On August 31, Earl C. Ravenal died. He was an expert on foreign policy and had sought the Libertarian Party presidential nomination for 1984. On the fourth ballot, he lost by one vote to David Bergland. Ravenal was 88 and lived in Rhode Island, although he had second home in Maryland, and he died there. See this obituary. Thanks to Andy Craig for the link.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Earl Ravenal was rightly rejected by LP delegates in large part because he was a member of the CFR, or Council on Foreign Relations, which is an organization which steers government policy, and which pushes a globalist, New World Order agenda. The CFR was founded with grants from the Rockefellers. Its membership includes top Democrats and Republicans, CIA directors, as well as influential members of the media, banking, academia, and other power centers of society. The CFR is basically one of the clubs of the ruling establishment. They are NOT libertarian at all.
This is from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations
“The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), founded in 1921, is a United States nonprofit think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international affairs. It is headquartered in New York City, with an additional office in Washington, D.C. Its membership, which numbers 4,900, has included senior politicians, more than a dozen secretaries of state, CIA directors, bankers, lawyers, professors and senior media figures. It is known for its neoconservative and neoliberal leanings.[who?]
The CFR meetings convene government officials, global business leaders and prominent members of the intelligence and foreign-policy community to discuss international issues. CFR publishes the bi-monthly journal Foreign Affairs, and runs the David Rockefeller Studies Program, which influences foreign policy by making recommendations to the presidential administration and diplomatic community, testifying before Congress, interacting with the media and publishing on foreign policy issues.”
Note that 2016 Libertarian Party candidate for Vice President, and former contender for the Libertarian Party’s 2020 presidential nomination, until he went back to the Republican Party, Bill Weld, is a long time member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Fortunately, the Libertarian Party had enough principles back in 1984 to reject CFR member, Earl Ravenal, but unfortunately, the Libertarian Party of 2016 did not have enough principles to reject CFR member, Bill Weld.
I was at the convention that nominated Bergland. A fun convention: four ballots.
Ravenal should have been the nominee. He was a great American, a great Libertarian, and he will be missed.This country would no doubt be a lot more free today if the Kochs kept funding the LP instead of taking their money over to the Republicans. The LP is just now starting to recover from the damage caused by the hateful – and is it turns out, not all that libertarian – Rothbard faction around 1983.
While a partial remission has taken place, the Rothbard/Rockwell/alt right/Bircher/Alex Jones nutjob/Trumptard racist, misogynist, homophobic and other bigots cancer is not yet by any means fully removed from Libertarian Party, much less the movement as a whole. It continues to drag the freedom movement down to this day, and still threatens to sink the movement and the hopes of enlightenment liberalism along with it.
The alternative is a scary, dark world of feudalism, tribalism, theocracy, nationalism, chauvinism, bigotry, mercantilism, medieval cruelty mixed with modern technology, absolutist monarchs and dictators, closed borders and constrained travel and trade, races, cultures, nations, ethnicities and religions kept apart and at war with each other, and everything liberalism and the enlightenment was and is a rebellion against.
The Rockwell/Rothbard/Hoppe/North et al bigots aim to plunge us back in the dark ages, and have done much to sully libertarianism by using it, along with anarchism, as a false front for their disgusting far right agenda. The mask of course drops when it comes time to support unabashed big government authoritarians whether they be the Confederate States of America, Putin, Trump, Saddam Hussein, or any dictator in any part of the world who stands opposed to the US and the west, and to the ideas of liberalism, enlightenment, a free and open society and rationalism as a whole. Rule by absolute monarchs, dear leaders, slavemasters, priests, military juntas and megalomaniacal tycoons is the real world preference of these sham “libertarians” and “anarchists.” Their rhetoric just serves to give that false cover while tarring libertarianism in the process.
The Bircher paranoid bilge about the CFR and other such organizations should be seen for what it is. Follow that rabbit hole and it isn’t long before you are swamped with tall tales of shape shifting space lizards, gay frogs, Jewish-Masonic global conspiracies, Learned Elders of Zion, white genocide swill, esoteric Hitlerism, Trump/Putin worship, and all the other garbage that comes in tow. Take that nonsense seriously and you might soon find yourself in a mental health facility, wandering the streets and raving lunatic nonsense, or blowing yourself up with explosives while trying to start a race war. Or perhaps raped by neo-nazi skinhead IV needle addict lifers with AIDS in a prison shower.
