Libertarianism Is For Fools!

I’ve noticed several people lately, people who allege to care about the fate of White people, espousing Libertarian ideals. Uh, here’s the thing, Libertarianism is the logical end point of the Progressive – Communist – Globalist hundred year project.

So to suggest that you are, to whatever degree a White Nationalist (or whatever formulation you employ) and then to suggest that you support this nation dissolving, people and tribe killing philosophy means either you don’t understand what Libertarianism (free trade) actually is, you’re an idiot, or a mendacious liar.

There can be no other possibility.

The easiest and best place to begin refuting so called “Free Trade” is at the very beginning with a jolly old chap named Cobden, Sir Richard Cobden to you rabble

“I believe that the physical gain will be the smallest gain to humanity from the success of this principle. I look farther; I see in the Free Trade principle that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe – drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonism of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace.”

So we see that right from the beginning that so called “Free Trade” is not an economic theory, in fact it doesn’t even pretend to be one, rather it is a religion, one of the many Christianity heresies to bedevil the twentieth century.

This is why it is so duecedly difficult to wean so called “Free Trade’s” true believer’s away from the faith, because, ahem, it is a faith. And as we all know you cannot reason someone away from a position that was unreasonable in the first place.

Here is another firm supporter of so-called “Free Trade…

“In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.”

Karl Marx, speaking in 1848 to the Democratic Association of Brussels

So what is the endpoint of this faith system, ahem

Several years ago Jack Welch, former chief executive officer of General Electric, captured the new reality when he talked of ideally having “every plant you own on a barge“. The economic logic was that factories should float between countries to take advantage of lowest costs, be they due to under-valued exchange rates, low taxes, subsidies or a surfeit of cheap labor.

And at what cost?

The logic behind classical free trade is that all can benefit when countries specialize in producing those things in which they have comparative advantage. The necessary requirement is that the means of production (capital and technology) are internationally immobile and stuck in each country. That is what globalization has undone. *snip*

Globalization has made Welch’s barge a reality. However, in doing so it has made capital mobility rather than country comparative advantage the engine of trade. And with that change, “free trade” increasingly trades jobs and promotes downward wage equalization.

Indeed it does. The specific individual who has been selling this nation dissolving nonsense is one Richard Hoste, who I truly don’t get, he insists that you are stupid if you don’t support Libertarianism (which is almost prima facie proof of high IQ and a lack of sense), but it was the sheer dishonesty of this particular argument that struck me

Take free trade. Let’s say that a manufacturer in the US makes shirts that he sells for $15 each and employes 1,000 people. Germany can sell shirts for $10 each in America on an open market. Wanting to protect their jobs, the US places a $5 duty on each German shirt.

Germany? Seriously? Germany? Like a typical lying Libertarian (is there any other kind?) he makes sure to use a first world White nation as his example. Want to see what actually happens in the real world of so called “Free Trade?”

Slavery Exposed in Northern China

Police discovered another 33 migrant workers who were forced to work 14 to 18 hours a day for no pay. They were monitored constantly, deprived of sleep, beaten, intimidated and given electric shocks if they protested, according to the Yanzhao Metropolis Daily.

In China’s northern Hebei province, a man escaped from a brick kiln factory on May 18th. He and dozens of others had been forced to work here as slaves, a local newspaper reported.

The man, Mr. Song from Shanxi province, alerted the police—who then raided the factory a few days later.

Police discovered another 33 migrant workers who were forced to work 14 to 18 hours a day for no pay. They were monitored constantly, deprived of sleep, beaten, intimidated and given electric shocks if they protested, according to the Yanzhao Metropolis Daily.

Police arrested 11 people for the abuses, including the owners and the foreman of the factory.

A similar slavery scandal was exposed in 2007 in Henan and Shanxi provinces, where thousands of people were forced to work in brick kilns on near-starvation diets and beaten regularly.

Many of the brick kiln workers from the impoverished countryside were mentally disabled. Some Chinese traffickers deliberately lured them into dangerous employment contracts, some media reported last year.

