Lefty mises cc

I am cynical this leftish version of the LP's Mises Caucus can be created, but I none the less am rooting for the LP's Mises caucus to move leftward (like Victoria rooted for NC to become a normal, intelligent, successful person when they had classes together at Parkland)

but anyway:

A Left-Paleolibertarianism (i.e some sub ideologies of Left Wing Populism) Mises Caucus based on   Ron Paul Maoism (CapCom) instead of regular Ron Paul thought

(Exactly what it says on the tin): 

Decentralized Revolution: Libertarian philosophy serves as a bulwark against Statist ideologies. Let’s move the needle in the other direction for a change… We’re excited to introduce Project Decentralized Revolution!

At the heart of Project Decentralized Revolution is our 8-city “Take Human Action Tour.” We’ll move the needle by educating college students on topics that we excel in: Austrian Economics, nullification and decentralization, war and peace, gun rights, and free speech. We’ll expose a new generation to our libertarian heroes and thought-leaders through after-parties and comedy shows.

We’re making friends with organizations who are making progress on single issues important to individual liberty. These single issue groups are often experts in expressing their ideas so we learn something too!

What would happen if we got our ideas in front of every American? Make the Libertarian Party the vanguard for individual rights, make it effective, and make sure it is LOUDEST in the moments when it is needed the most.

Keep local governments small by filling them with Libertarians. Use city council, school board, mayor, sheriff, and judge to nullify unconstitutional mandates from Washington, DC.

Liberty Culture

We’re fighting back against the wave of nihilism creeping through society. Meet badass people and make the best friends you’ve ever had while learning more about libertarian philosophy.

I started the Mises Caucus to make the LP something that the liberty movement and the Ron Paul Revolution can be proud of. We’re all about unapologetic, truthful and principled messaging, combined with a radical, yet realistic strategy of focusing locally on nullification and decentralization through both candidates and coalitions. The Mises Caucus is proud and excited to announce our long-term focus and commitment to this vision with Project Decentralized rEVOLution! #TakeHumanAction with us!

Since then, new LNC Chair Angela McArdle has reshaped the LP’s messaging to be more boldly anti-state and anti-war than ever, and the regime’s media allies have started to pay attention. 

In today’s political climate, every such campaign to silence an inconvenient person or group begins with smears, rumor-mongering, and, of course, insinuations of racism. 

The Southern Poverty Law Center exists to lay the groundwork for such campaigns, and they did so with an article on the LPMC just before the Reno convention. 

The regime media hive mind now has a “source” to which they can link in a new hit piece, which can in turn spawn another, and so on. They don’t expect anyone will follow the links and investigate the claims of the original source (Paul Krugman is famous for this); rather, they anticipate that, after a few iterations of the original slander, an outlet like the New York Times codifies it in the “official record.”

First, let’s dispose of the notion that the Mises Caucus is anything but fully libertarian.

Though the article repeatedly describes the Mises Caucus as “socially conservative,” “right-wing,” “alt-right,” “far-right,” “racist,” and “bigoted,” nothing that we have said or done can honestly be described as such.

Our statement of principles is derived from the Non-Aggression Principle, which is not conservative, but libertarian. We reject all forms of identity politics and take no stance on the personal, cultural, or social preferences of individuals or groups. We simply want to end the use of force or fraud to advance political or social goals—just as the LP has since its founding.

To that end, we supported the revision of the Rights and Discrimination plank in the LP platform at the Reno convention to more clearly define the nature of individual rights. 

This new plank states, in part, that “We uphold and defend the rights of every person, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or any other aspect of their identity.” This is somehow seen as objectionable by our detractors, who preferred a more vague plank that expressed disapproval of “bigotry”—a term whose meaning changes from week to week based on who the woke mob wishes to target for destruction.

Our removal of a plank asserting a right to abortion—though we replaced it with nothing—is also proffered as evidence of our “social conservatism.” Principled libertarians disagree on abortion, and now all LP candidates are free to explain their position to voters without being in conflict with our platform. The Mises Caucus itself takes no stance on the issue, other than opposing any actions by the state to promote or perform abortions.

Regarding America’s culture wars, we insist that the State must stop taking sides, and we advocate radical political decentralization, which would allow contentious issues to be decided at the state or local level, rather than being imposed on 350 million people by a few dozen lawyers in Washington, DC. If the State continues to use its power to advance certain cultural priorities, the current trend of leftist wokeism is likely to either become completely totalitarian, or provoke a different brand of fascism to emerge from the right. All Americans should fear and abhor either outcome.

Now for the false notion that there is some sort of major schism or “civil war” within the LP.

The results from Reno and most state conventions over the last couple of years have shown that there is broad consensus among Libertarians as to which way our party should go. A few small, disorganized factions have found themselves on the outs and have resorted to the only strategy left to them: acts of sabotage and chicanery at the state level designed to convey the misconception that the LP is unstable and divided.


It is important to remember that each state Libertarian party is not an autonomous organization, but an affiliate of the national party and therefore subject to its rules and procedures. 

Every single micro-faction that has attempted to hijack a state affiliate through some form of disingenuous obstructionism has failed to prove their case within the procedures established by LP. In each case, the rogue faction has been defeated internally, being recognized in many cases by an LNC and its judicial committee that were (prior to Reno) not particularly friendly to the Mises Caucus—or even downright hostile to it. Even Libertarian Party members who do not particularly love the Mises Caucus, but who love justice, have made common-sense rulings in our favor over and over. In many cases, the petty obstructionists have—ironically—not stopped until the only legal system to which we have recourse—the State—has rendered a final decision of some kind. They deny the obvious: That the party rank and file is not pleased with their behavior, and is showing them the door.