LOL! Anyone who supports the CFR is NOT a libertarian.
Also, Ron Paul’s presidential runs did more to build the libertarian movement than anything Gary Johnson or Bill Weld ever did.
Ed Ng, did you come up with that rant all by yourself, or did somebody hand you a list of talking points, like perhaps your manager at the government troll farm?
Backatcha, Andy. And you are a very poor judge of who is or is not a libertarian. Ron Paul’s furthering association of libertarianism with the bigoted far right has had a negative impact on the libertarian movement, and I agree with Jim Peron of the Moorefield Story Institute that Johnson is a libertarian where as Paul is a conservative.
As for talking points and troll farms, tell your managers there to give you some new ones. Yours have grown old and stale.
Hmmmmm, you are not the first troll that I have seen use “Backatcha,” or something similar. Coincidence, or is Ed Ng a repeat offender troll who has trolled under different fake names?
HAHAHAHA! Gary Johnson is NOT a libertarian at all. He’s a “Libertarian” who supports the Fair Tax, carbon taxes, Universal Basic Income, the United Nations, and forcing bake shop owners to bake cakes for gay weddings in the name of political correctness, plus he thinks that Hillary Clinton is “a wonderful public servant,” and that Mitt Romney should be Secretary of State. Yeah, Johnson is definitely NOT a libertarian.
I had not heard of Ed Ng until recently, yet he says my talking points (which, more accurately,
is just me speaking the truth) are old. How does Ed Ng know this, unless of course “Ed Ng” has been trolling for a long time under different fake names? Makes one wonder…
Perhaps the much better Andy (Craig) put it best, to Andy Jacobs fellow alt righter Michael Heise…
“…Not you and your dumb, angry clique. Nobody is obligated to kowtow to them and dance around the truths you don’t want said.
Second, which item on the following list is it your pseudo-Mises PC position that Libertarians aren’t allowed to criticize? It’s a long list and it’s rather hard to avoid stepping on one of them for anybody who ever discusses the history of the movement.
– Rothbard drooling over David Duke and saying libertarians should emulate him
– Rockwell giddily cheering on police brutality and the Rodney King beating
– Paul’s notorious newsletters and the lies he’s told about who wrote and knew about them
– Woods cofounding a white nationalist group and promoting the likes of Molyneux and Cantwell
– Deist saying libertarians should be about the Nazi slogan Blood and Soil
– Hoppe pushing explicit, full-blown white supremacism and nativism
– North seriously advocating theocratic stoning to death of disobedient children
– The fact that you yourself talk about “smashing egalitarians” and “open borders” Libertarians
These are the people you’ve chosen to throw in with, to wrap yourself and your brand around, to promote the idea that the Libertarian Party should be purged of anybody who doesn’t like them and doesn’t worship the fringe little far-right Trumpism-lite cult they’ve built. If you don’t like the fact that there are Libertarians who know all this nasty history that has been emanating for decades out of Auburn, and who don’t go along with pretending it’s all fine and dandy. and who don’t think it should be the model for the LP… too damn bad. You’re not going to memory-hole all this stuff, and you’re not going purge the party of everybody who doesn’t like it. If you don’t like being associated with it, then stop associating yourself with it. You don’t get to giddily post selfies with Rockwell and gush about how you’re going to remake the LP in his image, and then whine and cry foul when people point out who the hell Rockwell is and what he and his cronies have done and said since long before you were born.
So, take your petulant, whiny, cry-bullying bullshit to somebody who cares. You don’t own the Libertarian Party and its members and employees do not owe you fealty or obedience.”
Amen!
Note that the above comnents came from Andy Craig, who is a guy who is a big Bill Weld supporter, and who was supporting Bill Weld for the LP’s presidential nomination for 2020. Bill Weld is a police state loving warmonger who loves the Bush and Clinton families and Mitt Romney. So given the source, take those comnents with a grain of salt.
Why, what did he get wrong? Looks pretty airtight and everything he says is proven and documented. Besides, with all the known racists and fascists you support, are you really in a position to question anyone else’s endorsements?
