Take race as an example. Marxists deny the concept of race unless it is applied to the entirety of the human species. For them differentiation downward from the absolute substance of man is impermissible; on ideological grounds. Likewise, libertarians deny the concept of race but based on the epistemological platform that race is but an artificial construct arrived at out of empty abstraction. Thus, they see generalizations upwards as exercises in unreality or as mere useful tools that do not possess any relevance intrinsically.

Psychologically, my take on Marxists is that they are such fragmented individuals so desirous of community that they are incapable of realizing the natural boundaries of humanity that nature has already provided for us. On the other hand, libertarians are such fragmented individuals that they dread any natural human community for fear that such a community would consider them outcasts and undesirables. In order to safeguard their fragmented selves, libertarians seek the elimination of all natural communities. In their own paranoid ways, they are faithful Frankfurters.

Politically however, libertarianism is purely infantile in character and basically amounts to a desire for the anarchy of the jungle. Of course, this would be denied but logically the course of libertarianism is indeed the jungle. Consider the supposed incontrovertible metaphysic of libertarianism. This metaphysic states that the only legitimate function of the state is to safeguard individual contracts. Splendid on the face of it. But what these gentlemen are asking for is basically the forced socialization of protection. Naturally, libertarians would oppose the use of the word “forced”. But their idea of “legitimate government” necessarily implies some sort of the very force that they childishly imagine their utopia would not possess. Why would their minimalist state force individuals to support the protection of others that were of no concern to the individuals in question? Also, why is there even a requirement for a state, no matter how minimalist? Why not have a situation where individuals “take care of business” by themselves?
Why, for example, would “Mr.Galt” need a police force? Why would “Mr.Galt” need to beckon the assistance or the welfare of others to help him in the event that he may feel cheated or threatened? I assume “Mr.Galt” is a big boy and big boys with big mouths ought to know how to handle adversity. But they in fact don’t know how to handle adversity. So what do they do? They construct a hypothetical state to their liking but only to their liking and they dub this state the only state morally permissible – to the neglect of course of the standards of morality known to whole and complete and community-minded western man for millennia.

Otherwise we have to say bluntly every time: I am white before being a democrat or republican or communist or libertarian or anything else. We need to say this loudly, before such assertion could become deadly.

A Romanian communist leader Lucretiu Patrascanu said with a certain occasion that “I am a Romanian before being a communist”. After that he was at first marginalized, imprisoned and finally executed (the head smashed with an axe by somebody called Boris Grunberg) in 1954. Not that I would give a damn for somebody stupid enough to be a communist.

But this is how the things are evolving right now everywhere. If anybody in US will say I am white before being a libertarian, what will happen then? For now he will be marginalized, fired, he will loose probably his family, his friends. As long as he is alive it is still OK. What will happen tomorrow? This is the first question.

As anybody knows a theory is just a theory aka just a mental representation of reality. It is not the truth. It can be useful in certain situation but still it is not the absolute truth. It is an approximation. So why the people would spend such great deal of energy for something called “libertarianism”? Why? As long as it says that I am not what I am but something different it is a wrong theory. I am the son of father and my father is the son of his father and so on. Who the hell is Ayn Rand to tell me that I should not love and respect my father and my grandfather and their grandfathers.? Who the hell is Ayn Rand to tell me that I shouldn’t? This was the second question.

This essay is a nice start to the growing battle on the “alternate right”… WNs must brush aside Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Tea Potters, etc… they are nothing to us and are but a sad distraction.

What were the goals of the 9/12 march on DC today? Almost a million white people went to DC to talk about freedom, liberty, etc…

But it did will accomplish absolutely nothing.

Indeed, one Jew received space in a supposedly reputable academic journal to attack him (along with white economists John Maynard Keynes [a homosexual] and Joseph Schumpeter) as anti-Semitic: Melvin W. Reder, “The Anti-Semitism of Some Eminent Economists,” History of Political Economy 32 (Winter 2000): 833-56. http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/history_of_political_economy/v032/32.4reder.html

Any intelligent person will profit greatly from a careful study of Hayek’s invaluable work.