The Libertarian Split Continues As “Blood And Soil” Speech Triggers Another Racial Witch Hunt

in News

The split between left-leaning and right-leaning libertarians has reached a fever pitch after Jeff Deist, Director of the Mises Institute, gave an iconic speech during his annual Mises University event about “blood and soil” libertarianism, an idea encompassing cultural conservatism as a barricade against state power.

“It is reasonable to believe that a more libertarian society would be less libertine and more culturally conservative — for the simple reason that as the state shrinks in importance and power, the long-suppressed institutions of civil society grow in importance and power,” Deist said.

“And in a more libertarian society, it’s harder to impose the costs of one’s lifestyle choices on others. If you rely on the family or church or charity to help you, they may well impose some conditions on that help.”

While these sentiments may seem benign in nature, they were immediately picked up upon by frenzied analysts at the Cato Institute as inherently racist–filled with dog-whistles that appeal to the alt-right bogeymen that they have imagined is lurking around every corner.

“If you keep saying things like “heil Trump” and “blood and soil” and putting slightly-modified Nazi flags in the backdrop of your [social media picture], you really, REALLY need to stop complaining about the way people react,” Cato analyst Adam Bates wrote on social media in an attempt to equate Deist and his supporters to racists. “Quit pretending you’re being misunderstood. You’re not that smart, and the rest of us aren’t that dumb.”

Fringe academic Steve Horwitz, also connected to Cato, first implied that Deist was a Nazi before launching a bizarre rant bemoaning Ron Paul’s success in growing the libertarian movement.

Comparing Deist’s words to that of Holocaust deniers or sympathizers, Horwitz said, “I await the new [Mises Institute] lecture on how entrepreneurship and personal responsibility help spread liberty, which will surely be titled ‘Work Will Set You Free.'” ‘Work Will Set You Free’ was the slogan posted by the Nazis at Auschwitz and other concentration camps.

Although Horwitz compares “blood and soil” libertarianism to Nazism, he has no problem standing for “blood and soil” when it comes to the state of Israel. Horwitz is an avid Zionist, and sees no hypocrisy in his reflexive defense of nationalism and ethnic pride when defending his beloved Jewish state.

Horwitz followed his Nazi hysteria with a condemnation of Ron Paul saying, “I have no love or admiration for Ron Paul. I think his contributions to building a sustainable libertarian movement are overrated and his role in attracting folks who found the alt right attractive has been damaging.”

This rift within the libertarian movement has been festering for decades, and shows no signs of slowing down. When it is all said and done, libertarians will need to decide whether they are going to choose leaders who want to form common bonds with ordinary people or leaders who want to collect paychecks in Washington D.C. and promote degeneracy. The choice should not be very difficult.


  1. Welcome to the Galt-Right. Everyone needs to read the speech. It has things I’ve been saying for a while, but he says them better.

  2. One clarification. Libertarianism is already split and cannot be reunited. There are the libertines who mostly are rich enough to afford the consequences of their debauchery who want to be politically correct, and the self-control wing that resents having to pay for bad decisions or have their lives micromanaged. The former will be converged by SJWs and worry more about racism and misogny and LGBTQ and the latter will get Woke and join the alt-Right and help reduce government even if not to the minimalist level

  3. OK, I read the speech. I’m puzzled by the inclusion of “blood and soil”. It’s almost a throw-away line; it doesn’t seem to enhance the speech at all. But why use it? Of all the phrases you could pick, why choose one that was made famous by the Nazis? If he was unaware of the association, then that’s fine – though it makes me wonder if he’s as educated as he thinks he is. But if he knew the origin of the term, it surely must’ve occurred to him that he was making a reference to the Nazis in his speech. I don’t know about you, but that’s not something I’d do lightly. I’d need a good reason for it. What was his?

      • Does it? It’s never done so for me. But assuming I’m atypical, there’s still the question, does it resonate in a good way? When people read it, do they think “hell yeah, I’ll fight for my country” or do they think “he’s making a Nazi reference”? Either one is powerful and resonant, but one of them is not so good.

        • The words aren’t meant to resonate with whiny libertarians, but rather the public as a whole. You just don’t get it.