I am convinced Ed Ng is just a troll, like Demo Rep.
I think me is correct, but the only thing is that “Ed Ng” is worse.
You’re convinced that your other fake personality is correct? Stop the presses!
Notice “neither one of” you has still pointed out anything Andy Craig got wrong. Most likely because you can’t.
I can go through and show how everything Craig said is either exaggerated, taken out of context, or fabricated.
For instance, Tom Woods was a CO-founder of League of the South (and note that Tom is from Massachusetts), but at the time that he was involved, League of the South was a historic society. Yes, League of the South later drifted in a more extremist direction, but this was many years after Tom Woods was no longer involved with the group.
The speech Jeff Deist gave where he used the phrase “Blood and Soil” towards the end was not a “Nazi” speech. It was a speech on decentralization. Deist pointed out that lots of people like their culture, and do not want to give it up, so a good strategy for thise who seek more liberty is to advicate for decentralization, that is that communities can keep the culture, or even the government, that they want, so long as it stays in their local area, and those who want a society with a higher degree of liberty should build their own communities.
Murray Rothbard pointed out during one of David Duke’s political campaigns, he gained popularity by pushing some issues on which libertarians could agree, such as ending Affirmative Action, and welfare reform. Rothbard did not advocate for any issue that went against libertarian principles when he did this. He also pointed out the hypocrisy in the mainstream media for constantly going after Duke for having been a former Klansman, while at the same time not going after Democratic Senator, Robert Byrd for having been a former Klansman, and also not going after other politician who had been involved with communist or socialist organizations. Also, note that Rothbard was Jewish, and that Duke frequently criticizes Jews.
I may return later to comnent on the rest.
None of the thing Andy Craig mentioned above are anywhere near as bad as things that Bill Weld has done, such as advocating for the war in Iraq, and the Patriot Act, and most of what Craig said is either exaggerated, taken out of context, or fabricated.
I’m not Andy. I just happen to agree with much of what he says. He’s the principled people the LP needs. I haven’t been a member in a while because of the direction things are going.
Andy – It is true that the League of the South was somewhat more tame when Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell were involved in it. They weren’t marching in the streets, carrying Tiki Torches and chanting “blood and soil,” and “Jews will not replace us.” But in 1998 – a time when both Woods and Rockwell were still involved – the League of the South was defending segregation policies, saying “Segregation is not evil or wrong. It is simply a policy to promote the integrity of a group. That there were injustices in the segregation as practiced in the South I do not deny. Certainly modifications should have been made and opportunities opened up for blacks, but not the merger and therefore the ultimate extinction of two separate peoples, which is what our society is tirelessly and relentlessly working for today.” (Woods and Rockwell did not write the preceding quote, but that is an example of what the organization they were apart of was promoting, and they remained apart of it for several more years.)
In “Judge Thomas and Black Nationalism”, Rothbard called for the break-up of the US into separate countries along racial lines. First black areas would be split off, then he wanted a separate break-up of the remaining white country for Hispanics.
In Democracy, The God That Failed, in the chapter on immigration, Hoppe called for writing immigration rules such that they would have “the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias.”
THAT is what PaleoLibertarianism is. It is an unavoidable conclusion that PaleoLibertarians are deliberately friendly towards white nationalism. That is why Rothbard invoked the David Duke campaign. That is why Rockwell “joked” that video cameras should be banned after Rodney King. Calling PaleoLibertarianism a mistake is an understatement. They are a cancer on the LP. It is possible to be a good libertarian, even a libertarian purist, while still distancing yourself from late-life Rothbard, Rockwell, and Hoppe.
Andy “Rothbard did not advocate for any issue that went against libertarian principles when he did this.”
Not true. In that very same essay, Rothbard said “But all real-world politics is coalition politics, and there are other areas where libertarians might well compromise with their paleo or traditionalist or other partners in a populist coalition. For example, on family values, take such vexed problems as pornography, prostitution, or abortion. Here, pro-legalization and pro-choice libertarians should be willing to compromise on a decentralist stance; that is, to end the tyranny of the federal courts, and to leave these problems up to states and better yet, localities and neighborhoods, that is, to ‘community standards.'”
No libertarian principle allows neighbors to vote away your right to pornography or prostitution. No libertarian principle allows neighbors to have a vote on whether or not a woman has an abortion.
