Why do the national libertarians keep reminding me of the Nazis?

Just some musings

There are people that come to the forum that I have begun to think of as national libertarians. They mix a bastard libertarianism with the whiff of nationalism about it. It is a strange mix it seems to wish to protect Americans from the effects of free market capitalism while promoting free market economics.

Lets us look at a few of the trends I’ve noted.

They seem to talk of the US ‘regaining’ power from international organisations and being ‘free’ once again.

Can be isolationist

Can be against immigration and blame immigrants for talking away ‘American jobs’ lowing educational standards and increases in taxation.

Talk of ‘conspiracies’ undermining the ‘American’ way of life.

Much talk of ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ and how they will bring more (without explaining what they mean)

Claim that the present system is corrupt.

Claim to be neither of the right or left.

Talk of some past golden age.

In a lot of ways it reminds me of National Socialism the underlying ideological principle might be very different but many of the buttons that the Nazis used to attract people are being pushed by the national libertarians (the Nat-libs).

For one thing it is the scapegoating, how the two seem to blame the problems of their society on either external powers or internal ‘traitors’

How they appeal to the elite’s while simultaneously claiming to be looking after the interests of the common people against those of those same elite’s.

Nazis imagery was all about the past glory of the Teutonic races of the once proud power of the German volk that never really existed. The Nat-libs seem to talk a lot about the past of the founding fathers in almost reverential terms and associate it with a true ‘American’ way that never really existed since they seem to forget just what a compromise and a fudge the US constitution was.

 

I wouldnt call them nazis, that is a little over the top. They are just nationalists, which isn't realy a bad thing unless taken to far.

 

I can't disagree with you more balbus, Liberterianism and Nazism seem to be the most opposite of directions you can go to. Nazis and other fascists believe that the state is a living organism, that must be purified and that everyone's will is below that of the state and it's leader. Liberterians think that the state is here to provide protection, and that's it.
Nazis want the government to control everything and own everything, like communists, but liberterians want the individual to be the owner of the economy.
Nazis want the state to tell them what to do, they want the government to direct and control every aspect of their lives, the thought of this makes a liberterian shudder.
Just because there are some trifiling similarities, like a stand that we shouldn't allow just anybody in this country (A view i don't share, but that's the nice thing about liberterianism, you're allowed to disagree) and that they want to be isolationist, or that they glorify the past and claim to be neither left nor right (left v.s. right is a false dichotomy, don't get so caught up in it, kindof like elite or common.) are all true of pre-communist TIBET!
Now is the dalai lama a nazi? didn't think so.

 

Let's get right to the point. Libertarianism fails because the primary thing it is concerned with is not people. The primary thing it is concerned with is particular objects (such as the us constitution) or particular abstractions (such as "free" markets). It cares about these things more than it cares about people. When you have people that care more about things than about people then people are going to suffer and that's what's wrong with Libertarianism. No wonder then that the nonhumanistic stew of Libertarianism according to whatever chef is stirring the pot is flavored with any number of other nonhumanistic spices: nationalism, isolationism, romanticism, historicism, a certain "pioneer spirit", you name it. But in every case the direction of concern is not ultimatey people. It's always concern about THINGS rather than about people.

"[We are] not here to make you feel better. The glory days were the constitution."

Need anyone hear any more?

Fuck it.

 

Watch some of the city goverment run tv in many ways they sound like the Nazis.

 

..

 

Since I am not a Libertarian, I cannot really comment on the bulk of this thread. I do, however, disagree with the idea that libertarians are nazis. If anyone are Nazis, it's those on the far Left, the Bush-worshipping neocons, and even some on the far Right. Extremism is extremism, but I don't think being in support of nationalism and sovereignty is extreme. The reason I am in favor of nationalism and sovereignty isn't because of some nationalistic ideology, but because I see the agenda behind eroding a country's borders, which ties in with the Elite plan for a Pan-American Union, to be modeled after the EU; a fascistic vehicle for a tyrannical One World Government.

The reason people are in favor of, or indifferent to illegal immigration is because they don't know how it is being used by the government and its Elite owners -- to their (The Elite) benefit -- and the damage it causes to the country in terms of economics and loss of sovereingty. After all, why would the media cover this? Do they cover anything that's newsworthy?

You have to ask youself why George Bush is allowing wide-open borders when over 80% of Americans, according to polls, are against it. The Bush administration has basically told our border patrol to stand down. Many presidents have been extremely weak on border control, but this administration is the absolute worst, and its affects are starting to show.

