Is There a Cure for Libertarianism?

50 Comments

1. Hear, hear.

   As you noted, Libertarianism tends toward the higher IQ spectrum (hence it’s an overwhelmingly white thing). I think this is what gives it both its detachment from reality (i.e., high IQ people, dealing deftly with abstractions, tend toward intellectual masturbation, often find reality too ugly and tedious, and hold anything remotely emotional or arational [e.g., loyalty] as vulgar and pathetically pedestrian), and its seeming impregnability (i.e., high IQ people, recognizing their intellectual superiority, tend toward a sense of infallibility and are often much more skeptical of and hostile toward the arguments of lessers–or arguments of intellectual peers that are commonly espoused by lessers).

   Of the hard-core libertarians that I have been able to engage in constructive, though unyielding, debate, I have suggested that we should come together and deal with getting the leftists out of power first (not just from government, but from academia, journalism, media, etc.)–and then we can slug it out over Libertarian pet issues, such as returning to the gold standard, open borders, and the like. I’m not wholly confident this is a wise position, but I do feel much less existentially threatened by Libertarians than I do be leftists.

   All that being said, I do not have an answer to your question outside of following the normal routes of civil debate and bringing to bear the myriad evidence and rational arguments that support many of our positions (particularly those relating to race in some way) while undercutting many of those held by libertarians. Being smart people (and often emotionally spare, IMO), appealing to the libertarians’ intelligence will be the only way to go.

2. Libertarianism is a form of liberalism in that the individual is seen as the core of society. It’s the same sickness that’s been plaguing Europe since the French Revolution. If you think about it Communism and Libertarianism are quite closely related, since they both derive from humanist ideals.

   Whereas true conservatism recognizes that the individual is frail, and what matters most is the quality of society, of which individuals are but one part. This isn’t Communism because it’s honest about the fact that individuals differ greatly in abilities and value.

   It’s civilization as the end-goal; and the individual as the means (conservatism) vs. civilization as the means, and the individual as the end (humanism/liberalism).

   Something to think about. Westerners are terribly sick in their thinking in a way that goes far beyond racial issues.

3. Well, I used to be hardcore Libertarian. I ran for congress as a Libertarian in 1996. I did get 3% of the vote though approx. The one thing that never sat right with me was the open borders aspect of Liberaltairianism.

   I think that the basic libertarian philosophy is fine as long as it applies to a group of one people isolated from other groups who see the world differently and thus choose differently and make different cultures. When it gets extended across racial and cultural boundaries it falls apart. It also falls apart when it comes to long-term interests. Or for the good of the people long-term. In these cases, you almost always need to restrict peoples freedoms for the sake of the future.

   Since everything that is important about life is NOT about the individual, and NOT about their here-and-now needs, larger themes of the progression of life need to be taken into account. Natural eugenics made us, for example. Our brains developed as veritable eugenic machines–appliances which gather and process information to allow us to overcome environmental obstacles to our survival in larger and more diverse ways over longer amounts of time. Anything we can do to increase our abilities, creativity, industry, and brainpower is reason to restrict our freedoms–such as eugenics. Really it comes down to religion. Religious and societal morals are quick and dirty eugenic programs, for example, compared to what we could do now with modern genetic knowledge. We should be perfecting these sytems and doing eugenics with this new knowledge. That we are not doing this is an evil restriction arising from post-WW2 politics and the Jewish Century we now find ourselves in. Before WW2, every white European country was embarking on eugenics programs. It is OUR way, our religion. We should not only be ALLOWED to do these things, they should be done fervently and with the full force of the laws and resources at our disposal.

   Every problem with society can be ameliorated, and every great work of society increased with tiny eugenic changes in regulations and laws alone — not to mention cultural changes. It is a symptom of the modern destructive and deceptive world we live in that we have been knocked off this great, timeless, even religious path of life. THAT is why I am not Libertarian any more about those things. I can see clearly that I love freedom, but I love it because I think it helps OUR people to reach HIGHER things through the choices we historically make (like our universal eugenic programs). Anywhere that Libertarianism causes problems with this upward path, such as immigration, shows that it is NOT the underlying principle of life and government we should be following. Their are higher consideration, a higher unarticulated principle that makes liberty itself worthwhile for us as a people — that higher principle is TRUTH. Follow that, increase that, and evil hasn’t got a chance.

   In fact, if you think about it, the true litmus test of any leader ought to be whether he advocates eugenics. Those who don’t have a vested interest in ignorance, and so their motives are nefarious. Keep thinking about it… TRUTH in the logical, thoughtful, scientific sense of our race is the reason we are the LEAST evil and have the most potential for good of any race on Earth–when left to ourselves. Any way you look at it, TRUTH is the purpose and torch of life since the beginning of time.

   Freedom and liberty must be subservient to TRUTH. Libertarianism is destroyed by the maleability of our genomes, and the fact that noise is constantly intoduced to genes, and that other motives than truth can gain footholds in civilizations and must not be allowed to prosper (think LAW AND ORDER). That’s really why we have prisons… Libertariansm is a false idol we are shunted to by unease that our world is being manipulated and that truth is suffering or could be in peril long-term. With truth firmly in our motivational headlights, all the benefits of liberty flow forth, and the negatives fall away. Libertarianism is a false principle when used alone as an end to mask something higher.

4. Half the libertarians are generational-American ethnic Euro-gentiles who are crypto-racialists, in that they believe libertarian principles will help them keep their money away from others interested in racial redistribution of wealth (affirmative action) & foreigners’ wars. So the “open borders” piece of the argument is the one place that doesn’t “sit right” with them. They are nationalists AND they don’t want their money given to other groups.

   The other half are often Jewish and besides wanting to keep their money, assume the banking structure will cover them, racially. In addition, they feel money is the great leveler—and if all can earn equally, they can be accepted in the European societies from which they have been previously expelled.

   Any way you cut it, nobody ever really talks about economics. Not really. Not if you listen.

5. Sam Francis once said that libertarianism is the antithesis of racialism.

   It’s no coincidence that libertarianism is dominated by globalist, pro-free trade Jews.

6. Libertines is more like it. Free pot, homosexual sex, and all of that. LOL.

7. There are several types of libertarian:
   1.) Randists/Neo-Objectivists-These are the Ayn Rand Cultists. They preach extreme individualism, libertinism, and hedonism, accept when Jewish or Israeli interests become the topic THEN they suddenly talk like racialists of a particular Levantine sort.
   2.) Neolibertarians-These are the Reason gang. They don’t really care about states rights or big government, they are, as Earlmundo mentions above, about free drugs and sex and greater hedonist pleasures for themselves. They don’t even oppose war; these people are the “liberventionists.”
   3.) Paleolibertarians-This is a mixed bag honestly. They really do share alot of the deracinated ideas that established the American republic. They favor states rights and many (though not all by any means) favor closed borders as long as the welfare state exists. I agree that alot of them are sort of passively aggressively promoting policies to benefit whites and fight blacks and jews through their desires to end government social spending and stop foreign intervention. Some indeed believe stupid individualistic utopian things but I still think they can prove useful.
   4.) Anarcho-Capitalists: This can be seen as a radical non-racialist right wing outgrowth of paleolibertarianism. Hans Hermann Hoppe promoted a fantastic and thoughtful critique of democracy. His solution of a monarchy, feudal system, or corporation run society many not be ideal but it is something to think about and indeed sows decent in the reader from the current system.
   5.) Many Neo-Secessionists are also what could be called “conservative libertarians.” A breakaway Southern state or states I could see one day adopting some of the more states rights oriented policies that the paleolibertarians and Pauls of the world have to offer.
   AND
   6.) Attempts at a White Racialist Libertarianism-Yes, I realize at first that some might think this oxymoronic but in a world where big government “neolibertarians” want us to bomb Arabs to show are “individuality,” I don’t think there is anything wrong with such a hybred. The late John “the Birdman” Bryant in effect advocated a type of duel libertarian morality: one set of (racialist) rules when dealing with or considering non-whites and one set of (libertarian) rules when dealing with or considering whites. I think such a system is possible. Just as a wholly white communist or liberal progressive society would do better a mixed one, perhaps efforts at a white nationalist/libertarian hybred are possible.