“I can go through and show how everything Craig said is either exaggerated, taken out of context, or fabricated. ” No you can’t. You can just make weak, laughable excuses that fail to stand up when additional context is added.
” League of the South was a historic society.” This is a lie. It was founded as a neo-confederate neo-secessionist group.
” those who want a society with a higher degree of liberty should build their own communities.” That’s not what blood and soil means. It has a historic meaning. He knows what it is.
“None of the thing Andy Craig mentioned above are anywhere near as bad as things that Bill Weld has done, such as advocating for the war in Iraq, and the Patriot Act,”
The nazis, confederates, segregationists, lynchers and KKK were not anywhere near as bad? I guess to you they were not. But that just says a lot about you. Of course it isn’t surprising to those who have read your increasingly bizarre and bigoted rants in recent years, whether they commented or not.
“and most of what Craig said is either exaggerated, taken out of context, or fabricated.”
None of it is, as he has extensively documented and contextualized everything he says here elsewhere.
Even if any of it was, the pattern is easy to discern and impossible to dismiss.
“I’m not Andy. I just happen to agree with much of what he says. He’s the principled people the LP needs. I haven’t been a member in a while because of the direction things are going.” Sure, I believe you, Andy. You’re the Andy who is not an Andy. The other not Andy, as it were.
“THAT is what PaleoLibertarianism is. It is an unavoidable conclusion that PaleoLibertarians are deliberately friendly towards white nationalism. That is why Rothbard invoked the David Duke campaign. That is why Rockwell “joked” that video cameras should be banned after Rodney King. Calling PaleoLibertarianism a mistake is an understatement. They are a cancer on the LP” Very, very true and yet it is these same admirers and friends of totalitarians who appoint themselves as the libertarian purity police, when they are not advocating against voting or political participation or in favor of supporting big government Republicans like Trump and various fascists and dictators around the world and racist and fascist groups at home.
It would be laughable if they did not do so much damage to the party and movement, such as they did when they denied a good man like Earl Ravenal the nomination because he was not pure enough for them. No, but David Duke was. Andy Jacobs has literally defended, not just Alex Jones, Hoppe and Molyneux, but even the likes of Augustus Invictus, a card carrying nazi, and Christopher “crying nazi” Cantwell. There’s not a domestic terrorist incident which Andy does not think is an inside job or staged hoax. Jacobs parrots every loony racist movement theme and propaganda line, endlessly posts their videos, and echoes antisemitic and racist conspiracy tripe.
” It is possible to be a good libertarian, even a libertarian purist, while still distancing yourself from late-life Rothbard, Rockwell, and Hoppe.” Actually that’s true but not sufficient. It is IMpossible to be a good or pure libertarian and NOT distance yourself from this toxic hate filled cancerous garbage.
Note how, when Earl Ravenal – a man of many extraordinary achievements and talents in a remarkable variety of fields – passes away, Andy Jacobs jumps right away to celebrate his death and the victory of the “purist” “libertarian” admirers of Strom Thurmond and David Duke, an occurrence that set the party and movement back by decades. Andy Jacobs is just as quick to jump up to defend or dismiss any and every ugly alt right and paleo right screed, personality or activity.
One can only wish that someone like Lincoln Chaffee can in fact get Andy Jacobs and those like him away from the LP and away from calling themselves libertarians once and for all.
“No libertarian principle allows neighbors to vote away your right to pornography or prostitution. No libertarian principle allows neighbors to have a vote on whether or not a woman has an abortion.”
Paleo “libertarians” are only purists when it comes to others. When it comes to their own religious and racial hangups they are suddenly very flexible when it comes to libertarian purism. They’re quick to point out and exaggerate every bad deed of the US and its allies on the world stage and just as quick to mimimize and make excuses for any and every tyrant and dictator who stands opposed to the US and its allies, no matter how oppressive or mass murderous.
There is, in fact, nothing even remotely libertarian about the alt right and paleo “libertarians.” They are anything but, despite their hypocritical claims to be the libertarian purity police.
Notice how Jim had to MAKE UP a quote, and then apply it to Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell.
