Washington Post Contributor Falsely Accuses Reason of 'Repeatedly Editorializ[ing]' in Favor of Apartheid (UPDATED)

This kind of Transitive Property sloppiness is what happens when you try to pin Donald Trump on libertarians


Matthew Sheffield. ||| Praxis

Matthew Sheffield, editor of the metapolitical journal Praxis, has taken to the Washington Post to point out some of the connections and similarities between the Donald Trump movement and the late-1980s "paleolibertarian" strategy of Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell and others, which found expression in (among other places) foul newsletters from a quarter century ago produced under the name of Ron Paul.

The paleo/Trump overlap is an interesting potential ground for examination, and has been looked at this cycle (usually stressing Buchananite paleoconservatism) by the likes of Michael Brendan Dougherty and Jim Geraghty. But in making the highly reductive leap that "Trump and Paul speak the same language," Sheffield demonstrates that he's more interested in dot-connecting than a genuine understanding of different ideological and tactical strains. This comes through loud and clear in a false aside about Reason:

There had always been some sympathy for racism and anti-Semitism among libertarians—the movement's house magazine, Reason, dedicated an entire issue in 1976 to Holocaust revisionism and repeatedly editorialized in defense of South Africa's then-segregationist government (though by 2016, the magazine was running articles like "Donald Trump Enables Racism").

There have been many journalists who have learned the hard way not to trust information from Mark Ames, the source behind the Reason material above. To put it plainly, Reason never editorialized in defense of South Africa's then-segregationist government. Sheffield's claim is false, and I look forward to the Washington Post's correction. UPDATE: The Post has indeed run a correction, which was quite inadequate and deserving of further correction.

As I wrote when the charge first came up, in a piece that links to and describes the entire relevant archive,

If defending apartheid was a "matter of faith" in Reason during the '70s and '80s [as Ames claimed], you would expect editors and staffers and contributors to routinely make that case when the subject of apartheid came up. Instead, from the editor in chief to the writer of Brickbats to book reviewers to the anti-apartheid activists themselves, the South African policy of forcible racial discrimination was described as "bigoted," "repressive," "thoroughly racist," an "absurd anachronism," "an anathema," "bad for business," and worse. Essayists wrote treatises on "how to dismantle apartheid"; feature writers celebrated developments they hoped "ultimately destroys…apartheid," Editor Robert Poole asked Zulu leader Gatsha Buthelezi questions like "What's the best thing the United States government could do to help end apartheid?", and on and on.

The entire case for Reason's allegedly institutional pro-apartheid bias rests on three pieces written not by an employee of the magazine, but by a single South African freelancer, Marc Swanepoel. As I indicated in my post, I disagree strenuously with what Swanepoel wrote back when I was in elementary school. But even he described the apartheid regime as a "dictatorship," and called for the abolition of "omnipotent government, whether in black or in white hands." To repeat: Reason never editorialized, let alone "repeatedly," in defense of the apartheid regime. Sheffield and the Washington Post need to correct the record.

Raaaaaa-cist! ||| Reason

Nor is it true that Reason "dedicated an entire issue in 1976 to Holocaust revisionism," as Sheffield parrots from another misfired Ames attack. That February 1976 issue, as Nick Gillespie pointed out at the time, was surely not the magazine's finest hour, but the theme was revisionism-revisionism (i.e., challenging popular storylines Americans tell themselves about the country's pristine motives for going to war), rather than questioning the veracity of the Holocaust. "That scurrilous topic is not the focus of any of the articles in the issue," Gillespie wrote; instead the pieces were about things like what Franklin Roosevelt knew in advance about Pearl Harbor, and whether any actors other than Germany played a role in starting World War II.

It is true that, in Gillespie's words, "the inclusion of contributors such as James J. Martin, who would go on to join the editorial board of the contemptible denialist outfit the Institute of Historical Review, is embarrassing," as is the presence of Gary North (who would "later be excoriated in this 1998 Reason article for arguing in favor of violent theocracy and the stoning of gays and others"). But it is not true that that was an "entire issue" dedicated to "Holocaust revisionism." Sheffield and the Post should correct.

I'll mostly leave comment on the rest of piece—which was headlined "Where did Donald Trump get his racialized rhetoric? From libertarians"—to others. Aside from saying that I'm the opposite of a paleolibertarian fan (my first editor's note for Reason was titled "Ron Paul's Mistake"), I just cannot wrap my head around the present-tense assertion that Paul and Donald Trump "speak the same language." Unless the GOP nominee has been slipping in a few malinvestments here and there, or Paul has suddenly developed a fondness for taking other countries' oil.