8. “Some indeed believe stupid individualistic utopian things but I still think they can prove useful.”

   Care to elaborate here? Gun rights (right to self defense), freedom of speech, private property are stupid utopian things?

   As for the post, this is another asinine low IQ critique of libertarianism. They lose at the ballot box because Americans are stupid about concepts in the Bill of Rights thanks to publik skools and the media, the system is stacked against third parties and favors the uni party two party system, and the corporate media collectively works against any third parties.

   Any philosophy will have a handful of outliers that will make them look bad. Skinheads don’t represent the entire white nationalist movement now, do they?

   By the way. I would not regard Milton Friedman as libertarian. Milton and the Chicago school are not a friend of a free market in money which is a core problem of most political and economic systems.

   I have no problem kicking the illegals out and restricting most others that do not come from cultures NOT attuned to ideas like private property and civil liberties.

9. The term ‘neo-conservative’ was famously defined as ‘liberals who have been mugged by reality’. In their case the reality was that the Democratic Party was no longer available as a vehicle to promote international domination by the powers-that-be in America, was less and less interested in fighting wars, wasn’t sure Communism was all that big a threat, and didn’t much care about either the plight of Soviet Jews or Israel.

   It was only AFTER experiencing the full flowering of Democratic power, the disasterous McGovern campaign, the seizure of power by the far left in the Democratic party, and the utter failiure of Carter – that they had reflex reaction to walk away and create a new ideology on the ruins of the old.

   Likewise Libertarianism will probably only fail after being decisively proven wrong through experience. Strangely the meltdown of the largely unregulated financial system, followed by the tax-payer looting by the big banks, doesn’t seem to have been that catalyst. The libertarians claim that it’s proof that government interference caused the problems.

   I’m thinking that the free market adovates are going to be mugged by reality shortly.

10. sth-txs:

    You might not have problems kicking the illegals out, but most libertarians do. For instance Gov. Gary Johnson, the libertarian leaning Republican running for President in 2012 is for giving everyone in America legal status and IDs (though not instant citizenship) so we can manage them better. He has not been able to give up the “free borders” plank of classic libertarianism that goes with the “free minds and free markets” one.

    The problem with Libertarianism, as you point out, is that we have the wrong citizenry to implement it. It’s not really a practical alternative when some huge percent of Americans depend on the government for their upkeep. It’s a great “what if” parlor game: “what if the USA ended all welfare”. I don’t know? Would the fifth generation welfare families in Detroit suddenly become the new Henry Fords? Libertarians would tend to answer “yes” or at least “maybe”. White Nationalists will unhesitatingly answer “no”. Average Americans sense that the answer is no – that if “those people” were going to rise up and join us as part of the productive class it would have happened by now. It hasn’t, they didn’t, and more and more instinctively understand that they probably can not.

    I do think the Libertarians have been quite successful in providing ideas to the GOP and Conservative movement. This success is impressive. Many right-wing ideas start out at Cato Institute or in Reason magazine and three years later, in slightly watered down form, are talking points for GOP candidates. Unfortunately libertarianism has also provided the ideological cover for the elitists to conduct their rape and pillage operations against the rest of us. $100 million bonus payments to executives of bailed out finance firms are justified by “market conditions” and the need to “retain the best talent in these difficult times” and of course the threat that “we will no longer be a financial hub if we over restrict the markets”. All good Cato talking points.

    I think, despite Hunter’s not fully explained unhappiness, this site has come very close to being the first WN think-tank that offers up explanations, terminology, ideas and plans that have some ability to cross over to more mainstream movements (like the Tea Party).

    I see no way that Libertarianism can be anything other than a fringe ideology in America given the makeup of our citizens. We have grown and imported a nation of sheep, and they will bleet and bleet until the shepherd appears, even if it is only to lead them to the slaughter house. The only path to Libertarianism is a massive change in the character of Americans, which is probably only possible with one of the more cataclysmic options openly discussed here: secession, partition, ethno-states, total financial collapse of the USA, etc. Short of that you’re stuck with the ‘tards.

    Demographics really *is* destiny.

11. If we shut down government welfare programs and it happened to starve some of those who appear here, even the whites, it would not bother me all that much:

    http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/?page_id=9798

12. “Likewise Libertarianism will probably only fail after being decisively proven wrong through experience. Strangely the meltdown of the largely unregulated financial system, followed by the tax-payer looting by the big banks, doesn’t seem to have been that catalyst. The libertarians claim that it’s proof that government interference caused the problems.”

    Since you don’t understand monetary issues, and the role of a central bank legislated by government, you would have that opinion. There was plenty of laws and regulation, but little of it was enforced given that the big banks are in collusion with the Federal Reserve and US Treasury.

    There is a relationship between money and property rights, and Americans have neither in this area. There is a reason why those dead white guys wrote gold and silver as payment for public debts in the US Constitution. You don’t own the money in the bank, and the bank does have the ‘cash’ funds to cover all deposits.

13. sth_txs says:
    August 25, 2010 at 5:50 pm

    “If we shut down government welfare programs and it happened to starve some of those who appear here, even the whites, it would not bother me all that much:”

    And what chance do you think that “we”/ those in power in the United States are going to shut down government welfare programs and allow poor NWs and even some poor Whites” to starve?

    I would guess that it would be about the same chance as some 80 year old Libertarian, race denying, Constitutionalist true believer has of getting elected President of the United States or even just winning one state’s GOP primary.

    Face it – Libertarians live in a fantasy world that is completely removed from reality of life in America year 2010.

    We are race realists – in the same we recognize Nature and dress accordingly so we don’t FREEZE TO DEATH or die of heat exhaustion, White race realists are aware of racial realities – aware that places like Somalia and Detroit are very different from say suburban St. Paul Minnesota or most parts of Switzerland.

    I am strongly advising Hunter and the editors of O.D. to give these idiot, know it all, race denying Libertarians the boot. This is a cult that we do not want to encourage here or really anywhere.

14. I understand the welfare part Jack, but supporting air wasting ‘crackers’ does nothing for me either. A leech is a leech regardless of race.

    The ‘race denying Libertarians’ as you call them, are not a large contingent.

    I do object to those libertarians that believe corporations have carte blanche to do whatever they want. Corporate statism does not appeal to me anymore that government driven statism.

15. sth_txs says:
    August 25, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    “The ‘race denying Libertarians’ as you call them, are not a large contingent.”

    I would say it’s a 50/50% split between 50% race denying Libertarian true believers who really believe that race doesn’t or shouldn’t matter and Black Haiti can be as prosperous as Switzerland if just sound free market economics are implemented and the 50% who are shameless liars – very Jewish led who hate White gentiles and want to see our people wiped from the face of North America, the earth.

    Here is the Wall Street Journal Editorial calling for complete open borders immigration in to the USA – demanding that every single NW on planet earth be giving an absolute right to move to the USA – anywhere in the USA – Manhattan, San Diego etc. This was the editorial that open my mind about the hideous Libertarian cult intent on destroying my people/nation.

    http://www.vdare.com/fulford/050703_wsj.htm

    “In Praise of Huddled Masses

    Wall Street Journal, Jul 3, 1984

    Amid the fireworks and picnics as this nation celebrates its independence tomorrow, we hope Americans stop to ask, what is the United States? The question is especially appropriate at this moment in the history of a nation of immigrants; upon returning from its July 4 recess Congress will try to finish work on the Simpson-Mazzoli bill.

    The answer to the question is in the first words of our Constitution, “We, the people.” It was the people, and especially new people, who worked this land into a New World. We hope today’s gentlepeople, the descendants of the tired and poor who sought refuge on these shores, can still spare a thought for today’s huddled masses, yearning to be free.

