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?
Thanks for this fine article.
I have found through painful experience that Libertarianism is a cult – one that entraps so many bright, young White men – some White women who aren’t in to families, children, communities etc.
There is no trying to use reason with Libertarian true believers, present racial realities like the glaring fact that the entire White populations of Haiti, Algeria, Zimbabwe, Detroit have been gone the genocide, ethnic cleansing route.
With Libertarians like R.P. always, always getting destroyed at the polls, never winning even 2% at the national level, one might ask why the Libertarian cult is so prevalent.
One answer is that it is the only political theory/philosophy allowed for Whites (including Jews here) on American “liberal” elite universities. Everyone else gets shouted down, driven away – but the Libertarian cult with it’s call for unlimited freedom and the rights of elites to enjoy their good life and not worry about those not in elite colleges etc – it’s allowed.
Also all should note that the 100% Libertarians (Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Chicago School etc) are heavily Jewish.
What do we do with these 100% Libertarian true believers?
Send them on missions to Zimbabwe, Somalia, East St. Louis – have em dress up like Mormon Missionaries and try to pass out free market tracts in the public housing projects outside of Memphis, New Orleans?
What ever you do, don’t give Libertarians any encouragement.
DON’T FEED THE LIBERTARIANS!
All should understand that we should expect another Ron Paul presidential campaign, something just like it – another Libertarian crusade to SAVE AMERICA but introducing the powers of FREE MARKETS, FREE TRADE, UNRESTRICTED PERSONAL FREEDOM …….(unrestricted immigration, the worst NWs doing whatever they want etc)
It might be advised to be a bit more diplomatic on this subject, as *many* eventually find their way to WN’ism after a bout with libertarianism. I personally took that path, and I would venture that somewhere around half of the folks that become WN these days do so immediately after a tour of duty in Randsville.
The subject is complicated, I still hold many libertarian beliefs, but I can now see that “free trade” often simply allows the Jews to move in and run everything. It also forces every American to compete on wages with somebody in a mud hut in Malawi. I am still not certain what the solution is economically, but I think that a less global economy will be some part of it. Certainly, energy prices are going to keep rising, which will take some of the steam out of globalism no matter what else happens.
Anyways, this piece is pretty decent, but just remember that there are likely many fence-sitters. It is better to point out specifically what libertarian policies are hurting whites, rather than denounce libertarians as liars. Most libertarians have a binary view when it comes to the possibilities, you must either continue with the “free market” or concede what remains of the private sector to an anti-white redistributionist FedGov. You must show the third way.
Libertarianism would work in an all white society,
as would socialism, communism, tribalism, dictatorship, mercantilism, republicanism, democracy, anarchy, and environmentalism.
Look at China, all those things that don’t “work” seem to work very well because they have the call of the blood and everybody is pulling for the same team.
I agree in that libertarianism is an absurd intellectual position (although more intellectually reasonable than marxism and its cowardly counterpart: liberalism), but that also it needs to be noted that ‘libertarians’ actually share the same basic goal as marxists and others of the ‘statist’ and ‘anarchist’ left. Their way of getting to their desired goal and their assumptions differ (in degree not absolutely), but fundamentally they are related in that they share the same basic ideas and disagree only on what marxists would call ‘the superstructure’ as opposed to ‘the base’.
I’ve also noticed libertarians tend to be rather selective apostles of Darwin in so far as they tend to espouse evolutionary ideas, but yet do not take those ideas to their logical conclusion that groups will naturally seek to annilate other groups (and that individuals from different groups will literaly prey on the other groups_ thus equating that what libertarians are left with is race and class war within their ideology, which makes a nonsense of it in effect.
I’ve also never seen a libertarian justify why on earth humans are so special in their view of the world. Surely if we follow libertarian logic we would end up in some kind of nihilistic fantasy world where nothing could exist, because by existing it violated the ‘rights’ of another organism.
However I would note that ‘Jacob C.’ is correct in that in order to combat libertarianism you must have a prepared and packaged replacement to be taken off the shelf (so-to-speak) otherwise it is merely voices in the wind.