NEXT: The Crimes of Lena Dunham, Incarceration Rates Rising in Rural America: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. some of the connections and similarities between the Donald Trump movement and the late-1980s “paleolibertarian” strategy of Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell

    Well, you only have to go back 30 years for that. Totes relevant, I;m sure.

    1. Odds that Trump even knows who Rothbard is?

      1. Probably low, but Trump has spoken positively about Ron Paul in the past though so he’s connected Kevin Bacon style.

      2. “Great guy. Lots of interesting ideas. Challenging and unconventional ideas, not always the most practical ideas, but then he wasn’t in business like me. Wrote a lot of books. Not bestsellers like *Art of the Deal,* but good books. I hear he’s not with us any longer. Too bad, I’d have loved to talk to him about stuff.”

        1. To be fair, Ron Paul has always spoken out against Trump ever since Trump started his campaign and someone asked him his opinion on Trump. Lew Rockwell and his posse are devoted Trumpalos, on the other hand.

          1. So is Walter Block (for trump, that is), which is weird, I think. I’ve only read “defending the undefendable”, which is about being rational, mostly (or, to put it another way, how things that feel so wrong can be so right). Not sure how trump fits in with that…

      3. I am sure he thinks Paleoconservative has something to do with Dinosaurs.

      4. I am sure he thinks Paleoconservative has something to do with Dinosaurs.

  2. There had always been some sympathy for racism and anti-Semitism among libertarians?the movement’s house magazine, Reason, dedicated an entire issue in 1976

    And you only have to go back 40 years for that.

    And of course “shouldn’t be jailed for” is absolutely “having sympathy with”>

    What a slimy little shit.

  3. Is this where I remind everyone that Mark Ames is a rapist? Because Mark Ames is a rapist.

      1. *And* he threatened to kill her if she wouldn’t have an abortion!

      2. Wow! Based on that one page, he is a truly awful person. And he seems proud of it.

        1. And not just based on actions – the passage on how much he hates children really makes him sound like a sociopath.

      3. You mean he squeezed the poor thing into a book before raping her?!

  4. Go fuck yourself Matthew Sheffield.


    Oh, and yes, as Juvi points out, Mark Ames is a pedophile rapist.

    1. Technically not pedophilia. Come on HM, you of all people shouldnt screw that one up, its greek or latin or something.

      Although maybe he was also a pedophile in addition to being a rapist.

      1. Technically not pedophilia

        Legally is all that matters in this case.

        1. legally it would be statutory rape (plus the regular rape), right?

          1. Depends on where you are:

            Different jurisdictions use many different statutory terms for the crime, such as sexual assault (SA), rape of a child (ROAC), corruption of a minor (COAM), unlawful sex with a minor (USWAM),[3] carnal knowledge of a minor (CKOAM), unlawful carnal knowledge (UCK), sexual battery[4] or simply carnal knowledge.

            ROAC and COAM just sound like off-brand Rage Against the Machine-s to me, btw.

            1. Were not gonna get rid of COAM as long as they control this spice. Sorry I had to get so real.

  5. I see at least twenty defense of apartheid and a dozen other Holocaust denials every stinking day on this website.

    Hell, sometimes I contribute to them myself.

    1. twenty defenses

    2. I certainly deny responsibility for the Holocaust.

    3. That’s what Agile Cyborg is goin’ on about?

      1. Fuck no. I got a feeling Agile is the least racist person among the commentariat. LSD has a way of doing that to a person.

  6. Oh, for pete’s sake! This scumbag is still repeating those lies?

    1. It’s quite possible that Matthew Sheffield, editor and publisher of Praxis, an online journal of politics and technology, and president of Dialog New Media, a consultancy firm providing technology, management, and media solutions to businesses, non-profits, and individuals is a pedophile rapist as well. While there has been no evidence to conclusively determine that Matthew Sheffield, who holds a bachelor’s degree in political science from Virginia Commonwealth University, is a pedophile rapist, there is also no exculpatory evidence that suggests that Matthew Sheffield, who lives in the Washington, D.C. area with his wife and daughters, is not a pedophile rapist. Until such evidence is produced, it remains within the realm of possibility that Matthew Sheffield, who created the popular media watchdog site NewsBusters and also served as the first digital managing editor of the Washington Examiner newspaper, is a pedophile rapist.

      1. And I mean, at least that actually happened.

        1. *My bad, that was in response to Fist.