Well gee, now I feel all warm and squishy inside. Trying to get a “Free Trader” to talk about the extraordinary damage their faith system causes in every part of the world is a bit like trying to get a chef to reveal his bisque recipe. Ain’t gonna happen!

Now at this point so called “Free Traders” always begin to splutter and ask what you are suggesting, protectionism?

Well, yes and no. Here’s the deal, first world nations (read : White, civilized) can trade with a remarkable amount of freedom with other first world (read: White, civilized) nations. The trouble comes in when you allow businesses from these nations easy access to easily exploitable (read: non-White), and less moral populations we begin to see these stories of slavery and exploitation crop up with depressing regularity, needless to say this never discourages so-called “Free Traders” from their faith, but perhaps it should, no?

There next move typically is to begin bleating about Adam Smith, well Adam Smith isn’t remotely taken in by this nonsense…

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

That being true now imagine what these fine upstanding pillars of the business community might do if released from the constraints of civilization?

Consider this: Mexico wasn’t corrupt enough for the so-called “Free Traders” so they closed down virtually every milquadore and moved them to China where they are more comfortable with slavery and savagery. Shouldn’t it should serve as a warning signal that Mexico wasn’t corrupt enough for the so-called “Free Traders?”

Free Trade is simply the abdication of trade policy which, as I stated above, is the final and logical culmination of Progressive – Communist – Liberal agenda. It seeks to create nothing but a planetful of deracinated, denatured, inhuman cogs who have no greater loyalty than to the latest fashion or brand name.

And White Nationalists should support this why, again?


  1. “How many books on economics have you read?”

    Many people have read books and/or good working descriptions on the various economic theories, Tabula Raza. Almost ALL people sometime after about age 16 begin earning a living in some way by means of being paid for their labor or services provided. Hence why so many are accutely aware of the sharp contrast between what sounds great in books and what works out in actual practice in this world.

    How much do you know about job “outsourcing” and “offshoring?” Many economic books carefully explain the great advantages of these two practices. But, once again, I ask, advantage to whom? You will say, to everyone, because the products will be cheaper. But for how long will products be “cheap” compared to the wages paid out?

  2. How much outsourcing or offshoring would have occurred or would be possible without the income tax/money monopoly racket?

  3. Read The Law, and Economics in One Lesson. I will not discuss economics unless the other person has read these.

    BR- what are your basic views// Socialistic? What do you think about unions? Remember I will not discuss until you have read these two books.

    >>Outsourcing is not, today, free market. It is jewish destruction, Jew controls money. Affirmative action, women’s lib, quotas, the shitty public schools, the near insane wage demands of unions. This latter is the worst. The funny money people have the corporations by the nuts. The corporation itself is a product of the state. When a people who want to kill you are running your own country (jews), that problem must first be addressed before talking about full free trade.

    Cato and Reason magazine are under jew control. They favor this outsourcing and open borders, as does the NWO. I consider the outsourcing and de-industrialization to be tragic, and evil.

    PC Libertarianism and the jewish taboo

  4. Libertarianism, as a philosophy, fails because it is a philosophy and not an economic system. Fact of the matter is that England and later America prospered under some very economically liberal practices. However, the idea that you should be ideologically wed to having a free market for the sake of a having a free market, and shirk at the idea of tariffs, trade wars, et cetera is ludicrous. Markets should be free where they benefit the commonweal of the nation.

    To hell with ‘off-shoring’. Other non-economically liberal countries, such as China aren’t putting out cheap products because of their near or actual slavery level manufacturing. The State actually collect taxes from its citizens, and then pay part of the market price of commodities and goods like steel for prospective buyers. That is, they subsidize their exports in such a way that a free market cannot compete. The end result is that they are putting competitors out of business. Competitors not being businesses per say, but nations and peoples that could potentially be hostile to China, that they would rather see beholden. A national, ethnic monopoly. Assets of the Chinese people, for the benefit of the Chinese people. Being Chinese doesn’t mean having Chinese citizenship either, or even being born in a provence where yellow stars fly in a field of red.

