MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Smith Students Get Lecture on Libertarian Connection to 'Traditional Bigotry'

What? Libertarianism is an intellectual and political tradition with roots in radical equality movements.

At Smith College last week, students were treated to a discussion on the connection between libertarians and "traditional bigotry."

The full title of the talk, from activist and academic Loretta Ross, is "Connections Between Far Right, Religious Right, Economic Conservatives, Libertarians, and Traditional Bigotry." (Perhaps "Everyone to the Right of Me in Any Capacity Is a Bigot" was already taken.) Ross is regularly an associate professor at Hampshire College, where she teaches a course called "White Supremacy in the Age of Trump."

It's part of a four-week discussion series that Ross is leading at Smith, the historic Massachusetts women's college. Next month, Smith will bring Democracy in Chains author Nancy McClean—who hates libertarians so much she can't imagine anyone would be critical of her book without a Koch Brothers-orchestrated conspiracy—to campus.

As a private educational institution, Smith can certainly offer whatever programming its administrators please. And far be it for me to judge Ross' talk by its title—that's the kind of illiberal nonsense that helped get my panel on Title IX booted from another private university campus last week.

In an email, Ross tells me her talk is "about the way white supremacy infiltrates and affects all political parties, and races and genders of people, regardless of their political labels."

In any case, it's odd to lump libertarianism, an ideology centered on natural rights and the inherent worth of the individual, in with more collective-oriented ideologies like those espoused by religious conservatives or the "far right." We also don't have much in common with either group when it comes to social and cultural concerns.

Alas, this tendency is all too typical from Democrats and other liberals, who often can't or won't imagine a paradigm beyond the left/right divide. Hence libertarians—who defended marriage equality, ending the drug war, and demilitarizing police long before Democrats did—must be right-wing because we also favor deregulation and gun rights.

Traditionally, libertarianism—like most movements—has included people all over the morality and tolerance scale. It's an intellectual and political tradition with roots in radical equality movements that also led to racist fever swamps like LewRockwell.com. It's not a perfect movement, by any means, but its heroes include some of the most outspoken historical critics of traditional bigotry. And its current adherants have been vociferous opponents of alt-right bigotry and populist nationalism more broadly.

For more of Reason's recent output on the subject, see:

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SIV||

    Traditionally, libertarianism—like most movements—has included people all over the morality and tolerance scale. It's an intellectual and political tradition with roots in radical equality movements that also led to racist fever swamps like LewRockwell.com.

    Radical equality IS racist. By the "disparate impact" standard.

  • BYODB||

    To some, a colorblind society is racist because those minorities are lesser beings that need that extra helping hand from the White Man to achieve the same results.

    And, somehow, this is not considered the racist point of view.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Christ, what an asshole.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Am asshole, can confirm.

  • Anomalous||

    This is why there are no female libertarians.

  • ||

    I'm sure the author would be happy to know she's not a woman.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    I think s/he meant to imply that ENB is not a libertarian.

  • SQRLSY One||

    So... The idea that this idea... "we are individuals deserving individual freedom"... That this idea should be raised as the equal to "we are members of our tribe, too"... Many common-sense libertarians DO acknowledge that yes, we are members of our tribe, and VOLUNTARY allegiance to our tribe is a good thing, in many cases...

    The entire libertarian idea of "equality" for the idea of individual freedom, is RACIST!?!?! WTF?!??!

  • acidovorax||

    Many common-sense libertarians DO acknowledge that yes, we are members of our tribe, and VOLUNTARY allegiance to our tribe is a good thing, in many cases...

    Of course I believe people should be free to associate with whomever they choose, but I don't understand the idea that association with "tribe is a good thing". To me it has no inherent moral value in most situations, but I could see it being immoral under certain situations (collectivist scenarios).

    Sorry to pick nits.

  • SQRLSY One||

    By allegiance to one's "tribe", I would actually MUCH prefer to be way-idealistic, in the vein of "all men are brothers, all women are sisters" kind of ideal, world wide. I'm not much into nationalistic rah-rah-ree.... That USA Government Almighty forces taxpayer charity irks me pretty badly... And such forced charity is WAY heavily biased towards benefiting Americans, while non-Americans, world-wide, are left to "suck wind", for our forced charity dollars, with no rational evidence that Americans are somehow "more deserving".

