Nov 25, 2011

By | 30 Comments

Free to Lose: Jews, Whites, and Libertarianism

Free to Lose: Jews, Whites, and Libertarianism

Editor’s Note:
The essay below, from the Fall 2011 issue of The Occidental Quarterly, is one that every High School and College student should read. It is short, concise, scholarly and has exceptional explanatory value!

Therefore, I invite you to copy the essay below and send it to a student you know. Block copy the text to your word processor, save it and attach it to an email! Or, if you wish, send a link.

But more importantly, subscribe to The Occidental Quarterly so that you can copy, attach and send important articles on a regular basis to students, friends or family who may be sitting on the fence. I prefer the hard copy, because I seem to have a longer attention span if away from the computer for a while. And a hard copy subscription also includes the ability to download the digital copy immediately, all or a portion of which you can copy, attach and send to your favorite student.

We are not going to let our copyright get in the way of your activism and outreach!

Take advantage of the activism opportunities that an Occidental Quarterly subscription provides. Buy a hard copy or digital subscription. Read it and pass along those articles you think are important and convincing to students, family and friends.

The political philosophy of libertarianism has recently attracted a wave of support in the United States among the mainly White Tea Party movement, and the supporters of Ron and Rand Paul. The catalyst has been the perceived failings of the Obama administration’s response to the global financial crisis and subsequent recession: a response characterized by an ideologically-driven expansion of government ownership, spending, and regulation of the US economy, with a corresponding decline in individual liberty. To espouse free market libertarianism in this context seems a rational corrective to Obama’s neo-Marxist agenda, given the libertarian commitment to the maximization of individual liberty and minimisation of the state – at a time when a bloated dysfunctional state seems to lie at the heart of the problems facing White people.

While there is a spectrum of libertarianism that straddles the left-right binary of contemporary politics, in today’s world, libertarianism is primarily associated with the commitment to market liberalism that was the hallmark of the Austrian and Chicago Schools of economics. A watershed moment in the history of post-war libertarianism was the awarding of the Nobel Prize for Economics to the libertarian theorist Friedrich von Hayek in 1974. For the preceding thirty years the economic theories of the British economist John Maynard Keynes held sway throughout the West. Keynesianism, involving state intervention in the economy through deficit spending to stimulate output and employment, is based on the idea that governments can and should act to eliminate the worst vicissitudes of the business cycle. Through manipulation of the federal budget a government can, theoretically, engineer economic outcomes.

Keynesianism emerged as a midway position between free-market libertarianism and socialist state-planning. However, the stagflation crisis that emerged with the OPEC oil crisis of the early seventies threw the post-war Keynesian consensus into turmoil. It set the scene for the re-emergence of political support for free-market libertarianism, and ultimately for the election of Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Reagan in the US — and, subsequently, their legions of political imitators throughout the world. At the forefront of this renaissance of libertarian thought, alongside Hayek, was a group of Jewish intellectuals whose ideas and advocacy were key to this achievement, and to libertarianism’s subsequent and enduring appeal. The most prominent and influential of these figures were Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, and Ayn Rand.

It is one of the seeming paradoxes of political history in the past century that Jews have been prominent as theorists and activists for ostensibly opposing ideological forces: socialist collectivism on the one hand, and free-market libertarianism (and neoconservatism) on the other. However, this paradox begins to fade when viewed through the lens of Professor Kevin MacDonald’s theory of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. According to this theory, Judaism emerged historically as a strategy to promote the economic welfare and reproductive success of Jews as a genetically distinct population. In Culture of Critique MacDonald examines a range of twentieth-century intellectual movements that had a decisive Jewish involvement and concludes that they share a common tacit agenda in promoting the group evolutionary interests of Jews — often at the expense of non-Jews. Accordingly, they can be accurately regarded as Jewish intellectual movements that are, in reality, post-Enlightenment manifestations of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. A major focus in Culture of Critique is on the role of Jews in the formulation and advocacy of Marxist and cultural-Marxist ideologies, such as the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School.

My purpose here is not to determine whether libertarianism is, like the Frankfurt School, a Jewish intellectual movement. This requires more extensive treatment than can be given here. Here I will examine, firstly, why free-market libertarian ideas have held a strong attraction to a prominent subset of Jewish intellectuals; and secondly, I will discuss the practical effect of libertarian economic and social policies on European-derived populations.

In a speech to the Mont Pelerin Society in 1972 entitled Capitalism and the Jews, Milton Friedman, perhaps the pivotal figure in the history of modern libertarianism after Hayek, explored the seeming paradox that, despite the Jews having thrived under capitalism, they had played a central role in the formulation and advocacy of leftist political ideologies. He observed that, despite the Jews as a people having done very well under capitalist societies,

“for the past century, the Jews have been a stronghold of anti-capitalist sentiment. From Karl Marx through Leon Trotsky to Herbert Marcuse, a sizable fraction of the revolutionary anti-capitalist literature has been authored by Jews. Communist parties in all countries, including the party that achieved revolution in Russia but also present-day Communist parties in Western countries, and especially in the U.S., have been run and manned to a disproportionate extent by Jews—though I hasten to add that only a tiny fraction of Jews have ever been members of the Communist party. Jews have been equally active in the less revolutionary socialist movements in all countries, as intellectuals generating socialist literature, as active participants in leadership, and as members.”

