Nationalists Attack Ron Paul

There’s been a flurry of blogs and articles in the Alternative Right blogosphere condemning Ron Paul for one reason or another.  (The “alternative-right”, for those of you who don’t know, is a political community of racially-aware dissidents who are characterized by a general trend of intellectualism, conservatism and well-informed opinions.)

The complaint is that Paul is, either knowingly or unknowingly, duping poor whites — taking our money with no intent to repay in form of beneficial laws once in the White House.  (In some cases, Alt.Right bloggers claim Paul is a scoundrel for spreading libertarian principles instead of white-nationalist ones…but if that’s true then my mother is also a scoundrel!  Best to avoid that slippery slope.)

Now, barring a coordinated machiavellian offensive on the part of the Alt.Right bloggers (where they actually support Paul but are criticizing him to try and convince the media that “racists” aren’t Paul supporters) there are at least three general mistakes that I see in all this anti-Paul rhetoric.

The first is the mistake of thinking Paul intelligent enough to pull off a mass-conspiracy against racially-aware white people.  It’s been my experience that very few Americans are epistemologically self-conscious.  I mean:  very few Americans are self-conscious of their underlying world and life view and how it informs their beliefs in any given subject-area.

I know this is true of Paul.  He is (at least) confused on how his Christianity influences his political and ideological life.  I’m not sure how this is possible, though.  With writers like Gary North out there, how could Paul miss this sort of thing?  Gary North is a Christian theonomist / reconstructionist and prominent intellectual within the libertarian community, posting regularly at Lew Rockwell.  He even worked for Ron Paul’s campaign in the past and lectures frequently for the Von Mises institute.  Paul must be — at least partially — aware of North’s work.  Nevertheless, Paul repeatedly demonstrates that his worldview is not systematic, but rather piecemeal.

Since Paul’s view is not systematic, but piecemeal, it’s reasonable to assume that he’s not thinking within the same paradigm as disgruntled white-nationalists and Alt.Right bloggers.  Paul, I believe, simply doesn’t realize the implications of his economic positions for a white populace — he doesn’t think in those terms.  He’s thinking like his ideological mentors, Mises and Rothbard and they see the world through green lenses — wealth and it’s distribution throughout society, forms the basis of Austrian class-theory.

This leads me to the second mistake.  It’s often asserted that Austrian economic theory is bad for whites and bad for white-nationalism as an enterprise, but I’ve yet to read an in-depth analysis of Austrian theory from any of these bloggers.

For example, don’t just say that “free-trade” is evil — demonstrate it economically!  Present a metaphysical view in which “value” has a consistent and objective meaning, then show why Austrian economic theory necessarily violates that objective good and promotes an ever-increasing scarcity of value.

It’s harder to approach economic-theory this way, though.  It takes a lot of work, research and accurate reporting.

If it’s true that various economic policies based on an Austrian economic paradigm would increase the standard-of-living for whites and increase their ability to freely-associate and control their economic destiny, then the fact that Ron Paul promotes these policies without realizing that they’re conducive to white-nationalist’s political ambitions shouldn’t be controversial or objectionable.  If Paul’s (possible) policies are not conducive to a white nationalist political goal, then prove it.  Show how, exactly.

This naturally leads to a third mistake: Gary North often reminds us that “Ya can’t beat something with nothing.”

Until a gifted white-nationalist economic-theorist comes along and provides us all with a coherent and agreeable economic system, we’re going to have to continue relying on the work of non-nationalist economists, including the Austrians, of whom Ron Paul is a disciple.

I do wish the cavalier rhetoric against Ron Paul and against Austrian economics (in general) was offered from a well-laid foundation of nationalist (or at least, racialist) economic ideology.

Unfortunately, the criticisms of the Alt.Right seem more like pot-shots from disgruntled ideologues.

I’m supporting Ron Paul for various reasons and while I’m moving away from the Austrian school of economics (and away from purely ‘rationalist’ schools all together) I remain convinced that there is much of value to be had in the writings of Mises, Rothbard and all the others.

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Nationalists Attack Ron Paul

  1. Faust says:

    Sadly there is some truth to many of the points they have made, our people are sometimes too dazzled by “freedom” as the solution to all problems. Sadly political outlets for blood and soil nationalism seem limited these days.

