Libertarians Don’t Have To Apologize For Racism

Blacks Are Responsible For Their Own Problems

With Brexit being the topic of conversation, Nigel Farage has risen to fame among American political commentators. Farage is certainly a breath of fresh air and the immediate comparisons to American politicians are justified. Many libertarians are fond of secession efforts, so it is only natural that they would admire him. This man was and is a huge vocal leader when it comes to Britain’s split with the European Union. To his credit he seemingly has the substance with the charisma to match, which makes a largely effective politician. Still, I find some of the comparisons a bit of a reach.

Shane Trejo recently published a piece at The Liberty Conservative in which he attempts to highlight what Rand Paul can learn from Nigel Farage. I do not want to straw man his point, therefore I must say that I do not necessarily disagree with the core of the piece. Considering the outcome of Rand’s recent presidential campaign, I do believe that there are things Rand can improve on; some of which, Farage does much better. But this piece seems to be a personal beef with Rand Paul because the points are filled with inconsistencies.

But even more so, a portion of the article highlights an issue surrounding libertarianism: having an honest conversation about race.

Trejo states:

The difference between the men is more stylistic than anything else. As Rand went on the big stage and bent over for social justice warriors and racially-obsessed leftists at every turn, Nigel went on TV and proclaimed the evils of multiculturalism. He went directly into the liberal media’s lions den, and talked about how he was sick of diversity being shoved down the throats of Brits in the lead up to the Brexit vote. Could you imagine Rand ever saying something like that? Sadly, Rand would probably side with the media jackals who feigned massive outrage at Farage’s common sense assertions. Perhaps Rand’s abysmal Rachel Maddow Show appearance in 2010 rattled him more than he lets on because he has spent the better part of the last six years trying to apologize for non-existent racism.”

Racially-obsessed leftists and social justice warriors are some of the most annoying people in America.

I’ve made a countless amount of videos and articles that speak to my disgusts in their attempts to silence everybody that disagrees with them. From the race bating “Pro-Black” leaders and organizations to the silly entertainers which paint so many false narratives, I’ve been very loud about calling them out on their buffoonery.

I’ve denounced the over emphasizing of “white privilege.” But there is a difference between bending over for these types, and simply acknowledging the reality.

Rand Paul has made it a point to talk about criminal justice reform. In doing so, he’s mentioned that blacks and other minorities are disproportionately affected by the War on Drugs. You can look at this from just about every statistical standpoint and you will see this is the truth. Does this mean that blacks aren’t largely to blame for their own sufferings? Of course not. But that doesn’t make Rand’s points untrue.

When Paul does media appearances for more left-leaning mediums, the topic of racism does tend to come up. Even in the Maddow Show appearance referenced by Trejo, Rand takes a similar position as even myself. That is, that I would not personally support a business that wants to exclude people by way of race, but that doesn’t make it morally justified to prevent others from making a different decision with their own private property.

There is no denying that the state has played a role in endorsing and orchestrating racism throughout American history. I constantly make note of the moronic voting habits of blacks considering history; they continuously support government-expanding leftists and it doesn’t make any logical sense. But this does not mean that racism is “non-existent” nor negate the racial realities. Rand Paul isn’t pandering.

I’ve personally seen this message resonate with other racial minorities. Acknowledging the racial motivations of the state in the past, and making note of the racial realities of the present does not equate to bending over or race baiting. If anything it makes the message of libertarianism more adoptable to blacks because you’re simply acknowledging racial realities while pointing out the dangers of government.

But this portion of Trejo’s article is self detonating. As many libertarians do, they treat Ron Paul as the model for success in the political arena as if he could do little to no wrong. He suggests that Ron Paul had the substance, yet criticized Rand for his substance (or lack thereof) regarding race. It’s almost as if he has selective amnesia. There were times during the 2008 and 2012 presidential debates in which Ron talked about racial implications by way of the state and racism within the judicial system.

Paul once stated during a presidential debate, “I’m the only one up here that understands true racism in this country is in the judicial system and it has to do with enforcing the drug laws.” He goes on to say that blacks and whites use drugs at similar rates, yet blacks are arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned way more often. In 2008, Paul not only acknowledges the fact that he’s getting support from blacks, but he attributes this to his positions on the War on Drugs and further touches on racist implications throughout the judicial system. Ironically he enough, this message and rhetoric is borderline identical to that of his son when he talks about the same topic. Even their message regarding the Civil Rights Era were largely similar.

So when Rand Paul says that the War on Drugs has disproportionately affected blacks he’s apologizing for “non-existent racism” and bent over for SJWs, but Ron Paul gets a pass? This was not the first time I noticed this inconsistency by libertarians. Months ago, Rand Paul received criticism for his statements on criminal justice reform during the debate. Some people suggested that he shouldn’t have mentioned the race when knocking the War on Drugs, and should have just focused solely on the fact that it is a wrong because it incarcerates non violent people. But the all-mighty Ron Paul certainly spoke about the racial aspects of the War on Drugs and the judicial system. Yet people largely ignore this because their obsession with Ron Paul seems to cloud their memory when they beef on Rand Paul.

But I think that Trejo’s bitterness on Rand’s approach is an often repeated idea among many libertarians. I do not believe that Trejo completely denies the existence of racism; there’s not enough evidence to support this in the article alone. I’m willing to assume and give him the benefit of the doubt when he says “non-existent racism.” But the topic of race is a touchy topic, depending on what side you take.

I receive virtually no backlash when I repeatedly criticize black organizations or ideas such as Black Lives Matter. But once I acknowledge the existence of racism, there’s a definite push back. Much like Mr. Trejo, the irrationality of SJWs has overshadowed an actual existing issue. So they’ve made the fight against actual racism exclusive to leftists. This does not help the stigma of the outsiders which suggests that libertarianism is for well-off, white males. You can reject leftists’ notions and still point to actual racism.

Racism is a collectivist mindset. Libertarianism is about self-ownership so there should be no reason why the subject is touchy, and no reason why people are scared to at least address it. I am not suggesting that libertarians should go out there and pander to blacks. There are plenty of culture issues among black Americans that have to be addressed, by black Americans. But libertarians aren’t exactly inviting other minorities with open arms if they are to completely reject racism.

Statists largely outnumber libertarians and are breeding more state-loving libertarians. If we are to achieve some type of libertarian society, there has to be an education process that extends to other cultures. That does not mean that we have to forcefully integrate, or water down our message. But honest libertarianism and self-ownership can resonate with folks of different walks of life, so as long as the marketing makes sense.

Leftists aren’t winning they battle of diversity because they have a better message; they are winning the battle of diversity because their opponents tend to reject it. I too, am annoyed by “left libertarians.” I too, am annoyed by race-baiting SJWs who cry to racism at every turn. I too, am annoyed by fraud entertainers who over-emphasize race. I too, believe that all of their movements are largely polluted with nonsense. And most of all, I acknowledge the lack of accountability by black culture and because I believe in self-ownership, I understand that majority of the problems that blacks face in 2016 are at the fault of blacks, not racists whites and institutional racism.

But I’m honest enough to call out the racist implications where it exists; white, black, brown or yellow. Regardless, racism without statism is nothing more than an idea.