Category: Libertarianism

Suicide, Genocide and Rational Blindness

It’s a shame that Tan would say that I’m “not using my brain”.. “don’t have my thoughts organized clearly” and then take an idea that I have clearly organized and advanced for some time, and promote it on the Hitler worshiping “Renegade Network”, saying that he has this idea that our objectivity has given us advantages but also susceptibilities.


On the topic of genocide vs suicide he has an informative discussion but it is a false either/or in that MacDonald is not taking his eye off of Jewish power and influence and arguing “suicide” by examining our own susceptibilities (nor am I arguing White suicide).

Tanstaafl argues for genocide of Whites as opposed to White suicide

Tan quotes (from a post that KM put on TOO!):

Le CRIF and La France LICRAtisée (literally “Licratized France”) are extremely rigorous works and, as well shall see, their conclusions are highly compatible with The Culture of Critique. In short, these Jewish groups have spearheaded efforts to delegitimize French ethnic identity and indeed the French nation itself, to destroy majority self-confidence with references to “racism,” colonialism and the Vichy Regime, to aggres- sively promote Afro-Muslim immigration and “multiculturalism,” to margi- nalize the Front National from any participation in politics, to censor speech found threatening to perceived Jewish interests, and raise the Holocaust as the supreme crime above all crimes that legitimizes their activism by placing Jews as the supreme victims. This activism, plainly, is based on ethnically-motivated hypocrisy and selfishness, evident in the LICRA and CRIF’s simultaneous support for Israel as an explicitly Jewish ethno-state.

“That’s not suicide”

While it is helpful to unfold the matter of genocide vs. suicide, MacDonald is not letting the Jews off the hook while attempting to examine why our people are not responding better to obvious impositions. For example, he has readily discussed such Jewish coercion as incentivizing Whites to sell-out their people.

For a curious example of White passivity of my own recent experience, I was at a fare yesterday, thousands of people, 99 percent White, probably a few Jews, a few middle easterners and one interracial couple - lovely, elegant blonde with a special kind of blue eyes and a Negro in no way handsome or manifestly impressive.

I used a strategy of walking near them while not looking at them directly, saying loudly, “very good! 41,000 years of evolution destroyed, given it to an ape!”

The important point I want to make is that nobody of this White crowd even noticed or was the least perturbed by this sickening interracial spectacle.

It is legitimate to ask why a visceral response isn’t forthcoming. The inquiry into our own responses or lack thereof, WILL NECESSARILY BE connected with the inquiry of those who might suppress and obstruct them - hence it cannot distract from the J.Q. ultimately. Rightfully angered response and resistance to it would provoke inquiry as to who is resisting and promoting our dispossession. Moreover, it would be paranoid to suggest that KM and I are trying to deny or distract from the Jewish influence. He has insisted, and so do I insist, that Whites can be brainwashed by the Jews media and academia.... lets add religion, law, politics, business procedures and financing.

Nevertheless, I hear Tan referring to other causes, some of our own making, for example my idea that our inclination to objectivism leaves us susceptible.

Objectivism, as I have been saying, has appeal by yielding some spectacular practical results and insights, powerful moral warrant and innocence from subjective concern, but leaves our people susceptible to be non-discriminatory - perhaps especially of the obvious - as one can readily demonstrate if not “prove” their objectivity by not noticing and making judgments upon even such obvious differences.

That’s called “rational blindness” and this relative blindness to our subjective position and interests is a requirement in quest of pure objectivism.

Rational blindness can blind us to our involvement, indebtedness and accountability to our people’s interests and other people’s impositions. Scientists can famously be dupes to Manichean trickery for the habit of this Augustinian mindset. * I remember a former MR regular who, rather than request an explanation which I would have readily provided, tried to suggest that I was being pompous and deliberately obscure with these terms: Manichean - human challenges which can change when solved in order to trick an adversary; Augustinian - natural challenges which do not change when solved just to trick you again (how does Kol Nidre versus science grab you?).

As for looking at ourselves…

GW’s ontology project advocates evincing our authentic natural systems such that we may proceed by our own lights, not largely react and mirror the Jews as has been known to happen (in the case of the Nazis).

This isn’t making excuses for Jews or letting them off the hook in any way or form.

Has KM fallen into disfavor because he does not think AH and revisionism are the royal road to White salvation?