    Don’t attach a tariff to those subsidized goods though! T hat’s mercantilism! That’s protectionist! It’ll start a trade war! Burn the witch!

    Libertarianism is by definition diametrically opposed to Nationalism. Nationalism practically by definition assumes protectionism. That is, that the nation is protected from the predation of outside forces, especially economic forces. Libertarianism is inherently Statist anyway.

    Personally I’m an ardent big government, socialist (in the Thomas Carlyle sense), Statist reactionary. I just don’t like that Libertarians pretend that they are ‘small government’. That if markets are ‘free’ people are ‘free’, but leave out the necessity of armed guards (although of course some private citizens with enough dough gives them a paycheck and not the government so it’s non-objectionable) breathing down your neck to ensure that trade remains ‘free’ and people do no ‘harm’ to each other.

    Of course that is the crux of the issue. That for a natural, Libertarian society to exist it has to be forced upon you, and for your free market to not be exploited by hostile outsiders you have to play into their mercantile games or compel them with force or threat of it to free their markets, which is usually not beneficial to the ones having this ‘freedom’ imposed upon them. All in all though I’m all in favor of imposing free trade upon people who don’t want it, so long as it benefits us, but not adopting economic theories such as this that are absurdly utopian, as if free markets are a panacea to all the world’s ills.

  5. Excellent analysis, K(yle)! The Free-Trade ideology is killing our nation. And, it will kill our government.

    We, Americans need to seek to preserve our industrial base. And, if our Federal Government were wise, it would support us in this endeavor.

  6. “the near insane wage demands of unions. This latter is the worst. ”

    This is just the type of typical exmple that shows a complete ignorance of the subject viz a viz reality and what is actually going on. And the union examples are but the tip of the iceberg of ignorance of such people as this poster.

    Union wages!!!!

    There are now some tens of millions of wannabe millionaires charging prices that *begin* at a multiplication of a factor of ten what the top wage scale labor union members are getting. From there it goes up to as high as a factor of fifty and even one hundred.

    YOU come back when you know more about what you are talking about.

  7. Libertarianism, as a philosophy, fails because it is a philosophy

    That’s not unique to libertarianism, anything based on philosophy will fail. Any ideology will be absurd if carried to an extreme. You have to admit that there are exceptions to any rule as circumstances determine.

  8. Sam Francis once said that libertarianism as a political philosophy is more antithetical to white racial preservation than any other political philosophy.

    Libertarianism / Free trade is the mother of open borders and racial suicide.

    It’s no coincidence that, outside Israel, around 95% of Jews support free trade — starting with Karl Marx himself.

  9. Free Trade is only one element of libertarianism, one that a lot don’t believe in, and even fewer believe in open borders. I don’t think widespread gun ownership, property rights, low taxes, or smoking in bars contribute to racial suicide.

  10. The Problems of Pro-Trespassing Libertarians
    Mar 23, 2007 at 4:29 PM

    The objective of the paleolibertarian is to cut down the government and abolish it. It is my contention that libertarians that support open borders lead us to the very opposite; i.e., more statism, the deterioration of individual liberty, and social chaos. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe teaches us, “open borders” is a complete government fabrication. This fabrication would not exist in anarcho-capitalism. “Open borders“ only result from a Leviathan State.

    Immigration is one of the most debated topics in libertarian circles. It is difficult to say what group has a greater number of people in it. I am inclined to say the “open border” folks. Those that are closer to the Mexican border, on the other hand, are probably more inclined, at least relatively speaking, to take the view that is more hostile to “open borders” due to their proximity to the fronts lines.

    State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America
    Patrick J. Buchanan

    Yes, it may seem somewhat strange at first: How can those that want to demolish the State want some kind of border enforcement?

    Maybe this will help. Here is another way to look at it: The state exists. This is a given. If one can only call the state police when someone trespasses on one’s property, then this is something one will have to do. There is no away around this fact, at least in the given environment. The government exists. It has a monopoly of certain things. Libertarianism would say that this should not be so. However given the current environment, what are the next best alternatives? The government outlaws competition when it comes to law and order. Because of this fact, it is better that the government provides some kind of court system, which can and does uphold some basic libertarian principles (e.g., protection from private thieves and private murders), then to have nothing at all. Understand, this does not mean that the free market could not handle these things. It is because of the fact that they are outlawed. It is also due to the fact that the public has not come to terms with the logic of anarcho-capitalism.