          • Deist was giving a speech to at Mises University. Tucker wrote his article for FEE. The “public as a whole” will never hear either, unless some mainstream media outlet has a hit piece about “Libertarians promote Nazi ideas” or something like that.

            And what reaction do you expect the “public as a whole” to have to a Nazi-popularized term? I suspect that most people will not be impressed. The alt-right might like it though. And that’s why Bates was saying it’s a dog whistle.

            So what, exactly, do I not get?

          • No use talking to someone this politically autistic. Thank God that Deist is giving us useful libertarians a path to distance ourselves from the likes of you.

          • Shane, autism is a condition characterized by an inability to communicate.

            I’ve laid out my opinions and backed them up with supporting arguments. You’ve written two posts, with two sentences each, three of which are just insults. Now you’re stomping off, refusing to explain yourself.

            And you call *me* autistic. Oh, the irony!

    • He used the title because his speech was a response to an article that used the title. This is according to Tom Woods latest email newsletter. If i can find the article i will post it.

      • Yes, but we’re wondering now why the original speech by Deist used “blood and soil” (not in its title but in its conclusion). This whole article is in defense of Deist, but the question is, why did Deist use the term in his speech? Was he ignorant of its history, or was he making a dog whistle to the alt-right, or does he just have poor judgement in his choice of words?

          • Let’s straighten this out: Jeff Deist wrote “For a New Libertarian”. The last sentence of his article used the term “blood and soil” That’s the first appearance of the term in his paper and he wasn’t referring to anyone else’s work.

            Adam Bates then criticized the use of the term “blood and soil” on FB and Shane Trejo is responding to Adam Bates here, saying Bates is on a “racial witch hunt”.

            I understand why Trejo is using the term. I understand why Bates used the term. What I don’t understand is why Deist chose to INTRODUCE the term into a discussion of libertarianism. That’s really the crux of the matter, isn’t it? If Deist really was making a dog whistle to the alt-right, then Bates is right to criticize and Trejo is wrong to defend Deist. If Deist was not making a dog whistle, then why did he use a term that he should’ve known was associated with the Nazis?

          • He didn’t introduce the term. its was a response to an article that used that term in its title according to Woods.

          • OK, I stand corrected. Thank you. And I withdraw my questions about Deist’s reason for bringing up “blood and soil”.

            It appears that Tucker’s article was critical of “blood and soil”. It’s not clear whether Deist is endorsing “blood and soil”, but he hints that libertarians should at least take into account that some people feel that way. Trejo seems more favorable towards it, contrasting “form[ing] bonds with the common man” versus “promot[ing] degeneracy”.

          • I think Deist is using it to describe the idea that people have a natural affinity for where they grow up and the people they grow up with. He’s just pointing out that local community matters to some people and for some even the patriotic idea of the nation. The idea that this is some sort of Nazi dog whistle is absurd in my opinion. There is a difference between the patriotism of the average person on the street and the extreme nationalism of Nazism which seeks to merge the concept of the nation and the state as one and the same. Not to mention Deist is an anarchist that opposes every single thing about Nazism. These left libertarians trying to make him out to be a racist are despicable hysterics.

          • Even when I was confused about who first brought up “blood and soil” and why, I wasn’t suggesting it was a Nazi dog whistle. I was suggesting (and I’m not anymore) that it might be a Nazi *reference* acting as an alt-right dog whistle.

            There’s a controversy these days that some libertarians are trying to cozy up to the left. But there’s also a history of some libertarians trying to cozy up to the right. There’s no doubt that some on the right (and alt-right) sometimes cozy up to libertarians: they hear that libertarians are extremely anti-government and assume that they (the ones on the right) must be libertarians. Then they discover that libertarians are largely pro-choice, frequently atheist, and are otherwise “socially liberal” and they recoil in horror. And then they start accusing libertarians of cozying up to the left.

            And the fun begins.

          • sorry if i gave the impression that my comments were directed to you. I was referring to the Cato folks that viciously attacked Deist.

          • The “idea” to which you refer used to be considered collectivism by libertarians. That was before racialist ignoramuses became a significant part of the movement.

