This is the eighth installment in this series.
Lately, I have spoken to a number of budding racialists about their background, and I was surprised to discover the sheer number of them who came out of the libertarian movement. Personally, I have never been a libertarian and have been suspicious about the extremes of liberty since my college days. My own intellectual background is in communitarianism. It is the source of my deep skepticism about liberal political theory. For a number of years, I used the term “racial communitarian” to describe my views. This remains the essence of my philosophical outlook and often shines through in my posts about White Nationalism.
These conversations have convinced me of the necessity of going after libertarianism. The libertarians are diverting a lot of bright, young people into their movement with their false radicalism and populist, outsider style rhetoric. When you look at the American ideological scene, libertarianism has succeeded in positioning itself as the major challenger to the reigning progressive/conservative mainstream. In my previous post, I pointed to the success of the libertarians in rallying huge numbers of paleoconservatives and White Nationalists behind the Ron Paul movement.
So far, the most popular post I have done on this blog is Stuff Libertarians Hate about the decimation of North America’s indigenous wildlife at the hands of market hunters and private property owners. I have received more positive feedback about those two posts than anything else I have written. It resonated with a lot of my readers because of their background in libertarianism. The myth that a free market is better than state control at virtually every conceivable task has to be shattered.
Looking ahead, I am preparing for an extended, critical engagement with libertarianism over the course of the next year. In 2007, I had a long exchange with Lila Rajiva of Counterpunch about these issues in the first incarnation of Occidental Dissent. I’m planning to write a review of Tyler Cowen’s In Praise of Commercial Culture as part of this series. Further down the road, I will pen an essay on Libertarianism and Racial Nationalism for the TOQ Online essay contest.
In theory, a handful of libertarians could prove useful to us. In my next post, I will have a few comments on using cryptos and moles to undermine rival political movements from within.
Yes. Practical methods to undermine. This is what we need to be focusing on….hands-on activism….
We’re situational libertarians, not ideological libertarians. For the foreseeable future, our primary task will be disempowering the regime. We do it because it’s a hostile alien regime. They do it because they don’t like regimes. We’ve got no business trying to “undermine” libertarianism until some glorious future date after which the regime has been toppled. Up until then, we’re allies, not rivals, and should abstain from unnecessary hostility.
Attempting to orchestrate some kind of attempt to crypto or mole them will result in a paranoid purge of racialists. What else could it result in? We’ve gotta stop thinking it’s a good idea to attack and alienate the movements with which we have the most in common.
What is the point of undermining a political movement that has no prospects?
As long as the alien oligarchy is in place, the election-financed government will, in general, do as it’s told – or face death (of one sort or another) or obviation.
Convert the military, and you will have a formation with prospects, however dim.
The libertarians are the only party on the ballot that would allow the creation of white-only gated communities. Budding white nationalists look at the options on the ballot and choose the lesser of three evils.
Besides, living under jewish government is enough to put a lot of people off the idea of government. That a strong government could exist that looks out for the interests of white workers is unimaginable under the present circumstances. It doesn’t help that the best recent example of such a government is the most demonized, the National Socialists.
Libertarians already hate us for being “racists” so its not exactly like there isn’t already a problem between us.
I want nothing to do with libertarians other then recruiting the young disenfranchised white men within their ranks. Our ideas are the future. Libertarianism is dead on arrival.
Hunter is correct to focus like a sniper scope on the “Ron Paul revolution” for recruits.
The libertarians and paleoconservatives have a much broader following than we do. Anyway, I will get to that in my next post.
As OldRight points out, we have some points of mutual agreement with the libertarians. In particular, some of the libertarians want to get rid of the anti-discrimination laws in the name of ‘liberty’ and hatred of the state. At least in this case, they are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Race & Groups: The Libertarian Blind Spot
By John “Birdman” Bryant (Libertarian, RIP)
“John Donne could never have been a libertarian because he believed that “No man is an island”, while libertarians seem to prefer a sort of reverse philosophy which holds that every man is an island. In particular, libertarians are so busy celebrating “the individual” that they give little or no attention to a phenomenon which is at least as important as individuals on the political landscape, namely, groups. It is true, of course, that groups can be regarded as collections of individuals, but it would be foolish to try to discuss politics purely on the basis of the behavior of individuals and without reference to groups, just as it would be foolish to try to describe the operation of a computer purely on the basis of the behavior of individual molecules and without reference to such important molecular groups as chips, wires, cards and hard disks.”