I haven’t heard MacDonald talk of “suicide”, I know that I do not talk of suicide.

I do know that Tanstaafl has overreacted when I, and others, cited liberalism as a problem, as if we were trying to distract from the J.Q. when discussing liberalism or other causes for peoples being under threat (as if we are not aware of the shenanigans of Lawrence Auster,

In this podcast I hear Tan accurately criticizing the Jews for transforming World War II into “the Holocaust” and elevating themselves as the special victims. All true and foul.

But he doesn’t see how the Nazis, and his over-sympathy for them, have him mirror the Jews, to where Nazis are the special and only important victims, didn’t do anything (it’s all a “hoax”), their victimization is pure, removed from cause and interactive conflict.

Evidently, right-wing WN interest to make the Jews the “only problem”, to where they would even denounce MacDonald for looking at our role in the interaction, is a motivation of those who want desperately to redeem Uncle Adolf and completely disprove the holocaust, blind and oblivious to the fact that those tasks are unnecessary and largely counter-productive to pursue.

Neither does Tan handle well the distinction between Right and Left; in saying the Right is hierarchical and the Left is about leveling egalitarianism. He is blind to the seeds of serious conflict he is laying with this notion of “necessity.” Whereas a White Left of good will toward fellow Whites would encompass a full nation and nations as “the class;” it is not about leveling, equality or doing away with distinctions and provisional hierarchical arrangements as they are qualitatively appropriate and accountable - but not only accountable to themselves; rather they are looked upon as organically related yet discreet, symbiotic as qualitative niches orchestrated among other niches - recognized as necessary as well; and also within the class. The niches are generally treated as characteristically incommensurate to comparison. That, as opposed to vain and false comparisons which tend to instigate conflict rather than complementarity.

The key distinction is not “hierarchy” vs “leveling and equality”, the key distinction is (pseudo) objectivism of The Right and its susceptibility to liberal universalisms which transcend accountability to social group interests vs the unionized and therefore particular and relative social group interests of the Left, as rendered by a White Left.



Posted by DanielS on Monday, May 25, 2015 at 01:43 AM in ActivismAnti-racism and white genocideCrusade against Discrimination in BritainEthnicity and Ethnic Genetic InterestsEuropean cultureFar RightImmigration and PoliticsLiberalism & the LeftLibertarianismLinguisticsNo particular place to goThat Question AgainWhite Genocide: AmericaWhite Genocide: EuropeWhite Nationalism
Comments (20) | Tell-a-Friend

Is UKIP controlled opposition or genuine Nationalism?

Jack Sen at The London Forum:

Posted by DanielS on Monday, May 18, 2015 at 03:41 PM in British PoliticsEuropean UnionFar RightGlobal ElitismImmigrationImmigration and PoliticsLibertarianismPolitical analysisThat Question Again
Comments (4) | Tell-a-Friend

Individualism’s Wake: The Abyss - some favorites of Dr. Lister

I think this is rather pithy - A Word in the Ear of the Future-Seekers — Modernity is not the bridge; it is the abyss.

Fine Persecution — Every society has before it an ideal of the kind of society it ought to be, and every society, in order to uphold that ideal, needs to persecute those within it who are at odds with that ideal. Once again, however, the deep mendacity of liberalistic society manifests itself in that it denies the persecution which it carries out against its hated enemies, namely, those at odds with its ideal. This denial of the persecuted status of its enemies — along with the ridicule of them when they claim it — are additional elements for the intensifying of their persecution.