          Now I’m not saying that Matthew Sheffield raped and killed a girl in 1990, and it would be terrible to suggest that Matthew Sheffield raped and killed a girl in 1990. But if you know anything about how Matthew Sheffield raped and killed a girl in 1990, please call the police.

          1. If the Everett/many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, there exists a universe, perhaps several, perhaps an infinite amount, in which Matthew Sheffield raped and killed a girl in 1990.

            1. In that universe, it is a direct line of causation leading from that event to the Federation’s eventual defeat at the hands of the Klingon Empire.

              1. If only McCoy hadn’t pushed Sheffield’s great-grandmother out of the way!

              2. Is that the same universe in which SugarFree is one of the q continuum?

  7. Wouldn’t it be more current and even juicier to point out that the libertarian house magazine once claimed that the movie American Sniper was really a celebration of that freaky murderous kid from Connecticut?

    1. I see no difference between the WaPo hit-piece and your suggestion.

      1. Or that the libertarian house magazine once openly allowed online the use of tags for flashing fonts.

        1. Wait, really? How did I miss that?

          1. They claim it was an accident, and later the whole thing was swept under the rug, but for those of us who bore witness to the atrocities committed that day, NEVER FORGET.

            1. Around when did it happen?

              1. I forget. It was several years ago. Maybe around spring 2010? I would do a search but I think they buried the whole thing in some mass internet grave.

                1. In fact, I can’t remember the names of the dirty buggers who took advantage of the loophole, but they are among the regulars who still lurk among us today. Maybe one of them has a better memory of the deets. It lasted a whole morning and into the afternoon as I recall.

                  1. I took advantage of it.

                    I don’t remember what I did, though.

                2. It happened around 18 August 2010.

                    1. capitol l|8.18.10 @ 8:18PM|#

                      I am Spartacus!

                      Fist of Etiquette|8.18.10 @ 8:26PM|#

                      Et tu, cap?

                      Names must be named! wylie started it, but Pro Lib and Tulpa were the worst offenders. I don’t know who else, but I will point them out when I see them. They should be sent to the same gulag where twenty-four-a-head toils, so vile were their deeds, so dastardly were their actions, so wanton the destruction.

                      THEY BREACHED TEH PEACE!

                      Apparently I freely participated in the purge that followed.

                3. *Builds bamboo and palm leaf airplane to please Gods to bring cargo blink tags back*

          2. At one point, while the squirrels weren’t looking, you could even post images in the comments.

            1. It was everything that is wrong with libertarianism.

            2. I think I embedded a picture of lobster girl in the comments (this one not this one)…

                1. You don’t say!

                  1. Yes, he doesn’t.

        2. Ah, the Day of the Commenters. Good times.

          1. Pro Libertate|8.18.10 @ 7:05PM|#

            If someone had told me that we’d be able to run amok with coding in the comments when they imposed this threaded, undulating comments nonsense on us, I might have reacted differently.

            Fist of Etiquette|8.18.10 @ 7:12PM|#

            They came first for the thread-haters, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a thread-hater.

            Then they came for the Mohammed-dissers and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Mohammed-disser.

            Then they came for the HTML-taggers, and I applauded because that shit is fucking annoying.

            Pro Libertate|8.18.10 @ 7:14PM|#

            Well, yes, but it’ll be gone by morning.

            By that time it was already gone.

  8. Actual title of the WaPo editorial

    Where did Donald Trump get his racialized rhetoric? From libertarians.

    Dear Reason editorial staff =

    Regardless of what you do or say, regardless of how many anti-trump articles you write, no matter how many times you remind them libertarians were for gay marriage decades before the rest, no matter how many times you point out that Reason was on the forefront of ‘criminal justice reform’ and reporting on militarized policing, no matter how often you speak out in favor of liberalized immigration, no matter how hard you caveat your defense of free speech with denunciations of hate-mongers, no matter how ardent your anti-war stance, no matter how often you defend ‘the little guy’ against the oppressive forces of the state and its corporate-union cronies…

    ….no matter what you do, they will still demonize you as racists, apologists for fascism, shills for bazillionaires, and ethical inferiors.

    And no matter how often you try and gracefully, “be the better person”, and respond to their cheap shots with maturity and professionalism?

    they’ll just hit lower and harder the next time. and it will never stop

    1. There has been plenty of digital ink spilled making the case that cutting government spending or reducing gov’t jobs is explicitly racist, because minorities are overly represented in groups which benefit from those things.

      So a group of people whose motto is, “Fuck you, cut spending”, will always be racist, no matter what their other positions are.

      1. Yes.

        my point (*not intended to be bolded, btw. accident) was arguing that this sort of treatment is not any ‘accident’ and its never going to change.