As for your comment about Hoppe, he has clearly said that in a libertarian society, people can form whatever type of community they want, including one(s) that are left wing, and which promote feminism, multi-culturalism, etc… He just does not think that those communities would be very successful.
Libertarianism is NOT about political correctness, in spite of people like Jim trying to insert it into libertarianism. Libertariainsim is about property rights, and the Non-Aggression Principle, and that’s it. The people who are ruining libertarianism are the one’s who mix it with a bunch of left wing “PC” garbage, and act as though this has something to do with property rights and the NAP, which it does not.
As for your comments about Rothbard, he was clearly talking about a political strategy, which included forming coalitions with people who were not libertarians, and using decentralization as a tool for taking power away from the federal government. This is not the same thing as advocating against liberty, or misrepresenting libertarianism.
In case you did not read the bio linked in the article:
Earl C. Ravenal, internationally known expert on American foreign policy and US government, died August 31 at home, surrounded by family. He was 88. Known as an author, professor, and a 1984 Libertarian Party candidate for US President, he wrote twelve books and over 200 articles and papers for The New York Times, Washington Post, Foreign Affairs, and others. He taught at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service for 23 years and lectured internationally. “Cappy,” as he was known to friends and family, was born in New York on March 29, 1931 to the late Alan and Mildred Ravenal. Raised in Providence, RI, he graduated as valedictorian from Hope High School in 1948. He attended Harvard University, where he graduated Summa Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1952, and received a Henry Fellowship to Cambridge University in England. He attended the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration Middle Management Program and later served in the Defense Department as Director of the Asian Division, Systems Analysis, where he brought a business perspective informed by his years as President of a family corporation, Elbe File & Binder Co., in Fall River, Mass. He earned his MA and PhD from The Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, where he taught before his appointment to Georgetown. Earl was an inventive chef inspired by international travels, had a great love of poetry including Pound and Elliot, and was passionate about sailing and skiing. He possessed an encyclopedic knowledge of Western classical music, developed through years of playing violin, including with the Rhode Island Philharmonic Orchestra. He was widely regarded as a wise and generous man and will be greatly missed. Earl is survived by his wife of 63 years, Carol Bird Myers Ravenal; his children Cornelia, John, and Rebecca and their spouses; four grandchildren; and his brother Richard Ravenal.
A remarkable man with a remarkable life. What has Andy Jacobs achieved? What does Andy Jacobs contribute other than his hate filled paranoid rants that continue where Birchers and Alex Jones leave off?
“Notice how Jim had to MAKE UP a quote, and then apply it to Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell. ” The quote is genuine and documented. It came from an organization they promoted and were affiliated with. Woods still promotes many racists and hate filled bigots on his show today.
“As for your comment about Hoppe, he has clearly said that in a libertarian society, people can form whatever type of community they want, including one(s) that are left wing, and which promote feminism, multi-culturalism, etc… He just does not think that those communities would be very successful. ” That’s a lie. He has called for physically removing classes of people he does not like from society. Among many other ugly things he has said.
” Libertariainsim is about property rights, and the Non-Aggression Principle, and that’s it. ”
For starters, you are not a libertarian and neither are the paleos, so it’s not up to you to define libertarianism. For another, libertarianism only makes sense as part of the classical liberal and enlightenment tradition and its values. The alt right/paleo twisting of libertarianism is unnatural and detrimental. And highly hypocritical to boot, since they don’t care a lick for property rights or the non-agression principle when it’s their side violating those things.
” The people who are ruining libertarianism are the one’s who mix it with a bunch of left wing “PC” garbage”
Of course you would say that, but in fact it is you and yours who are ruining libertarianism. I hope you carry out your threat to leave if Chaffee is nominated. Libertarians such as Bastiat sat on the left; the power of nobility, the church, landed gentry – that was the old right which the Paleos venerate. They literally wish to take us back to medieval serfdom, antebellum slavery and biblical patriarchy. None of this is even remotely libertarian. And then they have the nerve to tell actual libertarians that they aren’t and that the paleos are the only true and pure libertarians. The only true and pure thing about that is that it is pure and true BS.
Ed Ng, the guy who thinks there is no problem with the Libertarian Party running Council on Foreign Relations members for political office, is among the last people who should be lecturing anyone on libertarian purity.
