The intersection of white nationalism, the alt-right and the libertarianism | Hacker News Reader

The intersection of white nationalism, the alt-right and the libertarianism

washingtonpost.com

11 pointsiamjeff13 comments

This opinion piece is a political attack on Trump. It attempts to denigrate modern libertarianism based on an article published 40 years ago in the magazine Reason. The connection goes something like: 40 years ago an antisemitic article appeared in an issue of Reason, therefore Reason magazine is bad, therefore ideas espoused now in Reason magazine are bad, therefore readers of Reason are bad, therefore libertarians are bad, therefore Trump's libertarian leaning supporters are bad, therefore Trump is bad.

It seems to me, that when you slice the country in half politically, there will be a large number of bad actors in each half. Dividing it up into a few more pieces by considering the green party, the libertarians, etc. won't completely eliminate sizable numbers of unpleasant people in each group.

It probably makes more sense to look at two things, the current Libertarian Party platform [1] and compare that to the actual meaning of Fascism [2]. They aren't the same thing.

[1] https://www.lp.org/platform

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

You might be interested in a Libertarian take on some of the same history:

http://reason.com/archives/2016/09/04/where-did-trump-come-f...

As someone with a degree in economics, I've always had a soft spot for some of the Libertarian ideas. Which makes me sad that they so often get abused and co-opted.

I worry that it's appeal to young, white, single men is somewhat self-reinforcing and has the potential to lead any political party based on its principals rapidly to fascism.

Turns out, based on the history presented here, that my worry may have already come to pass.

ZG, is it actually possible to represent that demographic segment you mentioned: young, white, male, without it being called dangerously proto-fascist or extremist?

Sure, what is required is for the constituency to actually be inclusive of those not in the in-group.

Examples like [1], combined with a lack of interest by the candidate or his followers in correcting the situation make historical analogies seem prescient.

Compare/contrast with other candidates' responses. Eg: Obama.

[1] http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/03/12/donald-trump-r...

> Sure, what is required is for the constituency to actually be inclusive of those not in the in-group.

That does not make sense.

Seriously how is this not doublethink?

There exist no political groups representing interests outside of the political group, it is a straight contradiction in terms.

> Examples like [1], combined with a lack of interest by the candidate or his followers in correcting the situation make historical analogies seem prescient.

These characters and the things they say are the obsessions of the media and I don't share their enthusiasm.

Nothing they say or do in ten, twenty years has any substance. It is demotic theatrics that distract us from anything that actually matters. Like how we're continuing to plateau economically or the dire need of our government institutions to be reformed.

Young white single males will almost certainly get older, might get married, have kids, grandkids etc. possibly expanding their extended family tree across several ethnic communities over the generations. So I'd say that if a movement truly only caters to the young white single male while he remains in that state, rather than planning and providing for his future, then yes, it probably is inescapably and dangerously proto-fascistic.

That makes it sound like something from physics. Get enough of these atoms together, add water, and BANG: a chain reaction that irrevocably leads to instant Hitler.

My own experience is that a tiny number of people (usually sporting neck tattoos) support fascism. Young white males have all sorts of opinions. Find any working men's club anywhere in the West and drop in for a spot of anthropology.

> So I'd say that if a movement truly only caters to the young white single male while he remains in that state, rather than planning and providing for his future,

This is all very high brow and most rightists don't think like this at all. 'Movement'? That is a leftist thing. Rightists don't go around protesting, almost never. The association ought to prepare a path or plot a future? Propositions straight from the mothership. Hardly anybody right wing thinks like this. Most will drop in and out of different organizations depending on whether we're obsessed with this time.

The nearest collection of young white males and a copy of Mein Kamph is the public library.

It is worth considering the possibility that each century has different political ideologies. In the 20th century we got an earful of communism and fascism. The 21st century could contain something different, just as the 19th century didn't have much of a parallel to the 20th.

Personally I hope for an intersection between extreme rightism and ecology by way of the Hunger Games. Something new! But different!

What to Submit

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

I concede that this is the sort of material that would probably garner coverage on TV news channels. Frankly, I am unsure whether that is a good thing or not. However, I find it quite fascinating.

I am far removed from what is happening in the 2016 USA presidential elections. As someone that has seen first-hand the politics of fear/hate/identity/class that has come to characterize this year’s campaigns, I can relate to some of the rhetoric (to mean that I have heard similar tangents, although in a more unsavory, vitriolic, and outright murderous tone). But that really is not the point behind my submission of this story.

