There is a “libertarian moment” happening now, but the issues are being framed in a certain liberal mainstream context so that the ideas are more palatable.
Immigration, or more specifically “blanket amnesty” for example is being sold as a benevolent and loving liberal piece of policy. It is implied anyone opposed to this is a racist nationalist.
Liberals always invoke “the children” whenever it is convenient. The immigration debate is a perfect example of making a radical change in policy, “because of the children.”
However if the issue is raised of a blatant eugenicist operation orchestrated on the public, specifically the forced sterilization of minorities in a California
prison or the rise of aborted African American babies in the united states, this is met with vehement opposition by indoctrinated trolls as a blasphemy against their sacred god, the state.
“eugenics” they say, “was in the past, and there is no way it could happen today.”
This line of reasoning stems from the fact that if they actually it admit it is happening then they would have to do something about it, but they are too trendy and cool to care about real social issues.
Who can be bothered with the extermination of “sub-humans,” right? It is easier to look away and deny it.
The reality is that automatic legalization of everyone will destroy the economy, spread disease, and increase crime rates.
It is a historical, political science fact, by the way—it is a socialist scheme called the cloward and piven strategy to collapse the economy.
Unfortunately the automatic legalization policy is being implemented with no congressional approval in stark contrast to the proposal of some type of actual immigration reform.
There was an episode of The Independents on Fox where two immigration experts were invited on the show to discuss immigration reform, and the objectivity of the program was thrown out the window in exchange for emotionally charged opinions thrown at the conservative who attempted to state facts while being attacked by the three hosts of the show, and the other guest.
Libertarianism should not be reinforcement of such blatant ignorance just because it is trendy and liberal to appear altruistic and accepting of everyone.
(Side note: This is not an attack on the Fox show, The Independents. For the time being this show is actually a refreshing, and much needed libertarian alternative to the leftist internet show The Young Turks, however shows like this need to be held to a higher standard and subject to harsher criticism).
The elite are hijacking the libertarian movement, because it threatens their position of power.
The libertarian movement is diverse and will be co-opted by fascist thugs, they will take advantage of divisiveness like the republican party being split six different ways(e.g., neo cons, moderates, paleo conservatives, fiscal, tea party, theological—“social conservative”).
The undoing of the liberty movement will be knit picky pieces like the New York Times article entitled The Libertarian Moment which examines Rand Paul’s possible 2016 run for president.
The article implies something might be amiss because Senator Paul has not appeared on the new trendy libertarian show on Fox, The Independents.
And although the NYT article is not a direct hit piece on Senator Paul, it does seem like a giant back-handed compliment to the libertarian movement in the sense that it sheds light on the shift toward social liberal issues and fiscal conservative mind set while rejecting the authoritarianism of the democrats’ brand of bizarre surveillance wealth redistribution cloward and piven post industrial fetish politics, while suggesting that the mainstream will accept libertarianism on its own terms, referring to those who oppose the corporate bankster federal reserve as a “radical fringe”;
If an ideology like libertarianism is to enter the mainstream it is clear that the elites will control the talking points, framing the arguments correctly to guide the public’s consciousness on these issues like immigration and monetary policy.
The article discusses the rise in public acceptance of libertarian ideals while pointing out the obvious and constant libertarian vulnerability of various types of libertarian who are radically opposed to one another. The NYT article highlights Reason’s founder Nick Gillespie, the supposed modern day libertarian prophet. It says he prefers federal reserve notes over bitcoin—isn’t that precious?
How mainstream of him! Ignorance is so easily applauded now. Since when do libertarians endorse a central bank?
Central banks, like the federal reserve are tenets of Marxism.
The article builds up the movement, and then crushes its integrity when the reader’s defenses are down, neglecting Nick Gillespie’s point about changing the term libertarian from noun to modifier;
the justification being that libertarianism is an ever changing concept, it is a personal outlook of freedom and the fact that the party overall lacks a unified vision is not a weakness as the article implies, but a very powerful strength that the other parties lack.
Another article on the Reason website, entitled “Is Rand Paul Trying to Have it Both Ways on Gay Marriage?”
examines attacks on Rand Paul for appearing to be wishy-washy on the issue of marriage equality is indicative that Senator Paul threatens the established order, and so there is a growing need to attack him on issues where there is a manufactured consensus. The heart of the issue is glossed over and it becomes distorted by arguing semantics—similar to how the leftists morph infanticide with the euphemism “pro choice”.
Needless to say, the liberals are freaking out because Senator Paul is not following the script of “group rights” appeasement.
As the Reason article points out he isn’t really betraying his position, he is not flip-flopping, because for anyone who has been paying attention he has been very consistent on the issue of marriage equality. Paul’s position is to give local governments the sole discretion on the matter, stripping the federal government of its monopoly on personal issues such as these.
Liberty-minded individuals don’t need to agree on every issue, but they need to do research and have historical perspective on these issues.
If the public continues to succumb to this rabid propaganda then we might as well accept the prison of the left/right paradigm, and be prepared for the election of the authoritarian maniac Clinton on the left or some neo con psychopath coming out of the wood work on the right.