The real reason Ed Ng has his panties in a bunch over paleolibertarians and the “alt right” and Trump supporters is because they are all mad about mass welfare statist immigration (never mind the fact that Trump has not actually done much to address the problem), and want to greatly reduce it, and this gets in the way of the communists and New Workd Order globalists who Ed Ng supports.
Look at Ed Ng, defending and praising a CFR member. CFR members are dedicated to the destruction of the US Constitution, not because they are principled libertarian ancaps, but rather because they want a global totalitarian super-state.
What had Ed Ng accomplished, other than hiding behind fake screen names and posting stupid comnents online?
And there you have it, Andy Jacobs ignorance on full display. Well he hasn’t started raving about the Jews yet.
Andy Jacobs is a chump. Not a group I support or know much about but they make an excellent point here:
If You Like Borders, You’re a Chump
…
“I know you think the elites are “against” borders. I know you think “open borders” is an elite thing. A plot. A scheme to destroy you and your country.
And that’s exactly what the elites want you to think. Because they want borders.
Since time immemorial, the elites have ruled by division. Since there are so few elites, and so many non-elites, the latter can always overpower the former – IF we’re united. That’s the big caveat. We have to work together to assert our rights and secure our liberty. Without unity, we can’t defeat them.
There’s no division quite as effective as carving up the planet into pieces, and training the people in each piece to be suspicious of those in all the other pieces. Really, it’s genius.”
Read the rest at https://www.theearthparty.net/post/if-you-like-borders-you-re-a-chump
Of course, border fascism and the desire for a militarized police state rounding up immigrants, putting people in concentration camps, carrying out ethnic cleansing, constantly demanding everyone’s papers, and wrecking the economy is just one of the many reasons to dissociate the paleo/alt right/Trumptard fash from anywhere near the LP or movement. There are so many others, but why list them all again? They are already above.
Those who want a global totalitarian super state love borders. There’s no freedom of movement in a prison. All movement is tightly controlled. Everyone is separated. No one goes anywhere without permission. People are kept apart in different units. That’s the global government model favored by Putin, Trump, and Andy Jacobs, a “purist libertarian” for fascism just like the rest of the paleo “purist libertarians.”
The Soviet Union had tight border controls. Not only were people rarely allowed to leave, but they had to get government permission to move about within the country. There were checkpoints all over the place. People were put in concentration camps and whole ethnic groups rounded up and moved en masse. Andy Jacobs would have loved it.
From the same article:
You’ve read Orwell? Great. You know about the Inversion Principle, where Freedom = Slavery, and Slavery = Freedom? Great.
So how about this little doozie: The elites have convinced you that the ability to travel where you want, when you want, without hassle, is “Tyranny.”
And that being required to fill out lengthy paperwork, pay money, wait, and beg permission from a bureaucrat for the “privilege” of traveling, amounts to “Freedom.”
Woops.
Chump.
How did you buy into this nonsense?
All of the “reasons” to have borders are nonsense. All of them.
I support borders because I support property rights. A purist libertarian society would have more borders than exist now, because everything woukd be private property, and migration and immigration would be at the discretion of property owners.
People who do not support property rights are not libertarians. Property rights indicates exclusivity over property. Advocating that there is not exclusivity to property is not a libertarian point of view, it is communist.
I will say that as an ideal, states should not exist, however, given that they do exist, this does not mean that everyone in the world should be granted full access to every piece of property in the world. The solution is NOT to open state borders to unlimited trespass, but rather to PRIVATIZE the borders, and everything else. Until such privatization takes place, the state acts as a property manager of the boders and the taxpayer funded commons and infrastructure, so therefore, the state should act as a market actor, as in it should serve the interest of the “citizens” within its borders, and it should not put the interest of foreign nationals ahead of the interests of the citizen taxpayers. Opening state borders to unlimited, unrestricted use by foreigners means mord competition over scarce resources, which leads to conflict, and is also forced Association, and is an assault on the property rights of the citizen taxpayers.
Private property lines are nothing like government borders. If you don’t understand the difference, you must think all property belongs to the government. Congratulations, you are now a Marxist. People who have had to cross borders, sometimes without permission, to flee from Marxist states, who have been packed into refugee camps and risked lives on rickety and crowded boats at sea and nearly starved to death to get away from the likes of you recognize you for what you are.