Specify, or Be Damned — Individualism does not specify itself to be in keeping with any particular society, or even with the existence of society at all, but rather it addresses itself only to an unspecified individuality. Such unspecification about what an individual should be is precisely at the heart of individualism’s boast about its being the friend and not the foe of the individual’s freely seeking to be and to do whatever he chooses. “Do what thou wilt”, it says, whereto it may add the black-box phrase, “so long as it harms none”. Now, given a teaching which says that everyone may do as he pleases, irrespective of all truth, reason, goodness, morality, tradition, authority, obedience, bonds, and so forth, “so long as it harms none”, and which, by its boasted lights, does not specify the kind of society which should be upheld, or even that any should be upheld, how is it that anyone could then come to the belief that it might after all stand as a pillar of any society, let alone a particular one, rather than being, as in truth it is, the rot upon all? One might say that here we are at the brink of sheer madness, inbequeathed through many years of listening to silly tales. But leaving aside an understanding of the teaching itself, which might conceivably have taken any name, the very name which it does carry gives us a clue to its drift, namely, that it seeks to uphold the unspecified individual, not any society, specified or unspecified.
There are no ends specific to man as man, rather than to what he shares with mere beasts, which can be reached outside of his fellowship with his kind. No speech nor reasoning, let alone higher arts and sciences, would arise if all men stood from the first outside of fellowship. Every man began as a helpless baby and would have died were it not for the society of his kith and kin. Every man was without speech, and would have remained speechless were it not for the same. Every man was without schooling, and would have stayed unschooled. And so on. No man was ever born into a so-called state of nature, as first imagined by Thomas Hobbes, even if this be helpful as a conceptual threshold for the understanding that the closer a society comes in breaking down towards that threshold, the more brutish it becomes. It is nevertheless a figment which has led to misunderstanding and mischief, and it is from it that individualism has grown. Man’s state of nature is the state of society. Man has never been in the so- called state of nature; for he is by nature a social animal and always in fellowship. Individualists, having thoughtlessly taken all social things for granted, and having for the most part imbibed unawares some old spirit of seventeenth-century philosophy, often speak as though they rose out of the ground and shaped themselves in isolation, wherein we glimpse also the drunken idea of self-creation born of Romanticism.

But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. [1]

The liberal concept of man as selfstanding being, free to set his own moral ends, is one of the biggest untruths ever told — and yet folk swallow it whole, whereat we might take it that they are greedy for something.
Individualism is an emptiness which blights the field of personhood, turning men, if they can still be called such, into mere units of the mass to be gathered up in the total state. Man is a social animal; society is required to actualise a man’s potential as a person. There are no pre-social individual persons. In the light of this, we may see individualism as some deeply primitive recrudescence, the tendency of which is to destroy the very conditions by which one can become a human person. A man cannot be a person without the fellowship, community, or society that made him. Un- socialised, man’s potencies are not activated, and he stays at a level close to a beast, bereft of speech and reason, let alone partaking of the higher arts and sciences.
Individualistic societies are decomposing social bodies in which kinship-ties are loosened and even cut, and which can be held together only by an all-pervasive and socially-alien bureau-technocratic power — the “coldest of all cold monsters”. In defence of these societies, and, by extension, willing or not, of this bureau-technocratic power, liberals, who sometimes call themselves libertarians, claim the greater freedom of these societies, where the largely unexamined and fuzzily-held concept “freedom” is a multivariate reference, unspecified of what, for what, and to what. In individualistic societies there is more freedom in the direction of baser and thrilling appetites, non-specific to mankind, hence the appeal of this freedom to the mass of baser men; and it is these appetites which dissolve kinship and personhood, bringing even greater demands for individualism, which brings greater freedom in the direction of baser and thrilling appetites, and so on, in downward spiral. In individual- istic societies freedom in personhood is much lowered, whilst freedom in beasthood is heightened; and the bonds of kinship are cut whereby men would be men.
Liberals and libertarians, being the fiercest enemies of the freedom of personhood, and the strongest friends of the freedom of beasthood, that is to say, of the liberal haze-ideal of the “individual” whatever that individual may be, must be defeated if the freedom of the person as person is to be upheld. Liberalism, or rather its essential individualism, has a gut-feeling and a canny nose for the breaking-up of everything, even of the person, and it knows nothing of creation. The ideal of individualism can only belittle persons and bring to the fore a bulk of fittingly-blank individuals of the mass — fittingly blank for bearing the stamp of the bureau-technocratic regime.

The conformity that is forged today through the atomized individualism that strips men of their personhood has little to do with the collective identity for which men have always yearned. The conformity today is stopgap and takeover of this natural yearning. The atomised individual is stripped bare of his humanity —which has hitherto been actualised in society —and left adrift with his “freely-formed” and “chosen” opinions, which are in truth nothing of the kind. He cannot think for himself, only of himself, as he is suffering a loss. He rebels against conformity in conformity with everyone else.                         