    Also, it irks me when Ayn-Rand type thinkers denigrate voluntary charity, as being irrational. True, free-choice altruism is precious, and should be honored.

    All that said, it's a sad, sad day when libertarian-style thinking, pro-individual-freedom thinking, is labeled as "racist"!!! Once again, WTF!!!!???

  • Jerryskids||

    Libertarianism and the principles underlying it were thought up by white men, therefore racist and sexist. And fascist. Literally everything is racist and sexist and fascist these days.

  • What about Sloopy's mom?||

    Libertarianism and the principles underlying it were thought up by white women, therefore racist and sexist.

    FTFY… remember it's the Mothers of Libertarianism, not Fathers.

  • MJBinAL||

    You are never going to get it are you? Progressives .. either you are one, or you are evil to be defeated by any means necessary. Lie about you? Got it. Discriminate against you? Of course. Incite riots against you? Certainly.

    Progressive = Socialist = Liberal and you are either one of them, or you are whatever they can paint you as to discredit you. Dissent from the orthodoxy is not allowed.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I believe that pretty well sums it up; in time such broad characterizations will lose whatever transient legitimacy they seem to enjoy as it has already progressed beyond a ludicrous level. All white people will be deemed genetically racist, if they haven't already. Just keep giving them the rope with which they will hang themselves from their ideological limb.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    In an email, Ross tells me her talk is "about the way white supremacy infiltrates and affects all political parties, and races and genders of people, regardless of their political labels."

    Then the obvious question is that if her talk discusses how white supremacism infiltrates and affects all political parties, etc., why doesn't she include socialists, the far left, and communists in the title of her presentation?

  • MJBinAL||

    Because she is lying.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    SJWs always lie. Every word that exits their mouths is a lie. Including 'and' and 'the'.

  • Jerryskids||

    At least she admits she's a white supremacist, the next step is to realize that white supremacy is so deeply ingrained into the social DNA that there's no use resisting it and embrace your white supremacy. White people invented the modern world and the very idea of white supremacy, it surrounds you and envelopes you, and it's nice to be part of something larger than yourself isn't it?

  • Microaggressor||

    It's starting to sound like White Supremacy is a deity. Unfalsifiable, and all-encompassing.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Christ, what an asshole.

    If you're going to knock Libertarians, at least do your research.

    The only more mistaken characterization is that of anarchists. There was some vandalism of newly opened gourmet restaurants in a rapidly gentrified area of my city, and the news classed the perpetrators as "likely anarchists." Yeah, no. As an anarchist, I can tell you there's zero overlap between us and some entitled young vandal twats.

  • Rhywun||

    It doesn't help that the vandaltwats (I read that as one word for some reason) likely call themselves "anarchists".

  • Microaggressor||

    The label "anarchist" is almost always used to describe anti-property/Marxist anarchists. In other words, retards who believe in a religious faith about human nature having "false-consciousness" for individual self interest. People like Tony.

  • damikesc||

    Thing is...how can an anarchist be a Marxist? Seem to be contradictory belief systems. Like a Libertarian Fascist.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Because the supposed end phase of Marxism no longer needs a State as the population has been transformed into the New Socialist Man who will do what is required without force.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    True, but "Marxist Anarchists" actually believe that once the government becomes all powerful, attaining full control of every aspect of everyone's life, it will voluntarily disappear. Yes, it is literally that stupid a belief: one that would make even a reasonably intelligent child chuckle. And how on earth breaking the windows of shops run by hardworking small business owners somehow helps the state gain more power is anyone's guess.

    People can call themselves whatever they like, but it doesn't make it so. A racist is not a libertarian just because they claim to be. A Marxist is not an anarchist just because they claim to be -- no more than I would be a superhero that can fly just because I claimed to be.

  • damikesc||

    Holy shit...that is their belief? My thought that they were just morons was far too generous. I've never talked to one to ask what their goal is/was. I'm glad I didn't because I couldn't be polite enough to not laugh in their face.