In summary, the individuals quoted in The Daily Beast article, and the nature of their resistance to the Mises Caucus, represent only the most extreme outliers in our party. 

Those who have sued other party members for discussing events that actually happened, violated procedural rules to get their way in meetings, violated bylaws to get their way, exploited loopholes in less-robust bylaws to get one over on their opponents, stolen physical property, unilaterally denied rightful access to party assets, slandered us as bigots, homophobes, etc., purged us en masse without trial, and more, are not qualified to bear witness to anything. They are not reasonable people, and are a completely biased, unreliable source of information. Their ostracism from the Libertarian Party could not be more deserved.

As for its own leadership behavior, what can be said of the Mises Caucus? Our opposition insisted we would ruthlessly purge from the party anyone who was not in the Mises Caucus or who dared to disagree with us. This was a projection, of course; those same opposition factions carried out sloppy, sweeping purges in Massachusetts, Virginia, Vermont, and New Mexico, which left many LP members, of various caucuses or no caucus at all, as collateral damage. There have been no Mises-led illegal coups and no unilateral, improper commandeering of party assets. There were no feeble attempts on our part to unilaterally dissolve affiliates or dissociate them from the national party. Mises Caucus leaders have not frivolously disregarded the bylaws or their fiduciary obligations as party officers. Our members have followed the rules of every affiliate to the letter, sometimes at their own short-term inconvenience.


The vast majority of the non-Mises Caucus members of the party, and even some of our opposition, are not wild-eyed zealots who will do practically anything to interfere with our mission. We do not always agree on every detail, but we find ways to move forward together in a healthy partnership. We find the antics of the few remaining sore losers to be embarrassing, the conflicts they foment a nuisance and an impediment to the important work of the Libertarian Party. We are glad to work with our fellow party members of good will in peace, for the good of our society and our world, and almost all of our interactions with other members of the Libertarian Party have indeed been productive and amicable.


Under Mises Caucus influence, party membership has increased, donations have increased, social media presence has increased, and our political impact is increasing. With the Mises Caucus as an integral part, the Libertarian Party will courageously and effectively confront the legion of problems the State creates for us and our neighbors. This is our pledge, and our mission. By our fruits you shall know us.

which would come out to this:

  After Kremlintarianism

Collapse


  •  1972: The 1972 Radical Caucus had been founded by Samuel L Konklin III (SEK3), who believed in the destruction of the party by being centralized and "Partyarchy". Since founding, they had received criticism from influential party members such as Rothbard, Nolan and Greenberg, being called a Nilist by Rothbard. The group was known for Agorist and Market Anarchist ideologies, as well as opposition to the political process. The group dissolved after the 1974 national convention after most of the leadership left.



notes:

*The US rises up American domestic groups from within the US to be violent non-state actors for the US in military operations for the US 

Basically these violent non-state actors of the US would do what former President George W Bush, Barack Obama, along with what DJT and Joe Biden wanted to be done but independent of our military and without our military getting involved in the operations.  

This would be similar to how the Hezbollah in Lebanon and the LTTE in Sri Lanka were risen up by countries to be violent non-state actors for them despite Hezbollah and LTTE not being official military units of said countries


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LibUntyinDwttail

Image
LibUnity  (typically lean i ng le ft ) means   Z oom er   Le f t   Uni t y  to    LibLeft    ( typically )          Auth right-Libl eft Unity (by    r/PCM )   ( at times )
Read more

IncraGrad

Image
 I support Gradualism  AND: The first neo-libertarians used the term in response to the Iraq War. Distancing themselves from the generally anti-war response of the mainstream    libertarian  movement, neo-libertarians proudly set out their reasons for supporting the War on Terror and an effort to secure the freedom of the Iraqi people. While most libertarians tend to adopt isolationist positions on issues and matters of war, neoberts range anywhere from ambivalent to strongly pro-interventionist: The   Iraq War, and to a lesser extent, the U.S. Invasion of   Afghanistan represent ongoing disputes between these factions. Another key difference is in regards to domestic policy, where neoberts are strong advocates of incrementalism , i.e. making many small changes over time. By contrast, mainstream libertarians tend to advocate for drastic, almost-immediate policy changes. Despite getting along better with    Neoconservatism , they have arguments with them as well. Where neoconservatives
Read more

Pst pst lftism

Image
  Off-Compass Libertarian Left Outer Leftism Ultra Leftism   Radical Left     Culturally Extreme Left  (like  Trans Marxism Leninism Maoism )     Post-Post-Leftism (like this , this )   Post-Post Left Anarchism For my part, on a critique of the left, I take a more post-modern approach to it and seek to move beyond the left into the left, creating a new left for myself, and myself alone. I have a similar critique to other post-leftists when it comes to the left, but I see the fundamental ideals of the left as salvageable, even if the rest of the defining features of the left must be abandoned and destroyed, which is why I see myself as creating a new left in addition to leaving the left behind and no longer being a part of the left. To do this effectively, the left, and, indeed, post-leftism, needs to be fully deconstructed. When it comes to ideology, I see it as inescapable, with the critical-self-theories being ideologies, with many of the problems that come with ideologies coming wit
Read more