As the subversive mind is essentially individualistic and isolationistic, so is it essentially collectivistic and identitarian: on the view inherent in it, the curse of division and of being ‘set against one another’ cannot be surmounted except by a ‘fusion into one’; an actual identification of consciousness, of qualities and of interest. In fact, individualism (tending towards egalitarianism) prefigures collectivism from the outset, and again, collectivism is only individualism raised to the high power of an absolute monism centered in ‘all and every one’. [2]

Individualism foreshadows mass-collectivism and the herd of ersatz ‘individuals’. With authorities and societies broken down, nothing stands between pressing individual units of alienated humanity, hitherto existing as persons, into mass, each homogenised unit shaped to fit and imprinted with a set of political ideas and economic desires.
The pluralism which accompanies individualism is a social dysfunction built on subject- ivistic-irrationalistic ethics. It denies that mankind has a nature and thereby a natural end to be fulfilled. Only by that denial does it make sense to say that everyone has a right to pursue any goals and practice any values which he pleases so long as he does not seek to foist them upon others. And how is that disorder to be managed? Why, by the totalitarian bureau-technocratic state of liberaldom! But of course it isn’t true that under liberaldom one can believe whatever one likes, nor especially what’s ratio- nal to believe. In liberaldom one can believe anything so long as it makes no odds against liberaldom; one’s unliberal beliefs, if they can still bear the name, are to be mild quirks of self, slight hues in otherwise grey smears of bureaucratic massification.
The task of liberalism from its beginning, namely, the search for neutral ground whereon the life of all mankind can rest, and whereupon everyone can seek his own ends, can find its end only in a true neutrality and indifference, and that is nowhere to be found in man except in his unpersonhood. Wherefore it is that liberalism’s struggle to settle the life of mankind can find its end only in the death of personhood; and it is for this reason that the struggle against liberalism is the final and most profound one. Liberalism is the greatest evil that mankind has yet faced, and there is almost no-one to withstand it. That lack of withstanding, owed to liberalism’s having swayed almost everyone to its side, is partly why it is the greatest evil.

1] Aristotle, Politica, Bk.I: 1253a:28-9, tr. B. Jowett, in The Works of Aristotle, Vol.X (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1921).
[2] A. Kolnai, “Privilege and Liberty” (1949), in Privilege & Liberty & Other Essays in Political Philosophy, ed.D.J.Mahoney(Lanham, Maryland:Lexington Books,‘99),p.21-2.


Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 01:32 AM in ConservatismLibertarianismPolitical PhilosophyPopular CultureSocial liberalismThe American rightU.S. Politics
Comments (10) | Tell-a-Friend

Are there explicit liberals with implicit sympathy up that path?


While defending our ghetto square and the merits of strengthening our grass roots community by preaching there to its choir, deepening our understanding and resolve, it seems that at this point Majority Rights could also do well with forays to visit those down some side streets - to pursue interviews not only with those who are most aligned with our views, but also to follow a path of those who might be slightly off - i.e. slightly antagonistic to our views in a somewhat liberal direction, at least explicitly, while having some implicit sympathy through connection to our square, our cause; such that MR’s platform might bring-out that connection with their underlying fairness in concern for our people and our kinds. The more public, known or respectable the person, perhaps the better. They might come to us with an intent to criticize us or save face in cover inasmuch – fine. Perhaps we can stand corrected. That’s not so much the problem as coming-up with good candidates for this kind of discussion/debate, those who may be lurking in what are the shadowy side-streets for us. Therefore the reason for this post is to ask for suggestions as to fairly prominent/respectable liberals, etc. Those fairly askance of our views, but not so antagonistic as to be futile to hope to engage. Rather to pursue those who might be ripe to debate GW or another MR representative, to at least hear-us-out. We might see where the dimly lit path takes us…


Posted by DanielS on Thursday, November 6, 2014 at 06:10 AM in ActivismAwakeningsBritish PoliticsConservatismEducationFeminismLibertarianismMR RadioPolitical PhilosophyPopular CultureRace realismSocial liberalismSocial SciencesWhite Genocide ProjectWhite Nationalism
Comments (11) | Tell-a-Friend


“Attorney of the damned”, author of “Defensive Racism” dies imprisoned by ZOG


Get the story out folks” - Stan Hess

From: Cyndi Steele, Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 8:35 PM
Subject: News about Ed that I prayed I would never have to deliver!

                                                    Cyndi Steele

“The past 4 years Ed and my family have been living in a nightmare. Today, my greatest fear has come to life or maybe I should say death. Please read the message below that is being posted on the Free Edgar Steele website and sent to all of his supporters as I type this. It is with great heartbreak and devastation that I send you this news.”


