Mediaboss Marketing

Last December as the smoke was clearing from the electoral explosion and many of us were still shell-shocked and wandering around blindly searching for emotional shelter, Salons Matthew Sheffieldwrote a series of articlesabout the rise of the alt-right. The movement had been discussed during the campaign, of course. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton even gave a big speech about it. Trumps campaign strategist and chiefconsigliere, Steve Bannon the once and future executive editor of Breitbart News had even bragged that his operation was the platform of the alt-right just a few months earlier. But after the election there was more interest than ever in this emerging political movement.

Its an interesting story about a group of non-interventionist right-wingers, who came together in the middle of the last decade in search of solidarity in their antipathy toward the Bush administrations wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a motley group of conservatives, white nationalists and Libertarians that broke apart almost as soon as they came together. The more clever among them saw the potential for this new brand and began to market themselves as the alt-right, and it eventually morphed into what it is today. The series is a good read and explains that the alt-right really was a discrete new movement within the far right wing and not simply a clever renaming of racist and Nazi groups.

This week, conservative writer Matt Lewis of The Daily Beast, a Trump critic,wrote a pieceabout the Libertarian influence on the alt-right and suggested that Libertarians work harder to distance themselves from this now-infamous movement. He points out that former Rep. Ron Pauls presidential campaigns were a nexus of what became alt-right activism. Sheffield had written about that too:

Pretty much all of the top personalities at the Right Stuff, a neo-Nazi troll mecca, started off as conventional libertarians and Paul supporters, according to the sites creator, an anonymous man who goes by the name Mike Enoch.

We were all libertarians back in the day. I mean, everybody knows this,he said on an alt-right podcast last month. [Note: This podcast seems to have been deleted.]

It wasnt just obscure neo-Nazi trolls. Virtually all the prominent figures in or around the alt-right movement, excepting sympathizers and fellow travelers like Bannon and Donald Trump himself, were Paul supporters:Richard Spencer,Paul Gottfried, Jared Taylor,Milo Yiannopoulosand Alex Jones. (The latter two deny being part of the alt-right, but have unquestionably contributed to its rise in prominence.) Pauls online support formed the basis for what would become the online alt-right, the beating heart of the new movement.

In fact, Ron Paul then a Texas congressman and the father of Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the original alt-right candidate, long before Donald Trump came along. Paul was also, by far, the most popular Libertarian in America.

Those of us observing the Paul phenomenon and Libertarianism from the left always found it curious in this regard. Pauls racism was simply undeniable.It was documented for decades. He hid behind the states rights argument, as pro-Confederate racists have always done, but it was never very convincing. If you are a principled Libertarian who believes in small government and inalienable individual rights, what difference does it make whether a federal or state government is the instrument of oppression?

Most of us thought a lot of Pauls appeal, especially to young white males, came down to a loathing for the uptight religious conservatism of the GOP, along with Pauls endorsement of drug legalization. That made some sense. Why would all these young dudes care about the capital gains tax?

And lets face facts, it wasnt just Libertarians who could be dazzled by Pauls iconoclasm.There were plenty of progressives drawn to his isolationist stance as well.But as it turns out, among that group of Atlas Shrugged fans and stoners were a whole lot of white supremacists, all of whom abandoned Ron Pauls son Rand in 2016 when Donald Trump came along and spoke directly to their hearts and minds.

Is there something about Libertarianism that attracts white supremacists? It seems unlikely, except to the extent that it was a handy way to argue against federal civil rights laws, something that both Paulpreandfilsendorsed during their careers, legitimizing that point of view as a Libertarian principle. (In fairness, Rand Paul has tried to pursue more progressive racial policies in recent years which may also have helped drive away his dads supporters.) Other than that, though, it seems to me that Libertarianism has simply been a way station for young and angry white males as they awaited theirGod Emperor, as they call Trump on the wildly popular alt-right site, r/The_Donald.

Still, Libertarians do have something to answer for. While principled Libertarianslike Cathy Youngcertainly condemned the racism in their ranks at the time, but others who supported Ron Paul failed to properly condemn the rank bigotry undergirding the Paul philosophy.