    Simpson-Mazzoli, we are repeatedly told, is a carefully crafted compromise. It is in fact an anti-immigration bill. Note well that despite its grant of amnesty for aliens who have been residents long enough, its most outspoken opponents are the Hispanics, who would prefer to live with the present laws. Its constituency is an interesting and perhaps portentous alliance of the “nativist” Americans who still dominate Mountain States politics and the “Club of Rome” elitists of the Boston-Washington corridor.

    We can hope that the bill will die in the House-Senate conference, which still must resolve such contentious differences as whether or not to have a program of temporary guest workers for agriculture. If it survives conference, President Reagan would be wise to veto it as antithetical to the national self-confidence his administration has done so much to renew.

    If Washington still wants to “do something” about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders. Perhaps this policy is overly ambitious in today’s world, but the U.S. became the world’s envy by trumpeting precisely this kind of heresy. Our greatest heresy is that we believe in people as the great resource of our land. Those who would live in freedom have voted over the centuries with their feet. Wherever the state abused its people, beginning with the Puritan pilgrims and continuing today in places like Ho Chi Minh City and Managua, they’ve aimed for our shores. They—we—have astonished the world with the country’s success.

    The nativist patriots scream for “control of the borders.” It is nonsense to believe that this unenforceable legislation will provide any such thing. Does anyone want to “control the borders” at the moral expense of a 2,000-mile Berlin Wall with minefields, dogs and machine-gun towers? Those who mouth this slogan forget what America means. They want those of us already safely ensconced to erect giant signs warning: Keep Out, Private Property.

    The instinct is seconded by the “zero-sum” mentality that has been intellectually faddish this past decade. More people, the worry runs, will lead to overcrowding; will use up all our “resources,” and will cause unemployment. Trembling no-growthers cry that we’ll never “feed,” “house” or “clothe” all the immigrants—though the immigrants want to feed, house and clothe themselves. In fact, people are the great resource, and so long as we keep our economy free, more people means more growth, the more the merrier. Somehow the Reagan administration at least momentarily adopted the cramped Club-of-Rome vision, forgetting which side of this debate it is supposed to support. Ronald Reagan, we thought, marched to different bywords—”growth,” for example, and “opportunity.”

    If anyone doubts that the immigration and growth issue touches the fundamental character of a nation, he should look to recent experience in Europe. Some European governments are taken in by the no-growth nonsense that economic pies no longer grow, and must be sliced. They are actually paying immigrants and guest workers to go home: the Germans pay Turks, the French pay North Africans, the British pay West Indians and Asians. It was this dour view of people as liabilities, not assets, that led to the great European emigration to the U.S. in the first place. Meanwhile, Europe today settles into long-term unemployment for millions while the U.S. economy is booming with new jobs.

    The same underlying difference in vision applies in political ideals. The individual is the lightning rod of 20th-century politics. The totalitarians of the Communist Bloc don’t allow their people to leave. The foremost use of the machinery of the state is to wall in the citizens. If we cannot change their regimes, the least we can do is to offer refuge to those of their peoples with the opportunity and courage to arrive here. To do otherwise is to say that the ideals upon which this Republic was founded are spent, that what is left is to negotiate the terms of surrender.

    America, above all, is a nation founded upon optimism. The Republic will prosper so long as it does not disavow this taproot. The issue is not what we offer the teeming masses, but what they offer us: their hands, their minds, their spirit, and above all the chance to be true to our own past and our own future.”

16. STS: “Since you don’t understand monetary issues, and the role of a central bank legislated by government, you would have that opinion. ”

    Gee, jump to conclusions much? Any disagreement with libertarian orthodoxy is proof of ignorance to you guys.

    I wasn’t setting out to write a treatese on monetary policy here. Just pointing out that even the current financial crisis can be interpretted two ways; the left interprets it as reuglatory failure. They have some glaring examples to point to as proof points: the Clinton era meeting where the big swinging dicks Rubin and Greenspan told off the woman from the CBOT who was arguing that derrivatives needed to be regulated. There were not, and they played a huge role in the financial crisis (including the death of Lehman and the bailout of Bear Stearns.)

    The libertarian right views it as a failure of statism, and they too have some great proof points: the role of Fannie and Freddie in the creation of millions of stupid loans, which were bundled into the bonds that went south, etc.

    My main point was that, while I do think that eventually libertarians will get bitten by reality and have to admit that their pure lassie faire economic model is not realistic, maybe they are so self referential that they won’t.

    After all the founder of The Seventh Day adventists predicted (twice!) the exact day Jesus would return. She is still worshipped as a saint.

    Please try to avoid making rude, far-reaching generalizations about people based on a mere sentence or two, eh. For instance, since I don’t know you it would be presumptuous for me to say “I’ve probably forgotton more about Central Banking than you have ever known.”.

17. i think real libertarianism allows for people to freely associate and create their own laws in their own communities. obviously the leading libertarians don’t see it that way, so they are as useless to us as any replublicrat.

    white nationalism needs to become more of a religious movement than a political ideology. worshiping our own, dominating territories, creating our own currency and welcoming our kin back to the family.

18. Libertarians aren’t even consistent. They refuse to acknowledge the right of individuals to form collectives and act as members. Sure, they’ll hem and haw that citizens can form private organizations, but outright refuse to acknowledge that a people has a right to be a people and form their own state, control their borders, restrict national membership, etc. Go tell a bunch of libertards that a territory controlled by individualist libertards is doomed to be overrun by better-organized societies – they won’t care.

    It’s all just academic to these guys. They’ve got their cult and they’re sticking to it. Since they’ll never take control of anything, they have the luxury of being strictly theoretical. Basically, most of them just want to bitch (a lot of WNs are the same way, they seem to want to remain a subculture).

19. The good news is, they’re used to thinking about politics, they’re pretty logical, and they crave freedom from the current regime.

    Which means many of them are probably a short walk from some kind of ethnopatriotism. After all, non-whites show no inclination toward libertarianism, and the regime they hate is inextricably intertwined with race-replacement.

20. I’m not sure all Libertarians do subscibe to individualism. Hans Hermann-Hoppe is someone who doesn’t. I think it tends to be Social Libertarians who believe in this view, who tend to find libertarian ideas applied to social policy more important than Economic libertarianism.

    A natural order, according to Hoppe, is “characterized by increased discrimination, segregation, spatial separation, uniculturalism (cultural homogeneity), exclusivity, and exclusion.

    In addition, whereas states have undermined intermediating social institutions (family households, churches, covenants, communities, and clubs) and the associated ranks and layers of authority so as to increase their own power vis-a-vis equal and isolated individuals, a natural order is distinctly un-egalitarian: “elitist,” “hierarchical,” “proprietarian,” “patriarchical,” and “authoritorian,” and its stability depends essentially on the existence of a self-conscious natural–voluntarily acknowledged -aristocracy.”

    So Hoppe seems to see the Tribal manner of a Libertarian society already.

    Posted by The Phantom Blogger | April 10, 2010 5:19 PM
    http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/04/the_irony_of_libertarianism.html

21. 1.) Randists/Neo-Objectivists-These are the Ayn Rand Cultists. They preach extreme individualism, libertinism, and hedonism, accept when Jewish or Israeli interests become the topic THEN they suddenly talk like racialists of a particular Levantine sort.

    I had a great time slapping libertarians in the face with Israel over and over and over when I made my foray into a libertarian forum some time ago. I just wouldn’t let it go, lol. I got crickets chirping. My main thrust was that Israel would be destroyed instantly by libertarianism.

    The late John “the Birdman” Bryant in effect advocated a type of duel libertarian morality: one set of (racialist) rules when dealing with or considering non-whites and one set of (libertarian) rules when dealing with or considering whites. I think such a system is possible. Just as a wholly white communist or liberal progressive society would do better a mixed one, perhaps efforts at a white nationalist/libertarian hybred are possible.

