How a RW Libertarian Dog-Whistles
How does a right-wing libertarian dog-whistle for racist, nationalist minorities without seeming like a complete racist douche in the process. First, you find a reputable political science site like The Political Compass and use their credibility to establish your own without any effort. Second, create a strange complaint about one question on racism as it pertains to authoritarianism. Third, make your rationalizations extremely awkward and cringe-worthy. Fourth, make it perfectly clear to your audience that you are a political hack and crank magnet (see comments under the Youtube video) with no sense of history and are probably a good match for Metapedia.
This particular Youtube channel is called “Success Council.” In case you are not attuned to right-wing libertarian woo, it is a channel for libertarians to dupe, I mean inculcate, others into the right-wing libertarian cult, I mean philosophy. There are at least two people who are behind this, Contrarian Dude (Max Wright) and Conrad White (who is like a less offensive Bill Whittle). They claim to be financial advisers on their official site, SuccessCouncil.com. However, they mostly fear-monger about the next big economic collapse with a bunch of half-truths, innuendo, and out-n-out lies. It’s a trick to get you to signup to their newsletter and watch their vids. Why? For purely good libertarian reasons, I’m sure. They even claim they will make you fabulously wealthy if you just subscribe to them after listening to a very hackneyed, I mean riveting, speech about taking over the world or something. Just check out this disclaimer they left: “The information presented in this Website is intended to be for your educational and entertainment purposes only.” Ooops! I guess they are just con-artists looking to cash-in on the libertarian name while repeating Bircher talking-points online.
They ain’t just whistling Dixie, unless you are talking about Dixiecrats.
Back to the video. This first part of the video is fine until Mr. White begins to quibble over a statement about racism. “Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.” Mr. White immediately realizes what this statement was indicating right away. The person who answers in the affirmative may have political leanings similar to those in other previously fascist countries. However, he flips the script and tries to make this look like a trick question which wrongly pins people with racist attitudes to right-wing authoritarian highs. Why? Does he just not read history? He obviously knows the existence of the Golden Dawn in Greece. Does he not realize how rabidly racist and nationalistic they are? The main objective of Golden Dawn is to “rid the land of filth.” I think in one video he tries to imply they are somehow leftist commies, but he seems to just throws things at you to see what sticks. He talks about Greece leaning towards communism in one “about” video and then jumps to the increasing popularity of the neo-Nazi group called the Golden Dawn, who are definitely not communist or leftist in any capacity.
The fact that Mr. White insists that authoritarians are not inherently racist reveals something about his motives which should be crystal clear to anyone who has heard this from far-right types before. The far-right consistently paints with a jaundiced brush anyone with a tinge of leftism as statist or authoritarian in some way. Besides making certain kinds of racism seemingly okay, this is what Mr. White is really up to.
In the video on the Political Compass, he starts going into this crazy racialist territory by suggesting Micheal Jordan may want to breed the greatest basket-baller son by marrying into his own race (WTF). He then dug a deeper hole in an effort to save himself by quoting something obscure from Seinfeld to insinuate that deep down we all hold racist attitudes (I think its just him), and by extension, we cannot all be authoritarian, fascist pigs. Therefore, by channeling the ghost of Murray Rothbard, we can magically see the truth. Racism … not so bad if done properly within a coded, right-wing, sociopolitical, socioeconomic, historical, revisionist context.
For those not entirely familiar with some of Rothbard’s more exotic political views, here is just a sample.
“We are now probably a lot more than two nations, and we had better start giving serious thought to national separation. To those who think that the main problem is restricting the number and types of immigration, the best answer is that such a policy is decades too late. We are already far more than one nation within the borders of the U.S.A., let alone worry about the immigrants. To greet the very raising of such questions with the mindless cry of ‘racism’ or ‘chauvinism’ misses the entire point.”
“We might not be able any longer to bring back the Old Republic across the entire land area of the 50 states. But we may be able to bring it back in a substantial part of that land area.” — Murray Rothbard, Rothbard-Rockwell Report, The Vital Importance of Separation, 1994 Issue, https://archive.is/VIhdj#selection-1327.1-1333.188
Apparently, authoritarian witch-hunting and disseminating right-wing propaganda is A-Okay in Rothbard’s worldview, so long as it is used to get those left-wing statists in a tissy and move the country’s politics further to the right. Did I mention he was a huge fan of Joseph McCarthy?
