumented immigrants out of Iowa that involved making those who don’t leave “property of the state” who are forced into “compelled labor,” like building a wall on the US-Mexican border. Listen (emphasis added in transcript):

    JAN MICKELSON: Now here is what would work. And I was asked by an immigration open border’s activist a couple of weeks ago, how I would get all the illegals here in the state of Iowa to leave. “Are you going to call the police every time you find an illegal, are you going to round them up and put them in detention centers?”

    I said, “No you don’t have to do any of that stuff.”

    “Well you going to invite them to leave the country and leave Iowa?”

    And I said, “Well, sort of.”

    “Well how you going to do it, Mickelson? You think you’re so smart. How would you get thousands of illegals to leave Iowa?”

    Well, I said, “Well if I wanted to do that I would just put up some signs.”

    “Well what would the signs say?”

    I said, “Well I’d would put them on the end of the highway, on western part of the interstate system, and I’d put them on the eastern side of the state, right there on the interstate system, and in the north on the Minnesota border, and on the south Kansas and Missouri border and I would just say this: ‘As of this date’ — whenever we decide to do this — ‘as of this date, 30–‘ this is a totally arbitrary number, ’30 to 60 days from now anyone who is in the state of Iowa that who is not here legally and who cannot demonstrate their legal status to the satisfaction of the local and state authorities here in the State of Iowa, become property of the State of Iowa.’ So if you are here without our permission, and we have given you two months to leave, and you’re still here, and we find that you’re still here after we we’ve given you the deadline to leave, then you become property of the State of Iowa. And we have a job for you. And we start using compelled labor, the people who are here illegally would therefore be owned by the state and become an asset of the state rather than a liability and we start inventing jobs for them to do.

    “Well how would you apply that logic to what Donald Trump is trying to do? Trying to get Mexico to pay for the border and for the wall?”

    “Same way. We say, ‘Hey, we are not going to make Mexico pay for the wall, we’re going to invite the illegal Mexicans and illegal aliens to build it. If you have come across the border illegally, again give them another 60-day guideline, you need to go home and leave this jurisdiction, and if you don’t you become property of the United States, and guess what? You will be building a wall. We will compel your labor. You would belong to these United States. You show up without an invitation, you get to be an asset. You get to be a construction worker. Cool!’

    When a caller confronted Mickelson and said his plan amounted to “slavery,” Mickelson replied, “What’s wrong with slavery?” Mickelson told the caller his plan was “moral,” “legal,” and “politically doable” and should be modeled after Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s “tent village” (emphasis added in transcript):

    MICKELSON: So anyway back to the point. Put up a sign that says at the end of 60 days, if you are not here with our permission, can’t prove your legal status, you become property of the state. And then we start to extort or exploit or indenture your labor. This is Fred. Good morning Fred.

    CALLER: Hey good morning, how are you?

    MICKELSON: I’m doing great.

    CALLER: Great. Well you caught me–I was up at 4 o’clock this morning, I’m travelling from Tulsa through Des Moines. I think I’ll stop by the state fair to see Carly and them, but your idea is clever on the face but it sounds an awful lot like slavery. I don’t think – I think it’ll go over like a lead balloon.

    MICKELSON: No, just read the Constitution, Fred. What does the Constitution say about slavery?

    CALLER: Well didn’t we fix that in about 1865?

    MICKELSON: Yeah we sure did and I’m willing to live with their fix. What does the 13th Amendment say?

    CALLER: Well you know I don’t have my Constitution in front of me and you know like I say, it sounds like a clever idea and maybe you can make it – put it in action, but I think the fall out would be so significant. And I, you know —

    MICKELSON: What would be the nature of the fall out?

    CALLER: Well I think everybody would believe it sounds like slavery?

    MICKELSON: Well, what’s wrong with slavery?

    CALLER: Well we know what’s wrong with slavery.

    MICKELSON: Well apparently we don’t because when we allow millions of people to come into the country who aren’t here legally and people who are here are indentured to those people to pay their bills, their education of their kids, pay for their food, their food stamps, their medical bills, in some cases even subsidize their housing, and somehow the people who own the country, who pay the bills, pay the taxes, they get indentured to the new people who are not even supposed to be here. Isn’t that a lot like slavery?