    It’s not as left-field as you seem to think, Ed. Ingroup morality (AKA, “double standards”) are right at the heart of racialist thinking. It’s perfectly natural for a healthy people to want one set of rules for international affairs, and another, possibly completely different, set for national affairs. I see it as the default racialist position. Stupid universalists get I/O errors or something when you bring this up, so ingrained is their stupid universalism, but really, what is hard to compute about dealing with the rest of the world as if they’re the totally-uninterested-in-libertarianism types they are, then prizing freedom within the circle you’ve drawn around your tribe? It’s like chivalry. Europeans shared enough culture to have some rules of engagement; if a besieged castle surrendered, you treated its residents mercifully because (inter alia) you might find yourself on the other end one day. But if a group came from outside European norms, killing all in their path without regard, only the truly stupid knights would have continued to deal with the outsiders chivalrously in the face of their total lack of reciprocity.

    Moral and ethical inflexibility is a sign of stupidity.

    Hans Hermann Hoppe promoted a fantastic and thoughtful critique of democracy. His solution of a monarchy, feudal system, or corporation run society many not be ideal

    I may have to read Hoppe. I’ve been thinking about neo-feudalism lately. Got any links?

    Any philosophy will have a handful of outliers that will make them look bad. Skinheads don’t represent the entire white nationalist movement now, do they?

    What does this mean? I admit that I was so disgusted with libtards after my one aforementioned foray that I gave up on them altogether and haven’t approached them since, but the morons were front and center, not outliers. NONE of them had any substantive response to my points, which were extensive. I pounded them for a couple days and they had bumpkiss.

    Would the fifth generation welfare families in Detroit suddenly become the new Henry Fords? Libertarians would tend to answer “yes” or at least “maybe”.

    i think real libertarianism allows for people to freely associate and create their own laws in their own communities.

    If so, I’m the real libertarian, and I’m wondering where all the rest of the real libertarians are. Semantics, I’m afraid.

    A prime example of what I was talking about above; libtards know perfectly well they’ve got a snowball’s chance, and they turn that to their “advantage” by refusing to deal with realities on the ground. They can sleep safe and snug in their beds, dreaming libtard dreams, knowing it will all remain academic. They don’t want to think about this stuff; they want to bitch.

22. Immigration

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s views about immigration [11], which do not cast libertarianism as requiring open borders, have been controversial within the wider libertarian movement. Walter Block offered arguments against Hoppe’s immigration position in a 1999 article, “A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration.”[12]

    Hoppe has countered his opponents by commenting on their opinions in footnote 23[13] to Natural Order, the State, and the Immigration Problem [14]:
    A second motive for the open border enthusiasm among contemporary left-libertarians is their egalitarianism. They were initially drawn to libertarianism as juveniles because of its “antiauthoritarianism” (trust no authority) and seeming “tolerance,” in particular toward “alternative” — non-bourgeois — lifestyles. As adults, they have been arrested in this phase of mental development. They express special “sensitivity” in every manner of discrimination and are not inhibited in using the power of the central state to impose non-discrimination or “civil rights” statutes on society. Consequently, by prohibiting other property owners from discrimination as they see fit, they are allowed to live at others’ expense. They can indulge in their “alternative” lifestyle without having to pay the “normal” price for such conduct, i.e., discrimination and exclusion. To legitimize this course of action, they insist that one lifestyle is as good and acceptable as another. This leads first to multiculturalism, then to cultural relativism, and finally to “open borders.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe

    “Libertarians aren’t even consistent. They refuse to acknowledge the right of individuals to form collectives and act as members. Sure, they’ll hem and haw that citizens can form private organizations. . .” And this is amazing. Older libertarianism
    clearly recognized the right to form proprietary (gated) communities, and to establish RESTRICTIONS by contract, not by “initiation of force” (the state). Note that these restrictions could be quite severe- like keeping the community all White. Porno could be blocked, booze sales stopped, all by contract. Yet I detect only the most grudging acknowledgement of the right to form such gated communities. Karen de Coster says- these types of arrangements look suspiciously like the state. I found a site a few years ago where some “libertarian” denied the right to form gated communities based on race, and asserted that outsiders have the right to use force to break up such communities!

    Thy usual suspects have infiltrated all movements.

23. I’ve had plenty if dealings with LibberToons, and contrary to what is said, LibberToons are stupid edjewmacated whiggers who think that theyz’ selfishness is a virtue. They also are oblivious to reality.

    So how to cure LibberToons from LibberToonitarianism? Well, you can’t most of the time.

    I ask them to imagine as LibberToons being pursued by LeRoy Tyrone Williams and MuhDikkk X, wanting them a hunka hunka barbecued marxian meat gliberal whigger. Can they run fast enough to get to a .38 caliber revolver or sawed-off shotgun to shoot ‘ol LeRoy or MuhDikkk or will they end up becummin’ a pile of niggershit? No great loss either way it ends.

    Ought to make a good premise for a videogame. Call it Race for Reality.

    In any case, I’ve never treated LibberToons with anything other than contempt. Thus they hate and fear me for good reason.

    In any case, not to worry about LibberToons as a feces of whigger. The more of them that die in the Great Tribulation the better.

    Hail Victory!!!

    Pastor Martin Luther Dzerzhinsky Lindstedt
    Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum

24. Thanks to everyone who contributed helpful comments about their experiences with Libertarianism.

    I think most of us can agree that it is OK to favor smaller government, less government control of the economy and more individual rights, provided everyone is aware of racial realities and takes very strong pro white positions in immigration, no White vs White civil wars, White Gentile control of the media, military, schools etc.

    Everyone who reads O.D. should be ready to deal with the very common know it all Libertarians who simply deny racial realities or who always makes some “free market” excuses for terrible NW attacks on our people – stuff like saying private school vouchers are the solution to urban Black crime, Black school failures etc.

    Thanks again to everyone who contributed, now please take a very, very firm line against anti White, or race denying Libertarians including those in the Ron Paul cult.

25. Paleolib-Paleocon hybrid politics as practiced by PJB and his at least initially enthusiastic supporter Murray Rothbard may have some potential. PJB got 3 million votes in BOTH the 1992 and 1996 primaries. Paul got well under half that number of votes in 2008. As Rothbard stated at the time, the Buchanan strategy was inspired by Duke’s 1991 gubernatorial campaign.

    There is little doubt that-for now- the sheep are by far largest part of the white electorate. The anti-white zeitgeist has intensified greatly since the strong Duke showings of the early ’90’s. A reasonable way to move in the direction of a solution to the current ideological-political crisis would be to get a form of PR (STV, party-list
    or even cumulative voting) adopted in some Red states via initiative and referendum.
    PR is how anti-immigrationists and right-wing populists get elected in Europe. Some may say this kind of reform is impossible in the US, but discontent with the two major parties is at record levels. This seems to indicate that many of the sheep are contemplating going feral. There should be an attempt to get some grass-roots Tea Party groups to think about this kind of change.

26. I knew a local Libertarian heavyweight. He actually said that some day someone would be able to claim the sun as his property and collect income from his ownership. This outrageous claim was made in the spirit of calm reasonable obvious truth. I read ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and was left with the felling that the author was of a cold, heartless, sociopathic nature. I understand the appeal of ‘natural libertarianism’, but Libertarianism itself is simply a reflection of the insane ‘normality’ of the modern world.

27. A nation is a people and a place. A nation’s purpose is to stand as a breeding ground for the people that inhabit it, wherein their progeny can grow up untroubled by other peoples.

    A nationalist’s highest end is the welfare of their families, whether that be their immediate relations, or their race as a whole.

    To libertarians, a nation is a marketplace and nothing more. Their highest end is money.

    We differ on principle.