        From my perspective, it seems the editorial position of the magazine is to “be philosophical” and try and treat the mainstream media as otherwise-mostly-honest, prone to ‘occasional’ sideswipes like this. e.g. “Be magnanimous”, assume the best in others, and pretend there’s not actually a constant, persistent effort to disparage, discredit, malign, and misrepresent libertarians at every possible opportunity.

        It seems to me that you can’t win fights by pretending they don’t exist.

        1. The bold was what made it beautiful.

          1. Once you go bold, you’ll never . . . a little help here?

            1. go cuckold?

          2. I also agree the bold added something special.

            1. It would be even better if it was blinking.

        2. And, even if what is said is conceded, there’s the claim that it’s all just a cover to conceal anterior motives.

          1. I know what ulterior motives are. What does someone with anterior motives want?

    2. Hell, you’ll be demonized as racists by a bloody conservative. Just wait Matty, some day someone will dig up an anecdotal story about that time you said something to some black guy at Virginia Commonwealth and then we’ll see how much you like this game.

  9. Meh, needs more Sam Francis and John Derbyshire.

  10. Hopefully Mr. Welch is entertained by having people who constantly denounce his magazine as being a nest of progressive leftists merely masquerading as libertarians leap to that same magazine’s defense like this.


      (and really, there’s only like, 2 or 3 of them)

      1. I’ve seen you “throw some shade”, as the hip people said two years ago.

        1. Oh please. Beating up Robby doesn’t count

      2. It’s a nest. We’re usurping their intellectual offspring.

        Hence, cucks.

    2. Hey, if you think Reason is unnecessarily leftist (as I do), seeing them being accused of being racist right-wing rag that taught Trump is extra-stupid and worth commenting on!

      1. Exactly! All this does is encourage those lefty bastards to lefty it up some more!

    3. If some greasy beltway douchenozzle thinks he can slag Reason, he’s got another think coming. You want to slag Reason, do your time in the comment mines.

      Say, you don’t suppose his article has a comment section, do you?

      1. Of course it does. Highest rated:

        Escape from DC
        7:42 AM PDT
        Libertarians are the worst. They’re terrified of the government but would let big corporations do whatever they want to you.


        Perfect Libertarian nonsensical response. Thats how you guys talk about everything. The notion that “Corporations are doing bad things because Government” is as dumb a notion as you will ever hear. Only people who are devoid of any knowledge of the history of mankind would say something so ignorant and silly.

        Want to bet this guy is Nick’s target audience with his Millenial/Third Way blather?

        1. Wow, this is like reading CBC comments

          Is Donald Trump a libertarian? It depends who you ask. But it was a pretty clear progression from Ron Paul’s paleolibertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, to the right wing extremism and purity of the Tea Party, to now the right wing populism of Trump. The same weirdos that came about with Paul are heavily involved and supportive of Trump.

      2. I laughed at your parting line more than I should have. 😀

  11. A Washington Post writer? Doesn’t the Post also own Slate, the employer of that notorious whore-monger Eliot Spitzer? Well I for one am not going to sit here and be insulted by the associate of a known whore-monger.

    /just kidding, Preet – some of my best friends are whore-mongers. Or whores. Rest assured I have nothing against filthy disgusting nasty-ass disease-ridden whores, even New York prosecutor ones.

  12. Damn – I knew I’d seen that face before. Doug Hutchison.

  13. I feel like there’s some irony in the confirmation bias bullshit directed at Reason to lump them in with Trump, given Reason’s eagerness to use the same kind of games themselves in attacking Trump.

    But yeah, it’s so frustrating to read that bullshit:

    “There had always been some sympathy for racism and anti-Semitism among _______”

    Pick your target group and I’m sure you’ll be able to find some kind of examples to confirm your bias.

      1. Would.

    1. “There had always been some sympathy for racism and anti-Semitism among _______”

      Democrats? BDS activists?

        1. We had a black and white TV and no cable in the 80s. I loved The Snorks.

      1. Bolsheviks?

      2. “Free minds & free markets” means you’re sympathetic to racism & anti-Semitism?

  14. The question I have to ask is, Why do they see libertarianism as a threat? It never goes anywhere. Any ground gained in the cause of personal liberty seems always to be quickly lost in the name of the collective good. So why bother?

    1. Someone thinks Bad Thoughts. This cannot be tolerated. It doesn’t matter whether they can do or affect anything. Bad Thoughts on their own need to be destroyed.
      Argue that it’s stupid, but who won The Culture Wars?