  2. shotgunwildatheart says:


    I love Matt Parrot to death, but he’s come out with yet another article on economics (over at Counter-Currents) that has me thinking.

    I need to write a blog highlighting Gary North’s savage (in my opinion) criticism of “social credit” theory.

    The more I talk with pagan white-nationalists, the more I become convinced that I cannot ally myself with them, due to underlying epistemological differnces — philosophical differences that are so fundamental, they set us on separate paths, working towards different ends.

    Here’s a vulgar generalization: We believe, as Christians, that the source of all social ills arises from within the human heart. The pagan wn puts the blame on an elite group of rich jewish bankers.

    • Pagans (of any stripe) are degenerate, and could never lead on a global level. They’re the followers of the followers, which is why Japan is completely reactionary in the Pacific, and why India is known as the customer service center of the world.

      Pagan pro-whites wouldn’t be able to run a white country any better today than they could in the past – they lost Carthage and Egypt (yes, it’s true that Christians lost Byzantium). But, those two examples are probably just the tip of the iceberg as white people were known to have inhabited China (ancient red hair found) and Central Asia (Buddha had blue eyes). Meanwhile, Russia with a strong Christian presence is making moves on taking back global influence and Germany loses its footing as its Christianity fades. So, in conclusion, paganism lets white people feel better about encroaching white geNOcide.

  3. ~MaryBeth~ says:

    I just started to write a post about Ron Paul. Hopefully I will finish it soon.

  4. Faust says:

    I have been planning on writing something on this topic. My feeling are rather mixed, worshiping “freedom” can be dangerous thing, when removed from morality and duty. I have a dislike from ideologies which make economics the center of their world-view.

  5. Shotgun says:

    I agree Faust.

    I’m no “Paultard” by any length of the imagination.

    In fact, I’m not fond at all of “voting” or “democracy.” I’ve taken heat from people (in real life) for declaring that I’ll not be voting as a matter of conscience.

    However, in Paul’s case, I think he represents a significant-enough deviation from the norm that, if he were to win, our lot on the plantation would be greatly improved. His win might even act as a catalyist to launch us towards regaining an ethnic-consciousness.

    I can’t say how God will work in history, but I do know that He (working through Paul) is changing the political landscape back towards a direction I’m fond of.

    He’ll not let evil triumph forever.

  6. ~MaryBeth~ says:

    I also agree. There are a lot of freedom worshipers today who would have the freedom we used to have in America and condemn anyone who works for the government. I know some of them and sadly, they would rather salute (as an example) Ron Paul than bow down humbly before God and ask Him to take over the election and have His will be done with it. It may not be God’s will for Dr. Paul to be President. It certainly was His will for Mr. Obama to be President, otherwise it would not have happened. Agreed??
    Now don’t get me wrong. I would not have chosen Barack Obama to become President, but Our will is not always God’s will. Yes, I am a little outraged that he has put laws in place that go against the Constitution that was founded on the Bible, but that does not give me any right to disrespect our God-given country leader. All I can do about it is Pray and ask God to open the eyes of our President and believe that he will do so.
    Okay, I’m done for now. :)

  7. Shotgun says:

    I think — just as God builds the perfect friend and hand-crafts our life-long mates — He expertly constructs our enemies for the sole purpose of being demolished by Godly passions.

    Just because God wills our enemies to power, doesn’t mean He intends for them to stay there.

  8. ~MaryBeth~ says:

    Hmm. I think you are wrong. God constructs our enemies for the sole purpose of trying to make us more like Christ. He gives us trials because he wants to test our reaction. He then uses our positive reactions (if they are positive at the time) to lead others to Him, or to move other Christians to where they should be in their walk with God.

    Once again, I think President Obama was a test to see how well we would react to someone who claims to be a Christian ‘just like us’ but is actually a Muslim who wants to see all Christians dead. Yes, I do believe that he is from the pits of hell. But it is God who wanted him to become president. He did it for a reason. We don’t know what it is, and we won’t know until we die and reach the Glory Land.

  9. What’s the point in expressing support, Mr. Terry, if you plan on not voting? Maybe this subject has gone stale…

    • shotgunwildatheart says:

      It’s hard not to get involved in the fun surrounding the political process – and especially hard for me (given my unique personal tastes and preferences) to avoid taking sides in the debate.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s