28. May 14, 2008 (VDARE)
    Lew Rockwell And The Strange Death (Or At Least Suspended Animation) Of Paleolibertarianism

    By Arthur Pendleton

    The biggest controversy of Ron Paul’s presidential race was the release of old excerpts from The Ron Paul Letter. During Paul’s congressional races, he had been attacked occasionally for RPL pieces about black crime rates and political attitudes, and he had defended them. But now James Kirchick of The New Republic managed to go through the entire archives and find politically incorrect statements about gay rights, black crime, South Africa, and Martin Luther King Jr.

    Paul caved in a sadly conventional manner (in contrast to Obama when the MSM finally reported the news of his ties to Rev. Jeremiah Wright). He denied he wrote or even knew the articles existed in his own newsletter. He denounced them on no uncertain terms, groveling about how much he loved Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr, and how he thought the criminal justice system is racist.

    Those in the know claimed former Paul chief of staff and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute Lew Rockwell was the author of the letters. Rockwell has vigorously denied it. And various writers on his heavily-trafficked LewRockwell.com [LRC] denounced all the “racism” in the Paul letters.

    But regardless of whether or not Rockwell actually wrote the offending articles, the fact is that he was once willing to breach all the taboos that the newsletter violated. Unfortunately, however, in the last few years Rockwell and his LewRockwell.com circle have come full circle and embraced much of the leftist agenda that they once bemoaned.

    In the process, they have essentially abandoned “paleolibertarianism”, the once-promising intellectual movement that stayed true to libertarian principles while opposing open borders, libertinism, egalitarianism, and political correctness.

    I first ran into Lew Rockwell and his mentor Murray Rothbard—who is considered the founder of modern libertarianism— when I volunteered for Pat Buchanan in 1992. I had previously thought of libertarians as just greedy hippies, but I found that Rothbard and Rockwell had all the gripes against most libertarians—whom Rothbard called “left libertarians” or “modal libertarians”—that I did.

    In the late 1980s, Rockwell and Rothbard broke with the Establishment of the libertarian movement represented by the Cato Institute and Libertarian Party. With the Cold War over, Pat Buchanan and many conservatives were returning to the isolationist principles of the Old Right. Rockwell and Rothbard aligned themselves with this “paleoconservative” tendency and began to refer to themselves as “paleolibertarians”. The main institutions behind the paleolibertarian movement were the Mises Institute, of which LewRockwell.com was originally a project, and the Center for Libertarian Studies, which published the Rothbard Rockwell Report (RRR.)

    The RRR was a cantankerous and marvelously politically incorrect newsletter. It would publish taboo writers like Mike Levin, Sam Francis, and Jared Taylor. Murray Rothbard wrote one of the strongest reviews of The Bell Curve in which he praised other scientific students of race like John R. Baker and Phil Rushton. Most of all, RRR would not hesitate to call out the neoconservatives and the left-libertarians for their left wing views on homosexuality and race.

    Lew Rockwell also appeared regularly in the Los Angeles Times, where he would write columns you would rarely see in a big city paper. He vigorously defended the beating of Rodney King and went after vouchers because they would, in effect, allow underclass blacks into private schools, writing

    “The initiative also affects good public schools. They will have vouchered students arriving from everywhere to demand entrance. What if a suburb refuses? It cannot. The initiative says it must be open to “children regardless of residence.” The dirty secret of vouchers is that they effectively abolish school districts.” [Big Brother, Thy Name Is Vouchers, Los Angeles Times, August 15, 1992. (Pay archive)

    Tragically, Rothbard died at the early age of 68 in 1995. Over the next few years, Rockwell and other paleolibertarians quarreled with the paleoconservatives at the Rockford Institute and Chronicles Magazine over economics—and possibly because of personality clashes—and mostly seceded from their joint forum, the John Randolph Club. But they continued to take the anti-egalitarian right wing line.

    In 1999 Rockwell ended the RRR which morphed into the webzine Lewrockwell.com (LRC) and the Center for Libertarian Studies also began Justin Raimondo’s Antiwar.com.

    The paleolibertarians also were leaders in the fight to oppose Third World immigration—Greg Pavlik wrote in RRR

    “these new arrivals from the third world generally vote for statist policies and along ethnic lines; agitate for entrenching affirmative action; benefit from affirmative action at others’ expense; back redistribution of all sorts; commit crimes disproportionate to their numbers; and add to the welfare burden disproportionate to their numbers.”[February, 1998]

    The brilliant economist Hans-Herman Hoppe wrote scholarly articles showing that open borders was not limited government, but forced integration.

    Then came September 11. Admirably, Lewrockwell.com and antiwar.com were among the few conservative (and even libertarian) outfits to come strongly against the attack on Iraq. Middle America and the institutionalized conservative movement were the most vigorous beaters of the war drum.

    It does not take a genius to see that the same neoconservative ideology that transformed conservatism into empire building is also behind open borders—what Steve Sailer calls “invade the world/invite the world.” David Frum’s notorious “Unpatriotic Conservatives” piece that went after the paleos gave almost as much attention to their supposed racism and xenophobia than their opposition to the War. The Weekly Standard is the most vocally pro-war and open borders “conservative” publication.

    But instead of trying to take back Middle America from the neocons, Lew Rockwell appears to have decided the new enemy was “Red State Fascism”—a.k.a. Middle American patriotism, however misguided. Instead of accusing the neoconservatives of transforming conservatism into a universalistic and internationalist war machine, Mises Institute VP Jeff Tucker wrote that the root of the problem was that all conservatives are nationalists. Before long, LRC writers were praising Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore, while endorsing John Kerry for President.

    An alliance on foreign policy is one thing. But this leftward slide has applied to other issues.
    When Jeremiah’s Wright’s anti-white and anti-American sermons got attention, the paleolibertarians not only defended his extreme antiwar positions, but also his black paranoia.

    According to Justin Raimondo,

    “Of course, Wright’s contention that “no black man will ever be considered for president” is refuted by the very fact of Obama’s front-runner status. Perhaps only Hillary Clinton—who recently offered Obama the vice presidency, in spite of the fact that he’s ahead of her by every measure—and a few yahoos out in the sticks are stuck in this old mindset. As for the rest, it’s undeniably true. We do have more black men in prison than in college—way more. Racism is alive and well; driving while black is still a dangerous pastime. This country was founded with a near-fatal flaw in the constitutional order, one that permitted slavery to continue for another hundred years.” [Links are Raimondo’s]

    Anthony Gregory complained on Lewrockwell.com that “decrying real racial oppression, especially in the form of imperialism, is sometimes considered ‘PC’” but that in reality Wright was a victim of conservative political correctness that refused to acknowledge “[t]he Founding Fathers were hypocrites. The US was the aggressor in the Mexican War. The European colonists were horrible to the Indians. Slavery was a great evil. Japanese Internment was a great evil…The criminal justice system is systematically unfair and oppressive.”
    Whereas Rothbard once said that the litmus test

    “which can set up a clear dividing line between genuine conservatives and neoconservatives, and between paleolibertarians and what we can now call “left-libertarians”… is where one stands on “Doctor” King”,

    Lewrockwell.com now reprints King’s anti-American essays and approvingly links to pieces suggesting there was a government conspiracy to kill King.
    Whereas Rothbard once bemoaned that

    “in the case of most left liberals and all neocons, any proposal for any reason to restrict immigration or even to curb the flow of illegals, is automatically and hysterically denounced as racist, fascist, sexist, heterosexist, xenophobic, and the rest of the panoply of smear terms that lie close to hand”,

    LRC now publishes pieces from Hispanics that denounce “racism from people like the Minutemen and other self-armed vigilantes” and say that any “attempt by the majority to assimilate us or to only speak English because we’re in someone else’s country” is “only a milder form of racism and xenophobia.”
    Whereas the RRR once said of the Foundation for Economic Education,

    “Does the open-borders crusade mark a permanent break from FEE’s roots in the Old Right?…The tying of FEE to the National Council of La Raza line on immigration must be reconsidered, if only in the interests of the organization’s own stated ideals.”

    an LRC writer named Ryan McMaken has just defended Reconquista:

    ‘Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people. It is your duty to die… Through love of having children, we are going to take over.’

