The white-hooded intellectuals over at Alternative Right are fascinated and conflicted by the success of Tea Party candidate Rand Paul. On the one hand, they are see Rand Paul as "one of us" and are thrilled by his public criticism of the Civil Rights Act. On the other, they are disappointed that Paul lacks the courage of his convictions and has back-tracked on some of his statements.
One of Alternative Right's editors, Patrick J. Ford, has both praise and criticism for Rand Paul. Ford agrees whole-heartedly with Paul's criticism of the Civil Right ACT (CRA), but is disgusted by his praise of Martin Luther King, who Paul tries to portray as an anti-government Tea Bagger:
But the reality is that Rand , despite his positives as a candidate, is riven with many of the modern multi-culti pathologies that infect political discourse. Absent from his views on the CRA is any bit of understanding about the major cultural upheaval that resulted from the Act, and absent from his views on MLK is an understanding of the racial redistribution of wealth King advocated. Instead Paul tries to paint him as some anti-government crusader. In the end, I have no doubt that Rand is telling the truth about his views on the CRA; that it merely clashes with his ideological views on private ownership.
The idea that the Civil Rights Act is some kind of enormous scam that allows the black race to extort money from "whitey" is widespread among the "thinkers" on Alternative Right. One of the guiding lights here is Professor Paul Gottfried of Elizabethtown College (gottfrpe@etown.edu) who repeatedly denounces MLK and the entire Civil Rights movement in his articles:
It is John Lewis and the other congressional Democrats... who have the true understanding of the civil rights movement. It continues to go on, whenever money is being transferred from one race to another and whenever the therapeutic state and its educators make whites feel guilty about the supposed burden of their history. Orwell maintained that there are some things that are so stupid that only intellectuals can believe them.
Finally, the Ueber-Racist Richard Spencer weighs in on Rand Paul, and criticizes the muddled thinking of the candidate for believing that the free-market provides a solution for racial inequality in America:
A free-market libertarian like Rand should have a response to all this ready at hand. If American institutions are "racist" in hiring (whether it be overt or unconscious), then there should be a great untapped pool of brilliant and unemployed black scientists, hedge-fund managers, and computer programmers -- all of whom could be hired by a savvy entrepreneur at a discount rate and used to staff a profitable business. Put simply, the free-market should correct for "racism." The fact that it doesn't -- and that the federal government has to constantly force institutions to hire blacks by threatening civil-rights lawsuit -- is yet more evidence of an intractable difference in intelligence between whites and blacks.
This is another reason why libertarians need HBD.
HBD stands for "Human Bio-Diversity", which is the junk science that serves as the foundation for this group's racist ideology.
Paul comes very close to this group's concept of an ideal candidate, but he is not quite Pat Buchanan.