Milton Friedman wasn’t a libertarian. The Chicago School is in favor of big government so long as they get to run it.
I’ve seen many ex-libertarians now embrace white racialism. I’ve even seen some ex-liberals who are now racialists. One angle to push with libertarians and conservatives is that most blacks and browns want nothing to do with either and will vote accordingly. If they want “conservatism or libertarianism”, they’ll need white people to accomplish it.
what drew me to libertarianism is a hopeful effect on the acceptance of nationalism… but i was waaaaay off. i do think specifics of civil liberty need to be discussed as a selling point of WN to the rand-tards.
To Jacob C and others – OK, yes, many Whites come to WN through libertarianism, but be real careful as lots of folks who post on WN forums for years and present themselves as sensible, pro White folks will fall back in to this true believer race-less libertarian cult, fall hook, line and sinker for some Ron Paul presidential campaign and then we have to stomach watching the libertarian guy pander to the anti White media, apologize that he might have said something unkind to the Black rioters, murderers in the Rodney King Riots.
I confess that I once was attracted to libertarianism in many ways in my college youth, enjoyed a lot of Ayn Rand’s essays, even Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose.
But I was never an idiot or a true believer Libertarian cultists.
The main break for me was when I learned that the Wall Street Journal – the economic Conservative, libertarian newspaper/journal of record was putting out Jul 4th editorials demanding complete, open borders immigration to the United States from the entire Non White Third World!
Here’s the link – and this treason, insanity has led me to hate and despise this type of libertarians – the lying, know it all, open borders immigration libertarians – and they do this treason from positions of wealth and safety in doorman guarded Manhattan luxury buildings, gated communities.
F%*#(($# these types of libertarians.
Here’s the link to that cursed Wall Street Journal July 4th Let There Be Open Borders!
http://www.vdare.com/fulford/060703_fulford_file.htm
http://www.vdare.com/fulford/050703_wsj.htm
Here, John Galt “opens the border”:
“You have reached the blind alley of the treason you committed when you agreed that you had no right to exist. Once, you believed it was “only a compromise”: you conceded it was evil to live for yourself, but moral to live for the sake of your children. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your children, but moral to live for your community. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your community, but moral to live for your country. Now, you are letting this greatest of countries be devoured by any scum from any corner of the earth, while you concede that it is selfish to live for your country and that your moral duty is to live for the globe.”
Libertarianism is our only real opposition on the Right.
That’s an article against ‘Free Trade’ not ‘libertarianism’. There’s many non-libertarians who support ‘free trade’, or even worse, only oppose it on the grounds that it doesn’t send enough of our wealth overseas to foreign countries. Also, most libertarians like Ron Paul are for decentralization and oppose globalist initiatives like the ‘North American Union’.
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?
Not really sure what your point is here-how does complaining about whites possibly benefiting indirectly from the ‘exploitation’ of nonwhites explain how ‘free trade’ is damaging to whites?
At any rate, I think keeping nonwhites out of our living space is the most important goal. Some farmers are complaining that crackdowns on illegals might force them to move to Mexico-well, good! We should do everything we can to encourage them.
Agreed. Libertarianism is a hollow doctrine for hollow people. But I have had very little problem talking people out of it. Most people who get to libertarianism work right on through it fairly quickly. So in a sense I’m glad it’s there.
But Hunter you’re making my point for me, Libertarianism is a creature of the Left but is sold as a creature of the Right. That is the fundamental problem as I see it, too many people don’t really think it all the way through because they perceive it as being center right in orientation when in actuality it is to the far, far Left.
Libertarianism is fine…within the borders of the nation. I support free-trade and open-borders between Louisiana and Texas, New York and Massachusetts, and all in between. Between America and foreign sweatshop operations like Mexico, China, etc., it is a planned disaster; as deadly to the (white) middle class as Jew-communist revolution. Which is why, as pointed out above, so many of these globalist Libertarian ideologues turn out to be Jews. To re-build the (white) middle class, we will have to return to what works: hard money, protectionism, and national autarchy. It’ll take a Civil War to do all this, but this will in turn provide the opportunity to settle all sorts of outstanding ethnic and political accounts.