    2. Because libertarianism is an immensely unpopular philosophy electorally so the media likes to use it as a stick to bash republicans with.

      1. I’m just happy to be useful.

    3. “Why do they see libertarianism as a threat?”

      Because they fear Gary Johnson will steal enough votes from Hillary to lose her the election.

    4. Because libertarians make an attempt to be philosophically consistent. That is a threat to those who trade in populism and identity politics.

      1. That’s what I tell people (my sons, also) who ask “Why libertarianism?”. It’s to demonstrate the contrast between making political decisions and policy choices based on principles vs. based on lobbying/re-election/pandering etc…or whateverthefuck the much-hated politicians who actually DO get elected use.

        You can ask “Do you like the current state of government?” “Do you like the politicians who are in office?” “Do you like what government does (going into debt, limiting freedom, failing to address actual issues in favor of building up unimportant wedge issues, etc…)?” and people will say “No”. But offer an alternative and the tops of their heads blow off.

    5. It’s prog strategy. Everything progressive is pure and everything conservative is evil, racist, sexist, homophobic, et al. Then here come libertarians that hold “the correct views” on social issues, but realize you can’t keep riding “The Free Shit Express”. That resonates with some of the less crazy authoritarian people in their clan. Therefore, they have to connect libertarian ideology to conservatism because evil, racist, sexist, homophobic, et al.

  15. I said this before, and it’s worth mentioning again. Most of the left does not distinguish between libertarianism and conservatives. To them, these are all white “right wingers” or its variants. Being “socially liberal and fiscally conservative” will earn you minimum brownie points from them, since so much of their social policies are tied to government action or spending.

    And they’ll characterize Reason as racist for the same reason they call Donald Trump or any other republican racist. At the end of the day, any group that actively opposes or minimizes government’s involvement in guaranteeing “rights” (healthcare, education) and racial diversity / empowerment is racist. Reason is an open borders advocate and friendly to BLM, but when they rail against Obamacare or unions, the left will see a bunch of whites fighting against better opportunities for minorities, women, immigrants……

    If Trump wins (highly unlikely) and GJ pulls in 5% of the popular vote, Reason HQ might want to beef up security outside their building. And I’m only half joking.

    1. Except this isnt really true- Reason only got brought into this article as a means to attack Trump. I mean for goodness sakes this is the first article of year calling Reason racist. Meanwhile Reason has six posts calling people racist today alone.

  16. This is how politics is done today: write a hit piece so as to plant an idea in the reader’s mind (bonus points for doing it with just a BS headline) and don’t worry about accuracy. In the unlikely event a correction is ever issued it doesn’t matter, since the idea has already been planted and nobody will ever see the correction, anyway.

    1. It’s not like a fellow practitioner like Nick Gillespie doesn’t understand this.

  17. Take this article as a sign that Libertarians’ heads are piercing the bog of political irrelevance and breathing air and seeing sunshine. Welcome to the club of all groups seen as threats to the proggie world view.

    This signifies the arrival of the Libertarian Moment. Skip the butthurt, you need to get used to this shit if you are politically relevant.

    I’m guessing this means that Johnson is siphoning more votes from Hillary than Trump.

    1. ….Sheffield’s a conservative.

      1. Oops, I was fooled out by his rhetoric.

      2. Hilarious because he accidentally named his magazine after influential Marxist journal in former Yugoslavia.

        1. To be fair, everyone loves to use Greek words and philosophical concepts out of context to legitimize their discussions.

          *Looks up at Reason title*

          Meh, at least it’s not Logos.

        2. Wait are you unaware of the meaning of praxis?

          1. First place my brain went to when I saw Praxis, political magazine.

            It’s like naming your news outlet Pravda – I mean, sure, it just means The Truth but…

            1. Mises was fond of using praxis, not to mention praxeology.

    2. “I’m guessing this means that Johnson is siphoning more votes from Hillary than Trump.”

      He’s trying to at least…..rm-illegal

  18. Props for using a picture of Sheffield, BTW, that makes him look greasy and unwashed. He looks like a bum that his attorney tried to clean up for that court appearance on public urination and nudity charges.

    1. The funny part? They didn’t go searching, that’s the picture he actually uses on Praxis.

    2. Hey, he’s just trying to make Pedophile Chic into a new fashion trend. Not sure why 70s suit though.

  19. Hitler had a dog. Trump has a dog. SAME.


      1. National Lampoon?

      2. Obama. The dog was tasty

  20. instead the pieces were about things like what Franklin Roosevelt knew in advance about Pearl Harbor, and whether any actors other than Germany played a role in starting World War II.