    What is the fundamental axiom of libertarianism? It is that no one has the right to violate the property rights of others. Implied in this is that no one has the right to trespass on another’s property. Therefore, no one has the “right” to immigrate. One cannot unconditionally immigrate into my house, for instance. You can only enter my house if I allow you to do so. I may also attach conditions if you enter my house. But clearly you cannot enter it without my permission or invitation.

    In an ideal world society would be fully based on private property. This includes things like roads, schools, courts, hospitals, et cetera. Borders in a libertarian world, as we now know them, would not exist. This does not mean, however, that today’s semi-“anarchy” that is taking place by Mexico would continue or expand. On the contrary, today’s open borders would be replaced by the law and order of the “borders” of private property.

    Immigration takes on a new meaning in such a world, but all “immigrants” that you associate with would be voluntary. A multitude of individuals, communities, and other private institutions, in a sense, would “regulate” who does and does not enter. If a private (voluntary) community does not want foreign strangers to enter, they can be sure that they do not. Inherent in libertarianism is that people can dissociate themselves with anyone they want for whatever reason.

    Private individuals, unlike the government, have the smarts to have a lock on their home door. Individuals don’t have “open borders.” We have the authority to choose—to “regulate”—who enters and who does not. Only the government has the perverse foresight to be foolish enough to have the door open to “its” geographically controlled territory. But it is much worse than that: The door is not only unlocked and wide open but inside the house there are many free gifts (welfare) waiting for those who enter! This is certainly a recipe for disaster. Government subsidizes immigration. In addition, due to the fact that “our” government is democratic, and its very nature is “open” compared to a monarchy’s “closed” nature, this tendency is further promoted. (See The Paleo Blog’s “Restoring Liberty Step-by-Step: Striking Down Democracy.”)

    A business owner will only choose a worker that will (in his mind) benefit his business. There is no “revolving door.” If that were the case for a given businessman, then he will not be in business for long. Or imagine your home. What do you think would be the result of an “open door” policy with free giveaways inside? Do you think your home’s value will increase? The answer is a clear no. On the other hand, if you allowed some good handymen, they might improve the value of the house. But that does not come about through the “revolving door.” It is something no individual property owner would do. And they don’t. This “bad” does not just turn into a “good” when we apply it to a macrocosmic level, i.e. to a large land controlled by a monopolistic government. Immigration is only good through the active and diligent enforcement of private property rights, which include the freedom to choose and discriminate.

    Today we live in a society with an ever large and growing Leviathan State. So much of private property is being stipulated to government control and dictation. Instead of people having the natural freedom to discriminate in any way, government forces people to be with those that they do not wish to be with (by various non-discrimination laws). Government produces forced integration. When someone must be forced to be with someone they do not wish to be, predictably resentment and conflict will result.

    Government’s existence depends on being a giant mega-parasite. It cannot live any other way. Its food does not come about through voluntary transactions, but by outright (involuntary) theft. To grow it needs more hosts that it can attach itself to. In the eyes of the government, to be healthy it needs a larger number of hosts. The greater the number of hosts the better. This is exactly why the state likes open borders! Any self-respecting libertarian should pause and reflect on this. A pretty good bet is that when government likes something, whatever that may be, then it is virtually assured that it is something that people should not like! It is the reason why this issue has gone almost unnoticed until recent years. Government has stood silent.

    Citizens have gotten angry. Arizona past Prop 200 in 2004. It denies illegal immigrants access to voting and welfare. The support Prop 200 was overwhelming. But practically every single politician was against Prop 200. While a vast majority of the residents of Arizona opposed illegals having the “right” to vote and receive welfare, the politicians were only too happy to have illegals both voting and receiving welfare. Should that be a surprise? No. Democracy is all to happy to expand itself to illegals. It wants more hosts. (And because the government is democratic it also needs to expand its open entry system.) The only reason now some politicians are talking about this issue is because the public has felt the effects of immigrants they do not want to be around. There is no other reason.