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Lbtn/Lbtn-LibertBlindSpot.html
Millirone:
Auster has done a particularly good job at taking on libertarians and objectivists, pointing to their duplicity and logical conclusions that follow from the premises they cherish.
I personally enjoyed the spat when he discussed the ramifications (theoretically) of womyn having the franchise, and the chief clam at Reason Online started sputtering with all of the ad hominem, infantile rage that we know as the sine qua non of liberalism.
More recently, he maneuvered the objectivists towards meltdown and hyperbole with daring to contradict the matriarch half-breed (or miscegenator) at one of their boards. “RACIST” “BIGOT” etc. I personally appreciate watching deft maneuvering to reveal the leopard’s spots. I tossed old Larry $20 for that… I will pay for the truth.
This brings me to another issue: HW – to Auster’s credit, with the volume he receives, he remains a paypal enterprise without advertising. At the least, I’d suggest you also set up a paypal account to receive donations. The now famous libertarian series (if they had been in charge) of pictures/posts would’ve easily won some scratch to the tip jar from me.
Mike
Did anyone else notice that Auster is now at Takimag?
As I’ve previously mentioned on Occidental Dissent, I come from a libertarian background myself. I was very active in libertarianism during my college days. Very active.
Now, looking back on it all, I realize that I was in essence diverted from the real issues confronting our people into the false radicalism of libertarianism. Libertarianism is nothing more than a harmless safety valve, of no real threat to the system at all. These people (myself included, at one time) really thought that we were “against the system.” But, in truth, we didn’t challenge any of the most fundamental premises upon which the system is based, upon which the system draws its strength and power. In a sense, the libertarian movement is just a false flag operation.
Libertarianism has no beef with most of the fundamental forces that are destroying us. Miscegenation? That’s just great. Anti-miscegenation laws? Biggest horror since the Holocaust. MTV? Private, so fine and dandy. An anti-white media and academia, where the bastards work as a TEAM? Crickets chirping. Jewish perfidy? You’re a Nazithatwantstokillsixmillionjews! Massive Third World immigration? That’s great! Preservation of whites as a people? Kook! Protection of the white working class? No way, Jose.
Replacing entire peoples is perfectly justified if, at a particular moment in time, it makes economic sense to import mud serfs. The libertarian would have no problem wiping out a thousand year old culture if it meant greater profits for a few months. I am not engaging in hyperbole here.
I’ve known lots of these people, and that’s how they think. I also had a brief, but interesting, conversation with Ron Paul years ago. I’ll relate it at some point, and it will further demonstrate that these people simply can’t be trusted on immigration issues or racial preservation. And keep in mind, Paul is on the “right” of the libertarian spectrum. Can’t even depend on that segment, the segment of libertarianism far more favorable to us than most.
These people are utterly useless, and many of their positions are borderline insane. Of course, some of them would quibble with the above, perhaps pointing out “Well, at least you’d have freedom of association!”
To which I say, no you won’t! Can anyone seriously believe that a Third World Amerikwa is going to have freedom of association? And that’s one of the many contradictions of libertarianism: with no sense of the irony involved, they can’t even promote policies that would make libertarianism more likely. They are perfectly content to allow hordes of Third Worlders to come in, knowing full well that the muds are not libertarians, and are in fact far less libertarian than the white people they are replacing/displacing!
For example, Southern California used to be a hotbed of libertarianism. No more! The white libertarians who used to live there have been largely displaced by non-whites. And these non-whites are overwhelmingly in favor of fully funded taxpayer programs.
In other words, libertarianism isn’t even a sound enough organizing principle to preserve itself. If a purist libertarian state ever came into being (highly unlikely) it wouldn’t last a fortnight. The morons would allow unlimited immigration of non-white, non-libertarian immigrants. In their wacked out view, they would have no right to stop them. Besides, the non-whites would be great for the economy and there would be all sorts of “cultural enrichment” (libertarians don’t seem to consider their white daughters being raped to be a particularly pressing problem. Never once heard a libertarian address that point. Nope, diversity is our strength!
“But at least there wouldn’t be government welfare!” the libertarian proudly retorts. Yeah, Sparky, that’s great. We can then go to 95 percent non-white in three months instead of two. Great accomplishment, that. You guys are real fighters for liberty!