    CALLER: Well you know, you’re singing my song; we’re all slaves today the way the government is growing –

    MICKELSON: If that’s the case, maybe it’s time to reverse the process. Isn’t this a perfectly good time to do that?

    CALLER: Well that’ll swing the pendulum back in a pretty broad swing and maybe too far and we may end up swinging back the other way further left than we are right now. I take it about halfway Jan. I think it’s a clever idea, it’s worth throwing out there. It isn’t an easy topic –

    MICKELSON: No this is pretty simple, actually this is very simple, what my solution is moral and it’s legal. And I can’t think – and it’s also politically doable.

    CALLER: So are you going to house all these people who have chosen to be indentured?

    MICKELSON: Yes, yes, absolutely in a minimal fashion. We would take a lesson from Sheriff [Joe] Arpaio down in Arizona. Put up a tent village, we feed and water these new assets, we give them minimal shelter, minimal nutrition, and offer them the opportunity to work for the benefit of the taxpayers of the state of Iowa. All they have to do to avoid servitude is to leave.

    CALLER: [laughing] Hey, good luck.

    MICKELSON: All right, thank you very much I appreciate it.

    CALLER: You bet. You bet.

    MICKELSON: You think I’m just pulling your leg. I am not.

    Mickelson has a history of making racially-charged, anti-immigrant remarks but he also has a strong pull with conservative caucus voters in Iowa. His influence is so big that he recently hosted several 2016 GOP candidates on his show, including Carly Fiorina, Rick Santorum, and Ben Carson during their visits to the Iowa State Fair. After Mickelson defended his immigrant-slave plan, Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) appeared on his show. Not surprisingly, Mickelson’s immigration plan didn’t come up.

    “We would take a lesson from Sheriff [Joe] Arpaio down in Arizona. Put up a tent village, we feed and water these new assets, we give them minimal shelter, minimal nutrition, and offer them the opportunity to work for the benefit of the taxpayers of the state of Iowa. All they have to do to avoid servitude is to leave.”
    It sounds like we might have to ditch more than just the 14th amendment if Iowa’s “kingmaker” sees his vision come to fruition. So long, 8th Amendment! We hardly knew ye.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | August 19, 2015, 2:55 pm
  4. It’s worth noting that pro-Monarchist/pro-slavery anarcho-capitalist Hans Hermann Hoppe characterized Murray Rothbard, the godfather of anarcho-capitalist libertarianism, as his ideological mentor and close friend. It’s something especially worth noting this election season since Murry Rothbard is sort of an ideological godfather of Donald Trump’s “Alt Right” superfans too:

    The Washington Post

    Where did Donald Trump get his racialized rhetoric? From libertarians.
    The intersection of white nationalism, the alt-right and Ron Paul

    By Matthew Sheffield
    September 2

    Hillary Clinton and her campaign have been going out of their way to make a surprising argument about Donald Trump: He’s not really a Republican.

    At the Democratic convention, several speakers said Trump represented a complete break from the conservative traditions of the GOP. Last month, Clinton delivered a similar message in a speech linking Trump to the white-nationalist political movement known as the “alt-right.” “This is not conservatism as we have known it,” she asserted.

    According to Clinton — and many conservative intellectuals who oppose Trump — the conspiratorial, winking-at-racists campaign he has been running represents a novel departure from Republican politics.

    That’s not quite true, though. Trump’s style and positions — endorsing and consorting with 9/11 truthers, promoting online racists, using fake statistics — draw on a now-obscure political strategy called “paleolibertarianism,” which was once quite popular among some Republicans, especially former presidential candidate Ron Paul.

    Formally, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) may be his father’s political heir. But there’s no question that the paranoid and semi-racialist mien frequently favored by Trump originates in the fevered swamps that the elder Paul dwelled in for decades. Most people who back Trump don’t do so for racist reasons, but it’s incredible how many of the same white nationalists and conspiracy theorists to whom Ron Paul once catered are now ardent Trump supporters. It’s because Trump and Paul speak the same language.

    Mainstream libertarians have been agonizing over this legacy among themselves for some time, hoping that either the elder or younger Paul would definitively denounce the movement’s racialist past, but no such speech has ever come. Instead, the paleolibertarian strategy concocted decades ago as a way to push for minimal government threatens to replace right-wing libertarianism with white nationalism.