The unique and the glorious thing about McCarthy was not his goals or his ideology, but precisely his radical, populist means. For McCarthy was able, for a few years, to short-circuit the intense opposition of all the elites in American life: from the Eisenhower-Rockefeller administration to the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex to liberal and left media and academic elites — to overcome all that opposition and reach and inspire the masses directly. And he did it through television, and without any real movement behind him; he had only a guerrilla band of a few advisers, but no organization and no infrastructure. (Sounds like libertarians have learned this technique rather well.)
Fascinatingly enough, the response of the intellectual elites to the specter of McCarthyism was led by liberals such as Daniel Bell and Seymour Martin Lipset, who are now prominent neoconservatives. For, in this era, the neocons were in the midst of the long march which was to take them from Trotskyism to right-wing Trotskyism to right-wing social democracy, and finally to the leadership of the conservative movement. At this stage of their hegira the neocons were Truman-Humphrey-Scoop Jackson liberals.
Murray Rothbard was a member of the John Birch Society, the same society which believed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would bring about a “Negro Soviet Republic” (I think I heard something about that from the right after Obama was elected), the same society founded by Fred Koch, father of Charles and David Koch.
For all the hoopla from Murray Rothbard fans denying his racist leanings, Rothbard himself seemed to have been awfully cozy with those who unabashedly did.
Given that these people also subscribe to the likes of “racial realist” Stefan Molyneux and, irony of all ironies, King Schiff, it is no surprise they would dabble in racialist alchemy to construct a dubious premise. Max Wright is also a big fan of Donald Trump. So, take what you will of that.
He then presents the real question Political Compass should be asking to determine if someone is really a filthy statist, I mean authoritarian. “Do you believe the government has a right to treat some races better than others to achieve socially desirable outcomes?” To the untrained eye, it seems like a perfectly legitimate question. But it is actually, my friends, a loaded question crafted specifically to suit Mr. White’s politically biased agenda. If you answer yes, you will be identified as a racist authoritarian. If you answer no, then you have to say bye bye to the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, the AHA, and anything else which helps the disenfranchised poor which includes poor Latinos, African Americans, and other social and ethnic groups. The question is too vaguely worded for such a test. First, the subject of race would be uncomfortable for most people to answer on. So, the answer for most is a foregone conclusion, in other words, the answer would be “no.” The second part has the vague phrase, “socially desirable outcomes.” Socially desirable for who and to what end? It just begs the question, doesn’t it? It is also ahistorical which completely ignores the events and reasons leading up to laws like the Voting Rights Act and the 13th and 14th Amendments.
It is almost as if he is intentionally trying to nudge people into his political circle without them understanding what he is doing. He is skillfully framing the political dialogue so, no matter what your answer, it will agree with his “libertarian” conclusions. Creating a question which sets out to confirm one’s biased assumptions is considered bad science. A twisted question like this is a very clever trick into convincing people to agree to something which leads to quite frightening outcomes. How many people do you think would agree, if asked in a straight-forward manner, to abolishing any one of Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, and 24? Probably not very many. However, nothing is off-the-table if the political waters are muddied enough.
Even a racist nationalist, someone who is obviously authoritarian, would answer this question the same way as a liberal would with a resounding “no.” Absolutely no government handouts must go to the racially or socioeconomically inferior, this according to any self-proclaimed nationalist or fascist. But that is not the rationale behind this question. Mr. White is just dog-whistling those states’ rights Bircher types, hard.
Conrad White goes two for two by first erroneously assuming everyone has the same racist attitudes to somehow prove he’s not authoritarian while also ignoring the elephant in the room of his and his colleague’s own possible racism (WTF). Second, he then creates a horribly contrived question which automatically supports his own biased assumptions. Most would be confused or even fooled by this line of thought, but for people familiar with far-right politics and Birch Society ideas, it comes in as clear as a bird in springtime.
The original statement, “Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races,” is a perfectly valid statement to be tested on, and it is far more useful than his replacement because it gets right to the heart of the matter. If you go on any white nationalist/fascist (Yes, they identify as fascist) site, chat, and/or forum, they specifically talk about how government coddles and treats with special care all the different, yet so-called inferior, groups and minorities they so despise. Did I mention these groups were fervently racist, as well? Yes, I have complete confidence the original statement on Political Compass is accurate in its ability in identifying people with right-wing authoritarian political views.
Edit: As I have pointed out earlier, Success Council is throwing their lot in with Mr. Donald Trump, whom as you know not only dog-whistles to the point of audibility but has and until just recently had a campaign chair who does not know how whistle at all. Here below is the former Trump campaign manager from Ohio speaking with a journalist from The Guardian. You notice some of the things she says is easily recognizable for those too stupid for code.