Lewiss Daily Beast piece certainly provoked some reaction among Libertarians. Nick Gillespie at Reasonobjectedto the characterization of Libertarianism as a pipeline to the alt-right, writing that the alt-right and Trumpism, too, to the extent that it has any coherence is an explicit rejection of foundational libertarian beliefs in free trade and free migration along with experiments in living that make a mess of rigid categories that appeal to racists, sexists, protectionists, and other reactionaries. So he rejects calls to purge Libertarianism of alt-righters, since he believes they were never really Libertarians in the first place.

Gillespie does, however, agree that Libertarian true believers should call out such people wherever we find them espousing their anti-modern, tribalistic, anti-individualistic, and anti-freedom agenda. (It would have been easy to include racist in that list but, being generous, perhaps he meant it to fall under the term tribalistic.)

Meanwhile, over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler addresses some Libertariansmisplaced affinity for the Confederacy,a phenomenon I must admit I didnt know existed. Evidently,there really are Libertarianswho take the side of the secessionists, supposedly on the basis of tariffs and Abraham Lincolns allegedly monstrous record on civil liberties. Adler patiently explains why this is all nonsense and wrote, Libertarianism may not be responsible for the alt-right, but its fair to ask whether enough libertarians have done enough to fight it within their own ranks.

Good for these prominent Libertarians for being willing to confront the currents of racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia that at the very least have contaminated their movement. We await the same honest self-appraisal from the conservative movement and Republican leaders as a whole.

Original post:
Now the Libertarians have known sin: Reckoning with the rise of the ... - Salon

In 2002, I got it into my head that I wanted to attend what was then described as the Old Latin Mass. I had been reading in the dingy corners of the Internet, which is always dangerous, and these Latin Mass people seemed able to explain some of the gap between the grand ideas I was studying in a medieval-theology class at my college and the worship at most Catholic parishes, which, to me, seemed little different from the Lutheran services Id seen as a teenager. One Sunday morning I got in my car, and life has never been the same.

For most of the people I met there, the Old Mass was the one quixotic cause to which they were attached. They knew that the local bishop didnt like this movement, and that it placed them outside the mainstream not only of their culture but of their own Church. But they believed.

The price for their conviction was that they had to put up with the others the people for whom the Latin Mass was just the first or the latest in a long line of disreputable fascinations and commitments. One of these folks told me that every bishop and cardinal and even the pope himself was homosexual. Another let on that she frequently wrote encouraging letters to certain Bourbon descendants. And honestly, it was the freaks and conspiracy theorists who seemed more kind and generous with their time, and who generally were less discriminating in everyday ways. They might be worried that Freemasons in the government were spying on them, but they really didnt notice bourgeois morality or care about what you did for a living.

Eventually, Pope Benedict made clear that the Latin Mass was a good thing and said the bishops shouldnt give us such a hard time. Since then, the ratio of normal people to kooks has changed dramatically in favor of normal people.

Which brings us to the strange liberty-to-fascism pipeline.

According to a theory Matt Lewis recently floated, libertarianism is some unique gateway drug to neo-Nazism. Lewis runs through a few white supremacists who have become notorious since Charlottesville and finds that some of them once self-identified as libertarians or have tried recruiting at libertarian events.

But its not just libertarianism. Jason Kessler, the lead organizer of the Charlottesville torch march, was formerly in Occupy Wall Street. And hes not the only Occupy veteran who found himself on the alt-ish side of the street. Online activist Justine Tunney went from Occupy to Gamergate to creating a petition for a CEO of America, fitting her new net-reactionary views.

Lewis comes across the most powerful explanation for the pipeline when professor Kevin Vallier tells him, Libertarianism is an unpopular view. And it takes particular personality types to be open to taking unpopular views. Indeed, marginal ideas attract marginal people. The experience of conversion itself can be intoxicating, and so often the first conversion is not the final one.

It also takes a particular sort of character to handle marginal ideas safely. People dont just think themselves into their ideas; they feel their way to them emotionally, and they are socialized into them. Adopting a big new idea can be like adopting a new wardrobe; it can signify and propel a change in persona.

Before the Latin Mass, I spent some time in Evangelical churches, and I count many Evangelicals as friends and spiritual peers. But after 15 years of socializing myself into my religious views, I think one of the chief barriers to my ever concluding that Martin Luther correctly interpreted St. Pauls letters is that I dont want to become a person who wears khakis and a broad smile when prefacing a difficult conversation with the words, The Lord put something on my heart.