“unlimited trespass” Trespass occurs when someone violates legitimately owned property. You obviously believe that whole countries are legitimately government property. The only people who believe this are Marxists. You are a Marxist communist as well as a fascist. No one could be less libertarian than you. You are a bigot and a dirty commie. Your rationalization are hollow and nonsensical. They amount to fascism as the intermediate stage of utopian Marxism. It’s all fun and games until you kill a few million people in the name of freedom and liberty.
No doubt you use similar rationalizations to try to justify your career as a government infiltrator, troll and agent. The state is just the property manager of libertarianism. You are managing the property on its behalf. Just temporarily. That’s what Marxist totalitarians always said, they just managed the country temporarily on behalf of the workers until anarcho-utopia dawns, meanwhile all their brutal totalitarian tactics were justified. How are you different? You aren’t. You are just like them because you ARE them.
Andy “Notice how Jim had to MAKE UP a quote, and then apply it to Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell.”
I very specifically said it was NOT a quote by Woods or Rockwell, just an example of the sort of crap the League of the South was putting out at the time when Woods and Rockwell were involved. If you want a citation, it comes from the Southern Patriot (the official publication of the League of the South), Volume 5, issue 6 (November-December 1998), article titled George Wallace and the South (Part 1 of 2), by William L. Cawthon.
Open up the League of the South’s web site in the Internet Archive and go back to 2002 or so. It is possible to read many archived issues of the Southern Patriot. I wanted to know if Woods was telling the truth about what the League of the South was like during the time when he was involved. So I read them. That’s what I found: celebrations of George Wallace and a defense of segregation.
Andy “As for your comments about Rothbard, he was clearly talking about a political strategy, which included forming coalitions with people who were not libertarians, and using decentralization as a tool for taking power away from the federal government.”
Yes, PaleoLibertarianism is a political strategy which attempts to form an alliance with nationalist non-libertarians – PaleoConservatives and white nationalists. It warped libertarian thought and made certain compromises in an attempt to forge that coalition. It called for federal control of immigration and allowed for federalist style decentralized regulation, rather than universal liberty.
Ed Ng – Calm down, dude. Andy has some nationalist tendencies, he’s not a Marxist or fascist. They’re all collectivist, but there are obvious differences from where Andy stands.
You have not thought through the implications of what he says. I assure you, however, I am quite calm.
The fact that states exist does not mean that everyone on the planet has a right to move into whatever country they want to move into, particularly if the local people do not want them there.
Government parks exist. Does this mean that since government parks exist mean that everyone should be able to fold into a park and do whatever they want. If this policy was in place, the local park would be filled with squatters/bums, and it would ruin the value of the park for the local taxpayers.
Andy – The designated purpose of a government park is not for squatting. Just as the designated purpose of a government road is not for squatting. The purpose of a government road is for traveling. The government should not restrict the use of government roads beyond that which is necessary for their safe and proper usage. The same restrictions for proper use would be fine for government parks. And don’t get into the taxpayer stuff. Everyone who uses a road helps pay for their maintenance through gas taxes and tolls, regardless of immigration status. The same arrangement could be made for parks.
Any libertarian Platform and personality [cult] lists in Internet land ???
Democracy Troll — unlike the SEVERAL MORON statist / cultist trolls on this list.
BAN list is at least practice in dealing with coming super-killer / enslaver CONTROL FREAK statists and their stooge hacks — LURKING AROUND FOR 6,000 PLUS YEARS OF RECORDED POLITICAL HISTORY —
ESP SUPER KILLERS LIKE NAPOLEON, KAISER BILL, THE 3 TOP AXIS KILLERS- HITLER, HIROHITO AND MUSSOLINI AND OTHER KILLERS – MAO, CASTRO, SADDAM, ETC ETC ETC.
Demo Rep, those are all certainly words.
Here’s a comment I left awhile back in the comments section on another site which shows the clear link between Marxists and globalists and the current mass immigration, and in this case, the caravans attempting to get into the USA illegally from south of the border.
The Communists Behind the “Abolish ICE,” “Occupy ICE” Agitation
https://www.thenewamerican….