Posted by DanielS on Thursday, September 4, 2014 at 11:25 PM in ActivismAnti-racism and white genocideDemographicsFar RightGlobal ElitismLawLaw & OrderLibertarianismMarxism & Culture WarObituariesRace realismThe American rightU.S. PoliticsWhite Communities & Micro-EconomiesWhite Nationalism
Comments (3) | Tell-a-Friend

London’s Predominant Concentration of Those Who May Be Sought-Out for Accountability



Posted by DanielS on Monday, May 12, 2014 at 01:01 PM in ActivismBritish PoliticsEconomics & FinanceFar RightLibertarianismWorld Affairs
Comments (4) | Tell-a-Friend

George Addressed With a Socially Ideal but Responsible Altercast Contrary to His Individualist Plans

George is addressed with a consideration of acting-into an altercast position in conflict with his less than socially ideal plans.


As opposed to a libertarian, prioratizing dreams of individual adventure and world travel, George contemplates acting-into, shaping and crafting the specificatory structure altercast by Mary, who addresses him as a man of ideals, which of necessity compel adjustment of those priorities to practical duty: to a position rather as husband and community builder, upheld against capitalist destruction thereof.


Analysis: John Shotter’s Social Accountability and the Social Construction of “You” Part 2

In pursuit of this analysis, we may usefully trace background to Shotter and Harre’s negotiated concerns here:  “The Verum Factum Principle”


From Wikipedia:

“Giambattista Vico is best known for his verum factum principle, first formulated in 1710 as part of his De antiquissima Italorum sapientia, ex linguae latinae originibus eruenda (1710) (“On the most ancient wisdom of the Italians, unearthed from the origins of the Latin language”).[7] The principle states that truth is verified through creation or invention and not, as per Descartes, through observation: “The criterion and rule of the true is to have made it. Accordingly, our clear and distinct idea of the mind cannot be a criterion of the mind itself, still less of other truths. For while the mind perceives itself, it does not make itself.” This criterion for truth would later shape the history of civilization in Vico’s opus, the Scienza Nuova (The New Science, 1725), because he would argue that civil life – like mathematics – is wholly constructed.”


Posted by DanielS on Friday, January 10, 2014 at 01:43 AM in ActivismAnthropologyAwakeningsEuropean cultureLibertarianismLinguisticsScience & TechnologySocial liberalismSocial SciencesThe Ontology ProjectThe Proposition Nation
Comments (2) | Tell-a-Friend

On Ron Paul as controlled opposition and why he would be best for President of the United States

I’ve taken flak for describing Ron Paul as controlled opposition. Here I’ll discuss his stance on money. I was pointed to the following overview of Ron Paul on the money issue to correct my alleged misrepresentation of his stances.

Ron Paul argues against more regulation [on the part of the government] and pitches for a free market economy by saying that the Fed should not be given more power, whereas giving the Fed more power means less regulation by the government as the Federal Reserve banks are fully private; the more power the Fed has, the greater the influence of the “free market.”

Ron Paul addresses the housing bubble by saying that Congress and the Fed encouraged the housing industry... finally the bubble burst and “we” [government] try to [pursue stupid policies] such as stimulating the housing market, cash for clunkers.... as a result “we” have no confidence in the market economy.

Reality check: the housing bubble and its busting was caused by the bankers a.k.a. the “free market”:

Boom: generously give out loans, which are funded out of nothing, to earn interest off of nothing...

Laughing all the way to the bank: make money by selling debt that can’t be paid off to investors, make money by selling insurance against the probability of defaults, make money by gambling on the probability of defaults...

Bust: loan less and cause a recession; acquire houses for pennies on the dollar.

Another reality check: The only money created by the government comprises of coins. Stimulating the housing market and cash for clunkers is just the bankers getting the government and hence the people more under debt.


Posted by J Richards on Tuesday, January 3, 2012 at 01:25 AM in Economics & FinanceLibertarianismPolitical analysisU.S. Politics
Comments (81) | Tell-a-Friend

A chat with Perry de Havilland

Long-standing readers of MR will know that, over the years, we have enjoyed not just warm but quite heated relations with Perry de Havilland’s uber-libertarian blog, Samizdata.  Having placed a comment of the usual incendiary kind on the thread to a Telegraph article titled Greece is slipping into the abyss, who should come along to bludgeon me with his critical-rational logic (or is it rational-critical, I never know) but Samizdata founder Perry de Havilland.