          • Once you stated your position is that everyone should be educated, obviously, on NAZI propaganda, you lost me. Why should anyone other than a historian interested in NAZI propaganda know anything about NAZI propaganda? What do you believe was so valuable about NAZI propaganda that learning every scrap of it should be the job of all educated or intelligent people? You, and those like you, that are so deeply fixated on the NAZI state, have a mental illness.

          • No, I did not state that everyone should be educated on Nazi propaganda. What I was saying was that writers should know the meaning of the phrases they use in their writing. And it would be really hard to learn the meaning of “blood and soil” without also encountering its history. Google it; you’ll see.

            Or were you being ironic, demonstrating what misunderstanding and overreaction are like? OK … haha … very good.

          • It is unimaginable that he doesn’t know the origin of the term. It’s sad that, with the great libertarians in the grave, the younger ones are not readers. As an intellectual movement libertarianism is dead.

        • Or maybe you didn’t get the joke. Maybe he’s not so Nazi obsessed. Maybe have ever has managed to avoid watching the five million WW2 movies made since Sound of Music.

          • It’s a puerile “joke.” We can hardly ignore that Rockwell is connected in some way to the explicitly racist Paul newsletters.

    • It was a dig against something that Jeff Tucker wrote for FEE recently.

      I personally never heard of it until the whiners started making a fuss about it.

  4. I would think that our blood is human blood, our soil the Solar System, and our religion is justice…

  5. Pillars of the alt-right:

    Pro-white. Race is real and all other races are tribal. If we don’t consciously seek to preserve our people, our genocide via forced demographic shifts and Marxist social engineering is a foregone conclusion.

    Counter-semitic. The “counter” means that we are not initiating, but responding to well-charted Jewish schemes. For the curious, this summary of those schemes is a good starting point:

    Pro-traditional values. We cannot survive, long-term, unless we reject postmodern nihilism and return to family- and community-promoting behaviors and standards. This means strict adherence traditional sex/gender roles and thorough rejection of promiscuity.

  6. Cato Institute has owners just like all of that ilk. They promote what their sugar daddies tell them to. Conservatives and libertarians are basically 60s lite they believe what the SJWs of a former age shoved down peoples throats then. Libertarians are the communists of the “right” – there would a utopia if people just wised up and listened to us. Well you’ve got plenty of weed now and I’m sure in the near future you’ll be able to shoot yourselves up with whatever you want legally. Blood and Soil – to the founders that’s what the US was supposed to be.

  7. The stupidity of using “blood and soil” language aside, re: your two paragraphs “It is reasonable to believe that a more libertarian society would be less libertine and more culturally conservative …. If you rely on the family or church or charity to help you, they may well impose some conditions on that help.”

    I disagree with the logic. First, all sorts of NON-religious associations and businesses can be created to fulfill legitimate needs which the state has co-opted over time. A state which the Mises Institute and surely Diest think we have a perfect right to secede from on our own private property.

    Second, Christian conservative religion has been forced on people by the state for 2000 years. (Judaic for longer; Muslim not so long.) And in US more than, say, Europe. They didn’t need a state to make them libertines, they just need to keep state religion out of their lives. Legalize psycho-active drugs and free our minds and new religions doubtless will flourish. I mean who the FREAK cares what a bunch of old males said 4000 or 2000 or 1600 years ago? THAT is what is supposed to guide us today? Give me a break!

    Sure, a certain, ever declining, portion of people will always decide to have families and children. (And a certain number of women will have kids without bothering to keep a man around and support them, perhaps in communes with other women. Communes that currently are ILLEGAL under most zoning regulations.)

    And those people will have conservative communities where they protect those kids from perverse outside influences. But in a society based on private property, not state territories and laws, those communities still will have all sorts of radical alternatives within easy access of the 12 year old’s toy drone. So get over your delusion that people are naturally Christian and conservative.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Latest from News

Go to Top

Thanks for visiting our site! Stay in touch with us by subscribing to our newsletter. You will receive all of our latest updates, articles, endorsements, interviews, and videos direct to your inbox.