Friedman finds this somewhat difficult to reconcile with the fact that “the Jews owe an enormous debt to capitalism.” It is obvious that, as an intelligent and capable people, the Jews are always likely to thrive in the competitive context of the unfettered market. Accordingly, it seems apparent to Friedman that the real enemy to Jewish interests (and the interests of other able minority groups) are the barriers to entry and anti-competitive practices that, in various historical instances, have restricted their full participation in the economic affairs of a nation. For Friedman, it is axiomatic that

“the feature of capitalism that has benefited the Jews has, of course, been competition. Wherever there is a monopoly, whether it be private or governmental, there is room for the application of arbitrary criteria in the selection of the beneficiaries of the monopoly—whether these criteria be color of skin, religion, national origin or what not. Where there is free competition, only performance counts. The market is color blind. No one who goes to the market to buy bread knows or cares whether the wheat was grown by a Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or atheist; by Whites or blacks. Any miller who wishes to express his personal prejudices by buying only from preferred groups is at a competitive disadvantage, since he is keeping himself from buying from the cheapest source. He can express his prejudice, but he will have to do so at his own expense, accepting a lower monetary income than he could otherwise earn.”

Friedman was influenced by Ludwig von Mises, who expressed a similar view in 1944. Identifying why free market capitalism is good for Jews and other minorities he writes:

“In an unhampered market society there is no legal discrimination against anybody. Everyone has the right to obtain the place within the social system in which he can successfully work and make a living. The consumer is free to discriminate, provided that he is ready to pay the cost. A Czech or a Pole may prefer to buy at higher cost in a shop owned by a Slav instead of buying cheaper and better in a shop owned by a German. An anti-Semite may forego being cured of an ugly disease by the employment of the ‘Jewish’ drug Salvarsan and have recourse to a less efficacious remedy. In this arbitrary power consists what economists call consumer’s sovereignty.”

Another celebrated Jewish libertarian, who nevertheless rejected the label, was Ayn Rand (born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum). While Rand and her theory of Objectivism have never been widely respected in academia she has exerted an enormous popular influence through her writings. In her book The Virtue of Selfishness (1964) she also made the link between the extent of free markets and the relative absence of discrimination against minorities in a society. She writes that

“no political system can establish universal rationality by law (or by force). But capitalism is the only system that functions in a way which rewards rationality and penalizes all forms of irrationality, including racism. A fully free, capitalist system has not yet existed anywhere. But what is enormously significant is the correlation of racism and political controls in the semi-free economies of the 19th century. Racial and/or religious persecutions of minorities stood in inverse ratio to the degree of a country's freedom. Racism was strongest in the more controlled economies, such as Russia and Germany — and weakest in England, the then freest country of Europe.

The foregoing statements, each framed in the language of ethical universalism, clearly disclose the chief attraction of free-market libertarianism to Jews like Friedman, von Mises and Rand. Free markets, they affirm, advance the interests of Jews through imposing an impersonal economic discipline on non-Jews through which their ethnocentricity and anti-Semitic prejudice can be circumvented. That this proposition contains a great deal of truth is confirmed, I would contend, by the historical record: Jews have indeed prospered under the conditions of free market capitalism among often hostile majority European-derived populations.

It may have occurred to the reader, however, that while Friedman, von Mises and Rand opposed the existence of monopolies that provided “room for the application of arbitrary criteria in the selection of the beneficiaries of the monopoly,” the reality is that Jews, even in the freest of markets, are notorious for developing and using ethnic monopolies in precisely this fashion. Indeed this is a major theme of MacDonald’s A People That Shall Dwell Alone where he observes that from “the standpoint of the group, it was always more important to maximize the resource flow from the non-Jewish community to the Jewish community, rather than to allow individual Jews to maximize their interests at the expense of the Jewish community.”

The massive extent of Jewish nepotism in their business dealings is so exhaustively documented (very frequently by Jews themselves) as to be beyond dispute. Such is the rarity of instances where Jews use other Jews in a purely instrumental manner that they are cause for great shock and trauma within the Jewish community (witness the Madoff affair). Given this, it seems to me that while, as Friedman, von Mises and Rand assert, the free market may work efficiently to hinder ethnocentric discrimination among Whites (a group that MacDonald characterizes as, owing to their evolutionary history, strongly predisposed to individualism), the hyper-ethnocentrism of the Jews (and the Chinese) predispose them to transcend this “rational” discipline im- posed by the free market. MacDonald makes the point that the propensity of these groups to engage in “tribal economics” involving high levels of within-group economic cooperation and patronage confers on these groups “an extraordinarily powerful competitive advantage against individual strategies.”

Accordingly, the free-market libertarian agenda, when promoted in the context of a society that is multi-racial, and where some racial groups exceed Whites in the degree of their ethnocentricity, may not promote the group evolutionary interests of Whites in enhancing their access to resources and reproductive success. The truth of this proposition is confirmed, I would submit, by the tendency of European governments through history to impose laws barring Jews from many industries and professions. That such laws were so widespread, and deemed so necessary, is surely indicative of an awareness, borne of experience, of the tendency of Jews to adopt a racial collectivist strategy in competition to the individualistic strategies of the majority Europeans — and that this would invariably result in Jewish market dominance, and concomitant outbreaks of anti-Semitism. That such restrictions were rendered less effective by their inconsistent application across the political patchwork of European jurisdictions through history was regarded by Friedman as a saving grace for Jewish populations. He noted that

“Throughout the nearly two thousand years of the Diaspora, Jews were repeatedly discriminated against, restricted in the activities they could undertake, on occasion expelled en masse, as in 1492 from Spain, and often the object of the extreme hostility of the peoples among whom they lived. They were able nonetheless to exist because of the absence of a totalitarian state, so that there were always some market elements, some activities open to them to enter. In particular, the fragmented political structure and the numerous separate sovereignties meant that international trade and finance in particular escaped close control, which is why Jews were so prominent in this area.

It is no accident that Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, the two most totalitarian societies in the past two thousand years (modern China perhaps excepted), also offer the most extreme examples of official and effective anti-Semitism…If we come to more recent time, Jews have flourished most in those countries in which competitive capitalism had the greatest scope: Holland in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and Britain and the U.S. in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Germany in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century — a case that is particularly pertinent when that period is compared with the Hitler period.”