    I don’t see how pieces like these would be “surely not the magazine’s finest hour” ? these things are still debated by professional historians.

    1. Because the people responsible for writing those pieces were guilty of wrongthink. Even if the articles in question weren’t all that bad.

      The NYT’s, meanwhile, wrote articles about negro rape epidemics and Asian gangsters seducing white women in opium dens to shill for prohibition, but no one would ever bring that shit up and claim it represents the the modern NYT’s. Christ, the NYT’s basically denied the Holocaust was taking place calling it overblown or exaggerated. They printed defenses and pro-Stalin propaganda.

      1. Don’t forget “Negro Dope Fiends”!

    2. From what I just read, Nick didn’t use the “surely not the magazine’s finest hour” phrase. The one section which seems to be apologetic reads:

      Ames is correct that some of the contributors to that issue developed an interest in or were fellow travelers with that most pathetic area of study known as Holocaust revisionism or denialism. That scurrilous topic is not the focus of any of the articles in the issue, but the inclusion of contributors such as James J. Martin, who would go on to join the editorial board of the contemptible denialist outfit the Institute of Historical Review, is embarrassing. Another of that issue’s contributors, Gary North, would later be excoriated in this 1998 Reason article for arguing in favor of violent theocracy and the stoning of gays and others.

      1. That was Matt Welch’s phrase in the article above, not Gillespie’s phrase in the linked article.

        And it’s hardly Reason‘s fault if a writer becomes unlibertarian later on.

        Maybe we should go check some older issues of liberal magazines and see if their writers (regular or guest) developed ungood think later on?

        1. That was Matt Welch’s phrase in the article above, not Gillespie’s phrase in the linked article.

          Agree. That’s what I was trying to point out – just not very coherently.

        2. And he didn’t become unlibertarian, either.

  21. Instead, the paleolibertarian strategy concocted decades ago as a way to push for minimal government threatens to replace right-wing libertarianism with white nationalism.

    I’ve read this three times and it still makes no fucking sense to me.

    Its unclear whether “paleolibertarians” are essentially racist to the core, and only ‘small govt’ as a byproduct?…. or whether small government ideas are in conflict with the racist elements. I can’t parse it.

    in fact his whole piece is a giant mess that seems to dwell more on Rothbard/Rockwell themselves rather than any clear trump connection.

    Strangely = a search of his website pops up his previous piece about Trump and Libertarians … but it seems to make an entirely opposite argument.

    Donald Trump and the Anti-Libertarian Moment

    Trump’s prolonged durability and popularity is a signal indicator that the great libertarian moment not only has not arrived, it probably never will.

    There are two primary reasons that libertarianism in America has an uncertain future: 1) the most popular libertarian ideas have already been co-opted by both parties, and 2) the core economic positions of libertarianism are actually rather unpopular with Americans.

    No mention at all of libertarian-racism, strangely.

    1. Forget it, Gilmore. As you can see by the flushed skin in possible rapist pedophile Matthew Sheffield’s headshot, he’s rolling.

    2. What is paleo-libertarianism? And why is Reason guilty of being part of it?

  22. Maybe he’s confusing Reason with LRC. A common mistake.

    1. Oh, apparently that’s exactly it. Christ.

      Meanwhile, on the Zook side of the wall…

    2. LRC?

  23. Why does the Washington Post need to correct anything?

    After all Reason keeps writing that Donald Trump and his supporters are racists, and Reason has no plans to correct the record.

  24. I mean it’s not hard to play this game with them
    Breaking news: one of the most popular progressive policies, the minimum wage, was designed to elevate whites at the expense of minorities. The horror!

    1. Gun control was passed to prevent blacks from having arms.

    2. Pretty much every single program or idea the progressives come up with is specifically designed to fuck minorities.

  25. The Paleolibertarian strategy was an epic fuckup. Good job on this one Welch.

  26. Wait, you’re telling me Reason is not a pro-Apartheid, Holocaust-denying publication?

    See you all later!

    1. Who you gonna believe, Washington Post or some idiots on the Internet?

      1. So this is a pro-Apartheid, Holocaust-denying publication?

        I’m back!

  27. So because the Institute for Historical Review ( ) entertains, among many other subjects of revisionist hx, material about the death camps?and became identified with such material because other places didn’t dare touch it?& James J. Martin edited their periodical, among many other writings & editing jobs (and lots of fine material therein), that’s a reason for Nick Gillespie to scourge him?

