In addition to WORKING FOR the LotS:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo91.html

Oh, wow.

popcorn.jpg

But surely this does not mean his "scholarly" work on Lincoln, the Civil War, or anything is at all tainted or ideologically motivated.

Except I will say that I still don't think that DiLorenzo writes anything that could be construed as racist. It appears that he is actively engaged in demagoguing to racists, which is obviously distasteful and I don't like it at all.

I realllllllllllllly want to hear from Borodog.

LOL that "white people" have some specific culture that they can give a region. Better stick to Celtic-Saxon or whatever.

again this is not racist, sorry, try harder

FWIW I don't think he has any onus to post here, and I'm guessing he'll say what he's already said dozens of times, that this is an unfair hatchet job.

I think I was responding to someone who was saying that replace "Anglo-Celtic" with "white" and you will see why the statement is racist or some such. But in any case, the whites who settled the south certainly did develop their own unique culture.

this guy seems a bit racist by using "tribal homelands", but nothing he advocates is racist

Hey, remember when I said that the Mises libertarian branch is run by and operated by a bunch of racists and everything to come out of there is tainted because it's impossible to be sure that literally anything they write does not have the ulterior motive of white-only suburbs all over it?

good times

Will you concede that there is no evidence for this possibility over the possibility that they are demagogues?

The whole LotS thing is actually a pretty interesting opportunity to compare the overlaps and disconnects between libertarian goals and neo-Confederate goals:

Common goals with libertarians
Goals unrelated to libertarianism
Goals in opposition to libertarianism
Outright bigotry
Coded bigotry


From this it doesn't seem too farfetched to think some segment within the two movements would attempt to bridge them, at least superficially. Some of the code language can be folded in gracefully into discussion of libertarian goals, and there are some outright overlaps too.

Fortunately, there are stark differences and conflicts between the two that butt heads plainly, especially when you have a libertarian like me whose main focus is basically open borders and freedom of movement.

There are overlaps, yes, and certain elements will probably strive to exploit them; I don't think that's surprising. But it's certainly false that libertarianism as a whole is compatible with or in bed with these types.

I suppose my only parting wisdom here is that the next generations Ron Pauls would be pretty well-served by treating the Civil War like the third rail. It's nothing anyone needs to be talking about if you're interested in converting them.

I know the ACists/libertarians et al think this is just concern trolling or whatever (hi vhawk). But this is coming from someone who already agrees with a vast majority of Lincoln revisionist history. So it's not as if I'm secretly trying to silence critics of my beloved image of Lincoln.

So seriously, for whatever academic value anyone thinks the focus on the Civil War, the Confederacy, Southern apologetics, etc. has, the movement dedicated is totally tainted by racists and the images of the Klan, etc., and even non-racists who have non-racist interests in the study of it are going to attract racists to them like dog poo attracts flies. It's like people who love public works projects and highways and cars talking about how efficient Hitler was constructing Autobahn and the wonders the Nazis did for the Volkswagen brand.

Just stop talking about it imo. You can find a new secession/states rights/smaller government movement to fetishize.

closed borders are not in opposition to libertarianism and neither is discrimination

Waaaaaaaay ahead of you. I don't talk about libertarianism at all.

Also, Over 3PM imo...still a score of posts short of page one of politics forum threadzillas

Is this in the sense that there's no evidence that Michael Savage is not a left wing professional troll that simply pretends to be a right wing bigot to make money?

If so, yeah theoretically* they could all be reasonable people in their private lives and just cater to the wingnuts as much as possible at every opportunity for spending money. This puts them on roughly the same intellectual level as Michael Savage, though, so I'm not sure you want to go down that route.

*but not really, because they all seem to get awfully vitriolic whenever somebody dares to impugn the honor of another member of the group for, oh I dunno, working for the League of the South. If they were just professional demagogues you'd think they'd keep that on the DL, as opposed to throwing around adjectives like "pimply faced" at every opportunity.

lolwat?

who said anything about discrimination?

Not necessarily for spending money, but in the hope to get support for the libertarianism in general. By analogy, Atwater wasn't a racist but rather a demagogue. I don't know if Atwater was a racist or not, but he didn't have to be to pursue the strategy he did.

if something belongs to you, you are free to close and open its borders as you wish.

some quote above equates support for segregation to racism.

Can we quit calling LVMI "obsessed" with the south? You guys are starting to sound like epipen talking up his latest draft pick.

Who here seems to "fetishize" it? You could make a compelling case against Rothbard and DiLorenzo, but no new LVMI content is on it, most of the posts here have been "zomg lincoln was evil" etc.

Can you quit with the hyperbole (adanthar especially)

Well, the actual Libertarian organization has little to do with these guys at all. You guys are acting as though since this forum ascribes to a sect of rampant small government ideology that is intertangled with racist groups that also suscribe paleoconservative ideology(similar yet different in the ways that are actually important to real scotsmen(lol)) that it somehow proves that the things Hoppe wrote are not compelling. If you wanna learn about how small government works then find a site that works for you. Mises has an unreal amount of free material along with Lew's website. Just don't be so self righteous that you can't evaluate someone's else argument. Libertarians like section themselves all based on minute aspects of theoretical policy. You're going to waste a lot of your time trying to pick and choose which clique can or can not be affiliated with.

Go to mises.org and type "confederacy" in the search tool.

Search Results 1 - 10 of about 732 for confederacy

Search Results 1 - 10 of about 5910 for civil war

Search Results 1 - 10 of about 507 for war of northern aggression

wow and if you search for nazi and ww2 you would see that they are fascists

Yes. So when you own the entire country, then you can prevent whomever you'd like from coming there. Until then, you are violently preventing willing property owners from associating with whomever they choose on their own property.

Where is segregation referenced?