Agreeing with the thesis that free markets have been good for Jews, Jerry Muller, in his recently published Capitalism and the Jews (2010) observes that when Jews have been allowed to compete with Non-Jews on equal terms, they have always done disproportionately well. Nevertheless, this economic success has been cause for both pride and embarrassment to Jews. It has prompted some anti-Semites to (erroneously) condemn capitalism as inherently Jewish. For the left, meanwhile, the reality of differential group achievement under conditions of legal (and assumed biological) equality is an embarrassment and a disgrace. The left have learned to hide their embarrassment under the intellectual fig leaf of “White racism.”

It seems evident from the foregoing that, the only time that Whites will be acting in their own evolutionary self-interest in embracing the free-market libertarian agenda will be when they either live in a racially homogeneous society where their group interests are not imperilled by the utility-maximizing behavior of individuals; or in a multi-racial society where competing racial groups do not exceed Whites in their ethnocentrism, or exceed Whites in their ethnocentrism but lack the native endowment of intellect to capitalize on this by effectively employing altruistic group strategies in competition with individualistic Whites.

The consequence of this, I would argue, is that the realization of the free-market libertarian agenda is likely to disadvantage Whites in a society with significant Ashkenazi Jewish and East-Asian populations. Such societies certainly include the contemporary United States and most other Western nations. In contrast, experience has shown that other racial groups, with their relatively lower mean IQs, despite their comparatively higher levels of ethnocentrism, are unlikely to out-compete Whites in the context of a free market economy. These groups, however, present an evolutionary threat to Whites of an entirely different order: with their comparatively high birth rates, crime rates, and levels of welfare-dependency involving the large-scale transfer of resources away from White communities.

If White ethnocentrism could be enhanced sufficiently to prompt Whites to adopt cohesive group strategies on a large scale (i.e., strategies that involve some controls on individual behavior—a form of altruism), then the economic playing field could be leveled sufficiently to allow more effective competition with Jews. However, given that Ashkenazi Jews have significantly higher mean IQs than Whites (particularly with regard to verbal IQ, which is a strong predictor of commercial aptitude); they are probably still likely to generally out-compete Whites in such a hypothetical conflict of racial group altruistic strategies. Nevertheless, the large-scale adoption of altruistic group strategies, even if offering only a partial improvement in the relative economic welfare of Whites compared to other racial groups, would be worthwhile.

However, a major barrier to Whites adopting altruistic group strategies are the ideologies that dominate the climate of opinion (especially in education) in Western nations today, some of which are explored by MacDonald in Culture of Critique, and which are calculated to thwart the emergence of manifestations of White ethnocentrism. MacDonald observes that a century ago the social sciences were effectively divorced from the biological sciences. While a reconciliation of sorts began in the 1970s, the humanities and large sections of anthropology continue to remain virtual intellectual closed shops, estranged from the contradictory findings of the biological sciences. Indeed given the leftist monopolization of these fields, resulting in the doctrinaire rejection of inconvenient scholarship and biology, it is hardly surprising that utopian socialism of the most naive variety routinely emanates from the academy.

It has undoubtedly been one of the chief attractions of leftist collectivism for Jews that free-market libertarianism — through the theoretical removal of the possibility of state coercion of individuals — effectively protects non-Jews in the expression of their anti-Semitism in their personal behaviour. Friedman concedes the point, noting that

“competitive capitalism has permitted Jews to flourish economically and culturally because it has prevented anti-Semites from imposing their values on others, and from discriminating against Jews at other people’s expense. But the other side of that coin is that it protects anti-Semites from having other people’s values imposed on them. It protects them in the expression of their anti-Semitism in their personal behavior so long as they do it at their own expense. Competitive capitalism has therefore not eliminated social anti-Semitism. The free competition of ideas that is the natural companion of competitive capitalism might in time lead to a change in tastes and values that would eliminate social anti-Semitism but there is no assurance that it will. As the New Testament put it, 'In my Father’s house are many mansions.'”

Implied in the above is that anti-Semitism is essentially irrational, and that Jews, while able to avoid economic manifestations of anti-Semitism through the operation of the free market, will have to wait for non-Jews to become more enlightened for social anti-Semitism to disappear. Likewise, for von Mises: “the truth is that while the Jews are the objects of anti-Semitism, their conduct and qualities did not play a decisive role in inciting and spreading its modern version.” Therefore, consistent with Jewish intellectual movements like Freudian psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School, anti-Semitism is characterised by these leading theorists of free-market libertarianism as being symptomatic of delusion or of the psychopathology of non-Jews, rather than a mostly rational and predictable response to a threat to the group evolutionary interests of non-Jews.

It would seem that libertarian ideas are particularly hazardous to the collective interests of White people because we are naturally attracted to them. As MacDonald notes, our evolutionary history makes us prone to individualism in the first place. You then get a negative feedback loop where libertarian ideology intensifies this innate individualism to encourage ever greater individualism among Whites, and an ever greater aversion to manifestations of White ethnocentrism. Thus, where the spirit of free market libertarian individualism reigns, Whites willingly maximize their individual self-interest at the expense of the group evolutionary interests of the White community — with disastrous long-term consequences.

It is clear that many of the political stances adopted by White libertarian individualists neatly dovetail with many of the doctrines of the anti-White left — multiculturalism being the prime example. The pro-market individualism of Western nations has, as a by-product, led to the embrace of a profoundly shallow concept of culture. Many Westerners now see cultural differences as if they were merely differences in consumer tastes and preferences. In a consumerist society, diversity is celebrated — as diversity is the basis for consumer choice. The consumer is king, and he demands that his own personal and individual preferences be satisfied.