The brain dead libertarian founders would soon be submerged in a brown sea, and the new denizens would quickly reinstitute massive government programs.
Again, some libertarians would quibble with what I’ve written, but what I’ve described above is in fact the heart and soul of libertarianism.
And, EVEN IF freedom of association were reinstituted in a Third World Amerikwa (not gonna happen), it would still suck. Great, I get to have “freedom of association” as a tiny, marginalized minority in Brazil North. I won’t have a nation or a culture, my people will have no future, but I’ll be able to go to a whites only Ruritan Club once in awhile, where a few of the vanishingly small number of remaining whites occasionally hang out. That is, before they die out entirely.
That’s worth figthing for? You gotta be kidding me.
Trainspotter,
Send me an email at prozium1984@yahoo.com. You have a lot more experience with libertarianism than I do and are clearly capable of writing insightful posts about it from an insider’s perspective.
I’m currently reading Brian Doherty’s Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern Libertarian Movement. In particular, I liked this excerpt:
Privatize nuclear weapons! This is the sort of gut busting, hilarious extreme these people go to in thinking in purely abstract terms.
All of the “racist” concerns generally do not affect the ideological Libertarian – of which I was one, long ago.
I left it behind when its own logic dissolved it and its own history denounced it. Laissez-faire, logically and historically, leads to class war, in which no one’s rightly-understood-interest is seen to.
Of course, one or two intellectual dodges have been cobbled up to prop it up (monopoly solely as government charter; history of big firms disappearing with time) – but these are lame rationales for public endurance of the “long-run” in institutional misbehavior, even granted that argument.
Privatize nuclear weapons! This is the sort of gut busting, hilarious extreme these people go to in thinking in purely abstract terms.
(Hunter)
Thus, like I said, the ideologized Libertarian does not care about anything so relatively trivial and remote as “racial” concerns. He is only vulnerable on the ground of his own (il)logic – the (non)attendance of his prescriptions to the rightly-understood-interests of the participants in a Libertarian regime.
Yes, I have read Austers writing on Libertarianism. Yes they are good. He understands the inherent liberalism and non discrimination ideology which is at the heart of libertarianism. It is destructive to build a civilization on those concepts.
Libertarianism is politics for children. Older men past 40 who are still libertarians are for the most part usually degenerates or extemely wealthy. It is amazing to me that a learned man like Ron Paul still believes in these childish concepts.
Libertarianism attracts many young men who are disenfranchised with the current system and they are absolutely recruitment material for White nationalism. It is absolutely a tragedy that young men have nothing to turn to but libertarians for a viable movement.
Also I am up for donating to this blog. It is going to take money to realize some of these goals.
The Libertarian Case for Free Trade And Restricted Immigration
By Hans-Herman Hoppe
May 2001
“It is frequently maintained that “free trade” belongs to “free immigration” as “protectionism” does to “restricted immigration.” That is, the claim is made that while it is not impossible that someone might combine protectionism with free immigration, or free trade with restricted immigration, these positions are intellectually inconsistent, and thus erroneous. Hence, insofar as people seek to avoid errors, they should be the exception rather than the rule. The facts, to the extent that they have a bearing on the issue, appear to be consistent with this claim. As the 1996 Republican presidential primaries indicated, for instance, most professed free traders are advocates of relatively (even if not totally) free and non-discriminatory immigration policies, while most protectionists are proponents of highly restrictive and selective immigration policies.
Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, I will argue that this thesis and its implicit claim are fundamentally mistaken. In particular, I will demonstrate that free trade and restricted immigration are not only perfectly consistent, but even mutually reinforcing policies. That is, it is not the advocates of free trade and restricted immigration who are wrong, but rather the proponents of free trade and free immigration. In thus taking the “intellectual guilt” out of the free-trade-and-restricted-immigration position and putting it where it actually belongs, I hope to promote a change in the present state of public opinion and facilitate substantial political realignment.”
http://www.cis.org/Libertarian-FreeTrade-RestrictedImmigration
Did anyone else notice that Auster is now at Takimag?
Wow – I checked it out and it is true! I though Taki was now a super-anti-semite, declared only within the last 3 months at VFR. Strange bedfellows indeed.
