I don’t have a problem with RJR quoting the Libertarians or even with him making common cause with them as co-belligerents on certain issues. I acknowledge that RJR often was in bed with the Libertarians. I will even say that I can see RJR supporting a Ron Paul candidacy for President. (Does anyone know if RJR said anything regarding the Paul Libertarian Presidential Candidacy in 1988?)
However, what I object to, as coming from American Vision, is that they want to thump that Libertarian side of RJR completely and then turn around and disavow all the Kinist quotes from RJR as if that side of RJR never existed. The Kinist side of RJR is the balance and tension that is needed for all his Libertarian statements. It is true that RJR was a Libertarian as that concept finds meaning in the context of God’s Law word, but it is equally true that RJR was a Kinist as that concept finds meaning in the context of God’s law word. The fact that RJR would have embraced both Libertarian strains and Kinist strains fits perfectly with his understanding of, “The One and The Many,” and the fact that organizations invoking the name of RJR finds problems with either of these necessary strains is telling. Is it possible to be loyal to RJR and recognize his Libertarian strains while denouncing those who also recognize his Kinist strains or would such lopsidedness communicate that such a organization is leaning to far in a non God’s law word conditioned Libertarianism?
But AV doesn’t want the kinist RJR. They only want the Libertarian RJR. Meanwhile the Daniel Richies, Stephen Hallbrooks, and John Loftons don’t want either the Libertarian nor the Kinist RJR. The Theonomy of those people is highly suspect.
Rush was no Libertarian in the Rothbard or Rand sense of the word but He was smart enough to use them to advance His agenda, which had a libertarian side as that Libertarianism was conditioned by a Christian Theonomic Reconstructionist worldview.
I think what we might be seeing now is the unraveling of the coalition that RJR built. RJR was able to bring together a coalitiion of Libertarians, Kinists, soft covenanters, agrarians, and southern sympathizers but it seems that coalition is becoming undone.
2 thoughts on “Further Observations On RJR & Libertarianism”
Bret, could you point me to some book or books that explains kinism. I am somewhat split on the different defences of the idea that I read. Thanks Gray
I would start with this article,
It is really quite hard to suggest books because I didn’t come to this conviction via books that directly dealt w/ that topic. I also am not sure that the definitive book on the subject has been written yet, though there are books that deal with integral aspects of Kinism.
Authors that pushed me in this direction would be the Southern Agrarians.
Some books that pushed me in this direction would be “Quest for Community,” “The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant,” “Into the Cannibals Pot” by Illana Mercer, “Egalitarian Envy” by Gonzalo Fernandez de la Mora, “Race and the American Prospect,” and “Race Against Time.” Also, having a good understanding of the agenda and methodology of Cultural Marxism pushes someone in the direction of Oikophilia.
However, I am the first to recognize that seeing this, at least initially, is like asking a credo Baptist to see the sense of infant Baptism.
It requires different lenses.
I think those lenses are more Biblically appropriate but I understand that many others do not. Just as Credos do not see that paedos makes a lick of sense.
Interestingly enough, I am convinced that those who can’t see familialism are in point of fact still affected by Credo glasses.
I don’t intend any of this to be said of you personally Gray. I know you are just asking.