Multiculturalism is, therefore, the natural anthropology of a consumer-friendly economy. Because our own lives are filled with personalized choices, each made according to our unique tastes, we have come to approach culture in the same spirit. For many Whites, a culture is like an individual choice of a consumer product. Accordingly, the naive White multiculturalist treats differences in human cultures as if they were analogous to a preference for Coca-Cola over Pepsi — that is, mainly a difference in consumer tastes — consumer sovereignty at work. This view, however, is radically different from the view implicit in less tolerant traditions like Judaism and Islam that regard cultures as weapons in the struggle for survival and supremacy of those who carry on those traditions. It is not surprising that, in an intellectual climate of almost limitless White libertarian tolerance for cultural diversity, non-White immigrant communities feel free to openly express disdain for European-derived peoples, disparaging their culture and their central place in the historical development of the world.

A large majority of Jews have historically been strongly in favor of a libertarian immigration policy for the White-majority countries in which they choose to reside. That this attitude is generally not extend- ed to the state of Israel is, naturally enough, a source of consternation and ridicule among White nationalists. MacDonald has examined this phenomenon extensively, regarding it as a foundational tenet of almost all Jewish intellectual movements that have historically emerged from Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. Interestingly, this rampant hypocrisy extends to the likes of Friedman and Rand. For instance Friedman’s position with regard to immigration to the US was that, providing that immigrants (from whatever racial or cultural source) are entering the nation to take up employment, as opposed to state welfare, there is no rational reason to oppose that immigration. With reference to the large scale immigration into the US in the late nineteenth century he opined that:

“You will find that hardly a soul who will say that it was a bad thing. Almost everybody will say it was a good thing. 'But what about today? Do you think we should have free immigration?' 'Oh, no,' they’ll say, 'We couldn’t possibly have free immigration today. Why, that would flood us with immigrants from India, and God knows where. We’d be driven down to a bare subsistence level.' What’s the difference? How can people be so in- consistent? Why is it that free immigration was a good thing before 1914 and free immigration is a bad thing today?

Well, there is a sense in which that answer is right. There’s a sense in which free immigration, in the same sense as we had it before 1914 is not possible today. Why not? Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promises a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.”

So if there is a job waiting for an individual — regardless of their race — then it would be irrational to exclude that person. However, the apparent attraction of non-discriminatory immigration for Friedman did not extend to the state of Israel. While Friedman frequently railed against the socialist tendencies of various Israeli governments, he was a strong supporter of the ethno-state of Israel, and there is no record of him ever noticing Israel’s racially-restrictive immigration policy — much less decrying it. This surely demonstrates that in such matters the ingroup moral criterion of whether it was “good for the Jews” surpassed his universal libertarian commitment to the supposed benefits of a free and open immigration policy.

Ayn Rand demonstrated an even greater capacity for hypocrisy with her attitude toward respective manifestations of White and Jewish ethnocentrism. She declared that “there is no such thing as a collective or racial achievement” and espoused the moral superiority of her type of individualism which “regards man — every man — as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being.” For Rand, however, “every man” ostensibly did not include the Arabs in their conflict with Israel. Instead she regarded the fight between Israel and the Arabs as fight between civilized men and savages. Appearing on Donahue in 1979 she declared that: “If you mean whose side should you be on — Israel or the Arabs? I would certainly say Israel because it’s the advanced, technological, civilized country amidst a group of almost totally primitive savages who have not changed for years and who are racist and who resent Israel because it’s bringing industry and intelligence and modern technology into their stagnation.”

So to what extent does the libertarian immigration agenda, advocated with such patent inconsistency by the like of Friedman and Rand, serve the interests of Whites in terms of immigration policy? White racial nationalists generally do not have a problem with immigration per se, but rather with non-White immigration that shifts the demographic balance of power away from European-derived populations. Because of their strict individualism, libertarians dismiss the importance of race in human affairs. This is reflected in the fact that many of the most prominent libertarian theorists, endorse a policy of non-discrimination with regard to immigration — although this principal is rarely extended by Jewish libertarians to the state of Israel.

The anthropological reality is, as Frank Salter observes, the precise opposite of the individualist fantasy propagated by libertarianism: that, until recent decades, almost all human societies have sought, like Israel, to prevent permanent mass migration in their own group evolutionary interests. Western societies since about 1965 have been the rare exceptions. Salter observes that:

“Hunter-gatherers and primitive agriculturalists, farmers and herders have all laid claim to a territory and fiercely defended it. Marriage partners have been found almost exclusively within the ethnic group, encompassing the local dialect. The psychological motivations for this are well established in such predispositions as social identity mechanisms, collectivism, assortment by similarity, innate cognition of human kinds, and rational choice. Evolutionary origins of territoriality and ethnocentrism are indicated by their being human universals as well as being found in apes. And from the evolutionary perspective, which acknowledges the limited carrying capacity of all territories and of the world itself, it is maladaptive to allow one’s lineage — family, clan or ethnic group — to be replaced by others.

The vital interest all societies have in controlling a territory also falsified the assertion that national security consists solely of defending individual citizens from attack, for example by vetting immigrants for terrorist connections, as is already the practice with tourists. Unlike tourists, immigrants affect the receiving country’s numbers, identity and cohesion. Societies thus have a corporate interest in retaining national sovereignty, which entails control of a territory. This helps to explain the historical pattern of corporate liberty being put before citizens’ rights. Inviting the world to a country as prosperous as Australia would result in the displacement of the Australian people inside their historical homeland. This is an outcome even more maladaptive than enslavement because it would be permanent.”