Mike
Michael,
That’s exactly what I thought. If I remember my history correctly, he demanded that Takimag remove the links to View From The Right over some incident that had to do with “anti-Semitism.”
I’m a Libertarian but my definition of “liberty” isn’t the same as the bulk of people that consider themselves “libertarian”.
We need to control and define the discourse on liberty and not cede the high ground to degenerate libertines.
What makes the argument more persuasive is that you don’t approach it merely from a racial perspective, but you show how destructive it is in other ways. While race is a central issue, it is not the only issue. We need a more holistic approach to appeal to a wider audience.
Libertarianism is destructive to the very “liberty” it is supposed to preserve. A morally rotten populace isn’t going to be civic minded enough to care about “liberty.” That’s why the expansion of the state has coincided with the growth of permissiveness in our culture.
Just for the record:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012202.html
Taki,
I’m not a regular reader of Taki’s Magazine, and of course you can do with your website what you like. But I would ask you as a favor to remove my blog, View from the Right, from your list of favorite blogs. I do not want to be associated in any way with a website that compares the Israelis with Nazi Germany.
AND
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012246.html
LA replies:
Madoff is probably the biggest thief, and the biggest defrauder, in history. And he is conspicuously Jewish. To call Israel the Bernie Madoff of countries, thus portraying the Jewish State as a nation of criminal sneaks through its supposed similarity to the Jewish Madoff, goes beyond Israel hatred and becomes Jew-hatred. Taki is an anti-Semite, a person who deliberately invokes hatred of Jews as Jews. His statement about Israel quoted above is as bad as any I’ve seen. The man is garbage. His contributors and readers are welcome to him.
And the rest of his article is the standard Arab history of Israel, the message of which is: Israel is illegitimate, it was founded by crime, it shouldn’t exist, and the Arabs are justified in waging war against it until they destroy it.
UPDATE
LA writes:
In a later entry, I have further commented on the meaning of Taki’s statement:
This Bernie Madoff of countries, this perfidious and lying Jew of a country, this country whose entire history from its founding has been one vast act of fraud and theft making it deserving of Arab attacks and denying it the right of self defense, this country led by “butchers”–such is Taki’s picture of Israel and the Jews. With those remarks, Taki’s anti-Israelism crossed the line into anti-Semitism, and of a particularly gross and disgusting kind.
—-
To me, this is unprincipled, and a greater exception than a jewish convert to Christianity, always siding with jews. It’s disappointing.
Mike
*laughs heartily*
The anti-Semitic retrograde Taki, of course, cannot be compared to a fine upstanding gentleman of impeccable morals like Roman Polanksi.
Anti-semitism is acceptable when manifested in the vein of Chomsky or Amy Goodman, but, straying into counter-semitism a la James TrafficantJ is bound to get one into hot water.
“For example, Southern California used to be a hotbed of libertarianism. No more! The white libertarians who used to live there have been largely displaced by non-whites. And these non-whites are overwhelmingly in favor of fully funded taxpayer programs.”
True. Incidentally I recently met two young twentysomething skinheads here, via SF, and both of them told me they originally started out as libertarian.
The future is going to be Authoritarian. Big Government–the Strong State–is here to stay. There’s no going back. There’s nowhere to hide. WNs can either make their peace with the State and try to seize the controls–or be crushed. That is the choice. Either get with the program, or get out of the way.
My background is Traditional Catholicism and European New Right, so the idea of authoritarian government is not repellent to me. I just want to ensure it’s pro-White authoritarianism.
The Jewish state of Israel is indeed an international center of organized international criminality, which was predicted long ago by ‘some guy,’ who wrote:
“… For while the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks…” – http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/kampf.html
Ron Paul – a Freemason?? Authoritarian government works for sheople who behave , but what of the youth who sometimes mis-behave? Have you heard of the Noahide Law signed on 4-12-93.
To The Admiral: Did you know Admiral J. Borda?
‘That guy’, WP, had a lot of very good National Socialist ideas, but, can you imagine, horror of horrors, he has now been branded as a “racist”, and gasp, even demonized for ever more as a so-called “Nazi” !! It’s enough to make “respectable” patriots squirm, it is, it is. So much for telling the truth.
“The future is going to be Authoritarian. Big Government–the Strong State–is here to stay. There’s no going back. There’s nowhere to hide. WNs can either make their peace with the State and try to seize the controls–or be crushed.”
