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.