Libertarians and Racial Awareness

[White_Savage]

It's getting harder for me to work with other people with whom I agree upon the majority of policy.

Most Libertarians are against 90% of the vile policies out there like affirmative action (anti-white hate laws), wellfare (transferring white money to minorities), gun control (disarming white people), restrictions on freedom of association or freedom of speech. But they still at least pay soooo much lip service to racial equality and even things like the civil rights movement sometimes, and think you're a great Satan if you don't agree. So it's hard for me to work with them for mutually acceptable goals.

I tried to convince one Libertarian the other day that George Wallace, when he was running, was 10 times better than any other viable candidate in the last 100 years from the libertarian perspective, but it didn't work. All she knew was that he uttered word "****er", and that was enough.

Libertarianism is a White guy idea based on White guy desires and aspirations. I think it's the best way for Whites to live with other Whites in a White nation, but I have yet to see evidence of many non-whites having both the mentality and the desire for a Libertarian society.

Self-Responsibility for blacks is a joke.

East Asians are highly intelligent and self-disciplined, but mostly have absolutely no yearning for freedom as an end in itself, in fact, they tend to fear too much looseness in the system and find security in conformity. Japan is a nice place in some ways, but no American would submit to having their homes searched twice a year.

And of course, Jews and Muslims have invisible spirits telling them that freedom is bad bad bad

 

[jaxvid]

I agree wholeheartedly!! I have been a long time Libertarian who has moved away from the cult due to them not understanding that the reason there are only white guys at the meetings/conventions is that whites are the only people interested in freedom.

Unfortunately Libertarians derive their moral righteousness from thinking that their total support of the indivual means blacks and other non-whites are only a reading of Hayak away from embracing the non-aggression principle. That is rubbish and you cannot tell them otherwise or else they will consider you an evil racist, but at least they will support your right to be one!

 

[JD074]

Libertarianism is a White guy idea based on White guy desires and aspirations. I think it's the best way for Whites to live with other Whites in a White nation, but I have yet to see evidence of many non-whites having both the mentality and the desire for a Libertarian society.

Yeah, I wonder what would happen if New Hampshire actually became a Libertarian haven, so wonderful in fact that the blacks and hispanics would follow, putting a lot of pressure on the politicians to grant them special benefits, slowly eroding the Libertarians' political/ economic system to their own advantage. I wonder what they would think about the race issue then.

 

[JD074]

I agree wholeheartedly!! I have been a long time Libertarian who has moved away from the cult due to them not understanding that the reason there are only white guys at the meetings/conventions is that whites are the only people interested in freedom.

I've moved away from it, too. For a few years I was in between being a Libertarian and a "racialist" ("White Nationalist," "separatist," geez, I don't know which word to use!) In fact it was the Libertarianism that kept me from being a full-fledged "WN." I was leaning heavily in that other direction but I couldn't quite go all the way.

What made me turn completely was basically Culture of Critique- that was the beginning of my rejection of Libertarianism- and then the immigration issue (Alien Nation and vdare.) We absolutely must protect our borders, implement a moratorium, and then implement a long-term immigration plan that benefits America rather than harms it (no family unification, no refugee and asylum seekers, no "naturalization"- it's not necessary- they must speak English, must be skilled and educated, punish employers of illegals, end all forms of welfare for immigrants, end the diversity lottery, no free public education for illegals, no citizenship for children of illegals, etc.) Any Libertarian who says otherwise just doesn't get it and is part of the problem.

I speculate that many of these "open borders" Republicans fashion themselves as "Libertarians." Maybe that's their way of rationalizing putting short-sighted business interests above the best interests of the American people. (If they really wanted to relieve the burden on business maybe they should drastically shrink the federal government, which Bush hasn't done, and get rid of the IRS and corporate taxes. But they have a big government, neocon president who thinks that his "tax cuts" are enough. What a joke.) They seem to be against government intervention (like regulations) when it benefits their specific interests, but have no problem sucking from the teat when it's to their advantage.

Unfortunately Libertarians derive their moral righteousness from thinking that their total support of the indivual means blacks and other non-whites are only a reading of Hayak away from embracing the non-aggression principle. That is rubbish and you cannot tell them otherwise or else they will consider you an evil racist, but at least they will support your right to be one!

Well said. Race is the main issue, period.

 

[Southern Knight]

Libertarianism is a moronic political philosophy because its core
belief is that racial differences do not apply, and that personal
success (and failure) are due to "effort." This nonsense ignores
natural differences that are plain to any observer.



The Libertarian believes (or pretends to believe) that if you put
Whites, blacks, Asians, and Mexicans in the same environment, you
should get identical results, and any resulting differences are due to
the individual's willingness to work, study, etc.
They do not take racial differences, IQ disparities, etc. into account.



