21 votes

PJTV: Racist Libertarians Have No Place in Modern Conservative Movement

Zo has strong words for neo-confederate libertarians, especially those who infiltrated the CPAC conference. He reminds viewers why some libertarians have no place in the conservative movement, and why Republicans should embrace the vision of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.

Please upvote my Thread and Downvote the Video.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cyril's picture

A bit eerie to my taste

As someone else pointed out below, don't you find a bit eerie the behavior (acting?) of these "racists"?

Funny, in my experience, true racists are often much more subtle trying to serve their rhetoric.

But maybe that's just me.

I still believe we very likely have much better use of our time than playing the game of nonsensical divisions.

Don't we all believe first and foremost in individuals?!

What the hell am I missing?

It is about color or race, and who has martyrdom monopoly still... REALLY ??!!!

What's next? Genders Wars?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

If I were the secret Grand Wizard of the KKK and had power in...

government, I would devise a plan to enslave blacks with food stamps, welfare, debt and start a war on drugs that specifically targets young black men.

Oh wait! Never mind....Republicans and Democrats have that covered.

And Liberty for all...for those that can handle it... including blacks.

Does this guy support wars?

Does this guy support wars? What would that mean if he did?

I can imagine the slumbered people offended by this question, to them i say, now you have an understanding of what its like to be called "racist"

Except on one side, in most cases, that accusation would be a lie, .........can you guess which one?

Yes, "Eye of the beholder", but which one FEELS right?

Shallow right vs deeper right

I just wasted my time

Watching one idiot criticize another idiot and draw conclusions about a group of people based on that one idiot. Time to send him one of these:

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

This actually makes me angry.

This is such a radical mis-characterization of libertarians that it implies gross ignorance or a willful intention to discredit our movement. I tend to think the later is the case given that the "Racist" card is what the media went after Dr Paul with, and are sure to go after Rand with. I suppose defeating this general line of attack is good practice for '16 though. Zo is right about one thing though, racists SHOULD be shown the door. I'm happy to see that the one racist comment I saw on this thread was already at -5.

Use things not People. Love People not things.


Amen thanks for your input.

"We’ve moved beyond the Mises textbook. We’re running in the open market." - Erik Voorhees

-1 Try hiring better actors


Try hiring better actors next time. The racist audience member was the worst.

Anyone else notice...

That he changed the title of his vid to just "racists" instead of "racist libertarians"?

I guess all the dislikes spooked him a bit.

Makes Sense

...there is no such thing as a "racist libertarian" without changing the definition of one of the two words.

*AHEM* Someone has some reading to do...


So we should embrace a tyrant who trampled over civil rights and wanted to deport every black slave after freeing them?

Sic semper tyrannis, I say.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.


Five examples of things

Five examples of things covered up by false charges of racism. An article I just wrote:


And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Does he mean embrace the vision of this Abraham Lincoln?

In his new book, Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream, black American author, Lerone Bennett, presents historic evidence supporting the theory that Abraham Lincoln was, in fact, a devoted racist harboring a life-long desire to see all black Americans deported to Africa.

Bennett suggests that as a young politician in Illinois, Lincoln regularly used racial slurs in speeches, told racial jokes to his black servants, and vocally opposed any new laws that would have bettered the lives of black Americans.

Key to Bennett's thesis is the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation which, Bennett argues, Lincoln was forced into issuing by the powerful abolitionist wing of his own party. Bennett asserts that Lincoln carefully worded the document to apply only to the rebel Southern states, which were not under Union control at the time, thus resulting in an Emancipation Proclamation that did not in itself free a single slave.

Humans are programed to have prejudices. We can't stop and go through a long analysis when we are about to step on a snake. Instead we automatically jump because we have inborn or learned prejudices against certain other animals, species, or subspecies. We all have prejudices against others not like us.

It takes some effort to use reason and to not act on these automatic response prejudices. So lets admit that we all harbor prejudices. That is the only way we can live in peace with one another. Sweeping our very nature under the rug, where prejudices can fester, probably is what eventually leads to racial genocides, which seem to the the history of the world.

There is a great danger that racial genocide will come to America as the dominant Caucasian population loses its dominance from changing demographics and Hispanics and Blacks become more equal in numbers and political strength. If you want to understand the dynamics that have repeatedly led to racial genocides, read "Civil War II, The Coming Breakup of America".


"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Everyone is a

Everyone is a collectivist.

Are not families collectivist organizations? I love my children more than I care for your children. It doesn't matter how they compare objectively, I care more for my children. They are my flesh and blood. What is good for my children, is necessarily good for me.

Racialism is nothing more than an extension of the concept of family, to cover ones extended cultural, and genetic kin.

