Wow.
And Ben Garrison, too. Look at those classic racist stereotypes.
I notice, also, that we’re supposed to go to Ron Paul’s photo page on Facebook to learn more about “cultural marxism”. I looked, there’s nothing relevant there, and I can’t imagine that yet another cartoon, since deleted, would be at all enlightening.
Libertarian is just another word for racist, isn’t it?
Always has been.
Not that Garrison isn’t a shit, but it looks to be another of the nazi-edited or entirely faked Garrison cartoons. (Which means Paul posted something from outright Nazis, not just an asshole cartoonist.)
The original is by Carlos Latuff, a Brazilian cartoonist who does a lot of anti-“US imperialism” stuff. So this was edited (by 4-chan or the like) to be way racist and then Garrison’s name was added.
Seconding Hatchetfish, it looks like the only thing that was penciled by Garrison here is the signature!
Paul now claims that the offensive cartoon was posted by a staff member, and it has been replaced by a simple “no political correctness” logo. But ut still links to a few paragraphs on “cultural Marxism”, which is a neo-Nazi dog whistle.
Those four guys (and four girls in the Brazilian version) do the right thing, metaphorically speaking.
Libertarian is just another word for racist, isn’t it?
It’s more complicated than that. It means something more like: “racist and ignorant about economics, selfish, entitled, and politically naive.” But racist is definitely part of it.
Well, to be fair, there’s more than one brand of “Libertarianism”. I have a friend of a friend who claims to be libertarian and he has nothing but contempt for the Pauls and Ayn Rand too. I only see him once or twice a year when a friend invites both of us to coffee. The Libertatian I know is mad, of course, but not quite the same way the Randites are mad. He doesn’t show any signs of racism that I can detect, but we are in Canada where fear of the darker coloured seems less wide spread, likely because there are fewer of them around up here. Also perhaps I haven’t talked to him long enough to detect his racism.
Ron Paul is a reg’lar Pat Buchannan.
Ed Seedhouse@8–
I used to call myself libertarian until I realised what other people meant by the term (and I don’t mean the deliberate derogation of words like “socialism” and “liberal” by right-wing propagandists; I mean people gleefully adopting the label libertarian for themselves while fighting tooth and nail against basic liberties to entire classes of people). I can understand your friend’s frustration, but I wonder why he wants to stick with a label that has been so thoroughly despoiled by its own users. It would be as ridiculous as calling oneself a fascist, but only in the sense of the old Roman symbol of a magistrate’s power, and expecting people to take you seriously.
Anyone who puts up a “no political correctness” badge but supports the destruction of Colin Kaepernick’s career is full of crap.
Yeah, you can tell that’s not actually one of Garrison’s particular hack jobs pretty easily. The colours aren’t typical for him, it doesn’t look weirdly shiny enough, and it’s not busy as hell with a label on Every Single Thing. That’s not to say the the cartoon and Garrison aren’t both super disgusting, but… those two facts aren’t related this particular time.
Libertarian is just another word for fascist. They are the useful idiots of capitalism.
Outside the US we don’t tend to use the term “libertarian” very much. When we do it is almost always in the classical sense (someone genuinely interested in freedom from coercion), not the peculiar market-fundamentalist corporate fellatio sense that it gets used in over there.
Also, while we’re on cartoons, here’s one of Jim’ll Paint It’s latest – “Wacky Racists”
http://jimllpaintit.tumblr.com/image/174667200599
Funny how Ron Paul keeps hiring racists, and that those racists believe that Paul’s fans will be receptive to racist material. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.
Says a guy sitting in one of the most right leaning, least socialist, most capitalist nations on the planet, without the least bit of irony in his tone.
@ 14 cartomancer
You beat me to it. I was going to say that “libertarian” in the USA seems distinctly different from the way the term is used in other countries.
Libertarians still seem mad to me but the term in Canada and in the USA seem to mean something quite different.
@ 17 Mrdead Inmypocket
Are you stunned by what has become of American culture.
Well, I am, a bit, but I don’t think in the way Ron Paul means it.