Who stands to gain from the borders being open? We know the FTAA, CAFTA and GATT want to completely do away with borders altogether, and merge the US with Canada, Mexico, and eventually the whole of South America, as their documents show.

Here is what Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has said about the agenda behind open borders:

"There are people in the [Bush] administration, and in Mexico, and in Congress, who believe that we should do away with borders entirely. Their ultimate goal is to create this hemispheric ‘free trade’ area consolidating all of North and South America into some kind of ‘United States of the Americas.’"

I don't see how somebody can say "I don't see how any Libertarian can be against open borders." I would agree with that statement, only if "Libertarian" was replaced by "Republican."

Illegal immigration is having a devestating impact on the American economy. Sure, "we need immigrants for cheap labor". But it has gotten to the point where there are so many people entering the country that this just doesn't hold true anymore, because not all of them come here to work. But even if they all did come here to work, it would still have an adverse affect on the country. Many people say that immigrants will do the work that Americans won't. Well, this isn't as true as it was ten years ago. As more an more manufacturing jobs are sent overseas, more and more Americans are left with no choice but to work a low-wage job. A job being filled by people who entered the country illegally by a treasonous government.

I don't blame the illegal immigrants for this. I blame the government that is allowing them to enter the country illegally, while the rights of US citizens are being stripped in the name of "national security." I am all for immigration if it's done in a way that will benefit the country. However, clearly the politicians do not care about this country.

 

**

Dear Rat

Once more you are on the borders of dishonesty, yes you might not be a Libertarian, that is with a capital L denoting a member of the Libertarian Party but you have said many times that you are a libertarian and have admitted to favouring libertarian type policies.

Why is it you seem so reluctant not only to talk about you political viewpoint but even to seemingly admit to having one? And if you are now claiming not to be in favour of libertarian type policies, what policies are you in favour of?


**

 

**


First up I would like to point out to those that didn’t read my post correctly that I’m not saying that national libertarians are Nazis or have the same views as Nazis.

I make that point very plain – “the underlying ideological principle might be very different but many of the buttons that the Nazis used to attract people are being pushed by the national libertarians (the Nat-libs).”

I also make it plain that such people might not be even advocating a orthodiox form of libertarianism but what I call a ‘bastard’ form.

**

What I’m getting at is not the ideology but the methods they seem to be using to attract people to the ‘movement’.

The National Socialist’s learnt not to dwell on their political policies they found they made a lot more headway if they appealed in other areas.

They could never really hid the policies they espoused but they could try and camouflage them behind concepts with greater appeal such as ‘liberation’ and ‘freedom’ slogans that often appeared on early Nazis posters.

The other thing they could do was try and misdirect people by scapegoating others. Blaming all problems on a shadowy conspiracy of Jewish bankers, claiming that political opponents even the whole system was corrupted or controlled by the conspiracy, and accused the media of the day of lying to the people.

These things seem to me to be very similar to what some so-called libertarians are doing on these very forums.

Here are a selecting of captions that appeared on early Nazis posters.

[Hitler] - “is ruthless in uncovering the rulers of the German economy, the international bank Jews and their lackeys, the Democrats, Marxists, Jesuits, and Free Masons!”

"Citizens! Do not believe that the Germany of misfortune and misery, the nation of corruption and usury, the land of Jewish corruption, can be saved by parties that claim to stand on a foundation of facts. Never!"

Freedom and food for every decent working German! The gallows for profiteers, black marketeers and exploiters, regardless of religious faith or race!

"Germany's Liberation."

"Freedom and Bread."

“The big-wigs are living high on the hog, the people are wretched."


**

 

Translation: property to libertarians is more important than people.

Consign ideas like these to the trashbin of history.

 

It's all very ironic considering:

1) Hitler was financed by the international banking elite; in particular the Rothschilds, who are Jews.

2) Hitler was a member of the masonic order of the Thule and Vrill societies, which played a major role in grooming his rise to power. The Nazis also had close ties to the Order of Skull & Bones; a masonic secret society that originated in Germany in 1832. Dubya's grandfather Prescott Bush, also a bonesman, helped fund the Nazis through the Brown Brothers Harriman bank. Skull & Bones were also largely behind the rise of Communism; something that Hitler and the Nazis were supposedly against. See 'Skull and Bones Fostered Russian Communism'.

3) There is evidence showing that Hitler himself may have been a Jew - in particular, a Rothschild - though there is not enough evidence to say for certain. See 'Was Hitler a Rothschild?'

 

**

Dear little Rat

You seem to be have reached levels of self-parody here, Hitler was a Jew…and a Rothschild as well, and your source for this is the lizard king himself David Icke?