The question isn't whether one has collectivist tendencies, but where one limits them.

If a man said "but I don't care even for my immediate family, see? I'm no collectivist." Wouldn't it be right to think less of him? A man who feels no loyalty to his family is not a good man.

Everyone certainly isn't a

Everyone certainly isn't a collectivist in the political sense, and probably neither are you.

The family is however the natural scope of 'collectivism' cooked into us. Evolutionarily it is important that your family survive and propagate your genetic heritage. Even if you die, everyone in your family that survives to a greater or lesser extent will pass on your genes, so we evolve family protective and family oriented behavior. If you don't believe in evolution it doesn't matter if you believe god just made people this way, the result is the same. Ironically 'family values' are actually built in to us.

The problem arises when manipulators try to use this tendency and extend it into the political sphere. Here there is no natural reason for people to behave in a collectivist manner.

Collectivism in the political sense, ie government enforced collectivism, is where the problem lies.

This is a very important distinction.

You may have a 'collectivist' "the family is more important than any individual member of the family" orientation, but that is your choice and applies only to you. You may sacrifice yourself for your family in some way. However it's rarely, if ever, the case that you would sacrifice say your daughter to save your sons. In fact if you heard of someone that did this you might think they were a monster. Or perhaps you might sympathize. But to the extent it's valid, if it is, it's only valid in the context of the family.

You wouldn't be inclined to forgive someone who killed a jew for the greater good of white people or vice versa.

You certainly wouldn't be agreeable if someone else was willing to sacrifice your children to save their own.

Yet this is what collectivism is.

When we say something like the good of the whole outweighs the good of the part what we are really saying is the good of some people outweighs the good of others.

It's always people we are talking about. The 'whole', whatever that whole is, all of the people, or some racial or ethnic subset or economic subset, is just an excuse for some people to victimize other people.

There is no other reason to promote collectivism in fact unless you intend to victimize someone.

There is a difference between

There is a difference between natural collectives, like families, versus unnatural, government enforced collectives to be sure. I never claimed otherwise. The topic of the OP is racism, and I am replying with this in mind.

Clearly, the love, and preference, a father has for his family, certainly beings beyond himself, is not evil.

I did imply, and I will say outright, that race is a natural collective. It is the expansion of family, to include ones cultural, and genetic kin. Ethnic, and racial affections are universal.

As far as collectivism itself, I will say that you yourself believe that the good of the whole outweighs the good of others. The happiness of those elite who wish for a global, socialist government, does not stand in your mind against the happiness of the whole.

You're wrong. I do not

You're wrong. I do not believe the good of the whole outweighs the good of the part. The reason is the whole is poisoned by this very belief.

For me to believe the good of the whole outweighs the good of the part means the good of thieves, murderers. slave masters, and rapists outweighs the good of the rest. The whole point of collectivism is apologia for victimization. If you don't intend to victimize someone then you needn't be concerned with relative good at all.

Collectivism is predation. If you think any whole which condones the part, that act in the name of the 'whole', to aggress on another part, is a good whole, then you may consider yourself a political collectivist.

I do not think that any whole is better off by victimizing part, much less because you invent an excuse to do so, called collectivism.

I also know there is no whole, there is only one part victimizing another part.

The entire concept is specious.

And no racism isn't natural. Why do white men like asians? Why do black men like whites? These are demonstrable tropes. No one is teaching people to have these preferences. I don't have an explanation either, but I would surmise it may be because there is an evolved preference for mixing gene pools because of the resultant genetic strength. Ultimately your children are going to be stronger and healthier the greater the genetic difference just as too close and you have genetic weakness.

Not at all. You seem to think

Not at all. You seem to think that the good of thieves, rapists and murderers is to continue on with their evil deeds. How can that be so? Their good would be in at once ending their evil deeds, and atoning for their crimes.

You take the idea of collectivism, which properly means acknowledging the interdependent nature of people, and say that it is "predation".

Clearly, this cannot be. They are entirely different concepts. People being interdependent, does not imply criminality at all.

Many people are just too

Many people are just too stupid to understand the definition of words. They'll probably think this is a racist remark.


Uh, I mean... philosophical discussion.

Two popular (with their own audiences) Black Republicans. One that actually cares about all people, and one that actually only cares about Republicans. TMOT would smack him down so hard.

Libertarian and Racist

Libertarian and racist in the same breath is an oxymoron. If you put people in a collective, you're not a libertarian. It's that simple.

Yep racism is a form of

Yep racism is a form of collectivism.

A great example is all these "buy black" initiatives where people are supposed to only patronize black owned businesses, in the name of helping black people as a group, ie the group is more important than the individual.