  • Microaggressor||

    That's right. They are of the belief that property rights can only be enforced by a state, so once the state is removed, there will be no more property rights.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    > A racist is not a libertarian just because they claim to be.

    They are if they adhere to the NAP.

  • BYODB||

    This is where I point out that anarchy is dumb.

    It is a transitory state between other types of governance, rather than a discrete system. As such, being 'for' anarchy is only logical when an end-goal other than anarchy is sought. This is why there are so many hyphen-anarchists, like it or not. It's a tool used by the disingenuous on children, by-and-large.

    An incredibly primitive state of affairs, one might simply define it as 'the strong rule' and be done with your definition. Obviously, if it was in fact some superior system one could rightly assume it would have continued unabated forever, rather than being grown out of across all genus of Mankind.

    No offense, but I'll spend just as much time laughing at an anarchist as I will laughing at the Marxist. They're both fools, in my view, prone to be used by political forces but never are they the one's who shape them.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    Rothbard was a fool? Middle ages Icelanders and Englishmen were stupid?

    Polycentric law/security is very stable, with the exception of when it comes in contact with more powerful states ... sometimes.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...where she teaches a course called "White Supremacy in the Age of Trump."

    Cha-ching!

  • SIV||

    Big Diversity

  • Rhywun||

    Next month, Smith will bring Democracy in Chains author Nancy McClean [...] to campus.

    LOL that's all I needed to hear. The mag has a great demolishment of that mendacious twaddle.

  • Bra Ket||

    Why stop there? What about the connections between right supremacists and modern liberals, social justice movement, and socialist movements throughout modern history? Surely there will be amply supply of misbehavior, racist words and actions, logical similarities, former grand wizards, and whatever else one needs to support any such theory. Certainly when it comes to the standards set by "research" in "political science".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If by white supremicists, you mean neo-Nazi types- those people are lefties and not conservative. The bogus narrative often pushed by the media is that Nazis are conservative and right-wing when they are leftists.

    Nazis did use revolutionary tactics to gain power in Germany. Neo-Nazis are fine with using any revolutionary tactic to gain control and institute racial policies.

    Conservatives rarely make changes and then only by massive support. On the far right-wing is theocracy and monarchies. One thing theocracies and monarchies are know for are rapid changes to policy based on the whims of small groups who change their minds monthly.

  • Microaggressor||

    The sooner you realize critical theory is just repackaged communism, the more obvious there motives are. Nancy MacClean conjured up some more ammunition in the war against property rights, and they're going to use it no matter how intellectually fraudulent her book is. The ends justify the means.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    Go Frankfort School!

  • Brandybuck||

    My parents never had any event where both sets of grandparents were in the same room. They despised each other. One set were FDR New Deal Democrats and immigrants from the enlightened old country. The other set were Eisenhower Republicans with roots that landed here shortly after the Mayflower. Guess which ones where the unashamed racists? That's right, the Democrats.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Democrats: The party of slavery, Jim Crow, the Klan, and lynchings

  • Rich||

    her talk is "about the way white supremacy infiltrates and affects all political parties, and races and genders of people, regardless of their political labels."

    her talk is "about the way the black power movement infiltrates and affects all political parties, and races and genders of people, regardless of their political labels."

    her talk is "about the way the furry subculture infiltrates and affects all political parties, and races and genders of people, regardless of their political labels."

    ....

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The furry subculture is remarkably right wing.

  • BYODB||

    I'm fairly good friends with a bisexual furry, and I will tell you this one thing that I find the most interesting: He owns more firearms than anyone else I have ever known. More than everyone else I have ever known combined. And his knowledge of the law and workings of those weapons is superior to anyone I have ever met.

    Definitely one of the weirder guys I've ever known, but he's also way more conservative than I am.

    Go figure. Obviously though, one example doesn't prove shit.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    There's a strange strand of conservatism in the furry community. Go find some of the incredible selection of Furry 9/11 Tributes if you want a joy.

  • geo1113||

    This is the shit you get from people who have way too much time on their hands.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    People have the right to be cliches.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    This is the shit you get from people who have way too much time on their hands.

    Are you referring to Reason comments? How fucking dare you!