Jake: “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.”
Amen.
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.)
This is a terrific article. Thank you. I am constantly on the look-out for simple, yet compelling arguments, when dealing with socially suicidal types, like White “Conservatives”, “Liberals”, and “Libertarians”.
The arguments posited within this article are just the ticket. Thanks, again!
CONDENSED VERSION: Communism et al lead naturally to “Don’t violate property rights.”, which prohibition destroys nations and tribes, and you’re evil or a fucktard if you disagree. This also prohibits tariffs and embargoes, which everyone but free traders happen to desire to implement. Here’s a quote that praises free traders in multiculti terms. Oops – did I say “evil or a fucktard”? Add “irrational dogmatic cultist.” Karl Marx, who was wrong about so much, especially on economics, has these correct observations which warn WNs away from free traders. Oops again, “evil or a fucktard or irrational dogmatic cultist or high-IQ without common sense.” Hoste made an economic argument, but the important thing is that he mentioned Germany instead of China; here’s an alarming anecdote about China. Free traders don’t want you to know that China is really poor! (That probably falls under ‘evil’.) WNs should support free trade among white nations, only; trading with non-whites will only exploit them. Here’s a quote from Adam Smith that I don’t understand. Businessmen are scum – they’ll be out there exploiting the non-whites unless we–! … this is Mother Jones, right? Oops. If a central authority does not release orders to the effect of a trade policy, we’ll have trade anarchy! Again, “Don’t violate property rights.” is the culmination of Communism and other bad words. If you can buy a computer from China, then you’ll be a raceless inhuman cog only loyal to your Intel Inside sticker.
…
Wee. Evil, a fucktard, irrational dogmatic cultist, high-IQ without common sense. I’ll add – on the ‘free trade’ side – someone who’s learned economics. Jesus (Jew), it isn’t rocket science, and you need it to spout off and swear at people like you do in this shameful post. On the ‘libertarian’ side side, there’s nothing about economics. Tariffs and embargoes have obvious hazards with property rights, but so does police work, national defense, even firefighting. Libertarians support nonviolative or, for ‘moderate’ libertarians, less-violative methods. They don’t talk a lot about peaceful alternatives to free trade and the free market for social reasons: they spend a lot of time around, and sometimes are, people who have a clue about economics, and therefore don’t believe there’s any problem to work on here. The Nonaggression Principle is negative, not positive, and that and not your multiculti quotes is what libertarianism is about.
http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/100701_yankee_utopians.htm
Recent column by Pat Buchanan on free trade
Yes I do support “Protectionism.” What’s wrong with protecting the White America I grew up in? What’s the opposite of protectionism, Unprotected trade? Our economy has been doing about as well as Rock Hudson since it started embracing all this free unprotected trade.
I used to be a Libertarian — I ran for congress in 1996 7th district TN. I read all of Rand’s books (and many others). I like the idea of emphasizing freedom — most of my libertarianism was in support of the bill of rights and smaller government. Free trade is emphasized a lot by other Libertarians, as is open borders. These are some of the reasons I am not a Libertarian any more. I think Rand took the idea of freedom and made it into a political weapon or trap for those who understand how important freedom is (white people) by creating a false ideal based on the lack of force etc. which would stand as a false idol to reality– just like the idea that greed should not rule was transformed into the cultural weapon / trap for idealists of communism. Communism and Rand’s libertarianism (called “objectivism” as a further draw to the western objective mind…) were taking something that is a natural unconditioned motive and drive on our part and pairing it with an ultimately destructive program. Conditioning us for death as a people. Destroying our strengths, enslaving us. We can see the highest motives of Jews from these things — theirs is a warlike, interethnic view of the world, one that seeks to take over and gather the worlds wealth for their use. They see in terms of profit, and greed, not building (think Jewish corporate raiders). If we take THEIR ideals as litmus, then profit is everything. That is Jewish, not us. Kevin MacDonald’s books have done a masterful, even miraculous, job of showing us the motives of Jews in other areas. Overall they are like a sociopathic personality writ large across their people. We are different, we follow something higher instinctually. We are not them.