    “The American Conservative Union is shocked —shocked!—that anyone would say such a thing. Of course, you could simply change a few words around and you’d simply get something that could have been uttered by most any 19th century Anglo American —telling Mexicans to get lost, of course. The losers then were the Hispanics. Now, the Anglos are the losers. And they’re losing big time…

    “I know the thought of a Hispanic majority, which will surely be a solid majority throughout the American Western states by the end of the century, drives many conservatives (especially of the paleo variety) [Link to VDARE.COM in the original] into apoplexy, but the fact is the Anglos simply don’t have ht resources (namely, the population) to win. Even if the borders were closed, it would still be just a matter of time. The Hispanic population is simply more young and fertile than the quickly aging and childless Anglo one. Plus, history has shown that an old, sterile population bordered by a young, fertile population, will eventually be overwhelmed regardless of what the law books say…

    “The fact that California, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah are even part of the United States is just an accident of history… And overall, the day of Anglo civilization is moving quickly to the grave. They’ll be replaced in Northern Europe, and they’ll be replaced in North America. The Anglos here should at least be happy they’re being outnumbered by Christians and not by Muslims interested in Sharia law. Soon, Anglo-Saxon civilization will be but a footnote in history.”

    Anyone who did not get the memo that we need to do a 180 on race and immigration is now denounced or swept under the rug.
    When American Renaissance staffer Jim Lubinskas wrote a piece for Frontpagemag.com proclaiming “The End of Paleoconservatism” that included a mild criticism of the paleos abandonment of racial issues, Justin Raimondo responded by calling Jared Taylor a “pseudo-intellectual,” “neo-Nazi” and “Park Avenue George Lincoln Rockwell.”

    LRC had a few blog posts questioning the legacy of Rosa Parks, but they were promptly deleted after a left libertarian attacked them.

    When LRC found that Bob Wallace wrote, admittedly in simplistic terms, about racial differences in intelligence on a message board unrelated to LRC, his entire archive of over 100 posts disappeared.

    The Mises Institute website has every single article that appeared in the Journal of Libertarian Studies—except for Mike Levin’s preview of his wonderful book Why Race Matters, which appeared in the Fall 1997 issue.

    The LRC archives of Jared Taylor [Archive.org link] and Joe Sobran which used to appear on the site have been deleted.

    LRC carries Pat Buchanan’s columns, but hasn’t run his pieces on interracial crime, genetic differences in intelligence, or immigration.

    And, last but not least, LRC used to regularly link to VDARE.COM but hasn’t done so in years—even when Peter Brimelow interviewed Ron Paul, although it could well have helped his presidential candidacy with the patriotic immigration reform movement.

    Needless to say, this groveling hasn’t done the paleolibertarians any good. Cato Institute fellow Tom Palmer has a section to his blog called “The Fever Swamp” dedicated to exposing the “racism” and “anti-Semitism” of LRC and Antiwar.com. The usual Establishment libertarian figures didn’t cut them any slack during the Ron Paul Letter fiasco.

    Lew Rockwell has said he no longer considers himself a paleolibertarian. But the movement filled a real niche and is not completely dead. For example, Hans Herman Hoppe, who is still engaged with the Mises Institute and LRC, has started an international group “Property and Freedom Society” that holds conferences for the remaining right-wing libertarians and other politically incorrect outcasts such as Richard Lynn, Paul Gottfried, Paul Belien, Tatu Vanhanen, and Peter Brimelow.

    LRC, Antiwar.com, and The Mises Institute still do some great work on economics and foreign policy. But we must face the sad fact that they are now completely useless on that National Question. Their opposition to the state has turned to an opposition to the nation.

    Tragically, one of the victims of this is Ron Paul himself. Despite a brave campaign, the plain fact is that he did not do as well in the GOP primaries as the paleoconservative insurrectionary Pat Buchanan did in 1992 and 1996. Paul could easily have countered McCain’s military/patriotic appeal by emphasizing how awful McCain is on immigration, which polls showed was an important issue in many primary states. But so completely did Paul fail to do this that McCain repeatedly ran ahead of him among voters who want immigration reduced.

    Maybe Paul was spending too much time reading the new, emphatically not improved, LewRockwell.com

    >>The turnabout is strange. LRC, Cato, and Reason magazine must be viewed as fake opposition. LRC was financed by the late Burton Blumert, a jewish coin dealer.
    LRC and Raimondo’s site share the same webmaster- jew Eric Garris.<<

    (Wiki) Garris was born in Paris, France, where he lived until he was two[citation needed]. He was raised in southern California by a Jewish mother who was a member of the Communist Party USA[citation needed] and a WASP father descended from Commodore Matthew Perry[citation needed]. While living in Venice, California, Garris became active with the New Left and joined the Peace and Freedom Party[citation needed], where he formed a libertarian faction inspired by Murray Rothbard and remained extremely loyal to Rothbard and his program[citation needed]. Garris was the key leader of the libertarian faction which briefly gained control of the Peace and Freedom Party in 1974[citation needed]. He then left the Peace and Freedom Party and became active in the Libertarian Party[citation needed].

    Eric Garris was among the early libertarian pioneers to tap into the power of the Internet in the battle of ideas.[citation needed] One of his early efforts was helping to found the online magazine LewRockwell.com[citation needed].

    In 1995[citation needed] Garris in a joint project with Raimondo, launched the online magazine Antiwar.com[citation needed], to stand against the foreign interventions of the Clinton Administration in Kosovo[12], and the Bush Administration’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq[citation needed]. Garris has served throughout as the webmaster of Antiwar.com and LewRockwell.com[cita

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Garris

29. It’s the Libertarian worldview that’s the problem. I can accept a libetarian solution on a speceific issue such as drug legalization and freedom to have access alternative health nondrug therapies. Libertarians have been great on these issues. But the Libertarian world view in human terms is completely abnormal.

    For the life of me, I don’t see how electing Libertarian politicans to higfher office will halt and reverse race-replacement. If Ron or Rand were elected president of the US they would have the power of the state to force race-replacement on us through legal immigration …and you can be goddam sure they would do this. If anything is crucial right now it is stripping the presidency of more and more power to the point that the president is a figure head at best…..the same should be done be done for the Senate.

    Ordinary Native Born White Americans must be in control of their destiny. This can not happen within the current political structure. What is needed is a new political strucure that allows a highly vigilent Native Born White American population to control their destiny..

    All politicians must be viewed as subhumans…and politics must be viewed as a dishonorable profession….no more profossional policiticians….

30. There is also a race conscious libertarian journal online called The Last Ditch. It is like what Lew Rockwell would be if he was honest about race and Jewish issues.

31. Yes. Its called living in the ghetto.

32. This post and many of its comments are offensively sophomoric and stereotypical. I am a hardcore libertarian but I do not find myself in sympathy with the ideas this post attributes to libertarianism. In many cases here the positions claimed to be libertarian are antithetical. Believing that a society is composed of individuals with a natural right to self-determination does not mean believing that racial inferiors belong in that society. Believing that individuals have a right to pursue their own interests, and to organize around those interests, is the opposite of advocating the hostile colonization of America, and the opposite of advocating open borders. To me a border is a point of contact between my desired libertarian society and hostile outsiders who are, in many cases, incapable of sustaining civilization of their own merit. I therefore advocate that borders be defended with lethal force in most instances. The libertarian perspective does not rely on ‘invisible hands’, but rather on natural laws. For example, while I advocate the right for informed individuals to use drugs of any sort so long as they do not occupy a position requiring trustworthiness and reliability (parent, judge, military officer, politician, etc) I would not myself use them and I feel certain usage would not become a problem in a carefully-administered libertarian society. If the individuals using the drugs infringed on anyone else’s rights they would be dealt with by law enforcement. If they did not, it would not be the business of any other person, as that drug-user would not be supported by coercion-based public funds.