Yes, I am shocked by what’s become of US culture. I’m shocked that mainstream politicians are buying into neo-fascist conspiracy theories. I’m shocked that “white nationalists” feel comfortable marching in the streets. I’m shocked that the Republican party is degenerating into the party of 4chan. Well, I’m less shocked and more just disappointed.
prostheticconscience wrote:
Well, I guess that excuse worked for him last time with no repercussions, so why not recycle it. Hell, bad excuses and worse ideas are probably the only things members of the Paul family have ever recycled.
I was, somehow, mercifully unaware of the existence of Ben Garrison, but this discussion caused me to look him up. Holy !@#! He makes those parody political cartoons the Onion does look insightful.
It always seemed to me, after years of discourse on APAs, fanzines, BBSs, Usenet, blogs, and social media, that ‘libertarian’ is a sort of term of art that self-identifies a group of bold, independent free-thinking iconoclasts who happen to hate all Democrats and love 96% of Republicans. Nobody can tell them what to think!
More Jack Chick than Garrison. (Historical note: Ben Garrison was actually breast fed with Chick tracts).
prostheticconscience @ #5
Irrelevant. I would be surprised that anything posted on his site is posted by Paul himself. That’s what he has “people” for.But he’s still responsible for their actions.
Oh, there’s an Australian version – they’re racist and sexist (yes, Senator Leyonhjelm, that is you I’m referring to); very fond of the version of “freedom of speech” which means they get to say whatever they want, while everyone else has to shut up and listen to them; as well as complete frothing fanbois for free-market capitalism un-moderated by any form of governmental interference. They have the standard historical “last Thursday”-ism (the world as we know it came into existence spontaneously, fully formed, five minutes before they woke up last Thursday, and thus arguing anything from a historical basis, or from a position of cause and effect or logical consequences is pointless) and the solipsistic nature common to the US version as well. They also slant heavily white, male, and upper-middle-class for some strange reason. There’s a reason I tend to spell “glibertarian” with the silent, invisible “g” at the front visible.
it may be saddening to see what “American Culture” has become but I think it is a good thing. It is good that all the regressive elements have been emboldened and feel so safe to come out in the open and be identified. They think they are winning they think that history is on their side and they are fighting the good cause of righteousness.
I think it is kind of like Bull Connor fighting integration with the same methods the clan had used for decades or George Wallace “standing in the school house door” Their actions did help further integration . William Calley for his part in My Lia helped end the war in Vietnam. There is a reason these thing are done in as much secrecy as they can muster because they look really bad to the majority of people see the reaction to the latest emigration obscenity.
the other thing about it that is nice is it is easier to tell the peoples enemies when they declare themselves so openly. everyone can plainly see them
uncle frogy
Well, I probably should have done this earlier, but I think I can no longer cite Ron Paul as a man with a shred of integrity. I know, I know, should have done this earlier. Sorry.
And said staff member has been summarily dismissed, right? Right?
It was once said about both Pauls (and I wish I could find the link to the person who said it) that they will make a sensible argument for the first 5 minutes of their speech – after which, they go into the crazy, bat-shit kook-verse that they’re justly famous for. I guess Ron can’t be bothered to do the 5 minutes of sanity anymore.
Two questions:
1 Is the second punching guy supposed to be a Vulcan (and shouldn’t he be using that ‘grip thing’)?
2 I always get this guy confused with RuPaul, have they ever been seen in the same room?
@30 Susan Montgomery I think Charles Pierce invented the 5-minute rule about the Pauls, or at least about Rand Paul.
#19 jrkrideau
Exactly. Pointing to “Cultural Marxism” as the cause of America’s cultural problems, is akin to a man up to his chin in a flood, who blames the flotsom in the water for his woes. It’s absurd.