Im sure theres someone who looks at my religious views and thinks, I dont want be the kind of person who talks about G. K. Chesterton to strangers and tells their kids to offer it up when they fall and scrape their knee. Theres no logical connection at work. You can have Luthers view of justification without being a typical American Evangelical. Martin Luther himself managed that trick. But the human machine isnt strictly logical. To believe something isnt just to accept the conclusion itself; its to accept yourself as the type of person who believes it.

Cranks therefore come to accept or even embrace their own crankishness. One marginal idea leads to the next even more marginal idea. And the mainstream they rejected isnt just wrong; its proponents become contemptible and corrupt. And contempt spreads easily: Normal people dont care about ideas, the cranks thinking goes, and endure the corruption around them in nearly silent docility. Its the normies that kooks really cant stand.

Like religion, politics attracts kooks and grifters because it is a field where results have a mysterious and hard-to-trace relationship with the time, effort, and cash invested in them. Grifters use this to create lucrative and low-effort consulting jobs. For kooks, the comfort is more psychological. If a kook can convince himself or better yet, others that Freemasons, Jews, or Cultural Marxists run the whole world, hes suddenly relieved of the burden of explaining to himself and others the shipwreck of his own talents and ambitions.

And speaking of grifters, if kooks start digging into the crack in their minds and sometimes end up with a cracked will, grifters start with a cracked will and usually end up with an empty mind. Anything like a conviction could get in the way of the money-making.

If libertarians have a pipeline for kooks, it is probably because they have some non-mainstream views. But if you have perfectly acceptable views, you probably have a pipeline for grifters. Conservatives have a mix of mainstream views and non-mainstream views. Consequently we are always fending off kooks on one side while being preyed upon by grifters on the other.

If libertarians have to account for Christopher Cantwell, Richard Spencer, and a hundred other kooks, perhaps the respectable types need to explain the long parade of money-grubbing nullities marching through political media and political power. All the way from Dick Morris and Morris Dees to Tom Daschle, Trent Lott, and the functionaries at the Clinton Foundation. What pipeline produces these, and who is willing to clean it up?

READ MORE: Campus Conservatives Gave the Alt-Right a Platform The Kids Are Alt Right: The Internets Most Infamous Subculture The Alt-Right Is Bad And So Is Antifa

Michael Brendan Dougherty is a senior writer at National Review.

Read more:
The Libertarianism-to-Fascism Pipeline - National Review

If you speak to any political activist operating outside of the two-party mainstream, a common point mentioned is how party politics compromises principles. Republicans often sacrifice conservative principles to advance the party elite. Although individuals such as House Speaker Paul Ryan or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are considered leaders in the Republican Party, conservative activists generally do not consider them standard bearers of their cause. Case in point is the failure to legitimately repeal Obamacare.

The same is said for many liberals and progressives in terms of the Democratic Party. Instead of nominating someone more devout to their cause such as Senator Bernie Sanders, the party elite opted for Hillary Clinton, a mistake possibly responsible for Trumps unexpected presidency. The Democratic Party seems more concerned with the party elite than advancing their principles.

So why would the Libertarian Party be any different?

Libertarian National Committee chairman Nicholas Sarwark has an active presence online, targeting individuals who stand at odds with his party. This is not unusual, as across the country, Republicans figuratively snipe at Democrats and vice versa. Even on that rare occasion there is common ground among both sides, partisanship always reigns supreme. It is a fact of life in todays political climate.

But with the last election, the Libertarian Party sought to brand itself as the sane alternate to the madness of the two-party duopoly. The problem is that the partys own chairman contradicts this own line of logic.

Sarwark has criticized libertarian icon, former Texas Congressman Ron Paul as well as his libertarian-leaning son Senator Rand Paul. More recently, he has taken aim at historian Tom Woods. The recurring theme is Sarwarks love for hurling insults at non-Libertarians, even the ones that are simply unenrolled libertarians.

Is this healthy for the cause of liberty?

The liberty movement had a very brief moment of unity in 2012 when Ron Paul ran for President, but after that, the movement splintered almost immediately. Libertarians want success for the Libertarian Party, but many Paul-aligned activists remain within the Republican Party. In a number of ways, libertarianism has fallen victim to a tug-o-war between political parties.