There is a clear disdain among the HN folk regarding the submission of political stories due to the inherent risk of attracting trolls and eliciting comment wars- this is supposed to be a civil community and, in my experience, this continues to be the case. Indeed, as a young unlearned African man with a libertarian streak- and one that has previously encountered this association between racial and libertarian rhetoric, implicit and otherwise- I felt that this may be the best community to have this sort of conversation. Does the libertarian movement still provide refuge to the racialized aspirations of the white supremacists and the alt-right? Are there points of convergence? Is the marriage between the iconic libertarian Peter Thiel and the divisive Donald Trump emblematic of this convergence?

I am in the formative stages of forming my own political identity and a conversation along this line can benefit me greatly (and HN has, perhaps, some of the most qualified people to weigh in on the matter). In fact, a lot of my posts mirror my own developmental process as an individual, an aspiring software programmer and entrepreneur, and an active member of my local civic community (also, I love gathering information and I reckon that HN conversations are the bee’s knees).

No malice was intended by submitting this post (as a long-time lurker here, I deeply respect HN’s sense of community), but I totally understand if that is how the submission came across.

Didn't want to imply that posting this was malicious!

However, there are several aspects of politics that make "logical debate" rather difficult. The biggest aspect is that there is a LOT of money spent in political campaigns to misrepresent the opponent. (I'm not talking just Presidential politics but also state and local). Articles are not written to be factually correct but rather to influence your perception, whether that be by fear or by disgust.

In addition, all sides of political debate are not equally represented. For many subjects (e.g. fracking), there is much more money on one side of the debate than the other. P.R. firms are able to put talking heads on television with ease. The news organizations benefit because they are able to fill up the 24/7 news cycle, and the private interests benefit because they can push their views that earn them money.

Most important, you will never see a private interest provide the actual reason that they want something done. For instance, in the case of fracking, they will not say, "Fracking is good because that's where I get my paycheck." Instead, they will say, "My opponent says fracking causes earthquakes but this is anti-science and a conspiracy theory." or "If fracking is eliminated, then many jobs will be lost."

And this type of rhetoric only grows as the elections come closer. The posted article may be factually correct in some aspects, but it's actual purpose is not to educate you, nor to provide you with an improved sense of the world. It is designed to influence your vote and to associate libertarianism with the evils of the day.

Notice how they never bring up that libertarianism is inherently anti-war, pro-drug-legalization or pro-immigration. If their goal was to improve your worldview, that would be important information. Instead, they avoid it, so they can taint your view of libertarianism.

And that's called a hit piece.

Yes, this has been my experience of American media coverage of political stories: so many news organizations have ideological or political goals that I have come to expect biased reporting. This problem is especially problematic (in my opinion) in America where large sums are spent and entire (political, financial, and personal) fortunes hinged on the ability to successfully convey a (biased) message (Of course, special mention goes out to Russia, China & Co., but I would argue that the problem there is largely one of state propaganda). Here in Kenya, these problems are of a different nature: there are no popular ideological camps or political narratives. Our politics are personality and ethnic-driven. Only recently have American evangelical organizations begun to polarize public sentiment and journalism around issues such gay rights and abortion. In addition, the moneyed interests of the private sector have deployed relatively large war chests with the purpose of controlling media organizations and their messaging, especially to convince the electorate that next year's general elections are apocalyptic. On a side note, in many respects, the rhetoric of this year's American election (while having, for example, real consequences for relations between minority communities and government services such as policing) pales in comparison to the impact of negative rhetoric in countries such as mine (often, all it takes to ignite physical confrontations is inflammatory content; sadly, people here go all in on these sort of things) which is why I have a burning desire to find something that I can relate to.

Libertarianism's pro-immigration was my first point of contact and was immediately endearing. I identify with minorities that suffer as a result of racist nativism. However, I am still a little confused as to why exactly libertarians are still unable to shake off the accusation of racism [0]. These accusations can make this ideology seem rather unpalatable: I really need to understand. Pointers?

[0] This from Salon.com (I know, not exactly neutral arbiters, but still...) "Libertarianism is for white men: The ugly truth about the right’s favorite movement" (http://www.salon.com/2015/06/10/why_libertarianism_is_so_pop...)

Election Update: Is Gary Johnson Taking More Support From Clinton Or Trump? (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-gary-...)

What is the libertarian view on racism? (https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-libertarian-view-on-racism)

Question: Why do most libertarians seem racist? (https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughLibertarianSpam/comments/3hi5...)

Honestly, the perception of libertarianism as inherently racist is, to me, more of a useful political tool than reality.

I have a hard time understanding reconciling that perceived view with actual libertarian perceptions.

(And of course, racists are present in all political parties.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com