What Jeff Deist did, was give perhaps the most important speech in the last decade from someone who wants to depict libertarianism as a mere subcategory of conservatism.
This is what Deist said: (bold emphasis added)
In other words, blood and soil and God and nation still matter to people. Libertarians ignore this at the risk of irrelevance.
That is not a lecture or promoting libertarianism as conservatism – it is a warning, similar to what Vox Day was getting at in his response to my analysis of his 16 Points of the Alt. Right.
It is quite simple, really. You can be a libertarian and love gay sex and ‘muh weed and hate the nuclear family all you want and think a stateless society would be full of free love parties and somehow borders wouldn’t exist.
You don’t have to like the idea of blood and soil. You don’t have to believe in God. You don’t have to like the concept of nations.
But if you want to be relevant to the political discussion going on worldwide at the moment, then you have to acknowledge that these things matter to people and be able to explain how libertarianism fits within the context of their concerns and priorities, not yours.
The fact that these values matter not to you is both true and beside the point. No one is required to care about what you believe.
This is a classic example of the market in practice. People want a certain product. Will libertarians provide what is demanded, or will they continue to fruitlessly push a product that only they themselves want, consumer demand be damned?
The latter is precisely what left libertarians have been doing, and exactly what Deist critiqued in his speech: They want people to conform to their “thick” worldview on all social, cultural, religious and moral matters, and only then can they truly embrace libertarianism.
We all know how well that has worked out.
I would add that if anyone has been lecturing anybody in the libertarian movement, it’s been the leftist infiltrators and frauds who denounced good, decent men such as Ron Paul with their pathetic open letters, declarations that white men are a “rightfully dying demographic” that needed to be pushed aside in the movement, and smearing the reputations of men such as Deist by explicitly accusing his speech as a call to systematically murder millions of people.
There has been no equivalent conduct by any member of the Mises Institute. The contrast in behavior could not be more clear.
As I said recently, Deist’s speech may well be remembered as a turning point in which libertarianism was rescued from decades of irrelevance.
Time will only tell if libertarians, regardless of their own personal feelings on these issues, will heed his warning.