The only antidote to these essentially Jewish patterns is to fully understand our motives as a people at the highest level so that false idols have no effect, where we come from, where we are headed, and why –so that false idols are immediately seen as false! I believe I have found this path and have delineated it in my book “The Textbook of the Universe: the Genetic Ascent to God.”. It is objective truth. THAT is the highest motive and path of white western humanity — why we invented freedom, why we invented science, and why we have justice based on truth in front of disinterested jurors in the courtroom. We have internalized the forces of nature in this. If you look at evolution in a slightly different way, it is an information process — toward truth about the environment. Our intellect has taken on directly and speeded up this basic process of evolution — only in the white race though. Other internal and external forces have made other races divert to other paths, less universal truths out of necessity. In fact, we are the only organism on Earth that “gets it” about the basic patterns and principles of evolution. THAT is our path.
Other races are not primarily motivated by truth overall as an abstract principle written into their biology and temperment like we are. Our gene pool has formed around this basic backbone. We are not perfect, but all other of our motives are not as strong as this one and so it has prevailed. Since the very first writing 5000 years ago around the time of the first city-states, we have searched for the “flower of immortality” of evolution. That flower is objective truth about us and our world. The immortal principles of the creator. The religious content of the book of life written by the creator.
Why aren’t my posts being shown?
Milton Friedman wasn’t a libertarian. The Chicago School is in favor of big government so long as they get to run it.
Edison Carter,
I had a post eaten as well.
If the following ideals of libertarianism held complete sway, many of the problems we face simply wouldn’t exist or would be far better manageable:
honest money
education, marraige and families completely private matters
a caveat emptor approach to medicine and other professions with private orgs vetting practitioners,
complete freedom of speech, association and contract (including land covenants)
no welfare (impossible for high-R minorities to survive in any numbers)
no drug laws (no alternative income source to welfare)
I left one out (that Rosenbaum would have disagreed with): abolition of intellectual “property”
I, uhh, disagree with the way the article opens.
“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.”
I liked Stephen E Romer’s comment, but let me get to my criticism of the article.
Jacobsen’s piece opens with extremely strong, angry, name-calling, negativity toward libertarianism. It gives no evidence whatsoever for this negativity – the evidence comes further on in the article. It immediately then gives a long string of extremely negative names about anyone who supports libertarianism, “to suggest that you support”, “this nation dissolving, people and tribe killing philosophy”, “you’re an idiot”, “a mendacious liar.”
Then to add insult to injury, it goes on to supposedly invoke principles of logic, “There can be no other possibility.” However, the article has not yet presented any of its reasoning or evidence why libertarianism is so dangerously awful. So that there can’t be any logic yet.
That’s my complaint. It reminds me of other stuff I’ve seen on the internet, where the name calling started before any evidence was given. In my opinion the author has good points, in the article overall. It’s that I myself react negatively to how the article opens, so negatively, that if it weren’t a topic I was interested in, and in an internet area where I already knew that I like the stuff, I would drop it, I would not read further. To get to some technical issues of writing, if the author wants to reach people like me – and that is a decision the author has to make – then he has to figure out how to re-do this opening. There are probably lots of different approaches on how to re-do it. That’s why writing can be hard work. On the other hand, too much concern for the writing destroys the important natural flow of ideas, and that’s no good either.
BTW, I used to be a libertarian but broke with them over their policy on open borders. I also broke with them on other crazy issues they had, and one night at their local discussion group, I simply got up in the middle of one of my discussions with them on many upsetting issues, walked out and never returned. I was happy to see, somewhere, MacDonald giving a critical review of libertarianism. Once I even belonged to an internet libertarian discussion group that boasted it was open to all and that participants could say anything (at the time I still believed in libertarianism). One day I discovered I was banned. I went to the group’s FAQ. The boast had been removed. I guess I accomplished something.