    * * *

    The figure whose ideas unify Pauline libertarians and today’s Trumpists is the late Murray Rothbard, an economist who co-founded the Cato Institute and is widely regarded as the creator of libertarianism.

    Nowadays, many libertarians like to portray their ideology as one that somehow transcends the left-right divide, but to Rothbard, this was nonsense. Libertarianism, he argued, was nothing more than a restatement of the beliefs of the “Old Right,” which resolutely opposed the New Deal and any sort of foreign intervention in the early 20th century. Many of its adherents, such as essayist H.L. Mencken, espoused racist viewpoints, as well.

    As moderate Republicans such as Dwight Eisenhower and “New Right” Christian conservatives such as William F. Buckley became more influential within the Republican Party in the 1950s and ’60s, the future creators of libertarianism gravitated instead toward the work of secular anti-communist thinkers such as economist Ludwig von Mises and novelist Ayn Rand.

    There had always been some sympathy for racism and anti-Semitism among libertarians — the movement’s house magazine, Reason, dedicated an entire issue in 1976 to “historical revisionism,” including Holocaust revisionism. It also repeatedly ran articles in defense of South Africa’s then-segregationist government (though by 2016, the magazine was running articles like “Donald Trump Enables Racism”). But it was Rothbard’s founding of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in 1982 that enabled the fledgling political movement to establish affinity with the neo-Confederate Lost Cause movement.

    Almost immediately after its creation, the Mises Institute (headquartered in Auburn, Ala.) began publishing criticism of “compulsory integration,” attacks on Abraham Lincoln and apologia for Confederate leaders. Institute scholars have also spoken to racist groups such as the League of the South. Rothbard even published a chapter in his book “The Ethics of Liberty” in which he said that “the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children,” although he didn’t specify the races of the children who might be sold.

    These and many other controversial views advocated by Mises writers make sense from a fanatical libertarian viewpoint. But they also originate in a political calculation Rothbard revealed in a 1992 essay lamenting the defeat of Republican white nationalist and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke in the 1991 Louisiana governor’s race by a bipartisan coalition.

    Expanding on themes raised two years earlier by his longtime partner and friend Llewellyn “Lew” Rockwell, an editor and fundraiser for libertarian causes, Rothbard argued that Duke’s candidacy was vitally important because it made clear that the “old America” had been overthrown by “an updated, twentieth-century coalition of Throne and Altar” and its “State Church” of government officials, journalists and social scientists.

    Besides commending Duke as an exemplar of the kind of candidate he was looking to support, Rothbard also invoked the “exciting” former senator Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin — not because of his economic views but because he was a brash populist prone to doing erratic things. Rothbard’s description of McCarthy seems eerily similar to the campaign that Trump has been running:

    “The fascinating, the exciting, thing about Joe McCarthy was precisely his ‘means’ — his right-wing populism: his willingness and ability to reach out, to short-circuit the power elite: liberals, centrists, the media, the intellectuals, the Pentagon, Rockefeller Republicans, and reach out and whip up the masses directly. … With Joe McCarthy there was a sense of dynamism, of fearlessness, and of open-endedness, as if, whom would he subpoena next?”

    To solve the problem that few Americans are interested in small government, Rothbard argued that libertarians needed to align themselves with people they might not like much in order to expand their numbers. “Outreach to the Rednecks” was needed to make common cause with far-right Christian conservatives who hated the federal government, disliked drugs and wanted to crack down on crime.

    All of these paleolibertarian positions were offered in Duke’s 1990 Senate campaign and 1991 gubernatorial campaign. But they were also offered by another politician Rothbard admired: Ron Paul, the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate in 1988.

    Rothbard and Paul had known and worked with each other in the 1970s, when they came to know Rockwell. Rockwell would work closely with both men, serving as Paul’s congressional chief of staff until he left to found the Mises Institute with Rothbard.

    Rockwell also was the editor of a series of printed newsletters for both men in the ensuing decades. Paul’s publications became famous during his Republican presidential campaigns. Their controversial nature is no surprise, given that Paul had coyly endorsed the paleolibertarian strategy shortly after it was devised.