Are you honestly trying to say Hitler was part of your conspiracy and that World War 2 was just an illuminati plot?

What next that Hitler and Elvis are alive today and sharing a villa in Uruguay?

Rat are you purposely pushing the envelope to see how far people will follow or are you in fact some mischievous teenager whose just getting off on taking the piss OF the poor people that are taken in by your many fantasies?

 

**

Please let us get back to serious debate.

In the early part of the 20th century socialist ideas were popular in Europe amongst those who were disillusioned with the mainstream political parties and even the system of governments of the time, which they saw as corrupt and upholding the power of vested interests. But while there were many legitimate socialist organisations there were others who were just using the guise of socialism to attract the disaffected for their own purposes.

National Socialists may have used some of the words and ideas of regular socialism but to me Hitler’s goals had more to do with seizing power than socialist reform.

**

In the US of the 21st century libertarianism seems to me to be attractive to many Americans who are disillusioned with the mainstream political parties and even the system of government, which they see as corrupt and upholding the power of vested interests.

So while there may be legitimate libertarians I feel that there are those that might just be using the guise of libertarianism to attract the disaffected for their own purposes.

Now this is just an impression, an opinion or a theory, and I’m not accusing all libertarians (although it is a philosophy I personally dislike) of only faking their beliefs, most are genuine (if misguided in my view). But sometimes talking to others I get the impression that just like many of the Nazis they are less interested in genuine political thought and debate and more interested in trying to misdirect and scapegoating others. For example in blaming all problems on a shadowy conspiracy of Jewish bankers and claiming all political opponents even the whole system is corrupted or controlled by that conspiracy.


**

 

prssed rat, don't blame the media for everything, by saying "after all, why would the media cover this? Do they cover anything that's newsworthy?"

If it weren't for the media in this country, whether mainstream or independent, you wouldn't have access to the information you just typed.

 

Why can the government do this?! Fuck it's because a good government cares for people that bloated selfish greedy individuals don't care for.

 

Balbus I haven't been following this particular thread very closely but then today this just came to me out of the blue while I was doing something else. You know how stuff like that happens. And I haven't read over everything above again to see whether this has already been said or not .

But it just came to me out of the blue there IS a fundmental similarity between Nazism and Libertarianism. (For me everything is "fundamental" -- really --I'm always thinking in those terms...)

(So these threads really do have subconscious effects.)

Anyway Nazism and Libertarianism are fundamentally similar because they both care nothing about those less able. In Nazism those less able were actively exterminated (e.g. the aged and infirm (along with Jews and everyone else they didn't care for)). In Libertarianism they just let them rot away by attrition. It's the same basic attitude.

(Don't know where this font came from but I'll leave it.)

 

Gilligan

If you see a bum on the street do you have the right to give him a dollar? Of course you do
Does the same bum have the right to take money from you by any means? No, he would be thrown in jail.


What I would ask is why is the person you call a bum in need?

**

McGee

You say that libertarians do not believe legalized theft.

But many parts of the US were obtained by what many regard as "legalized theft", by ethnic cleansing and broken treaties.

So presumably libertarians wish to right this wrong and return this ‘stolen’ land to the natives? Also since a lot has been stolen by the thieves such at the gold, silver and oil it seems reasonable that a fair compensation for what was removed will be given.

 

But you dont have the cojones to throw a politician or local Mayor etc from stealing millions. i forgot corrupt law officials too.

 

Do you mean the trillions unconsitiutionally stolen by crooks in the Pentagon and unaccounted for still in their formal budgets? Or the many billions stolen from workers' pension funds by Enron, which the government refuses to punish or reinstate? Or, perhaps, do you mean the many billions stolen by large corporations from consolidated revenue through overcharging for privatised services supplied to DoD in Iraq which were won in no-tender contracts costing the poor benighted taxpayer zillions? Or perhaps you may mean something more straightforward like the Bush tax cuts which the government introduced to steal money from the middle to give to the frigger-rich? Well, guess what? None of this money ever paid for any welfare handouts to anybody. That particular honour is reserved for the pay as you go saps who don't have clever acoountants. I recommend less Holy Bible at night, dear Slutter, and more Murray Rothbard and Justin Raimondo, then we might take your libertarian claims seriously.

 

Thank you for the populist rhetoric but these are all crimes. People get punished for them. Eleven Enron executives have already been convicted and there are more on the way.

Tax cuts do not steal from anybody. Not taxing cannot be called "stealing". And the rich still pay the vast majority of taxes:

http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0408/27/a09-255537.htm

Finally, Justin Raimondo is an idiot. Can't you do better than Milosovic apologists?