    For government to expand it also needs to break down and isolate the individual. Government needs to own the roads and large amounts of land. In order for it to tax someone it needs access to him. This results in “government’s” property in bordering all privately owned property. This lowers people’s ability to keep away people they do not wish to associate with. Once people are encircled with government from all sides, anyone can walk right into your property. This includes foreigners. Instead of being able to set up barriers to prevent unwanteds, government almost completely destroys the ability for people to do this.

    From this we should be able to gather how unnatural the idea of a “open border” is. As Murray Rothbard wrote:

    If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as “closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors. [“Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State”]

    Here is what Hans-Hermann Hoppe has to say:

    Through forced integration individuals are isolated (atomized) and their power of resistance vis-à-vis the State is weakened. In the “logic” of the state, a hefty dose of foreign invasion, especially if it comes from strange and far-away places, is reckoned to further strengthen this tendency. And the present situation offers a particularly opportune time to do so, for in accordance with the inherently centralizing tendency of States and statism generally and promoted here and now in particular by the U.S. as the world’s only remaining superpower, the Western world—or more precisely the neoconservative-socialdemocratic elites controlling the state governments in the U.S. and Western Europe—is committed to the establishment of supra-national states (such as the European Union) and ultimately one world state. National, regional or communal attachments are the main stumbling blocks on the way to this goal. A good measure of uninvited foreigners and government imposed multiculturalism is calculated to further weaken and ultimately destroy national, regional, and communal identities and thus promote the goal of a One World Order, led by the U.S., and a new “universal man.” [“Natural Order, The State, and The Immigration Problem”]

    This is the opposite of the libertarian goal of decentralization and ultimate privatization. Centralization leads to forced integration and open borders. Decentralization and privatization leads to the opposite. It should be expected that if libertarian values were winning what would happen is the breaking away of large states into smaller ones. It is inconceivable how this would not lead to increased community power and segregation. You cannot promote libertarianism and then promote open borders. They are incompatible.

    Tax payers are forced to pay for public property. In these terms it is not government that owns them, but the taxpayers in correspondence to how much they pay in. That is to say, if person x pays z percentage of the public property he owns z percentage. Murray Rothbard said that we must reject the idea that all public property should be run like a sewer just because it is public. For example, if some bum is stinking up the public library, he should be kicked out. It is true that this public library should not exist. Only private libraries should exist. However, under the current circumstances, it should be run like a business.

    Stephan Kinsella in his LRC article “A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders,”* gives a good example. Right now the roads are owned by government. Is it un-libertarian of me or Mr. Kinsella to want some kind of rules for the roads? Both of us agree that they should be privatized. However, given that they currently are run by government, what is better: No rules on the road or Some rules? Obviously, I think most libertarians would say that there should be some rules. Most would not say that someone like me is supporting something that is un-libertarian. Kinsella writes; “I do not personally believe it can be convincingly argued that there should be no rules on public property, because this would result in significant costs to citizens who are victimized enough.” Yes, things are bad enough without making the already bad system worse. Government should not be made to run worse than it is. (Unlike what some libertarians have suggested, making it worse does not necessarily mean that it will collapse. If it did, then this does not necessarily mean that people would be smart enough to embrace anarcho-capitalism —- they could embrace something worse. And, by the way, it is also immoral to increase the power of the state to do immoral things [even if one’s goal is its collapse].)

    *(And here is a follow-up.)

    The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civiliz
    Patrick J. Buchanan

    This also implies to government controlled hospitals. Yes, get rid of government here.* But right now it would be stupid to suggest that there should not be rules to how they are run. Hospitals have been forced to close down because of illegal immigrants. This is very dangerous.

    *(Did you know that in China, I heard on talk radio, that hospitals are in open competition with each other? They actually buy advertisement to tell people to come to their hospital versus another. Talk about them moving to closer to capitalism and us moving closer to socialism.)