@cartomancer et al
Problem is, the “Non-US” version is one of those oddball things by which people have taken the general message of, “Don’t spend all your time telling me to do things and looking over my shoulder!”, and thrown out everything else, including its origins, the horrifying nature of the heroes depicted in the original works, etc. The US version, as near as I can tell, **is** the correct version, fully steeped in the absurd capitalists notions, anarchist obsession, and disregard for anyone who isn’t some fanciful pure version of a “creator”, who is magically both unable to do anything wrong, and therefor can do anything they want, without consequences. Everyone else is, “Out to get them”, or, “unenlightened”, and is responsible for everything that goes wrong, always, every single time, so the only “authorities” needed are the ones to jail, murder, or expel these horrible people, who are too stupid to think properly, work hard, and never make mistakes.
This is the core nonsense, it seems, or Rand’s crackpot notions. And, libertarianism “originated” with her. There may be other variations, but they went by names like anarchy, and such. Nope, this one, this idea, this thing.. came straight out of the nonsense promoted by her and her followers, and they where batshit nuts, and horrible people. The only thing that didn’t make “her” version racist is that they considered “everyone” an enemy, other than rich business owners, who, by definition, couldn’t ever be wrong, unless they deemed them “unfair competition”, which, it seems, usually meant charitable, or otherwise humane, instead of purely self serving. (After all, the “heroes” of her novels crashed the entire world, including fellow business men, in every case because they “took something that somehow didn’t belong to them”. And.. the rest of the world is, despite claims otherwise, going along with this idea today, or why is most of the world following the US’ lead when it comes to IP rules, and the brand spanking new idea that you can take public owned works and “re-copyright” them, so someone “owns” them, and everyone else is therefor “taking them”, if they also try to use them?)
Yeah.. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the anarchist position in general, but deciding that doesn’t sound too good, and deciding to, instead, use a term that is worse… lol
Kagehi,
Nope, you’re wrong on that one. The term “libertarian” has been in common usage since the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century in pretty much the way it is still used outside the US. The US version is a very late and radically different thing entirely, occurring no earlier than the mid 1950s.
Ayn Rand’s nonsense was called “objectivism”, and has absolutely nothing to do with the original Libertarian philosophers and activists – William Godwin, Joseph Dejacque, Peter Kropotkin, Rose Luxemburg.
@DaveD That’s the one!
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a21328/the-five-minute-rule-and-its-many-uses/
It’s a rule that applies to libertarianism as a whole, I think. You can have a libertarian start with a passionate speech about the war on drugs, for example and they start off with some very good points but after a while it goes off the rails.
Thank you for posting this cartoon. It’s helped me sharpen my understanding of ‘Cultural Marxism’. It’s clear now that ‘Cultural Marxism’ is the current version of the ‘International Jewish Conspiracy’; an imaginary conspiracy that supposedly threatens our (‘traditional’) society. Nazis (or whatever they are labelling themselves now) use the imaginary conspiracy in propaganda to stir up fear and hatred of minorities. So, we have to deal with Cultural Marxism like any other nazi propaganda.
busterggi: “Ron Paul is a reg’lar Pat Buchannan.”
Now, I really don’t think it’s fair to bring up their respective digestive issues, do you?
@37
how anyone could look at that cartoon as presented and not think of nazism is beyond me! glad to see the mr. paul has taken the label publicly even declaring it with such a weak and transparent disclaimer.
what he meant to say was the cartoon was only meant for the office not meant to be posted to the public just a simple mistake made by someone else.
uncle frogy
Respectfully, no, libertarian is not just another word for racist. There is in fact quite a battle going on within libertarianism over Ron Paul’s racism. While he has his devout cult-like defenders who insist he is not racist and all these racist incidents are not his fault, there are even more who are sick to death of being tarnished by him. The economist Steve Horwitz, for example, sharply criticized Paul, and reports having been unfriended by 3 people, but getting friend requests from 15 other people.
Back in 2011, on the blog Bleeding Heart Libertarians, Horwitz wrote to critique Paul for his newsletters. (http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/12/how-did-we-get-here-or-why-do-20-year-old-newsletters-matter-so-damn-much/). In 2013 he wrote about it again (http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/08/were-back-here-again-why-ron-pauls-friends-matter/).