Hunter:”Libertarianism is our only real opposition on the Right.”
There is a lot of truth to this, which is why it should be routinely attacked, deconstructed, and mocked.
isn’t the lack of ‘free trade’ the reason the south wanted their independence? free trade was also written into the csa’s constitution.
I’ve seen many ex-libertarians now embrace white racialism.
I suspect that has more to do with an attempt rationally formulate a worldview than anything specific to libertarianism. Since libertarianism does contravene a number of left-liberal assumptions it can spur free thinkers to question others, so it’s only to be expected that some make it all the way to racialism.
The comments clearly show lots of stupidity about libertarianism.
I support Ron Paul and the concept of following the damn Constitution though the document itself is rather statist in some aspects.
I’m not a open borders libertarian. Even Thomas Jefferson acknowledged the need for immigration but also said it must be done in a way such that the new immigrants acquire the American way of doing things and leave old world mentality behind. Not the exact words, but that is the idea.
NAFTA and GATT had nothing to do with real ‘free trade’; those were managed trade and done by ‘agreement’ for the benefeit of multinational corporations. Also, if we had a free market in money, the income disparities would be less of an issue.
I start with this outlook:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
“Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the nineteenth century in England, Western Europe, and the Americas. It is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1] Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the twentieth century led by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and other economists.”
It looks like John in his 10:23am summed up the basics well.
As a bit of an “older man”, having worked in and studied our WN movement and the various (failures) of economic conservative politics, I feel I have earned the right to suggest a homework reading assignment to our some of our younger folks here.
Please read Chapter 12 of Commander G.L. Rockwell’s White Power where he discusses the defeat of Barry Goldwater’s economic conservative (libertarian) Presidential Campaign to LBJ in 1964.
Rockwell comes to the clear conclusion that economic conservatism (libertarianism) simply does not sell to the masses of poor and working class Whites. They reject it every time and they still do today (Ron Paul won all of 22 delegates).
Here’s a link to Chapter 12 of Rockwell’s White power and also I include an excerpt below.
http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/rocwell/whitepower/WP12.html
(G.L. Rockwell analyzing Goldwater’s loss to LBJ in 1964)
Among unskilled labor, Johnson got 80% of the vote.
Goldwater got only 16%! Those with no higher than a grade-school education voted for Johnson.
Those with incomes below $10,000 gave 70.7% of their vote to Johnson, and only 29.3% to Goldwater. The big cities and urban areas gave Johnson 72% to 28% for Goldwater.
The spread between Johnson and Goldwater among the lower economic classes and the urban voters averages out to a huge gap of more than 54%!
But even that shocking figure does not tell the whole story of why it is madness to keep trying to win political power on a “conservative” program.
Take a look at the relative sizes of the two groups we have compared above.
The World Almanac for 1965 shows that the first group we compared, the professional and managerial workers, who voted for Johnson only a 15% gap compose only 21.8% of the population, while the rest of the labor force, semi-skilled and un-skilled, account for 78.2% of the population.
Of the smaller cities and towns which went to Johnson only 63% are shown in the World Almanac as having a total population of 54,054,425, the urban areas which went for Johnson 72% show a total population of 125,368,750.
And while college graduates went for Johnson by only 54%, the total number of such college people is listed in the World Almanac as only 4,528,215; while the grade-school population that went for Johnson is listed as 40,217,215 (these figures are the enrollment in colleges and grade-schools for 1963). To the number enrolled in grade schools must be added many more millions who are totally illiterate or have only a few years in school.
Putting all of this together, we find that the upper echelon and rural sectors of our population, which might possibly be won by a national conservative candidate, comprise only a relatively tiny percentage of the population of the United States (Approximately 20%). However, even this most favorable economic conservative section of the U.S. population is split on economic issues and was won by Johnson, even though the average margin of his victory was only 15% in this sector of the population.