The question then arises as to why European-derived people in Western nations would, through accepting large-scale non-White immigration, act in a way that is entirely contrary to their group evolutionary interests. Part of the problem, discussed at length by MacDonald, is that Northern Europeans are, as a product of their evolutionary development, inherently more individualistic and less ethnocentric than other racial groups. This makes them predisposed to the type of individualism that has been at the core of Western market capitalism for centuries — an individualism that originally was a source of strength, and that has only become problematic in the context of the establishment of large non-White communities within formerly homogenous White nations.

While individual Whites may benefit from non-White immigration (such as a business proprietor or a leftist political candidate), in terms of their evolutionary interests as a distinct genetic community, non-White immigration is a huge negative. MacDonald has pointed out that more ethnocentric and less individualistic groups (most prominently Jews) have exploited this tendency of Europeans to lobby for changes to immigration policies to serve their own group interests. I think it is quite clear that the libertarianism of Friedman, von Mises and Rand, whether intentionally or not, has aided and abetted the cultural Marxists in serving Jewish group interests with regard to its influence on immigration policies in Western nations.

Thus, it is this very libertarian individualist agenda favoring the free global movement of people, in conjunction with the openly anti-White and anti-Western agendas of the cultural Marxists that have facilitated the demographic transformation of Western nations in the past few decades. Because of their denial of the significance of race, libertarians are never going to be allies in the fight to save White populations from demographic and political eclipse. The growth in popularity of libertarian ideas among Whites is as likely to undermine White racial solidarity as effectively as any of the more openly anti-White nostrums of the left. As White racial nationalists and activists we urgently need to convey to patriotic White libertarians that racial collectivism is the only effective means to promote our group interests now and into the future. It is lesson that was learned many centuries ago by those that have worked tirelessly to promote their own group evolutionary interests at our expense — with Judaism being the classic example.


Related Posts

  1. Kevin W. Cornell said:

    Before I begin to comment, full disclosure: I am essentially a hard-right libertarian. If one is interested in the specifics of my political philosophy, one can read my article “A Manifesto of the Private Property Anarchists” on the Libertarian Standard’s website.

    Now basically this seems like a truly great article that you have written Brenton. However, as I tried to impart on the comments section under Kevin Macdonald’s “Libertarianism and White Racial Nationalism,” libertarianism does NOT require open borders. In fact, what has come to be known today as “libertarianism” actually encompasses more than one divergent philosophy. Generally speaking, a libertarian can either be a minarchist, which is someone who supports limited government, or an anarcho-capitalist, which is someone who seeks to abolish coercive government in its entirety and privatize all land, property and security forces. This is crucial since, under an anarcho-capitalist system, the borders would not be wide open to immigrants; rather individual property owners would have discretion over who they let onto their land.

    Keeping what’s written above in mind, people need to realize that one can be a libertarian and also support closing the border. Moreover, I don’t believe libertarianism (or at least every kind thereof) and white racial consciousness are as incompatible as you suggest. For more information, I recommend reading Jared Taylor’s article “Democracy vs. Freedom (And the Nation-State) published on The article begins as follows:

    “Almost all libertarians (with the exception of the heroic Von Mises Institute) want open borders because they think border control is just one more tyrannical act of government. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a libertarian who teaches economics at University of Nevada at Las Vegas, has finally set the movement right on this question. Free immigration, he explains, is a misnomer. What the open borders crowd are really pushing is forcible integration, a denial of the rights of natives. This argument is just one of many that make Democracy—The God That Failed deeply subversive, even revolutionary….”

    • Kevin W. Cornell said

      “Keeping what’s written above in mind, people need to realize that one can be a libertarian and also support closing the border.”

      Jack Ryan replies:

      In theory this is true, but we do not live in theory, we live in reality. The reality of life in these dis-United States of America year 2012 is that the Libertarian intellectual community enforces brutal social sanctions on any White person who dares to speak in public about immigration restrictions or who discusses blatantly obvious racial problems. This race denying Libertarian cult is a huge problem for our people – as it is presented as the only alternative to anti White, politically correct, liberalism, cultural marxism. And yes, American Libertarianism is heavily Jewish, bringing in all the anti White, historical baggage of this certain tribe.

      I note Jews like Tamar Jacoby can move easily from Leftist Marxist intellectualism of New York University’s New School of Social Research to the supposedly “Libertarianism” of the Wall Street Journal – it’s supposed to be some huge intellectual change. But, the reality is that Tamar Jacoby is simply working to flood the United States with huddled masses of the NW 3rd world, replacing the White population of the United States with other people.

      And anyone reading Occidental Dissent shouldn’t be surprised to learn that Tamar Jacoby or any other Jewish Libertarians aren’t pushing for open borders immigration of Arabs, Blacks in to Israel. Israel is exempt from this race denying/destroying Libertarian cult.

  2. What a crock. While there are libertarians who fit into your straw man anarchist model, there are many of us who simply advocate for less government interference in our already over regulated economy. There is no reason one can not be a small government libertarian and still be a restrictionist when it comes to immigration.

    Politics is never an all or nothing proposition and there is no theory that forces libertarian economics to be a Universalist philosophy. I’m voting for Ron Paul because he stands for getting us out of these insane, murderous, and expensive foreign wars and because he wants to eliminate central banking. Plus he opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    • Kevin W. Cornell said:

      In Response to Rudel, who wrote:

      “What a crock. While there are libertarians who fit into your straw man anarchist model, there are many of us who simply advocate for less government interference in our already over regulated economy. There is no reason one can not be a small government libertarian and still be a restrictionist when it comes to immigration.”

      …The last sentence is absolutely correct, and I did not mean to imply otherwise. Even though there are generally speaking two libertarian camps, anarchist and small government, the libertarians in the small government camp can vary widely concerning what functions exactly they want the government to perform. In other words, small government libertarians can be either open-border or closed border, amongst other things.

