What % of the so-called alt-right were just plain ol' libertarians before?

[jim bell]

 From: Razer <rayzer at riseup.net>
   
 >Robert Taylor, 29, described the conference as a “victory party.” Mr. Taylor was a committed libertarian, he said, working for Ron Paul’s >presidential campaigns and even moving to New Hampshire for a project organized by the like-minded. If Hillary Clinton had won the >election, he said, he would have advocated secession. >“I thought I had all the right answers and had read all the right books,” he said. “I heard about the alt-right movement, and it just lit a fire in >me.” >Mr. Taylor said that with Mr. Trump, “we have breathing room; we have a little time.”> 
 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/us/politics/white-nationalists-celebrate-an-awakening-after-donald-trumps-victory.html?_r=0

Highly, highly misleading.  In a nation of 310 million people, it will be always possible to find somebody to focus on, a person who has just the right combination of negatives, as well as things you want to misleadingly attack.  That's precisely what's done, here.  Cherry-picking.  
You (the person writing the NYT article) want to attack libertarians, right?  Okay, there are millions of them, and perhaps a million more claiming that but who don't actually understand libertarianism.  A few will have negative characteristics you will be able to exploit, just as we see above.  Focus on just those specific people, and you think you've made a valid point.  But you haven't.What superficial logic this seems to have should remind us that anti-Obama people didn't spend most of the last 8 years looking at what would probably have been hundreds of extremist groups that just happen to support him, rather than the various alternatives available.
A good contrary example, which in the end actually proves my point, is Rev. Jeremiah Wright ("God Damn America!").  Obama had spent 20 years going to this guy's Sunday sermons, presumably to boost Obama's Christian credentials.  But by early 2008, Obama had a problem:  He needed to help shed the extremist image Wright had.  Obama couldn't just "discover" Wright's extremism:  I think it was necessary to coordinary (collude; conspire) to shed this.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright_controversy    Perhaps cooperatively, Wright put out a conveniently extremist statement, which Obama took and ran with it.  Even then, it took months for Obama to finally  "resign[] his membership in [Wright's] church".   
At least that incident has an actual connection to Obama:  His voluntary 20 year membership (and presumably, attendance) in Wright's church.  It's not improper to point to this connection.  But if there is no connection, such focussing on these people confuses and distorts the fact.
To merely identify some person, like this 'Robert Taylor', as having previously called himself "libertarian", is misleading.   The above article says "Mr. Taylor was a committed libertarian, he said..."The key words are "he said".  Notice that the article doesn't even bother to address the question, how accurate was his assertion?  No doubt that there are people with far less questionable positions who CALL themselves "libertarian", yet misunderstand what libertarian philosophy.  Is there any indication that Robert Taylor was a mainstream Libertarian, rather than just calling himself that?I did a Google search for '"Robert Taylor" libertarian', but even that was futile:  The name 'Robert Taylor' is so ubiquitous as to make it clear who this specific 'Robert Taylor' really is.
            Jim Bell
 
  

   
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 7289 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20161120/abcccb5e/attachment.txt>