  • geo1113||

    Well, at least Tony!

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    Any political philosophy that rejects collectivism is problematic. You're either with us or them.

  • Longtobefree||

    Or you can be one of our serfs. We need you to provide for us as we free you from your chains.

  • Longtobefree||

    "Smith, the historic Massachusetts women's college"

    Therefore sexist, and not worthy of her presence.
    Ergo, ispo facto, and henceforth thereunto, she is a hypocrite.

  • damikesc||

    It's adorable that you think the colleges care.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    In any case, it's odd to lump libertarianism, an ideology centered on natural rights and the inherent worth of the individual, in with more collective-oriented ideologies like those espoused by religious conservatives or the "far right." We also don't have much in common with either group when it comes to social and cultural concerns.

    Perhaps she's spent a minute or two in the H&R comments suggestion, which would quickly disprove this thesis.

  • John C. Randolph||

    racist fever swamps like LewRockwell.com.

    What a load of crap. I know there's a long-runing animosity between the Kochs and Lew, but spare us the standard leftard smears, will you please?

    -jcr

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    It's more a fever swamp with racist skunk cabbages growing here and there.

  • RockLibertyWarrior||

    "It's more a fever swamp with racist skunk cabbages growing here and there." I call bull shit, I go on Lew Rockwell everyday and I have yet to see one "racist" article, in fact, both Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell (both black people) have their articles published on there not to mention other minorities so to speak. All the people calling Rockwell's site "racist" have their heads shoved up their asses.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    It wasn't racist fevers that pushed me further and further away from LRC, it was the growing devotion to pseudo-science. I don't know how racist they are, but they post some stupid shit and suffer the hit to credibility that comes with public delusions.

  • WakaWaka||

    Cosmotarians will always trash others in an attempt to appease their left-wing betters. And then they get kicked off campuses, so they virtue signal more.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Time to cuck harder!

  • EscherEnigma||

    So long as libertarians, as a group, continue to *vote* the same as the "far right, religious right, economic conservatives", you lot really shouldn't be surprised that people group you together.

  • Jordan||

    continue to *vote* the same as the "far right, religious right, economic conservatives"

    What does this even mean?

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Collectivists gonna collectivise?

  • GILMORE™||

    "anyone not a leftist"

  • What about Sloopy's mom?||

    That Obama is a "far right, religious right, economic conservatives".

  • CatoTheChipper||

    So long as libertarians, as a group, continue to *vote* the same as the "far right, religious right, economic conservatives" against socialists and communists, you lot really shouldn't be surprised that people group you together libertarians with Nazis and fascists.

  • BYODB||

    Maybe, just maybe, this is an admission that if there are only two parties for 350 million plus people they're going to both contain some people you disagree with, even while they're on 'your side'.

    Classical Liberals and Libertarians hardest hit, but since there are only a dozen of each no one cares.

  • epsilon given||

    And how do libertarians vote as a group? It's my understanding that they generally vote four ways:

    * They vote Libertarian.
    * They vote for the most-libertarian Republican they can find.
    * They vote for the most-libertarian Democrat they can find.
    * They refuse to vote, because it either justifies a bad system (aka a government that's going to take away your rights, regardless of who wins), or it's an utterly pointless exercise anyway.

    So your comment that libertarians vote as a group is stupid on the face of things.

    It's also stupid in that your assumption that "far right, religious right, economic conservatives" are automatically racist. This is far from the case -- granted, a lot of such people want moral restrictions on our lives, but for the most part, they just want people to be free economically, and generally left alone.

    What's ironic is that if you want to find racism, you are far better off looking for it in the party that has supported slavery, Jim Crow laws, the KKK, segregation, and so forth, and that's the Democrat Party. Furthermore, if you go abroad, you'll find that parties like the National Socialist Worker's Party are actually far more "leftist" than they are "rightist", and when they go racist, they often take their inspiration from America's Democrat Party to boot.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Maybe, progressives just propagandize against those who they perceive as their enemies with any rhetoric they think they can make stick. Maybe their arguments are suspect in general, even against those social conservatives ENB does not like.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Winner!