    I strongly oppose mainstream American liberalism and consider myself a conservative libertarian. It is my perspective that libertarianism and racialism are naturally compatible and synergistic – that many recognized libertarians are racialists at heart. Have you not considered that the libertarian political party is forced by egalitarianism and degenerate voting rights to mask any racialist sympathies? It forces me to wonder if the posters here are serious of if they are shills.

    If you do not sympathize with me, at the least please consider the diversity of ‘libertarian’ beliefs before alienating allies. I know, for my part, that I consider the preservation of white culture and race to be of foremost importance.

33. Elijah: However commendable your views, I think they are very much the minority position among libertarians. How many libertarian websites or publications are even anti-immigration, let alone pro-White? “The Last Ditch”, mentioned above by Ed the Department Head, is the only one I know of. They are a lonely platoon, a small minority of a small minority. Are there any others?

34. Elijah says:

    He’s Libertarian and yes White “RACIST”.

    Well, seems like just about every other Libertarian in America goes to great pains to convince us the opposite – that they are not in any way

    RACIST

    These Libertarians think Black gang members in Los Angeles should be “free to choose” to be hard drug dealers, to drive 100 MPH while intoxicated, to talk back to White police officers, to fight White police officers, to riot, burn, loot and drag White truck drivers out of the cabs and smash their heads in with bricks.

    If you want to see something really pathetic, watch Libertarian folk hero Ron Paul testify that he has never wrote, said or even thought a RACIST thought and that negative comments in his newsletter against Black rioters/murders in the Rodney King LA riots had to be written by someone else, he never supposedly even read these comments IN HIS OWN NEWSLETTER as they were RACIST and Ron Paul would never do, say or think anything RACIST:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw

    This has to be one of the most pathetic examples of a White man backing down and pandering to the Jews media in White American history!

    Maybe supposedly pro White Libertarians could come up with a new name for themselves to distinguish themselves from the other pathetic pussies, cowards, traitors.

35. The Fallacy of Open Immigration

    by Stephen Cox (Libertarian)

    >>When I hear that, I wonder whether these intelligent people understand how foolish they sound, or how much damage they do to the libertarian movement. Interviewers ordinarily laugh them off as irrelevant – not surprisingly, because their response has nothing to do with the political, economic, and cultural problems that are evident to almost everybody else. Does anyone believe that the vast array of government interventions in society and the economy is about to vanish? Does anyone believe that Social Security is about to go away, that the public schools are about to become private, that property qualifications are about to be instituted for voting? Yet action is being demanded to open the gates of immigration now. And every day brings us still more new immigrants, illegal but permanent, who will vote to strengthen the very aspects of our political life that libertarians want to change.

    Alexander Pope once parodied authors who had no sense of reality, authors who wrote things like:

    Ye Gods! annihilate but Space and Time,
    And make two lovers happy.

    The libertarian equivalent would be:

    Ye Gods! annihilate but the facts of life,
    And make our dogmas triumph.

    But mere dogmas won’t triumph. And they won’t help the cause of liberty. It’s time to stop believing that they will.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/cox2.html

36. Discard: Thank you for your response. You are probably correct that my views are in the minority among libertarians, but I’m not certain it’s a small minority. My perception has been that the political libertarians I know of (admittedly few) have racialist tendencies that they suppress either consciously for political gain – or in order to get libertarian ideas out there – or unconsciously from habits formed in an egalitarian culture. I do not know of any other publications like that.

    Regardless, the point I would like to make is that the core beliefs of libertarianism are suitable to theoretical racialist nations. Certainly some deny that collective self-preservation is an extension of natural individual rights, but I would argue that they cannot rationally call themselves libertarians at all. Of the serious political parties I am familiar with I do not know of any other more compatible with racialist concepts. Certainly neither the Democrats (who breed and import armies of racial inferiors for votes) nor Republicans (who do it for cheap labor) are better choices.

    As a racialist I do not hate anyone based on their race. I simply believe that Western civilization is the greatest on Earth, is an extension of the white race, and that its creators have the natural right to defend it. What I loathe is downward-directed subsidies of money, blood, technology, culture, and ideas that allows inferiors to prosper as they could not on their own. With the removal of these subsidies in a libertarian environment I would not have any problem allowing blacks and hispanics to remain until competition from superiors and their natures nonviolently eradicated their population.

37. Even the most right-wing libertarianism has become anti-white:

    http://www.vdare.com/misc/080514_pendleton.htm

    ..

38. Lew Rockwell refuses even to link to VDare:

    http://www.vdare.com/misc/080514_pendleton.htm

39. I didn’t see your post earlier jack ryan. I’m not certain if it was addressed to me but I want to clarify that I absolutely do not consider breaking the law or talking back to police officers part of the liberty I want guaranteed to everyone. The way Whites are treated in our country is pathetic and irrational.

    I hope you will understand the distinction between the libertarian political parties and libertarianism as a philosophy. Libertarianism as a philosophy is – to my knowledge and belief – compatible with and complementary to White nationalism. In a free society without coercive subsidies (including process and technology subsidies) racial inferiors would die out. I recognize that my libertarian perspective is idealist, but holding a hope is not incompatible with acting practically in a world that disallows that hope.

    My name is Elijah, I’m a libertarian, and I want nothing more than a world without blacks.

40. This is a great page — I’ve just noted it in the above site (search “Libertarian” among topic subjects). No discussion seems necessary, because the real problem is the same here as most everywhere on the political landscape: some people remember the centrality of race (and religion) in all human affairs, and some don’t. And Libertarians are overwhelmingly in the latter camp.

    Some of you point out that Liberts live and politic by abstract theories — yes! And of course these theories are heavily derived from the Founding Fathers and those they studied. In that, they are fine and dandy, except that they artfully trash the less “socially proper” aspects of the thought of that era (a) the unspoken bedrock assumption that whites were supposed to remain in power and look primarily to their own tribal well-being. Don’t turn purple, don’t have a cow — that’s how it was everywhere white people went through history up to the dawn of the Jewish TV age; AND (b) the very much expounded and legislated truth that there’s no freedom, no order, no collective sanity without a shared religion, and that Christianity was the one for white folks.

    Libertarian/liberalianism is Judaism for yet another set of people — a mere variation on a theme. Catholicism = Judaism for East and South Europeans; Islam = Judaism for levantines and then some; communism = Judaism for Asians and other chronically captive peoples. Freemasonry is Judaism for Suburban white dads who feel the need of male bonding in a society that has all but banned it. So there’s the context.

    The Judaism I speak of here is not the kind Jews indulge for themselves but the Bizarro spells they cast on others to get them robotically carrying out the Jewish master plan for them, i.e. happy submission to Jewish tyranny, genocide, rape and pillage.

    Real Judaism exists to dispossess and destroy and whiteness. Libertarian angst over anything in the least bit racial congruently blesses and mandates open borders. Even Ron Paul stood with them on that for ages — probably still does deep down. Judaism preaches radical “meism” at whitey in an absolute vein to get him worshiping self instead of God — Libertarianism cheers on the deracinated result. Judaism hates Christianity — Libertarianism is extremely embarrassed by its supposed hokiness. Big-L Libertarianism and most other “isms” out there only enjoy the freedom to dissent, publish, and politic as they do because of the flogged backs of the old fogey Christian preachers before the Revolution, but don’t try telling them that.

    Yeah, sure, this doesn’t describe every last individual big-L Libertarian, but it does describe the movement and the Party as I’ve known it.

    The sad part is that many whites (understandable in this socio-political climate) have no higher vision that joining this placebo of an ideology. Many of them are good if naive and guileless Christians, though in that they are on thin ice and sometimes get a dunk in ice water. None of this would be happening if the Jews hadn’t virtually killed goyish religion, partly by subverting and perverting seminaries. Otherwise it would still be politically feasible to call for the Bible as the final authority in everything.