      • There is nothing more quintessentially European than free market economics. The track of political freedom for the white man has been nothing less than the throwing off of the economic yoke of the state from serfdom and guild monopolies on craft labor to the disintegration of mercantilism during the Industrial Revolution.

        Libertarian economics is the intellectual foundation for fighting the always present forces justifying backsliding into economic feudalism. And if the occasional Jew like Murray Rothbard provides some intellectual leadership in the fight then so be it.

        From my perspective it feels as though jewish power has peaked. They are on the whole assimilating in the U.S. with each passing generation comprise a smaller percentage of the population and world public opinion has clearly turned against Israel.

        White men should be a whole lot more concerned today about the threat to our race race from the Muslims, Hindus, and Chinese than fighting old battles from times past. Wake up, it’s the 21st Century and the other races are on the move against us!

        • The Misanthropologist said:

          Your comment betrays a frighteningly parochial and flawed view of reality, in addition to factual blunders. Hinduism was originally a white religion, and there are millions of white muslims. Your ostensible obliviousness of Savitri Devi is alarming, if not completely damning. Thus, you have no intellectual capacity for authoring credible assertions concerning white existential threats.

    • If you are going to talk about voting for Ron Paul that is fine, but just making a blanket statement that he opposes the Civil Rights Act makes you and him look like a racist. He opposes it on property rights grounds and the way it is written. Ron Paul is 100% against Jim Crow laws that existed at the time, however an individual should have the freedom to discriminate on their own property and act like an idiot if they so wish so long as they are not physically harming another

  3. An excellent essay, libertarianism tends to benefit high IQ whites in the short term (at the expense of lower IQ whites) but undermines majority white interests in the long term.

    Its appeal in the British Commonwealth peaked in the early 90s, but it continues to have a strong following in the US.

  4. Let’s be real. Libertarianism is simply the flight of young white men from their whiteness.

    • What in the world are you talking about. Libertarianism is, essentially, the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson. A flight from whiteness?

  5. libertarianism is a disaster for WN. WN means organicism, family, tribe, collectivism as opposed to mad-dog capital accumulation and the devil take the hindmost.

    Libertarianism does express Individualist traits that Whites have in far too large amount, given our evolutionary history. We are stuck with them, as well as libertarians too I guess but that does not mean we have to tolerate them in WN.

    Homo sapien sapien is an intensely social animal. We must reckon with this fact, with its attendant problematics, and not go off on some kind of ideological errant wandering after the Myth of the Solitary.

    LIbertarians are one-dimensional, and without understanding of evolutionary psychology, or even simple social dynamics of any group.

    As Sanderson ably puts it, they are free to lose, and I would add lose to the Jews who have a collectivist and winning evolutionary agenda. The Jews who are Libertarians are simply gathering the goyim for milking and slaughter…all the better to build the Jewish war-chest.

    LIbertarianism is a curse for WN.

    • Joe Webb:
      You’ve got it totally upside-down.
      What enables the destruction of traditional society (i.e. family, morality…) is the state’s social engineering (using public education, the media, publicly-funded associations, etc.).

      Libertarianism is NOT about destroying the community; that would be the nihilistic pseudo-libertarianism you can find at Reason, which is a shame to the spirit of what has since been calledpaleolibertarianism, that is, the Rothbard-Hoppe view of freedom with no compromise with the political correctness of the Establishment and a culturally conservative emphasis on the importance of tradition as desirable.

  6. As an added note one should remember that Ayn Rand was most emphatically NOT a capital “L” Libertarian but a life long member of the Republican Party including being a supporter of Richard “wage and price controls” Nixon in the 1972 election.

  7. tma_sierrahills said:

    “Implied in the above is that anti-Semitism is essentially irrational, and that Jews, while able to avoid economic manifestations of anti-Semitism through the operation of the free market, will have to wait for non-Jews to become more enlightened for social anti-Semitism to disappear.”

    Or wait for Whites to disappear, now on the immigration-driven fast track.

    “Because of their denial of the significance of race, libertarians are never going to be allies in the fight to save White populations from demographic and political eclipse.”

    We all know sensible libertarians, but this is essentially true.

    Excellent article.

  8. Kendall writes:

    “All we need now are sufficient masses of pro-white Americans financially marching in lock-step behind us to do the rest…”

    I’m not marching in financial lock-step behind anyone without first reading the prospectus. And I’ll be the best mind gazing with cool precision on it when I do thank you very much.

  9. Neither the followers of Rand nor those of Friedman are libertarian. The Objectivists support American imperialism and military adventurism abroad, and Chicago economists have no fundamental quarrel with the existence of central banks, coercively imposed legal tender, and usurious, debt-based fiat collateralized by tax servitude.

    Core tenets of libertarian thought include defense of property rights and freedom of association (and its corollary, freedom of disassociation). In a libertarian setting, the unfettered exercise of these two principles alone would long ago have put an end to most of the troubles now besetting us, especially as regards forced racial and sexual integration, the freedom of White bosses and business owners to hire and fire as they see fit, usurpation of White fathers’ authority over their own families by the court system, mandatory attendance and support via taxes of government schools with little, if any, meaningful control over the curriculum, trespass by alien immigrants across farms and ranches along the southern border, White wealth confiscation to support the various social welfare programs which attracted such aliens in the first place, and, arguably most critical in the long term, the increasing encroachments on the right to buy, build, keep, sell, and openly bear arms.

  10. Mean IQ of a population actually means jack as long as the leaders are highly intelligent and a large section of the population is highly disciplined & dedicated

  11. The problem in a nutshell:

    White nationalists who embrace the libertarian ideology, which is a virtual blueprint for how the Jews are kicking their ass, would rather have a Zionist government rather than give welfare to a black minority

  12. Jo Neace Krause said:

    The main chore now is how to prevent the USA from suffering the same fate we now see in the Middle East. Sometimes I think the Middle East is a practice field in an evil game. Already there is talk about how the USA is too large to be “effectively” ruled by one head of state, and should have three separate heads, East, West, and Middle. Guess who wants to run East and West USA, and who will get the Middle.