So where does this leave Sarwark?

The question ultimately lies where his loyalties are and to a degree, what the aim of the Libertarian Party is.

Is the Libertarian Party in existence to advance its own brand, or does it exist to advance libertarian principles? More importantly, do these goals align?

If the answer to the latter question is yes, then the Libertarian Party would support causes that advance libertarian principles. Nobody is arguing that the Ron, Rand, or Woods are perfect. With that being said, it is undeniable that these individuals have made a significant contribution to liberty. Given Sarwarks attacks, its then easy to assume that advancing the Libertarian Party and the cause of liberty are not parallel causes.

So where does that leave the Libertarian Party?

Ultimately, the Libertarian Party is a lot like the Republican Party. Candidates, activists and scattered leaders may genuinely identify with the principled cause, but the party structure works contrary to it. Political parties work contrary to principles, whether it be Republicans with conservatism or Libertarians with libertarianism.

When Sarwark attacks prominent libertarian figures simply because they dont identify with individuals such as Gary Johnson or Bill Weld, he is setting back the cause of liberty in favor of pushing his brand. This may be his job as a party chairman, but lets not operate under the assumption that he is working towards the goal of advancing liberty.

Read this article:
How The Libertarian Party's Partisan Politics Hurts Libertarianism - The Liberty Conservative

Writing in the Daily Beast, Matt Lewis suggestsa disproportionate number of alt-right leaders claim to be former libertarians. Exploring why this might be, he identifies several possibilities, and in the process gives libertarians some things to think about.

Among other things, Lewis notes that the Ron Paul campaign and movement was heavily influenced by paleo-libertarian types, such as Lew Rockwell, who have long been critical of immigration and multi-culturalism. Its worth remembering that Rockwells circle eagerly embraced Pat Buchanans first presidential run in 1992 and stayed the course even after Buchanan turned away from antiwar and anti-government themes and began stressing cultural issues. For some self-described libertarians, Buchanans embrace of the culture war was a feature, not a bug, for (in their view) one problem with big government is that it tends to help the wrong people.

Lewis also considers whether some folks who are predisposed to find libertarianism attractive are also predisposed to be seduced by the alt-right. For such folks libertarianism may lose its appeal when they discover the alt-right offers an angrier or more outrageousideology to embrace.

One factor Id add (and that weve discussed on Volokh before) is the misplaced affinity for the Confederacy among some libertarians. War tends to increase the growth of government, and some libertarians note that the federal government grew during the Civil War. This leads some to the (terribly mistaken) conclusion that the Confederacy was somehow the more libertarian side in that conflict. This idea is reinforced by revisionist historical accounts that try to claim the war was really over tariffs (a claim which used to be taught in some high schooltextbooks, especially in the South), or that President Abraham Lincoln had a particularly monstrous record on civil liberties. Neither claim is true. The South explicitly seceded over slavery, and however bad Lincolns civil liberties records was, the Souths was far worse (and was worse even when one tries to discount slavery). [For more on the problem of misplaced Confederate sympathies among libertarians, I recommend this 2013 BHL post by Jacob Levy.]

Lewis closes by suggesting that libertarians (and conservatives) become more vigilant about associations with white supremacists. Hes right. I would also suggest that conservatives and libertarians rethink their embrace of controversialists, particularly on college campuses, as this feeds the alt-right beast. Libertarianism may not be responsible for the alt-right, but its fair to ask whether enough libertarians have done enough to fight it within their own ranks.

Continue reading here:
Does libertarianism have an alt-right problem? - The Washington Post - Washington Post

Plans are in the works for a new mosque in Keene. Its a project of William Coley, a Muslim activist and former Libertarian vice-presidential candidate. He's currently based in Tennessee, but plans to move to Keene and open the mosque this fall.

He says the idea came out of conversations hes had with Ian Freeman, a fellow libertarian and a Keene resident. Freeman founded an organization called the Shire Free Church, which is donating the property for the mosque.

Coley says it will be a space not only for Muslims, but also for those of other faiths that need a place to worship. Theres more than one small religious group here in town they just dont have the funding to have their own building, he said. So we want to give back by allowing those groups to come and use our worship space.

Coley also hopes to offer space to the homeless.

Read more:
Libertarian and Muslim Activist Planning Mosque in Keene - New Hampshire Public Radio