Libertarians are, by and large, fools, for only a fool ignores natural
group differences. In a libertarian's mind, you should get to
know each and every rattlesnake before killing it, because not every
rattlesnake will bite you, and every rattlesnake is a potentially
loving pet.

 

[White_Savage]

SK, You seem to throw this term "moron" about pretty freely.

With you, this term appears to signify "Anyone who dissents from the Gospel according to SK in the slightest detail". Perhaps I'm getting cranky in my old age, but I find this vexatious.

It could be of course, you are so much further to the right on the bell-curve than the rest of us that you are entitled to talk down to we, the fools and morons of castefootball, but I haven't seen any evidence of that.

Indeed, for a genius floating in a sea of morons, your comments on libertarian philosophy are rather innacurate. Whether this issues from ignorance or a deliberate obfuscation to strengthen your argument, I cannot say.


"Libertarian" can mean alot of things, but most of them, myself included, agree with the Lockean proposal that gub-ment should protect your life, liberty, and property, and that is about the ONLY thing gub-ment should do. I believe the Constitution's restrictions on government power should be heeded to the letter, and that said restrictions are quite possibly not enough.

I believe that our government should stay out of our pocket-books, medicine-cabinets, bedrooms, and most especially our gun-cabinets. Since I can't forget my favorite sport, I have to throw "stay out of our Octagon" in there as well.

All of these propositions seem profoundly reasonable to a "moron" like myself. Conspicuously absent is any assertions about the equality or inequality of races, or how you must treat rattlesnakes you may encounter in your travels. (The truly libertarian response to the latter proposition is "Stick a rattlesnake in your boxer shorts if you like, but don't expect me to pay your medical bills).

I think limited government and individual liberty is THE unique and crowning achievement of the White race and anyone who proposes to scoff at these things doesn't understand what being White is all about.

One irony in regard to your commentary is that libertarian conceptions about things like freedom of association, commerce, hiring, and etc, and freedom of speech, are so often criticized from the left precisely because they would allow people to act in a racially conscious manner. This is where my criticism of PC rhetoric of many libertarians, as opposed to actual libertarian ideas, comes into play.

For true freedom surely means the right to be completely and totally un-PC, as I am.

Instead of trying to argue that in a free society, no one will put up "No Negros Need Apply" signs, perhaps libertarians should argue that such preferences are perfectly natural, indeed, often highly practical and rational.

When one looks at relative achievment of races, and persistent black un-achievment, despite assistance, one faces two choices. Either blacks are less capable of achievment, or the insidious invisible White "racism" is holding them down, which must be counteracted with more gubment! Here an understanding of racial reality is absolutely vital to understanding what policy should be.

When you look at gun control, how vital to the debate is it to understand that violent crime rates for American Whites are actually lower than that of European Whites, that violent minorities make the difference?

A frank appraisal of race strengthens the Libertarian position on many issues, IMO.

Of course, in reality, it's likely impossible to get anything done in regards to modern politics by openly espousing the "evil" of racism...look at David Duke, who despite his exceedingly moderate, humane, and freedom-loving platform of policies, is hated and maligned.

But still, libertarians could do well to quit trying to throw so much placating rhetoric at groups (like blacks) who ain't going to come around, while alienating potential stout allies of liberty who happen to hold supposedly "bigoted" or "intolerent" social views.

 

[White Shogun]

Great post, as usual, White Savage.

I agree with your comments in toto.

 

[JD074]

Well there are at least two possibilities:

1) They're individualists/ meritocrats; they believe in judging everyone on an individual basis. In their Libertarian utopia, everyone would be treated as an individual, and there would be no racism, ethnocentrism, affirmative action, etc.

2) They're more realistic but are afraid of being accused of being you-know-what, just like most other white people. I would hope that most Libertarians believe that a white person who owns a restaurant, for example, should have the right to not serve someone he doesn't want to- for whatever reason, or not hire someone he doesn't want to- for whatever reason. Even though they disapprove of ethnocentrism per se- because they're individualists- they should respect his right to do that. It's his private property. At least that's my conception of Libertarianism. Do your own thing as long as you're not bothering others, and that private property is the bedrock of a free society.

But they're not "allowed" to openly say that a white restaurant owner (or black or Asian or Hispanic or whatever) could do that... if they did, they would be considered "one of us," whether they like it or not. They don't want to be marginalized and scapegoated like we are. They're already a fringe political group as it is; they don't want to lose whatever they have by being considered "racists." The "System" ruthlessly ostracizes anyone who's on the "wrong side" of the race issue; so maybe it's just a matter of survival that they separate themselves from us as much as possible.