Now of course this hurts both the business who will suffer from lack of competitive incentive since they don't have to be competitive with other businesses strictly because of their race and their goods and services will tend to become inferior as well as the consumer, who will pay more on the whole for those inferior goods and services.

Similarly affirmative action effectively lowers standards for employees who will naturally meet those lower standards and in so doing actually not only perpetuate the stereotype of inferiority for those that already had it, but create it in those who didn't previously, because in fact victims of affirmative action 'help' again meet the lower standards.

The reality of the inferior black worker and work ethic has nothing to do with race but everything to do with the policies we enact to 'help' black people. In fact prior to affirmative action black workers were known to have superior work ethics as a rule, just like asians stereotypically do today.

I will note the one general area where professionals are not subject to societal or government 'help' because of race is entertainment. There's no program for professional athletes or musicians. Here, naturally they excel because they are not given lower standards. They compete on a level playing field and kick ass. The sad and horrific fact is however this somewhat relegates them to the same image of the minstrel entertainer for the white man, and perpetuates the idea that's all they are good for, which all too often black and white people internalize.

Economically racism hurts the practitioner more than anyone else.

"Buy black" == the free marketplace

"A great example is all these "buy black" initiatives where people are supposed to only patronize black owned businesses, in the name of helping black people as a group, ie the group is more important than the individual."


How does this go beyond the model of the free market? How is this anything other than voting with your wallet?

Did you infer I wanted

Did you infer I wanted something done about this?

I just pointed out these racist initiatives hurt the participant most.

I can also point out people that drug abuse or cutting is bad. It doesn't mean I would ever approve any attempt to limit a person's freedom on the excuse that they are bad.

This is an important point some people get really confused about. Libertarian are not necessarily libertines. Libertarians can believe in global warming or be against pot or any other silly thing statists tend to favor. A libertarian who believes these things just doesn't believe the appropriate way to get you to agree with their idea is ever a badge and a gun.

Pointing out bigoted racist behavior is bad doesn't mean I want a law to somehow forbid it. I'd have no cause for anything more than expressing disapproval in fact if a person only wanted to sell to blacks or buy from blacks at all. Nor whites for that matter.

But I still can express disapproval, and I do insist on it. I don't deny the right of others to be bigots but I do at least claim the right to express reproach.

How is it wrong?

Is it wrong to not buy Chick Fil A because of its management's homophobia?
Is it wrong to buy Chick Fil A purely in support of its management's homophobia?

(not a trick question, IMO the answer to both is "no" since any biased reason is legitimate for marketplace decisions.. even if supporting homophobia itself is wrong)

wasn't calling you a racist.

Well yes I do think it's

Well yes I do think it's wrong to support bad causes like, if I stipulate your premise, the homophobia of Chick Fel A.

I don't think we disagree, really, just I may not have been clear about what I was saying.

So again assuming Chick Fil A is homophobic, I think we would both agree the people buying chicken sandwiches to support homophobia are wrong and the people not buying chicken to 'punish' homophobes are acting at least from right motives.

I think we would also agree the much much greater wrong would be to try to stop any of them from acting on their own beliefs by force.

My original point was merely that under a real free market there are natural, coercion free mechanisms, that undermine bigotry and racism.

The second point was that government, forcible, solutions must always perpetuate the problem, and I explained the mechanism. As a general rule all government solutions must perpetuate and expand the problem they purport to address because the entity is composed of people who have a profit motive for the problem to be perpetual.

Economically the government can't ever fix anything. It can only position itself so that, when a problem is solved despite it's best efforts to prevent solutions, it can take credit for the solution.

Cyril's picture



"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

who is

who is this nigga ?
brothas teeth sure are white.

didn't fredrick douglas have slaves of his own ?

people are such hypocrites.

shut up zo or whatever the hell your name is , i still don't know.

what garbage demographic is this suppose to target, zonation ?

how bout zo crap?

didnt say ron pauls name not even once this whole video.

very douchey!

i think the hat makes you an unpopular republican , no republican would ever wear that hat.

"He's this eccentric Ghandi-Like figure that you cant touch with the normal bribes that people respond to."
the man Doug Wead on DR. RON PAUL


I dare you the next time you see a group of black men to go up to them and let them know how you feel... Don't forget to address them with the n word as you did here.

"We’ve moved beyond the Mises textbook. We’re running in the open market." - Erik Voorhees

for all you know

the person making the comment may be black as well.

Also, there *is* a difference between 'nigga' and 'nigger'.

A signature used to be here!

For all you know...

He may be white even if he claims to be black.

Thanks for giving the SPLC more to chew on. Racism is not part of the liberty movement; as has been identified by Dr. Paul.

"We’ve moved beyond the Mises textbook. We’re running in the open market." - Erik Voorhees