It will crush you regardless of what you do. The only difference being that you are a fool who thinks he can push the steamroller aside with his hands. I am comforted by the knowledge that those who believe such things tend to receive their just rewards by the time they die.
Auster, in discussing libertarianism, misses the forest for the trees. The specific excesses of the philosophy he points out are indeed wrong, but they are not integral to the principles on which it is based and which have proven beneficial and correct – they are a result of applying just the libertarian principles, without regard to certain other facts such as genetics, and even so anyone who makes claims like “libertarians all support open borders” is simply lying, there’s actually a very deep divide on the subject. Vin Suprinowicz and Billy Beck are two examples (there are more than a few others) who come out against unrestricted immigration as a result of exact application of their libertarian principles. I never tried explaining this sort of thing to Auster because it’s no good telling him things once he’s made up his mind. I am getting the impression there’s a similar sort of blind spot at work here – as in the “things libertarians hate” articles, the assertion is simply made that libertarianism doesn’t work in the case under discussion, rather than inquiring how COULD it work, and has it been tried, and when it failed what is the opposing side’s explanation and what potential validity does that explanation have. In other words, a scientist’s sort of honesty in evaluating truth independent of personal preference, as opposed to tactically advancing one’s position through argument gambits. I don’t see any real inclination towards that sort of honesty here. There’s not really much to be gained in talking with or listening to people who are already sure they know everything they need.
And I should add that talk of “undermining” the one other movement that presents any sort of challenge to the status quo is just violently stupid, and is by itself enough to alienate any support I might give. Co-opt if you must, but undermining … “you’ll bloody well do it without me”.
Sorry for the multiple posts, but – claiming libertarianism was responble for killing the passenger pigeon is like claiming capitalism is to blame for the current economic meltdown. It doesn’t matter how much you want to believe it, it doesn’t matter if you DO believe it, there are facts bearing on the question that you are choosing to ignore and that will bite you in the ass if you act on that conclusion.
Which is why I will drop the matter now. Reality is a much better teacher than I am. You can’t lie to it, ever.
“The only difference being that you are a fool who thinks he can push the steamroller aside with his hands.”
Wrong. I’ll be the guy driving the steamroller.
Rollory,
Libertarianism isn’t a threat to the status quo. The libertarians only want a purer, more extreme version of liberalism than the one we have now.
There’s not really much to be gained in talking with or listening to people who are already sure they know everything they need.
That sounds just like a pretty accurate description of everybody in the entire world.
Do libertarians dialog and debate with the people from the American Protectionist Society? Personally, I find some of the arguments of the school of neo-mercantilism very compelling and I disagree with some libertarian fundamentals.
Speaking for myself, I can honestly say I have no problem listening to any arguments anybody will put forth assuming that they hold one lofty principle inviolate in common with myself – they must be vehemently opposed to race replacement.
In my opinion, the principle of “non-aggression” needs to be immediately jettisoned for us to adapt (what remains of) libertarianism to our purposes. Prostitution, pornography, hard drugs and some other things need to be outlawed and fiat currency should be implemented as the rule while the gold standard is left to wither and die.
It’s frightening (and saddening) how willing (even eager) some of you are to throw away liberty, all in the name of The Race and sacrificing for the queen bee. No state with such men at the helm can hope to ever know peace. But that’s a concern for another day. For now, it doesn’t seem to enter your minds that there’s still the task of attracting a critical mass to racialism, and that the richest targets are almost certain to retain a fondness for the American tradition of liberty (“land of the free”). From the perspective of your opponents your tendency to shoot yourselves in the foot by encumbering your politics with what most people find most abhorrent is almost too good to be true.
That said, libertarianism, of whatever stripe (big L, little L), is hardly free from defects. The last straw for me was reading Rand’s “The Virtue of Selfishness” — by then I’d had enough of contorting my life to fit the demands of an ideology. My preference now is to begin with the end in mind (eg race) and work backwards to a philosophy that delivers it.
Which political leader has most of the qualities necessary in a WN?
Which political leader has most of the qualities necessary in a WN?
I’m doubtful that human potential allows for such a combination, at this point.
To have the ideologically-unfettered intellect that an ultlmately successful leader needs, as well as the dedication to a cause that requires a strong degree of ideological reinforcement, seems too much to ask of one person.