I say let them. We have our worldview, they have theirs. We're explicit about race, they're not. Hopefully someday we'll get the last laugh. Who would have the easier time dealing with troublemaking non-whites? The Libertarians' theoretical politico-economic system (what's going to stop the non-whites from bloc voting, or buying votes, lobbying, manipulating politicians, slowly increasing government spending, slowly increasing corporate influence on the government, etc.,) or our ethnocentrism? In our utopia, non-white people simply wouldn't be allowed, and we would spend our time living free from them, and dealing with the troublemakers among us.

Race is real and a Libertarian society would have to deal with it somehow. Property rights, right to bear arms, and limited government would be a good start, but what good is my property rights and gun if my house is surrounded by a hundred MS-13 gangmembers? It would be better to have those rights, a limited government, and an all-white society. Just my opinion. Edited by: JD074

 

[jaxvid]

Just my opinion.

And a good one it is

 

[Uberberserker]

For a few years I was in between being a Libertarian and a "racialist" ("White Nationalist," "separatist," geez, I don't know which word to use!)

What about Racial Consciousness or Racial Awareness?

Anyhow I have been watching the Libertarians closely for a number of years (they have thrown a few elections to the demonrats up in Washington State). Some of their ideas could be compatible with Racial Beliefs, but I think they sometimes trend a little to close to Anarchism sometimes.

 

[White_Savage]

Indeed, some libertarians are anarchists, which is why I said it can mean alot of things.

Anarchism might be a perfectly adequate system, if you can pull it off. Indeed, in history places that, because of distance and terrain, were free from official authority often seem the most congenial enviroment for men, those men who haven't been tamed by civilization.

But you can't vaccinate against government, because nature fills vacuams, including power vacuams, and man's urge to form some sort of governmental system seems right up there with eating, sleeping, copulating, and all that. Since we humans have never manage to even sucessfully LIMIT any government, despite strong measures like the Bill of Rights, eliminating the thing seems rather difficult.

90% of people who call themselves libertarians are moderates like myself though, so thats the fair way to regard them.

JD, I've gotta disagree on one point-I don't honestly believe we can get anything done politically by being open about racialism. It's much better to work for policies that help our people by framing our arguments in other terms...indeed, that's EXACTLY the strategy our enemies have used to create so many policies that HURT our people.

As for MS-13 and the brown tide...what can I say? Many libertarians seem to believe in open borders, but this is a profound mis-interpreation of libertarian principle. Your property line around your house, after all, is only an imaginary line on the map, but that doesn't mean all 6 billion people on Earth have the right to squat on your homestead. People like South Texas ranchers certainly have the right to protection of private property from trespass, and we the American people certainly also have the right to determine who can come and go on our COLLECTIVE property, i.e, everything that is supposedly owned by the state or otherwise not owned by individuals.

 

[JD074]

Thank you, Jaxvid.

JD, I've gotta disagree on one point-I don't honestly believe we can get anything done politically by being open about racialism. It's much better to work for policies that help our people by framing our arguments in other terms...indeed, that's EXACTLY the strategy our enemies have used to create so many policies that HURT our people.

That's a good point, especially in the short term. Speaking openly about race is not going to lead to any political changes now. We need to change the basic political culture of our country; one positive change is to make it acceptable again for white people to be openly racist or racialist. That won't happen for a long time. I think a combination of attacking certain issues and framing them in other terms, like you said (the Minuteman Project comes to mind,) while at the same time working to make our worldview more socially acceptable again. It could happen. Just not anytime soon. Thank goodness for the Internet.

As for MS-13 and the brown tide...what can I say? Many libertarians seem to believe in open borders, but this is a profound mis-interpreation of libertarian principle.

Or any sound principle! If we're going to have a "country" we need borders. Obviously we can't just let Mexico or China or some other country walk in with hundreds or thousand of troops. I know that's an outlandish example, but opening our borders to anybody and everybody who wants to come in is equally outlandish.

People like South Texas ranchers certainly have the right to protection of private property from trespass, and we the American people certainly also have the right to determine who can come and go on our COLLECTIVE property, i.e, everything that is supposedly owned by the state or otherwise not owned by individuals.

That's my take on it. America is our property and foreigners do not have any inherent right to come here. We are not obligated to take in anybody, whether it's workers, family members of people already here, asylum seekers, refugees, etc. Brimelow says that massive immigration- both legal and illegal- is politically driven, not economically driven. And all of the research that I hear about says that Americans are strongly opposed to illegal immigration, at the very least. So it's not the will of the people that has resulted in this mess.

At any rate, we have the third largest population on the planet. Enough is enough. Edited by: JD074