On the other hand, the vast masses of Americans who live in urban areas, have only a grade-school education, are only semi-skilled or un-skilled labor, and earn less than $10,000 per year comprise more than 80% of the population.
And in this enormous mass, Johnson won 8 out of every 10.
The key fact is that the vote of the most illiterate or ill-informed person counts just as much as the vote of H. L. Hunt, or Robert Welch, and there are millions of “little people” for every high-level voter.
For those not of a mathematical turn of mind, let me boil it all down to a very, very simple statement.
Except on the race issue, the ONLY place economic “conservatives” have any chance at all for a large vote is among those in management positions, upper income levels and those with higher educations-in short, among the trained THINKERS.
Among those with grade school educations, in blue-collar or laboring jobs, and incomes below $10,000 per year, “conservatism” sells about as well as snowballs at the North Pole. THE MASSES want a “WARM” candidate who seems “human” and “lovable”. Roosevelt, Truman, Ike, Jake now Johnson have all been successful in peddling just right “IMAGE” to win.
No matter how we may deplore it, that is a fact – just as it is a fact that Whites don’t like “niggers”, no matter what the hypocrites pretend.
Without the masses, we can never, never win power.
And without power, it is a complete and disgusting waste of time to sit around groaning about “constitutionalism’ “Christianity”, “States’ Rights”, etc., etc.-interminably That’s what we have been doing, and I would think any intelligent person would long ago have had all he could stand of the endless “Oh-my-God;” reports, the “What-We-Must-Do” pamphlets and the “Let’s-all-get-together” societies.
I am not prepared to waste another moment in failure or impotent groaning. Only if every move is calculated to win power, legally, am I willing to suffer and sacrifice anymore.
And the statistics show, with devastating clarity that it is IMPOSSIBLE to win nationally as an economic “CONSERVATIVE”.
The fact that libertarianism does not sell is merely testament to the corporate media brainwashing/programming along with the sorry public school systems purpose of creating poor thinkers. Public schools have been a success for ‘someone’ (look up John Taylor Gatto sometime).
Even among too many ‘whites’, they have this something for nothing attitude. Even ones with college degrees. Contradictory stupidity abound.
I can’t tell you how many people bitch about ‘rich’ people, but vote for rich jackasses that sell them downriver every chance they get. Of course, I presume that since becoming financially better off is so terrible, they offer whatever service they have for minimum wage and encourage their children to work menial jobs.
sth_txs says:
July 7, 2010 at 6:45 pm
>The fact that libertarianism does not sell is merely testament to the corporate media
No. The fact that libertarianism, economic conservatism doesn’t sell well, at all with White poor, working class people just shows that overeducated, miseducated, high IQ Whites don’t know how to reach regular White people.
Hitler named his party – the German National Socialist WORKERS party for a good reason, he wanted to attract the masses of German workers, instead of a tiny 1% of high IQ males (libertarianism only seems to appeal to loner males) who’ve dropped out of society and never find any group they like, that likes them – thus all groups are supposedly bad, evil.
WN is about group loyalty to our people, not just selfishness, living for one’s self.
‘The comments clearly show lots of stupidity about libertarianism. ‘
Generalities like that don’t ‘sell very well’ either intellectually speaking. You should be specific if you are criticising others opinions. Just something to chew on. 🙂
Karl Radl says:
July 7, 2010 at 8:16 pm
‘The comments clearly show lots of stupidity about libertarianism. ‘
Generalities like that don’t ’sell very well’ either intellectually speaking. You should be specific if you are criticising others opinions. Just something to chew on. ”
Karl,
Please read G.L Rockwell’s White Power where he explains all the time he wasted trying to work with economic conservatives who simply can not relate to the common white man/woman. Rockwell understood the situation completely in ~ 1966, he stated with 100% confidence that economic conservative politics is doomed to failure at the national level and only those Whites who want our race to lose or are too stupid to face reality keep pushing this libertarian program year after year, after year, after year.
Do we want our race to win or lose – go the way of Whites in Haiti, Algeria, Zimbabwe, Detroit?