Also, as we know, extremely high intelligence rarely appears, and even more rarely appears in a warrior. So the prospects for the appearance of a deliverer on the scene are exceedingly slim – on two fundamental counts.
The problem with libertarians is they see humans as primarily economic creatures and materialists at heart. To them commerce and the free flow of goods, services (at rock bottom prices, of course) and even people across borders is what unites us all, not race, ethnicity or nationality. Market forces aren’t the answer to every social and political problem. This ideology of laissez faire and hyper individualism will never deliver us from the forces committed to destroying Western man.
Some observers have also noted the strong Jewish presence in the libertarian movement. Its godfathers Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises are Jewish. Many of the writers at LewRockwell.com are Jewish. Further, they’ve published articles by non-white libertarians advocating on behalf of illegal aliens and inner city blacks but I’ve yet to see a white libertarian with pro-white racial sentiment accorded the same courtesy.
While libertarianism may have some merits the way out for us isn’t through them. One could argue that’s it’s just another clever method to denature and divide whites.
Regular people rally around personalities. For example, people concerned with protecting borders like Tom Tancredo and libertarians like Ron Paul.
The problem with libertarians is they see humans as primarily economic creatures and materialists at heart. To them commerce and the free flow of goods, services (at rock bottom prices, of course) and even people across borders is what unites us all, not race, ethnicity or nationality. (Mr. Dithers)
Exactly.
Thus the Libertarian will aver that the answer to all ethnic difficulties is conversion to Libertarianism.
So the racialist must be prepared to deal with the ideological Libertarian on his own terms – the only place where he is vulnerable.
That is: the logic of laissez-faire carried to its own logical and historical conclusions – which is how I escaped its clutches.
“Liberty” isn’t the right to sell pornography or to own nuclear weapons. In a White ethnostate, we would have plenty of “liberty” to go around, but it would be balanced by other concerns.
The way I understand it, historically, the term “liberty” essentially corresponded more with what today might be called “responsibility” by the bulk of mankind.
It was the ‘liberty’ to take ‘responsibility’ for your actions, dispose of one’s property, manage one’s household and stay abreast and informed of politics and current events.
It was not liberty to consume wantonly or gratify immediately whatever strange and overwhelmingly desires that pressed upon the appetite.
Danielj: “We need to control and define the discourse on liberty and not cede the high ground to degenerate libertines.”
Definitely. For example, the Founders certainly believed in liberty. It was a high priority for them, but it was not the ONLY priority. There were racial, cultural, and economic considerations that they also took into account. Modern libertarians may claim to be heirs to the Founders, but this is simply untrue. The Founders did not believe in “liberty” to the exclusion of all other concerns. The Founders (whatever their flaws) were mature enough to realize that liberty requires a certain context in which to thrive – racial, moral, etc.
The modern libertarian, on the other hand, ignores all issues of context and externalities. He, like a child, simply demands his “liberty,” absolutely oblivious to the reality that the policies he advocates undermine the racial and moral foundation of the society – thus making liberty LESS likely, not more. As you point out, we should not allow childish libertarians with ideological blinders on to hijack the concept of liberty. At the end of the day, aracial modern libertarians are ENEMIES of liberty, not friends of it.
Hunter: “Libertarianism is destructive to the very “liberty” it is supposed to preserve. A morally rotten populace isn’t going to be civic minded enough to care about “liberty.” That’s why the expansion of the state has coincided with the growth of permissiveness in our culture.”
Spot on. Modern libertarians undermine the very societal context in which individual liberty can thrive. (not to mention they have a superficial understanding of liberty itself, but that will have to wait for another post. I know you have addressed some of these issues before.)
Silver: “It’s frightening (and saddening) how willing (even eager) some of you are to throw away liberty, all in the name of The Race and sacrificing for the queen bee. No state with such men at the helm can hope to ever know peace.”
I’m not looking to “throw away liberty.” Quite the reverse, in fact. A white ethnostate on a solid moral foundation will be far more amenable to liberty than what we have now, not to mention where we are headed. The modern libertarian is willing to throw away his race, his culture, his nation – pretty much everything – in the name of some abstract, universalist “liberty.” The irony is that, precisely because of the things that he is willing to throw away, he won’t get liberty either.