  13. I am an American of Ashkenazi Jewish descent. At my most Liberal, I was still vehemently opposed to Illegal Immigration and any amnesty or sanctuary for them – and I am far from Liberal now.

    While I have been attracted to Ron Paul’s minarchism, his weakness on Illegal Immigration makes it impossible for me to support him.

    The argument that eliminating the welfare state would stem the flow and the problems associated with mass immigration – this holds no water with me. (The welfare state does make the situation more disastrous, however.) We should definitely have the right to limit immigration.

    The murdering gangs of black currently infesting out cities would certainly beat my ass like any other White person.

    My culture is white. I identify as White. Jews are not a protected class.

    It seems that WNs will have none of it, however.

    I would like to agree with Rudel, who stated above:

    “White men should be a whole lot more concerned today about the threat to our race race from the Muslims, Hindus, and Chinese than fighting old battles from times past.”

    I am not your enemy.

    • “I am not your enemy.”

      Glad to hear it!!

      The key is to get your fellow tribesmen – especially the older ones – to stop behaving like they are my enemies!

      • I argue with those who are more Liberal than I, in my family. Which lately is many of them.

        When confronted with facts – especially numbers preceded by the $ symbol – they withdraw. (Numbers are like kryptonite to Liberals.) But it doesn’t change their minds. They’re Liberals.

        I don’t actually associate with any other Jewish people much. I’m pretty secular and very introverted.

  14. The Misanthropologist said:

    Libretardianism is a sort of socio-political cult, indicative of cultural dissolution. How else but through utter mental-melting and the fondling of materialistic erogenous zones could so many people fanatically support Ron Paul, a bumbling, naive, and delusional wimp? Ron Paul is merely the least fetid bit of poo in the crumbling, stained, and overflowing commode that is the American political system. Needless to say, the mindless devotees so nauseatingly fond of him are figurative scatophiles and puerile fools, unable to distinguish between turds and Tootsie Rolls.

    The disregard of natural socio-cultural hierarchies has ultimately resulted in Western creative stagnation, the reversion of man towards animal behaviour, and the ascendancy of mediocrity. Libretardianism endeavours to empower individuals, despite individuals having proven over time that they are predominately asinine and irresponsible when removed from menial labour. Granting ordinarily low-achieving individuals voting responsibilities has been destructive enough, so it is beyond troubling to imagine them as almost fully autonomous social actors.

    • “Libretardianism endeavours to empower individuals, despite individuals having proven over time that they are predominately asinine and irresponsible when removed from menial labour.”

      Not a very convincing way to pitch your fitness to save the white race – if that is indeed your object.

      There are excellent reasons for saving the white race and the many mediocrities within it, but derisive contempt for the majority of your white brethren is not a very good start.

  15. blackacidlizzard said:

    Wonderful, a critique of libertarianism which focuses on the technocrat who gave us income tax witholding and a woman who spent much ink calling libertarians “irrational,” “immature,” and even her slur of greatest evil: “anti-life.”

    I don’t get enough of this clueless conflation from the commies and cultural Marxists. So glad to see that White Wing engages in the same superficial meme-repeating.

    Oh, a Texas-sharpshooter middle of the road framing. Marx is an extremist, Friedman is an extremest, and Keynes is the sensible middle. I do so love when people far beyond the boundaries of socially acceptable discourse make appeals to moderation. It shows a wonderful consistency between words and deeds.

    So let me get this straight. You think it is good to spend your time opposing the largest group in the US which supports you managing your home, business, and community as you see fit? Oh, the specter of atomized “individualism.” Because political movements are not about collectives? Just because some silly libertarians haven’t thought their position out very well doesn’t give you an excuse. Or are you a bunch of mass-man egalitarian apathists?

    But go right ahead. Keep appealing to the conservatives with your superficial structural analysis and staying away from anything too “controversial” like puncturing the Big Lie of persistent WWII atrocity propaganda. The conservatives will follow you when you control the military, they will never help outsiders like you grab the military. They’re conservatives – acquiescing to power is what they do.

    Keep it classy. Keep advancing radical change while attacking all who are radical. On your deathbed say: “I did everything the society told me it was OK for me to do, why didn’t it work to overturn society?”

    You deserve what you create.

  16. The tone of many of these posts illustrates exactly your point: that individualism has advanced the white race in the past but is now destroying it in the face of less individualist ethnic groups.

  17. Kevin Bjornsson said:

    Fascinating. Though libertarianism does not lead to multi-culturalism. Even though politics can be considered apart from culture, inevitably culture and group identity are involved because liberty derives from a philosophical justification.

    Natural rights provides that justification, and while a creation of Greco-Roman fusionism, espouses a universalism both cultural and political that will prevail throughout the world (or the world will sink into a new Dark Age). Because there are competing universalisms.

    Communism has been defeated, but is making a comeback through a Red-Green alliance. Islamism posits a type of universalism, and like communism, opposes western civilization.

    Humanism is cultural universalism that would have defeated Christianity and Islam before they became established, and has already succeeded in transforming Judaism (to a large extent). Western culture came into existence before the printing press was used in Europe. This left the large mass of pagans vulnerable to Christian conversion. Yet Christianity partially assimilated to humanism, while Islam has not.

    Israel tolerates a large Arab population and welcomes skilled immigrants, even non-Jewish. That is because their strong economy needs labor. Jews have a slight advantage with immigration to Israel, but that is necessitated by the extreme dangers they face elsewhere. Europe had a similar strategy, but unlike Israel, attracts the wrong sort through it’s exceptionally generous welfare system.