    Sold under various titles, the highly lucrative newsletters frequently stoked racial fears, similar to what Trump has been doing this year, though they went further — one even gave advice on using an unregistered gun to shoot “urban youth.” Another issue mocked black Americans by proposing alternative names for New York City such as “Zooville” and “Rapetown,” while urging black political demonstrators to hold their protests “at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.”

    The publications also repeatedly promoted the work of Jared Taylor, a white nationalist writer and editor who is today one of Trump’s most prominent alt-right backers. Articles also featured anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and frequent rants against gay men.

    Paul later said he didn’t write the newsletters. But regardless of their authorship, the image they created made him attractive to white nationalists. Those supporters weren’t numerous enough to get Paul the GOP presidential nomination, however, and paleolibertarianism began fizzling out.

    In the past few years, however, it’s been reborn as the alt-right, as a new generation of libertarians discovered their hidden heritage and began embracing racism and conspiracy theories. Many alt-right writers trace their roots to Rothbard. As one of them, Gregory Hood, put it, paleolibertarian theories about race and democracy “helped lead to the emergence [of the] Alternative Right.” Rothbard’s call for “sovereign nations based on race and ethnicity” is very similar to beliefs Trump’s alt-right supporters express today.

    In 2016, many, if not most, of the extremists who formerly supported Paul have rallied to Trump’s side. In 2007, Paul won an endorsement and a $500 campaign contribution from Don Black, the owner of Stormfront, a self-described “white pride” Web forum. Despite a torrent of criticism, Paul refused to return the money. This March, Black encouraged his radio listeners to vote for Trump, even if he wasn’t perfect.

    After Rand Paul came to the Senate in 2011, and as he eventually began planning his own presidential campaign, there was some speculation that conservatives might be entering a “libertarian moment.” Things didn’t turn out that way. Instead, the American right seems to have entered a paleolibertarian moment.

    “Expanding on themes raised two years earlier by his longtime partner and friend Llewellyn “Lew” Rockwell, an editor and fundraiser for libertarian causes, Rothbard argued that Duke’s candidacy was vitally important because it made clear that the “old America” had been overthrown by “an updated, twentieth-century coalition of Throne and Altar” and its “State Church” of government officials, journalists and social scientists.

    That’s right, the ideological godfather of the “Alt Right” movement that’s bringing neo-Nazi memes into the mainstream, Murray Rothbard, was a co-founder of the Cato Institute, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and a big fan of David Duke’s political runs in 1990-91. What a shocker. And one of the reasons he was so fond of Duke’s campaign was the number of similarities it had to Ron Paul’s 1988 Libertarian bid:


    All of these paleolibertarian positions were offered in Duke’s 1990 Senate campaign and 1991 gubernatorial campaign. But they were also offered by another politician Rothbard admired: Ron Paul, the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate in 1988.

    So David Duke’s prior electoral bids were basically a rehash of Ron Paul’s bid a few years earlier. And here were are, decades later, talking about how that very movement has overtaken the GOP. Again, what a shocker.

    It’s all the kind of topical history that raises a number of disturbing questions. So many disturbing questions that hard to know where to start. So why not start with questions about how best to set up flourishing free markets for selling children:


    Almost immediately after its creation, the Mises Institute (headquartered in Auburn, Ala.) began publishing criticism of “compulsory integration,” attacks on Abraham Lincoln and apologia for Confederate leaders. Institute scholars have also spoken to racist groups such as the League of the South. Rothbard even published a chapter in his book “The Ethics of Liberty” in which he said that “the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children,” although he didn’t specify the races of the children who might be sold.

    So if it ever feels like the US in the process of selling out the future, keep in mind that one of the philosophical guiding lights for the contemporary far-right is a guy who thought a free market in children is required for a truly free society. You can see why Hoppe and the Alt-Right love him so much.

    And now you know: The core inspirations of the “Alt-Right” Trumpian superfans isn’t limited to Hitler. It also includes a guy who advocated for a flourishing free market in selling children.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 7, 2016, 6:09 pm
  5. @Pterrafractyl–

    Never lose sight of the fact that Paul, Sr. is Eddie the Friendly Spook’s and Julian Assange’s Presidential candidate of choice.

    Alt.right, FACE!

    Best,

    Dave

    Posted by Dave Emory | September 8, 2016, 1:38 pm

Post a comment