OK, so you don’t actually need to know what follows and, yes, I am being self-indulgent.  But Perry was one of the first people to ban me.  So he stands at the head of a small army of mad on-line liberals who have trespassed against me in that way, and he’s the only one I know by name, damn it!  At the very least, he deserves to be turned into a foil for an explication of our Weltanschauung.  Thus:


Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, October 1, 2011 at 06:40 PM in Libertarianism
Comments (104) | Tell-a-Friend

An oblique attack on libertarianism.

This attack is “oblique” because the direct target is Ayn Rand, whose philosophical followers call themselves Objectivists; some maintain that there is an important difference between objectivism and libertarianism. While there may indeed be an important difference it isn’t important to the attack, which will be seen to apply just as well to either.

On page 448-449 of my paperback edition of Atlas Shrugged, noble industrialist Hank Reardon is on trial before “a panel of three judges appointed by the Bureau of Economic Planning and Natural Resources”:

“Are we to understand,” asked the judge, “that you hold your own interests above the interests of the public?”
“I hold that such a question cannot arise except in a society of cannibals.”
“What . . . . what do you mean?”
“I hold that there is no clash of interests among men who do not demand the unearned and do not practice human sacrifice.”

This is the keystone: there is no clash of interests among men. Pull it away and Rand’s ideology collapses. “There is no clash of interests” is another way of saying “there is no us and them any longer: in a proper understanding of the world there is only us.” How very anti-Darwinian! Considered another way, Reardon is telling the truth, but neglects to add that all creatures must by their natures “demand the unearned”, even unto cannibalism. Objectivism requires both moral universalism and cornucopianism. The same must be true of libertarianism.



Posted by Søren Renner on Sunday, September 20, 2009 at 08:38 PM in Libertarianism
Comments (117) | Tell-a-Friend

An open letter to lewrockwell on behalf of America

An Open Letter to Hispanics On Behalf of Ron Paul

What are Ron Paul’s ideas to reduce the number of illegal immigrants? 1) Oppose amnesty; 2) cut welfare benefits; and, 3) reform the immigration laws and allow up to 60 million more immigrants legally into our country. Did you catch that? Yes, 60 million more Hispanics, Arabs, Eastern Europeans and Asians who can enter our country and live here legally without fear of police harassment or predatory business practices. Now that is a solution I can work with.

If this is indeed Ron Paul’s opinion, I would like to ask him a series of questions.

Firstly, would he say that the land which currently comprises the USA morally belongs to: a. the people of America; b. the US Federal government; c. the whole world; or d. the Mexicans?

Secondly, if the answer to the first question is anything other than a., in what sense is that consistent with libertarian beliefs about people having the unquestionable right to their justly acquired property?

If, on the other hand, the answer is a., I would like to know how forcing the American people to accommodate, on what is morally their property, 60 million strangers they have no wish to have anything to do with is consistent with libertarian beliefs about freedom of association? Does one no longer have the right even to decide with whom to associate on one’s own property?

I would furthermore like to know why Ron Paul believes that an unwanted minority, only in the US because of government indifference to who the moral holders of a property think should be let in to this property, would in any way support libertarian initiatives.

If, as I suspect, these are not Ron Paul’s genuine views, then I would like to ask the same questions of whatever anti-property, anti-freedom anarcho-communist came up with this Kulturkampf-esque plan.

Addendum: The offending passage has now been removed. The questions should still be answered by whoever thought it right to associate such a position with libertarianism. However, I would like to add the further question of why LRC felt the need to ascribe a wholly fictitious position to Ron Paul.


Posted by Alex Zeka on Monday, December 17, 2007 at 07:12 AM in ImmigrationLibertarianismThe Proposition Nation
Comments (42) | Tell-a-Friend

More fun with the Libertoids

The great parroterian himself, Perry de Havilland, has just seen fit to ban me from his blog. What occasioned this fit of distinctly unlibertarian censorship? What was my grievous sin? Did I perhaps doubt the ability of an individual to define himself? Did I question the compatibility of the war in Iraq with the non-aggression axiom?