    Pomos don't believe in truth or logic. And certainly not honesty. Words are weapons to attack your enemies with.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""What?""

    this 'acting surprised' thing needs to stop.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Ms Ross appears to be bigoted against a diet of fresh fruits and vegetables.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    She really needs to quit culturally appropriating the extra cheese on her burritos.

  • WakaWaka||

    "racist fever swamps like LewRockwell.com."

    See, this is why people laughed when you were banned from a college campus. Because you're an idiot.

  • GILMORE™||

    i think that's misstating it somewhat.

    Its more like =


    "if writers for Reason feel comfortable demonizing people*, and making sweeping moral pronouncements about their moral-inferiority and untouchable-status, without ever giving examples of why they deserve this judgement"...

    (*people who, incidentally, share the vast majority of their core beliefs)

    "...its rather naive and hypocritical for them to express outrage, clutch pearls, take umbrage when people who share *none of their beliefs* do exactly the same thing to them."

    they can certainly also be idiots. but its not really necessary.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Well, it is well known that every racist-fever-swamp website re-publishes virtually everything written by Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell. Every good cosmotarian agrees that Step'n Fetchit and Uncle Tom are embarrassments to libertarianism. So, the evidence of racist fever over at LewRockwell.com is overwhelming. However, it is not quite as vicious as the antisemitism that LewRockwell.com demonstrates by its adulation of Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, etc.

    /sarc

    OTOH, the articles selected by LRC are often as embarrassingly stupid, unnuanced, and tone-deaf as some of the articles at Reason.

  • GILMORE™||

    articles selected by LRC are often as embarrassingly stupid, unnuanced, and tone-deaf as some of the articles at Reason.

    exactly.

    I'm not even a reader of LRC, and never have been. I only know Paul Craig Robert's batshitness (and he was published here @ reason as well), which i presume is the sort of stuff she's talking about.

    If you can handwave and write off their entire website/angle on libertarianism because they published some stuff you find 'racist' or 'beyond the pale'...well, guess what? You've just validated the same method used by Mark Ames to call Reason a 'racist' publication

  • buybuydandavis||

    "But it's bad when you do it to me!"

  • Tony||

    So are you saying the pervasive and obvious racism is a new thing?

  • John C. Randolph||

    Go fuck yourself, Tony. Take your bullshit accusations with you.

    -jcr

  • epsilon given||

    In actuality, it's far from new. It's been pervasive in the Democrat Party for decades. It still is, actually, it's just masked as things like "affirmative action" (which basically says that minorities are incapable of prospering in America because minorities aren't as good Whites, and so they need a little bit of help from Whites. Sure, this is because of inherent White racism, which explains why Asians are doing even better than Whites, so they shouldn't be included in "affirmative action" programs).

  • Azathoth!!||

    In any case, it's odd to lump libertarianism, an ideology centered on natural rights and the inherent worth of the individual, in with more collective-oriented ideologies like those espoused by religious conservatives or the "far right."

    Are you really this stupid?

    Can you truly say that you really don't understand that it is the very fact that libertarianism IS an ideology centered on natural rights and the inherent worth of the individual that has them lumping it in with the 'far right'?

    That they know full well that there is no real 'collectivist' far right monster lurking out there?

    That they are against everything that you purport to believe in?

    Didn't having them deplatform you show you anything,?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Didn't having them deplatform you show you anything,?

    Must cuck harder

  • Ned Netterville||

    Being a college professor is no assurance that one possesses knowledge or intelligence.

  • mondo_cane||

    On Libertarianism:"It's an intellectual and political tradition with roots in radical equality movements that also led to racist fever swamps like LewRockwell.com. It's not a perfect movement, by any means, but its heroes include some of the most outspoken historical critics of traditional bigotry. And its current adherants (sic) have been vociferous opponents of alt-right bigotry and populist nationalism more broadly." (you misspelled adherents)

    I question the descriptor of LewRockwell.com as a fever swamp. I read this blog frequently and its commenters come from the very best philosophies of Libertarianism including economic and monetary systems critiques. National and world figures well-known for their Libertarian thinking comment on LewRockwell.com. Yet, with one broad and erroneous brush, you try to de-legitimize a whole segment of the best Libertarians there are -- Ron Paul is a racist? Walter Williams is a racist? Thomas Sowell is a racist? Judge Napolitano is a racist? Patrick Buchanan is a racist?