  28. RE: Washington Post Contributor Falsely Accuses Reason of ‘Repeatedly Editorializ[ing]’ in Favor of Apartheid

    Well, let’s see now.
    Who am I going to believe?
    A notorious liberal rag like WaPo, or a magazine dedicated to financial freedom, independence from our ruling elitist turds and the US Constitution?
    I just don’t know.
    It’s a tough call.
    I’ll get back to you on that.

    1. This is why we need the Oxford comma!

      (after ‘turds’, else it reads independence from the Constitution)

      1. +1 Chicago Manual of Style

  29. This is hilarious, a magazine that goes out of its way to disparage conservatives and Republicans, which is backing a candidate that has gone out of his way to avoid principle at all cost, gets attacked by the Pravda of the very Left they go out of their way to appease. This along with the Democrats attacking Reason in the Senate shows what a foolish and dumb strategy Johnson and Reason are pursuing.

    Leftists will never, ever support a libertarian, no matter how watered down he is (hat tip Johnson), ever.

    1. But…but…the progressives are the Good Guys! They’re the ethical, empathetic, decent ones. Moral high ground and all that. We know this because they so loudly proclaim it.

      So of course all the ‘good’ libertarians want in with them. The alternative? Being name-called by those very self-proclaimed Good Guys, which is just unbearable, obviously.


  30. Matthew Sheffield? I know,I’ve heard that name before.

    Oh, I know. He’s that guy that allegedly fucks sheep, isn’t he? No that’s not right. I mean, he hasn’t denied being a sheepfucker so it may be true. But I cannot, in good conscience, accuse him of sheepfucking merely because he hasn’t denied it. That would be irresponsible.

    I’m sure the wife-beating is also untrue since there’s no way in hell that greasy looking shithead has ever picked up a chick without it involving a transfer of cash ahead of time.

    1. Also, he looks like the actor Jackie Earle Haley. And I don’t mean relatively cool Bad News Bears Jackie Earle Haley. I mean greasy loser with a shady mustache Breaking Away Jackie Earle Haley.

      1. Please apologize to Jackie Earle Haley. Also apologize to Daniel Stern, just in case.

        1. I’ll do no such thing. Moocher and Cyril were fine characters even if they were both ugly as fuck.

            1. +1 1970 Buick Skylark with a roof rack.

              1. Hurm. JEH played “me” in film. Director completely missed point of source material, but Haley not bad. Disgusting treatment of Juspeczyk women, walked out. Waste of time. Hurm

                Rorshach’s Journal, the lost chapters

                I dug Haley’s Odin Quincannon on Preacher.

  31. I have to admit that I like the Pauls, Rothbard, and Buchanan – primarily because of their anti-war critiques (hell, I like Raimondo for the same reason). I admit that all of those characters have voiced some offensive statements about minorities in the 1990’s (atrocious statements). For the Pauls, Raimondo, and Rothbard, I blame Rockwell (who is slimy character).

    But to accuse Reason or the Kochs of stating those same views is libelous. I am often critical of Reason, but I appreciate their sensitivity and sensibility about the concerns of racial and ethnic minorities.

    1. That’s right. We’ll give some comments to the niggers and the chinks. But we don’t want the Irish!

      (RIP, Waco Kid)

    2. Their anti war cred is great, but late 80s and early 90s material on race is horrific, and look up some white nationalists on Twitter, they will tell you they used to be followers of Rothbard/Rockwell. Rockwell is toxic and so is, is Hoppe still a fellow there? They are a stain on libertarianism and the sooner they are gone the better.

      1. Reason’s material on race was horrific?

        1. No I meant, Rockwell/Rothbard/Paul crowd of that era,sorry.

          1. Do you have the names of those Twitter white nationalists who used to be followers of Rothbard/Rockwell?

              1. Some of these don’t seem white nationalist, other than quoting Evola.

                Without Rothbard and the Pauls, libertarianism is just empty ‘low tax liberalism’ (minus the ‘liberal’ aspect and more emphasis on ‘leftism’).

                Why is it that thinkers on the Right always have to explain some of their associates (no matter how benign, which I view Raimondo and Rothbard as), but the Left can pal around with socialists and it’s just fine.

                1. They are, trust me, and Rothbard and Rockwell whether they themselves are/were racist pandered to racists as a strategy to get votes, and it’s a curse that limits our appeal. You are judged by the company you keep, and legions of Internet racists are/were big fans of Rockwell and Co. Overall social conservatism and racism ar dying and whites are becoming less and less of the population. What horrible, short sighted thinking from so called great libertarian minds.