Libertarianism – economic conservatism is the path of failure, doom and destruction for our people our civilization.
http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/rocwell/whitepower/WP12.html
Whites need to learn to find some way to come together to work, fight for the yes COLLECTIVE GOOD, SURVIVAL OF OUR PEOPLE.
Whites needs to learn how to say and think “We” instead of “Me”.
sth_txs, how old are you? Would you mind telling us, please? This question does matter, more often than not, regarding the approach one uses responding to pro-libertarian posters.
“Please read G.L Rockwell’s White Power where he explains all the time he wasted trying to work with economic conservatives who simply can not relate to the common white man/woman. Rockwell understood the situation completely in ~ 1966, he stated with 100% confidence that economic conservative politics is doomed to failure at the national level and only those Whites who want our race to lose or are too stupid to face reality keep pushing this libertarian program year after year, after year, after year.”
You don’t need the common man! He didn’t want desegregation, school busing, affirmative action, race replacement immigration, or Obamacare. He got them anyway. The common man votes every few years between two candidates who are 90% the same, disagreeing only about whether the US should have soldiers in 110 countries instead of 109 or whether the top tax rate should be 35% or 40%.
Liberals have the top two percent, and that’s why they won. The common man doesn’t like libertarianism. To hell with him. He has no power.
Libertarianism appeals to smart people. HBD can too. Some kind of “National Socialism” favored by Francis or Buchanan will give you an army of worthless idiots.
To cxc
Who wants to write of the common White American working man.
“You don’t need the common man! He didn’t want desegregation, school busing, affirmative action, race replacement immigration, or Obamacare. He got them anyway. The common man votes every few years between two candidates who are 90% the same, disagreeing only about whether the US should have soldiers in 110 countries instead of 109 or whether the top tax rate should be 35% or 40%.”
George Wallace, Pat Buchanan, Nixon and Lee Atwater, Joerg Hader, Adolf Hitler, Putin, Frank Rizo – these White folks knew how to reach the hearts and minds of regular White folks and they all received very strong voting support.
Hey cxc – we will not write off our poor and working class White kinsmen – they are our people, our kin-folk.
After if too many of them have fallen from grace and can not be saved and returned to our folk, we’ll try to save their White children.
14 Words.
“George Wallace, Pat Buchanan, Nixon and Lee Atwater, Joerg Hader, Adolf Hitler, Putin, Frank Rizo – these White folks knew how to reach the hearts and minds of regular White folks and they all received very strong voting support.”
Hitler was financed by big business. Wallace and Buchanan accomplished nothing. Nixon cynically exploited white anger but began school busing and affirmative action. Any American president when he got to Washington. Those aren’t very many examples. Usually those with power are elites who get there by manipulating and making themselves acceptable to other elites.
“Hey cxc – we will not write off our poor and working class White kinsmen – they are our people, our kin-folk.”
Don’t write them off. But the fact of the matter is that they’re pretty worthless as far as politics goes.
The biggest beneficiaries of capitalism have been the poor. They today live in conditions that would make a Roman emperor gasp. They do so because of the few elite inventors and entrepreneurs who move things forward.
So, you think Richard Hoste is a “typical lying Libertarian”? You are a fool. Bye-bye.
“WN is about group loyalty to our people, not just selfishness, living for one’s self.”
This is typical of the stupidity regarding libertarianism. One who claims to be libertarian must be selfish. If you are not offering your services for minimum wage or free, please shut the hell up. I regard the word ‘conservative’ as another word for statist. I don’t know where you get your economic history from, but free market and property rights provided the most wealth the world has ever seen. I’d give you a reading list other than Mises and Rothbard that makes the point, but I would be wasting my time.
Maybe libertarian views appeal to me because I’m just sick of over 1/4 of my take home before and after my check being sucked away into mostly useless enterprises. Social security is a fraud; the money looted over my short working life could almost pay off my home. I’m disgusted with the overreach of government power at the federal, state, and local levels. I’m also tired of the minority bull shit and having to pay for being a white male over issues that happened over a generation ago.