    Imagine a given territory of land. Now if this land is fully composed of privately owned property, then only those invited would be allowed to enter. No forced integration would occur. On the other hand, if government owns a significant portion of it (or controls the private sector by various non-discriminator laws), then there will most likely be immigrants who are there that would otherwise not be. Even if they got a job, this does not mean that they are welcomed. They still need to move around in this territory. They need to live somewhere. And so forth.

    This is why, considering the current circumstances (i.e. we have a government), it seems fit that government should be placed into the role of only allowing immigrants who are invited to enter. I personally no not feel that this violates libertarian ethics. Just as, considering the fact we have a government, it should round up real private criminals who rape, steal, kill. To be sure, this is not ideal. By necessity the state could never preform the job as individuals could because they can directly control their own property. But in the grand picture it is difficult to believe that open borders would not lead to an increase in government power, centralization, and social problems.

    Again, besides the violation of property rights by trespassing, it is also important to understand how the state grows with more hosts. In a democratic state, what we will get is more redistribution. What also will occur is the breakdown of private property rights. This will increase the number of anti-discriminator laws on the book. As Thomas Woods wrote in “Democracy vs. Civilization”:

    The massive Third World immigration that commenced with the liberalization of immigration laws in 1965 has translated into more crime, more wealth redistribution, more anti-Western multiculturalism, more interracial tension – and, naturally, more social-welfare bureaucrats to manage the inevitable social turmoil that such population shifts leave in their wake. This is why the Left favors it

    He continues:

    The concepts of community and private property are meaningless and empty if they exclude the right to discriminate. Discrimination is a pervasive and indeed absolutely necessary feature of life. We discriminate in the foods we eat, in the neighborhoods we live in, and in the friends we make. And we discriminate in whom we invite for dinner. There is no such thing as “equal access” to our homes.

    In a “natural order” of a libertarian society a division of labor with community would seem to suggest more homogeneous communities. An advancing division of labor brings about market based hard money. In a cultural sense, transactions take place because people can communicate with each other. When you see places near the border where this is becoming less possible (communication), you see the division of labor breaking down. This is what forced integration does. The market needs a bond. An organic culture (cultural conservatism) is a important factor.

    It is also very difficult to believe that a libertarian society would accept this flood of immigrants. Patrick Buchanan in his book State of Emergency: The Third Wold Invasion and Conquest of America, reports some startling figures. As he says not all immigrants are equal. The rate to which Mexican immigrants receive welfare is about two times as high as native-born Americans. (p 43) Compare this to Koreans, Filipinos, Japanese, Canadians, Poles, Brits, Germans, Indians, and Italians who use welfare less than native-borns. (p 44) Only five percent of them have not finished high school. This is in comparison to thirty-one percent of Mexicans.

    He writes in Los Angeles that ninety-five percent “of all outstanding warrants for homicide, which total 1,200 to 1,500 target illegal aliens.” That “[t]wo-thirds of the 17,000 outstanding fugitive felony warrants in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.” And that about “12,000 of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang that operates across Southern California are illegals.” (p 24) One in twelve illegal aliens have a criminal record. (p 9) “Hispanics are three times more likely than white Americans to be convicted of a serious crime requiring incarceration.” And that “[t]hey are nineteen times more likely to belong to a criminal street gangs.” (p 24)

    Buchanan’s article “Does Libertarianism Lead to Statism?” Given these kinds of figures, the answer seems to be yes, if libertarianism supports “open borders.” As he writes: “[T]hey are disproportionate users of social services – i.e., health care, food stamps, rent supplements, legal services and general welfare. Immigrants have become the principal propellants of the growth of the welfare state.”

    Karen De Coster replied in her article “Wrong, Pat, wrong.” She says that paleolibertarians know better:

    Buchanan’s overall point about the damage done by mass immigration is correct. That is, the mass immigration to which U.S. residents have been subjected leads to a burgeoning state; props up multicultural madness; allows poor, unassimilated immigrants to garner massive amounts of welfare pork; leads to a rising class of tax consumers, as opposed to taxpayers; and has dumbed down the state-based educational system, providing even more impetus for politicians to toss additional taxpayers’ money into an already-failed system.