As to divisions within libertarianism (such as Hoppe on immigration), of course they exist. Some people drink the Kool-Aid more than others. It is the Kool-Aid that I oppose, not liberty per se. The heart and soul of libertarianism is, as the name suggests, putting liberty (immaturely defined) above all other considerations. To the extent that your political worldview encompasses priorities other than liberty, you are not a libertarian. You haven’t gulped the Kool-Aid, at least not to the bottom of the glass.
In other words, of the people in the broader libertarian movement, there are certainly those who are not purists and instead wish to preserve their peoples and culture. They want liberty, but not to the exclusion of all other considerations. These people should be White Nationalists instead of being distracted by a puerile philosophy that will accomplish nothing except to distract good people from the real issues that face our people. It should be obvious that a movement that has little to say about MTV style cultural destruction, massive non-white immigration, miscegenation, leftist cultural domination (so long as it’s private), etc., is not going to solve the problems that we face. It is no threat to the system, merely a diverter and distractor from real opposition.
That’s why White Nationalism is demonized by the Left in a way that libertarianism is not. They can see the real threat. Can we?
To Trainspotter, to mimic the mulatto in the black house, Yes We Can! And, don’t accept any substitutes, either!
The modern libertarian is willing to throw away his race, his culture, his nation – pretty much everything – in the name of some abstract, universalist “liberty.”
Another point: liberty cannot exist in a vacuum.
Free market ideologues run a highly effective practice because they’re clearly on the winning side of the debate between classical liberalism and Marxist socialism. The reason for this is the shared economic framework between Marxism and liberalism. Accordingly, framing the new debate in terms of the market as Marx once did with the LTV (opposing “free trade” and endorsing “protectionism” in our case) will be futile. As the Hoppe article demonstrates (and Hoppe is a very interesting author), the a priori arguments go to the free market ideologues by definition, and any empirico-historical arguments will be dismissed as post hoc fallacies. There are seeds of an alternative, re-framed traditionalist debate in the works of Alasdair MacIntyre, Carl Schmitt, and other economic Weberians, but these need to be developed.
“We establish for the moment a new world order. 11 September 2001 everything changed.”
Amitai Etzioni [the founder of American Communitarianism] on July 26, 2003 in an interview with Afgan Mania in Germany.
Dr. Amitai Etzioni is quoted in the article, “Needed: Catchword For Bush Ideology; ‘Communitarianism’ Finds Favor”:
Officials said they see the program as an ambitious successor to the “thousand points of light,” the private efforts to solve public problems that Bush’s father saluted in his 1988 acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. In office, Bush’s father conferred a Daily Point of Light Award. Strategists in the new Bush administration recommend that “rather than officially designating Communities of Character, use heroes to tell the story.”
Bush aides are researching such options as encouraging public service announcements that salute the community work of movie stars and opinion leaders, and working with news organizations to develop “profiles in character” about worthy citizens.
The project is built on the communitarian philosophy, which aims to bolster the foundations of civil society — including families, schools and neighborhoods — and foster a commitment to the welfare of the community.
Amitai Etzioni (jew), a George Washington University sociologist who founded the communitarian movement in 1990 and has been consulted by the Bush administration, said the plans reflect “the better Bush.” But Etzioni said the White House would have to be subtle in its approach for the plans to be successful.”
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communitarian/niki.htm
Roland:”Free market ideologues run a highly effective practice because they’re clearly on the winning side of the debate between classical liberalism and Marxist socialism.”
Judeomarxism is clearly a failure, as is free marketism in the modern USA because it is dominated by a borderless/rootless, urban, and anti-White Judeoplutocracy. If anything, I think the economically moderate ‘Third Positionists’ are correct.
However, various forms of ‘ethnoracial socialism’ which still retain many free-market functions and personal property rights are entirely workable and is the best possible way forward for most White/European nations. INDIVIDUAL Whites around the globe cannot be expected to keep pace in an increasingly globalized economy with GROUPS of Jews, Asiatics, Arabs, Mestizos, and even some African groups who often tend to utilize ethnoracial-based forms of intra-group socialism.
The race is irrelevant libertarians also don’t seem to notice that non-whites are unmoved by their doctrines of unbridled capitalism and hyper individualism. I doubt non-whites even comprise 3% of all libertarians yet they are 33% of the U.S. population. Someone needs to inform Lew Rockwell and Karen Decoster not to expect mass defections from La Raza and NAACP into the libertarian camp anytime soon.