I make no apology for wanting to keep all of my earnings for myself and then dole out as I see fit whether they be individuals or charitable organizations.
Working class whites should take an interest in free markets and property rights. There are plenty of blue collar whites that make $40k plus per year. Surely they notice the tax bite from their earnings.
It’s a waste of energy to only attack Libertarians.
Make them an offer. Sell renewed Confederacy first, then a promise that some state(s) go to Libertarianism.
Everybody benefits that way.
Jack Ryan, july 7 3:24 pm, 3rd paragraph, says that the masses of poor Whites reject economic conservatism every time (Ron Paul won all of 22 delegates).
Ron Paul/libertarianism is for anyone getting as much money as they can, as long as they do not “harm” others (a term libertarianism left lots of room to define). This is one of the ways Ron Paul is strongly for economic conservatism.
In reality, Paul winning all 22 delegates shows an example of the masses of people supporting economic conservatism.
I think White people are way more willing to support a return to Libertarianism as long as there is strong border control, and an amendment to keep the country majority White through immigration policy, than many would expect.
Intra-national libertarianism with reasonable tarrifs or other competition between nation-states to be expected.
Interestingly, this is yet another return to tradition. Most of the Anglo-descended countries originally set things up to be just this way: Confederation, experimentation among states, libertarianism within the country and protectionism without, and a White Nation immigration policy.
So the advantages to supporting a modified Libertarianism that supports White interests are:
1. It has significant popularity right now
2. There is the potential it can be influenced; it ties in with an existing movement rather than having to create one from scratch
3. It ties in with Confederation, a renewal of which serve the interests of WNs
4. There is no evidence it doesn’t work. The countries that embraced those ideals have ended up among the world’s successful.
5. It has culture, history, philosophy, and tradition behind it
6. It’s popular right now and will probably increase for at least a short time longer
7. It may be the best suited system for Whites to prosper under (with the understanding it is to be intra-country libertarianism only and with a pro-White immigration policy, as it originally was)
Etc.
“The countries that embraced those ideals have ended up among the world’s successful. ”
Countries? That is an abstraction.
Define, exactly, WHOM ended up successful. Was it the majority of said “countries” workers, or rather a few individual businessmen?
A “country” can be listed as extremely “successful,” meaning much money is generated, but have bad wages and living standards for its workers.
Ron Paul’s distric in Texas has some of the worst wages in the country.
This really cracks me up. Folks think that there is no known theoretical or practical knowlege of economics, and that one must make up their very own ideas on the spur of the moment.
I have seen this especially in letters to the editor. All that is possible is “my opinion” so that’s what they offer.
How many books on economics have you read?
http://rexcurry.net/nazi%20salute%201.jpg
“In reality, Paul winning all 22 delegates shows an example of the masses of people supporting economic conservatism.”
It’s not 1968 anymore. Ron Paul would be a dead heat with Obama according to one recent poll. “The masses” seem to be fed up with endless wars, being taxed to death and spied on (and worse), health care rammed down their throats, bailouts, mass immigration, etc.
John July 8, 2010 at 10:31 pm says
“’The masses’ seem to be fed up with endless wars, being taxed to death and spied on (and worse), health care rammed down their throats, bailouts, mass immigration, etc.” I comment on the “health care rammed down their throats”.
At the risk of opening up another discussion, I would just point out that almost every single person in the middle class or below (and a number above) will be absolutely concerned about the money they have (or more likely don’t have) to pay for care of any significant health conditions. There is no way to evade this. Evolution has made people that way. When events gets close to the person, raw survival is one of the most powerful drives people have. It’s the “rammed down their throats” that they are upset about, or the “socialist” aspects that they are upset about.
But whoever gains power, liberals or conservatives or WNs or whoever, has to come up with approaches that address the difficult (very difficult) problem of the cost of medical care and the powerful built-in drives people have to save themselves. I think the Republicans are aware of this and have answers for the next political phase if they should come to power. As for WNs, I don’t know if they have any awareness whatsoever of the issue.