    I mentioned race and religion. Jews get to be either when it suits them, but they are in fact both and as such have successfully patterned whitey in looking past that aspect of things for fear of being tagged “racist” or “anti-semitic”. It also of course means whites dread to even admit to themselves that “diversity” breeds nothing but chaos and white ruin — thus white society sleepwalks to its grave, clutching like hell at everything else. You know, like flower borders, vacations, cigars, Garth Brooks worship, chess….. or a worldview defined purely in market terms. With face painting for the children.

    Small-L *libertarianism* worked great insofar as America kept and prized its primary white Christian identity. Even minorities here (and elsewhere in the white world) had it better than they would have in most other places, in many cases even in their home countries. But now that the minorities are getting to be the majority all the rules change (the real “change” Obama yammered about while campaigning). Prepare to lose individual liberties and free markets, because you’ll no more have them in a fully mongrelized “propositional” ameriKa than you’ll have time travel.

    Big-L Libertarians shouldn’t complain — their stuff is already in power in that every Congress finds new ways to destroy ameriKa’s borders and traditional ethnic makeup. It all but mandate homosexuality and miscegenation. The politicians who do this for decade after decade come from different backgrounds and vantage points, but on the above issues they are *all* big-L Libertarians.

    My favorite Libertarian’s main dodge on this is “If you take away the reasons the aliens want to come here” — meaning free medical care etc. — “they’ll stop coming”. This blithely sidesteps the fact that third-worlders will always struggle to go live where there’s a higher standard of living even without any perks. That’s why every successful nation in history has (duh) had strictly enforced policies on borders, citizenship status and immigrant compatibility. I’m told Operation Wetback was carried out THREE times in the mid-20th century and you know everybody accepted that that’s how things were, most of them happily. No doubt all Libertarians who were alive back then, or their parents as the case may have been, thought it quite normal and healthy. What has changed? Jews took over and started driving everybody insane, getting them at each other’s throats with constant conflict, hacking them off from their roots in the Anglo-American legal and tribal tradition. All that was out the window in nothing flat and now even our brightest exemplars are blind to their true, politically incorrect, but profoundly sound foundations.

    I’m studying expatriation and hoping to do it, and you wouldn’t believe what you have to go through to move to even a basket case country like Argentina. This is the norm and has to be. Anything else is stark raving madness.

41. Libertardians, which I happen to think is a better and more accurate term for them, cannot accept the fact that for the great mass of Whites there is no constituency for returning to the hell on earth that was the Gilded Age. That’s why they keep running and running and running for office, even though they never win. Hell, they can’t even get sub-moronic negroes to buy into their garbage – what does THAT tell you? But alas, it is a religion to them, and they have their FAITH. They will always have their FAITH in the One True Holy Market and its zombie Prophet Ayn Rand The Ice Bitch Kike, right up until the end.

42. Irma

    You hit the nail on the head. I’ll go a step further. I believe if there was a prolonged open and honest discussion about socialized medicine, a majority of Native Born White Americans would chose socialized medicine. Now of course, post-1965 immigration has it very difficult for this to happen any time soon. Also, President Purple Lips from Kenya helath care program is truly horrible…but it is horrible becuase IT IS NOT SCOCLAISTIC IN ANY SERIOUS SENSE OF THE TERM. It it fundamentally a highly privatized health care system,very much loved by big Pharma and the insurance companies.

    I still contend that the Tea Partiers are retards. That are nothing but a Republican Party reform movement….in other words the corporations still win.

    What is needed is a complete scraping of the Beltway consensus…and the poltical structure that goes along with it. Anyone who aspires to be a polticain should be viewed as subhuman scum. If there is a necessity for politicians in the new order of things..the people we elect to represent have to be dragged kicking and screaming into running….term limits..short campaigns….accepting money from a corporation should be viewed as treason against America.

    In the new order of things. corporations should have 0 rights…absolutely no legal standing at all….

    Rand Paul looks too much like Morris Dees..doesn’t he..

43. That is Irma’s doctoral dissertation. In today’s context, it might even be accepted.
    Dr. Grese. pleased to meet ya.

44. I don’t see how one can be a ‘Racialist’ libertarian. The idea that a Nation serves the People that constitute it relies on certain Protectionist measures. This is is antithetical to the core of libertarian ideology. If you believe in national borders or anything that resembles them in contract form that would result in Protectionism (including restricing whom owners can sell their property to) you aren’t a libertarian at all.

45. “You hit the nail on the head. I’ll go a step further. I believe if there was a prolonged open and honest discussion about socialized medicine, a majority of Native Born White Americans would chose socialized medicine. Now of course, post-1965 immigration has it very difficult for this to happen any time soon.”

    Yes. The repulsive racial stew that is America is also the REAL REASON why so many middle-class whites are opposed to things like welfare and jobs programs, since they are seen as something for inner-city negroes – money going from their pockets into the hands of some sub-literate baboon. The fact that many poor whites stand to benefit from these programs never enters their thinking, and in any case the jewish-controlled mediaplex has done a marvellous job of cultivating an unjustified contempt on the part of middle-class whites for their poorer brethren. Good old divide and conquer strikes again!

    I have said it before and I will say it again: had the United States been an ALL-WHITE COUNTRY right from the start, with NO negroes and NO jews, we would have had the same kind of social welfare programs that the Scandinavian countries have enjoyed for decades by now. Job outsourcing would be viewed as treason, which it IS, and the very idea of “corporate personhood” would be laughed at. We don’t have this because of jew-caused desegregation, which has increased antagonism between the races, in turn causing many whites to vote against their own interests (and in favor of those of jew-lead megacorps) out of sheer spite.

    “I still contend that the Tea Partiers are retards. That are nothing but a Republican Party reform movement….in other words the corporations still win.”

    The Tea Party is just another jew-led false front, like the militia movement before it. Pay it now mind. The second a Republican – probably the Indian-“American” Jindal – wins the White House, it will magically disappear in a righteous puff of flatulence. Just like the old militias. Didn’t hear much about THEM during the Bush years, huh?

46. Irma Grese: It was my impression that after the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City, the militias switched to silent running. No more public displays, just quiet cooperation among friends. I first read about them in a trade publication, “Tomato Growers’ Magazine”, hardly a GOP front. No doubt, once they hit Time and Newsweek, the hustlers wanted in, but originally, they were farmers outraged at abuse by Federal bureaucrats. If you can’t believe “Tomato Growers Magazine”, who can you believe? I’ll bet they’re still out there, minding their business.

47. Irma Grese wrote:
    The Tea Party is just another jew-led false front

    Once it became “corporate”, it became a controlled go-nowhere opposition, yes.

    It was only a matter of time before Glenn Beck crying that it was the next civil rights movement and it devolving to the point where anti-racist speakers and nonwhite figureheads were prominent at event, ala the Republicans’ pathetic Michael Steele affair, etc.

    Still, HW is right that Tea-Party has “done more” in the past year or so than the entirety of what white-racialists in the USA have done. (“Done more” in a sense — technically it has done nothing but you know what I mean). But in terms of future growth and real potential? I’d not bet on it. Many have been comparing it to 1994 for good reason…

48. [Apologies for the poor grammar in the above post. I renew the complaint raised by many as regards the unfortunate lack of a ‘preview’ button on this site! How hard could it be to install?]

49. @ K(yle)

    You said it yourself then: YOU don’t see how someone can be a ‘Racialist’ libertarian. If the basis of telling a racialist he isn’t a libertarian is YOUR inability, I say you are not as smart as your statement implies you think you are. Libertarianism is not synonymous with anarchism, and national borders are completely compatible with the core tenets of libertarianism. If protectionism did result from borders and the pursuit of collective interests that STILL wouldn’t be an incompatibility, as people have the capacity to CONSENT to it – and rational, informed people obviously would. I do not think you know what you’re talking about.

50. Elijah: you’re misrepresenting things; obfuscating.

    The tendency of Libertarianism is towards anti-racism, open borders, denial of Volk, individualism.

    It has an anarchistic core/spirit.

    The obsession Libertarians have about “consent” doesn’t really go anywhere either.