    Incredible.

    This subject is obviously way beyond your scope of understanding, and it's pathetic that you should attempt to write about Libertarianism with so little grasp of it. Why do you label everything your don't understand as being racist? It is intellectually dishonest. And it makes you look very foolish.

    The big downside for you is that no one can possible take your writing or ideas seriously.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    If you're not a committed Trotskyite, you must be a Racist, White-Supremecist! Am I right?

  • Feminist Killjoy||

    I am a libertarian because I'm a feminist. It's the only political philosophy that actually allows for feminism, simply because it treats people as individuals. Also sex work, individual abortion choice, gender neutral, equal opportunity, etc. Libertarians either have the better position, or no position, because so much of feminism is cultural and has no place in politics. (I swear, I feel like the most I talk about feminism is in regards to media representation. It's important, but it should never even be in the same room as politics. Same for individual morality. I can be friends with pro-life people so long as they don't want to pass a law) And I was a wee teen reading a lot of news during the Clinton years and I hated democrats with a passion that far exceeded social conservatives, because I felt betrayed. They acted like they were taking my side, but they threw women who weren't like them under the bus. At least those asshole socons knew they were gunning for their own version of a moral superiority.

    I kind of get it. If you're on reddit or something, good luck telling the difference between a so called libertarian and an alt-right facist. I don't even know what words mean anymore.

    I'll toast you with my next glass, ENB, because I needed the first to read this.

  • buybuydandavis||

    (Perhaps "Everyone to the Right of Me in Any Capacity Is a Bigot" was already taken.)

    Taken by you, and the Progressitarian surge at Reason over the last couple of years.

    Traditionally, libertarianism ... blah blah blah ... And its current adherants have been vociferous opponents of alt-right bigotry and populist nationalism more broadly.

    Anyone to the right of Open Borders Progressitarians are all in one big basket of deplorable racist racist racist Nazis!

    Populist nationalism! So scary! Nothing more unProgressitarian than government, of, by, and for the people!

  • nicmart||

    Since Ron Paul's campaigns, libertarianism has an abundance of adherents who won't denounce racism. When I, an older libertarian, do criticize this form of collectivism online, a large percentage of those who respond disagree. The rationale is that such ugly collectivism is tolerable if it doesn't manifest in violence. Not just that it should be permissible to be a racist (with which I agree), but that racism shouldn't be subject to criticism unless it is violent. Racism has become the Achilles heel of the libertarian movement. Overt racists are often welcomed — so long as they don't initiate violence.

  • Edwin||

    bullshit

  • RockLibertyWarrior||

    Libtards are intolerant, for all their screaming of "TOLERANCE" their the most intolerant people on the planet. They can't stand anybody who deviates from their twisted world view one bit, their control freak, psychopaths. You can't "reason" with people like that.

  • Edwin||

    "Private institution..."

    Do they accept money from FAFSA payments to students?
    Then they're not really a private institution are they?

    "White Supremacy in the Age of Trump"
    Really? Jesus, what assholes. Not even trying to hide their partisanship. And how much of a bunch of pussies are the Republicans where they won't do anything to stop massive country-wide indoctrination about them? This shit is an abuse of what are actually government institutions against half the damn country.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    > racist fever swamps like LewRockwell.com

    The Mises Institute adheres to the Non-Aggression Principle a hellluva lot better than does reason. Freedom of association should never be vilified, for whatever reason.

    Fuck ENB.

  • aajax||

    If you are not a white male, there's probably a natural aversion to a movement that is 90% white males. Especially when those white males do not normally express any concern for your well being, and in fact argue that they shouldn't be expected to have any concern for your well being.

  • epsilon given||

    Yeah, I know! Which is why the fact that blacks consistently vote 90% for the Democrat Party is indeed a very puzzling thing.

    Oh, wait, I'm sorry: I'm confusing rhetoric with results. Democrats *say* they support minorities, but their programs are such utter failures, it's a wonder that *anyone* with minority status continues to vote for them.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online