From the article: “Who’s leading the “Abolish ICE,” “No Borders” agitation? Don’t expect the establishment media to mention that it’s the Revolutionary Communist Party, Communist Party USA, Workers World Party, Democratic Socialists of America, Antifa anarcho-communists, the National Lawyers Guild, and the American Civil Liberties Union.”
Now somebody may say, “Well this article was written by a right wing source,” as a mean of dismissing the information. So let’s check out some source material.
This is from the Revolutionary Communist Party website:
Trump’s Wall Is a Fascist Monstrosity and Must NOT Go Up…
But the “Border Security” of the Democrats Is ALSO a Machinery of Heartless Persecution, Demonization, and Deportation
https://www.revcom.us/a/577…
Here’s Communist Party USA.
Communist Party Resolves: Immigrant rights is a struggle for democracy
http://www.cpusa.org/party_…
MY COMMENT: Why are communists so concerned about “immigrant rights” and democracy? Could it be that it is part of their agenda to flood the country with a bunch of people who they know, statistically speaking, will vote in super majority numbers for communist policies?
If anyone out there is naive enough to think that these communists sound like nice people, and have good intentions, keep in mind that communists murdered 10’s of millions of innocent people.
Here’s the Workers World Party.
“No borders!”
https://www.workers.org/cat…
Portland rally supports refugee caravan
https://www.workers.org/201…
MY COMMENT: Note that the migrant caravan received funding from globalist George Soros’ Open Society (who also fund ANTIFA), and the Ford Foundation, and that the caravan was organized by hardcore Marxists like Bartalo Fuentes,
Guatemalan Caravan Funded by US through Soros NGO’s.
https://helenaglass.net/201…
Meet the Radical Anti-U.S. Marxists Behind the Migrant Caravan
https://www.westernjournal….
From the article: “There is strong evidence that Bartolo Fuentes, a far-left organizer who is a key part of the Central American caravan, is more radical than previously reported. In fact, he is an avowed socialist and Marxist who is motivated to retaliate against the United States.
Also connected to the supposedly
‘organic’ caravan are numerous Central American communist groups, which openly despise the U.S. and have pledged to ‘conquer’ it.”
This is from the Democratic Socialists of America.
DSA stands with immigrants — no DACA repeal!
https://www.dsausa.org/news…
Statement on Central American Caravan/DSA se solidariza con la actual caravana centroamericana en un éxodo a los Estados Unidos
https://www.dsausa.org/stat…
From the article: “DSA stands in solidarity with the current Central American caravan on an exodus to the United States. As a result of U.S. intervention and imperialism, political turmoil in Honduras and Nicaragua, and capitalist-driven environmental destruction in Guatemala and El Salvador, migrants have been forced to either flee or stay in a capitalist-made laboratory of violence.”
MY COMMENT: This is classic Heglian Dialectic, as in PROMBLEM + REACTION = SOLUTION. The globalists help create a crisis in these countries, then seek sympathy from the American public, and then offer as their solution, for a bunch of these
people to flood into the USA, in a caravan that is funded by globalists and organized by Marxists, so they can be used to shift the voting demographics of the USA towards the Marxist and globalist agenda.
The Marxists are tools of the globalists (the banksters and the ruling elite).
One may say something like, “Well, just because communists are supporting open borders and mass unrestricted immigration it does not automatically mean that it’s bad. Even a broken clock is right two times a day.” My response to this is that this is a reasonable argument, however, the fact that this positions is being supported by BOTH communists and the global elite (the CFR and Bilderberg Group crowd, the people like George Soros, etc…), is cause for alarm. Also, the FACTS clearly indicate that super-majorities of these immigrants and their offspring utilize the welfare state, and once becoming American citizens and voters, they vote in super-majority numbers to increase the welfare state and enact more gun control laws. Some of these immigrant groups also do have higher crime rates than most of the existing population. So there are legitimate reasons to shut these people out, and doing so does not violate any libertarian principles.
There are both international socialists and nationalist socialists (like Stalin). There are communists on both sides of that issue. That’s one of the reasons why I haven’t been one of those who throw the “Marxist” name calling at you.
However, wanting to restrict immigration because you believe it would make society better off is, by definition, a progressive position. It isn’t the sort of progressivism commonly associated with that word today. It is not socialist influenced progressivism. Rather, it is nationalist influenced progressivism.