                  1. The reason why conservatives and libertarians don’t appeal to minorities is because they don’t campaign for there support and because so-called respectable whites will call them vile names if they show any inclination that is not reflexively leftist (read any article in the NYT or Washington Post about Clarence Thomas).

                    Rand Paul actually does really well with minorities without selling out principle (polls show him winning almost 40% of the black vote in Kentucky against his Democratic opponent), so I think engaging minorities is half the battle.

                    1. Rand is trying and he deserves credit for that, but for a lot of people who might be interested in Libertarianism, all someone would have to do is drag up Rockwell filth and it’s game over. But yes we need to do a better job in minority outreach. McAfee hit it on the head in his concession speech.

              2. Do you have any examples where the identities have been verified by Twitter? I asked for names. You did not provide names.

                People make stuff up. On Twitter.

                Unless there’s a blue check-mark, you didn’t provide examples

      2. Much of what Rothbard/Rockwell said on race was not to much different from what the Clinton Administration was saying when they were pushing for passage of The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

  32. Thomas . you think Deborah `s c0mment is flabbergasting… last week I got a top of the range Mitsubishi Evo after having earned $5117 this-past/five weeks and just a little over $10k last month . without a question it is the most-comfortable job I’ve ever had . I started this 6 months ago and straight away startad earning more than $84… per-hour . Read Full Article

  33. Thomas . you think Deborah `s c0mment is flabbergasting… last week I got a top of the range Mitsubishi Evo after having earned $5117 this-past/five weeks and just a little over $10k last month . without a question it is the most-comfortable job I’ve ever had . I started this 6 months ago and straight away startad earning more than $84… per-hour . Read Full Article

  34. The more I read from shitstains like this Matthew Sheffield the more I want to be become like Pinochet.

    So you want to project your racist, failed, economic policies on me ?


    I will be your Huckelberry.

    1. …the more I want to be become like Pinochet.

      What would Balki Bartokomous do?

  35. Everybody hates libertarians. Just for different reasons.

    Sometimes they even make-up reasons.

  36. Mr. Trump is “about as far away from libertarianism as you can get” Praxis, Jan 2016. And now – this?

  37. But Matthew Sheffield says Donald Trump is opposite of libertarianism back in January 2016.

    Did he forget his earlier column?

    1. Jebus, when they don’t have to worry about facts, logic or human decency, why would a proggie writer worry about consistency? The target audience of such writers doesn’t want evidence-based argument and proof, they want confirmation, and ONLY confirmation.

    2. Jebus, when they don’t have to worry about facts, logic or human decency, why would a proggie writer worry about consistency? The target audience of such writers doesn’t want evidence-based argument and proof, they want confirmation, and ONLY confirmation.

  38. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

    —————->> http://www.ReportMax90.Com

  39. Sophia . although Nancy `s stori is impressive, on sunday I got a top of the range Peugeot 205 GTi from earning $9438 this-past/four weeks an would you believe ten-k last-munth . it’s actualy the most financially rewarding I’ve ever done . I actually started nine months/ago and pretty much straight away began to make over $78 per-hour . have a peek at this website

  40. If libertarians can be tarred with a magazine’s questionable choices of contributor 40 years ago, does that mean the Democrats can be tarred with their party having a hardcore segregationist and pro-Jim Crow platform 60 years ago? Or is there some cutoff between the two that I’m not aware of.

    1. Of course not. Democrats have been taught to chant the magic words “Southern Strategy” and make it all go away. Just like you never see the NYT owning up to flat out lying about Soviet Communism under Stalin.

    2. Fuck, they had a sitting senator till 2010 that was a member of the Klan.

  41. Punchy McPunchface

  42. I worked in South Africa in the 80’s with Marc Swanepoel. He was no racist.

  43. just as Luis replied I cannot believe that any body can get paid $6967 in a few weeks on the internet . you could check here


  44. There had always been some sympathy for racism and anti-Semitism among libertarians

    Sure, in the same what that there has been “some sympathy for dead babies, STDs, and poverty”, if by “some sympathy” you mean that libertarians believe government intervention in these areas is ineffective and hence government should not interfere.

    I might also add:

    There had always been some sympathy for government-mandated racism, anti-Semitism, and fascism among Democrats and progressives

    … and that is something that should worry voters much more.

  45. Matthew Sheffield, editor of the metapolitical journal Praxis,

    I thought that exploded.

  46. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

  47. til I saw the draft which had said $6144 , I be certain …that…my brother woz really making money parttime from their computer. . there aunt has done this for only eleven months and resantly cleard the loans on there mini mansion and purchased a great new Lexus LS400 . read here …………

    ?????? ???????

  48. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

  49. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.