    European solidarity is a bad strategy, due to it’s subsidy to the wrong sort of whites, and the alienation of the right sort of non-whites. Humanism provides a sufficient cultural base for political libertarianism. Of course this assumes that the west abandons it’s embrace of Athenian democracy, and re-embraces natural law. The synthesis of Jus Gentium (common law) and Stoicism (holistic, both cultural and political) results in Jus Naturale (natural law theory).

    • “Kevin Bjornsson” here pretends that Whites would benefit from supporting the most intelligent, no matter which people they belong to. His purpose is of course to promote Jews.

      “Israel tolerates a large Arab population and welcomes skilled immigrants, even non-Jewish. That is because their strong economy needs labor. Jews have a slight advantage with immigration to Israel, but that is necessitated by the extreme dangers they face elsewhere. Europe had a similar strategy, but unlike Israel, attracts the wrong sort through it’s exceptionally generous welfare system.

      European solidarity is a bad strategy, due to it’s subsidy to the wrong sort of whites, and the alienation of the right sort of non-whites.”

      Ah, the falsehoods. First, Israel “tolerates” Arabs living within its borders? They are the ORIGINAL people. They were the ones who submitted to the Zionist invasion, armed by the U.S. and Britain, while the other Arabs were driven out and killed in the thousands. To say that Israel “tolerates” them is like saying Jews and their non-White allies in the West “tolerates” Whites living here, and that we should be grateful to them for this.

      Most Israelis would like to get rid of all the Arabs, but even they can’t be completely racialist, or their support among the “goyim” would be weakened. So they keep these Arabs. But treat them as second-class citizens. The Arabs are discriminated against. Their politicians are beaten. The media lie about their politicians. The Arabs are treated in exactly the same way as racialist Whites are treated in the West because of Jew-controlled media.

      Kevin Bjornsson says Jews have a SLIGHT immigration advantage. Another lie. Jews have a COMPLETE advantage – in that Jews from anywhere in the world are allowed to migrate to Israel, because they are of the superior Jewish blood. Palestinians, on the other hand, are not even allowed to move back to the last 22 percent of Palestinian land, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, if they have fled elsewhere.

      And Christians are forbidden to marry Jews in Israel. Something Bjornsson “forgets” to mention. Because that destroys his talk about how the poor, persecuted Jews must have their “slight” advantage. The ban against Christian-Jewish marriage, and the open hatred against Christians in Israel, shows that Israel is not based on escaping “persecution”, but on their wish for racial supremacy.

      When Greek Orthodox priests march down Golgotha carrying a large wooden cross, Jews line up on both sides to shout hateful slurs at them and spit at them. And they especially spit on the cross. This is something the Jew-controlled media never mention. Jews in general hate Whites and Christianity.

      And these are the people Kevin Bjornsson claims it is oh-so-fine to live with in the West? Anyone who has actually read Kevin MacDonald’s work, or other work documenting how Jews have pushed mass immigration and race-mixing for Whites, knows that this is false.

      Kevin Bjornsson claims that European solidarity is wrong because it promotes the worst Whites. We should instead allow Jews among us, who are better. But Jews also promote the worst among themselves. And they promote Black and Arab immigration to Europe and America (which Bjornsson pretends he doesn’t know), peoples with a much lower IQ than Jews or Whites, because they aid the Jewish agenda of preventing a White defense against their influence.

      Whites are far better off promoting our whole race, including the worst – because we need all the numbers we can get in this fight. Otherwise we will soon be a minority in all Western nations, with a state of constant murder and rape like in Rhodesia and South Africa (where half of all women have been raped). Hundreds of millions of Blacks, Arabs, Turks and others will be let in, to give their votes to the Jew-approved leftist parties. (At least 80 percent of Jews vote for the Left. Because anti-White collectivism is good for them.)

      Kevin Bjornsson here will of course be on the anti-White side. He will declare other Whites to be “suckers” and “losers”, and he will have many excuses for siding with the “winners”. All in his own self-interest in a crumbling West. He is either a Jew himself or one of the greedy little cowards who like to get a piece of the pie.

  18. “Legalizing marijuana will reduce border violence and illegal immigration significantly, decreasing the U.S.-Mexican drug trade by 70 percent. ”

    No it won’t. It will crash the Welfare System. One of the many brain-dead delusions of Libertarianism comes in the form of drug legalization as a moral and sacred force. Looking at the history of China or the United States, legalization of mind-altering inhalants has led to collapse. More importantly, the Libertarian ideologues (like yourself) cannot seem to figure this out. You want to legalize something that inhibits work and the impulse to work before the Welfare State is dismantled. In short, your profound stupidity is evident by your inability to understand that you will pay people to fry their brains and be unemployed.

    Of course, there’s no convincing the Libterarian that any drug is ever unhealthy when they believe that smoking pot will cure cancer. Such is the effect of smoking pot – delusions of grandeur. It’s the same sort of thinking that says legal immigration is always good. Why? Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s good. Isn’t that your argument against the Drug War? Not doing drugs is legal, therefore it’s good. Making drugs illegal is bad because your Cult demands it. Magically, making undocumented immigration illegal is bad because…?

    Nothing will “strengthen the relationship with Mexico” because you’re an idiot.
    Mexico had a Marxist Revolution before Russia. Their anti-American sentiments are rooted in Socialist Screed, not “jobs” or “drugs”. Their failed attempts at invasion led to a mutual respect. That disappeared with the Christos War.

    Libertarians are like Liberals in that neither know shit about history, religion, or politics but both have a brain-dead, know-nothing, bumper-sticker slogan handy when the time comes.

Back to Top