Anyone paying attention to libertarians lately would also know that most of us have also been quite vocally in support of open borders, and very critical of the nativism and racism behind supporters of Trump’s horrendously abusive family separation policy. Cato’s Alex Nowrasteh has been quite blunt about the arguments against immigration being racist and nativist. (https://www.cato.org/blog/common-arguments-against-immigration)
I find it disturbing that a man trained in logical thought would extrapolate from one man to the entirety of libertarians, a rather blatant example of the fallacy of composition. You don’t have to think we libertarians are quite right in the head (although it’s been gratifying to see liberals come around on issues where libertarians took the lead, like same-sex marriage, the war on drugs, and immigration), but you can’t truthfully claim to know libertarianism well and claim the word means racism.
ftfy.
and yes, that would be correct. I don’t think libertarians are right in the head.
inevitably, you are all willfully ignorant twits.
I’m sure you’ll provide another data point on that should you choose to “share your wisdom” further.
jhanley@40,
Anyone paying attention to libertarians lately would… be completely wasting their time. Never more than useful idiots for the mega-rich and the big corporations, they’ve now been superceded in that function by the nativists and outright fascists. Those of us in serious opposition to Trump and his counterparts in Europe and elsewhere can safely leave the “libertarians” (the term itself was of course stolen from the left) to their circle-jerks.
In fact, most of the “libertarians” I encountered during the period before marriage equality became law were saying that the state should have no role in recognising or validating personal relationships, so this is a highly dubious claim, to put it politely. Opposition to the criminalisation of drug use was widespread as far back as the 1960s, when no-one had heard of “libertarians” in the current right-wing sense; and all those actually doing anything practical to help refugees and undocumented migrants appear to be leftist “SJWs”. So here we have another example of the real “libertarian” slogan: “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine too.”
KG,
Of the three responses to me, yours was the only that was presented as a thoughtful and reasoned response, other than your last sentence. Thank you.
On same-sex marriage, libertarians do tend to believe government has no business authorizing marriages, that it is a private action between two people. But as a private action it would be free from government interference when undertaken by two same-sex adults. That’s their ultimate preference. But their intermediate preference is that if we’re going to continue to have government authorizing marriage, it cannot legitimately discriminate against same-sex couples. The first Libertarian Party platform in 1972 called for ending all laws criminalizing voluntary sexual relations, and in 1975 published a pamphlet calling for marriage equality. https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/gay-rights-libertarian-approach
On the war on drugs, there were indeed some liberals opposed to it all along, but the Democratic Party continued to nominate presidential candidates who supported it, and the Democratic Party in Congress took no action against it. Libertarians were overwhelmingly opposed to it, and it has been a major theme among libertarians for a long time. I have great respect for those liberals who did oppose it.
On immigration, what is more practical for undocumented immigrants than to call for open borders, the right to cross the border and to get a job without hindrance? That is what the great majority of undocumented immigrants are asking for. Even most refugees don’t need great amounts of assistance, but just the freedom to come here and be hired. The Libertarian Party has explicitly advocated free immigration since 1976.
(Note: I am not an LP member. They do attract the goofier people, so I generally stay clear. But their platforms are good proxies for libertarian thinking.)
On the “real” libertarian slogan, that doesn’t really make sense at all, as libertarians are wholly against theft, force, and fraud. What we doe believe in are voluntary agreements. I understand that many don’t think purely voluntary arrangements would create a sufficiently just society, and I understand the thinking behind that (I was previously quite liberal myself, including being a California Green Party member). So I’m not going to try to persuade you that voluntaryism is sufficient. I just want to emphasize that “what’s yours is mine” is a concept that’s wholly, fundamentally, anathema to the libertarian spirit. In fact, to a certain degree — if the statement is directed toward the wealthy — it’s actually more of a liberal slogan, no? I don’t say that as an attack. I understand the principles behind redistributional welfare policies, but nonetheless it is factually accurate, yes?
Considering that the official Libertarian platform condones adult-child sex, pushing the idea that even a toddler can consent to sex, the racism isn’t at all surprising.
I just looked at the 2016 Libertarian Platform, and the only mention of sexual relationships that I saw condoned was adult consensual.