    She says that “the right to discriminate is inherent in the ownership of anything.”

    In Buchanan’s The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization, he shows that this is part of a much bigger picture. Not only are floods of immigrants coming, but the birth rates of whites are falling. The Western civilization is dying. As he writes (this is true, be it a bit less, for America as well as Europe):

    While world population had doubled to six billion in forty years, the European peoples had stopped reproducing. Their populations had begun to stagnate and, in many countries, had already begun to fall. [p 12]

    Add to that a mass flood of immigrants from the Third World. Something is not right with this picture.

    In 1960, people of European ancestry were one-forth of the world’s population; in 2000, they were one-sixth; in 2050, they will be one-tenth. These are the statistics of a vanishing race. A growing awareness of what they portend has induced a sense of foreboding, even panic, in Europe.

    In the U.S., if things continue to move in the direction that they are, America will be Mexamercia.

    In 1991, the Soviet Union shattered into fifteen nations along the fault lines of race, religion, and ethnicity. Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan were Asian as well as Muslim. Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia rejected not only Communist rule but Russian rule. Russians in Latvia, descendants of those transferred there by Stalin over sixty years ago, are still regarded as intruders. The Caucasus seems about to subdivide into statelets like Chechnya, Dagestan, Abkhazia, and North and South Ossetia, based on ethnicity. [State of Emergency, p 166]

    Based on these kinds of evidence Buchanan says:

    It appears a truism: multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual states are held together either by an authoritarian regime or a dominant ethnocultural core, or their breakup is inevitable.

    Hans Hoppe writes: “Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation, pp. 124-27, has provided some recent evidence for the thesis that no multicultural state, and especially no democratic one, has ever worked out peacefully for very long.”

    Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order
    Hans-Hermann Hoppe

    Short of ultimate privatization of all land, then what? Hoppe says:

    Abolishing forced integration requires the de-democratization of society and ultimately the abolition of democracy. More specifically, the power to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and reassigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners and their voluntary associations. [Democracy – The God That Failed, p 148]

    Hoppe recommends a system similar to what they do in Switzerland:

    In Switzerland, for instance, citizenship may require that the sale of residential property to foreigners be ratified by a majority of or even all of the directly affected local property owners. [p 168]

    More specifically, it means distinguishing strictly between “citizens” (naturalized immigrants) and “resident aliens” and excluding the latter from all welfare entitlements. It means requiring, for resident alien status as well as for citizenship, the personal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumption of liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant. It implies requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen; moreover, for both categories but especially that of citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only English language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a complete system of values—-with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias. [pp 148-9]

  11. Whats telling is how few successful capitalist/business people are ever heard voicing libertarian views. They are the people libertarians worship but their idols dont care!

    Im sure many a libertarian jerks off frantically to pictures of Rupert Murdoch or George Soros, but in return, have these guys ever espoused libertarianism? Of course they havent

    Its not as if there is any real penalty for espousing libertarianism and certainly not for these billionaires – as opposed to say taking a nationalist or WN position.

    Its funny how many libertarians turn out to be very minor business people, journalists, think tank members or even, comically, government advisors. Not the big swinging dicks they idolize and aspire to be.

  12. It’s anarcho-capitalist greed which brought the africans here in the first place; free trade and slavery go hand in hand because a slave cannot purchase what they manufacture themselves.

    It’s anarcho-capitalist greed which forced open trade with Japan, when Japan was not a military threat to anybody, and then 88 years later after heavy industrialization they bombed Pearl Harbor. It’s anarcho-capitalist greed which is doing the same thing with China today.

    It’s anarcho-capitalist greed which opened up the borders to more white haters.

    It’s anarcho-capitalist greed which is creating a massive wealth gap in all western nations.

    Let’s just shorten “anarcho-capitalst greed” to “greed” for brevity. Libertarians are greedy assholes. Greedy assholes don’t create nations and cultures, and greedy assholes don’t lead political movements.

Comments are closed.