No- it was my irredeemable “racism”, or rather my irredeemable inability to ignore objective reality about the races that made me feel the cold monstrosity of the libertarian state. I cannot remember offhand what precisely I wrote, my message having gone the way of a victim of a Stalinist show trial, but I’ll reproduce it as best I can. The context is Jonathan P. praising Euan Grey for refuting Matt O’Halloran’s race-realist ideas.

Here is approximately what I wrote in reply:

“EG did not dispose of anything, save perhaps of his reputation in our (if the plural isn’t too collectivist for your tastes) eyes. Matt and I made several claims about race, backed up by historical and scientific arguments. EG replied by asserting that mongrelisation leads to the opening of minds: a claim thoroughly refuted by the preponderance of socialist and anti-free speech tendencies amongst those of mixed ancestry.

Just look at London: one of the Mongrel capitals of the West, but scarcely a bastion of open minds. You would be on safer grounds if you claimed that inter-breeding opened arses, as there is a disturbing correlation between race-mixing and AIDS infection. But then, as good individualists, you think we should all support the Partisans of Sodomy.

If any of you wish to repeat this discussion, I could always copy what I said all those posts back. Or you could observe the mirth caused by your pathetic flailings at”

What was I banned for? I admit some of my comments weren’t in the best of taste, but then the phenomenon I was describing isn’t precisely in the best of taste either. If anything, I was notably restrained considering the sort of abuse Perry routinely subjects us to.

If any of you wish to observe the latest twist in the war within the libertarian soul go to “The Economist on ‘soft paternalism’” on their website. Filed, incidentally and quite hilariously, under “opinions on liberty”!


Posted by Alex Zeka on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 07:49 AM in Blogs & BloggingLibertarianism
Comments (42) | Tell-a-Friend

Liberalism and the slippery slope

I intended to write a post on the ramifications of sexual liberation (or the sexual “revolution”) in terms of its impact on our mores in the future. This is a subject which is broached quite often although the arguments in favour of greater liberation are never considered in the fullest sense of their real long term consequences.

The legalisation (or intended legalisation in the case of many American states) of Gay “marriage” was a massive step in the relentless march of liberal sexual morality (and this has occurred despite popular resistance to it - as with all the other cherished ideals of the liberal project). The question however is, how much further is this going to go? Have we gone far enough? Have we now permitted absolutely everything under the sun or are there still limits which gnaw away at the concept of the “sovereign” individual (and those limits therefore deserve to be destroyed because the individual is “sovereign”)?


Posted by Phil Peterson on Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 09:06 AM in Liberalism & the LeftLibertarianismMarxism & Culture WarSocial ConservatismSocial liberalism
Comments (29) | Tell-a-Friend

Ocean Frontier Fertility: The Global Prospects

The prospects are great for ecologically imposed patriarchy enhancing the fertility of whites via oceanic frontiers.  The majority of the earth’s surface remains not only uncultivated, but not biologically productive despite the presence of adequate sunlight and near-adequate nutrients. If recent experiments in iron fertilization of high nitrogen low chlorophyll oceanic surface regions are any indication, the primary ingredient lacking is the pioneering spirit that led to the cultivation and increased carrying capacity of the Anglosphere’s frontier territories: The United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.  It is reasonable to expect that the Anglosphere alone could increase its numbers by a factor of 10, relatively unmolested by multicultural supremacists, during this pioneering renaissance and maintain if not improve the quality of their populations.  Other, less sea-faring European peoples could enjoy smaller but nevertheless profound population and territorial relief.  Moreover this population increase could be very rapid if the fertility rates of the United States frontier is any guide.  This is a prospect that seems plausible in no other way short of world war.


Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, March 9, 2006 at 11:19 PM in DemographicsEuropean NationalismGlobalisationLibertarianismScience & TechnologyWhite Nationalism
Comments (7) | Tell-a-Friend


That motley collection of identical Sovereign Individuals and non-aggression axiom loving warhawks over at Samizdata have finally noticed our existence. Well, not this website’s, but certainly that of what they charmingly and inanely call “race collectivists”. A regular commentator called VeryRetired (and thank god for that) apparently wrote:

“My experience of racists is that they are race based collectivists who are so utterly without anything to redeem them (and know it), that they pick out something they didn’t have to earn (race) and claim that as their most valuable asset.”

Well, my experience of libertarians is that they are ideology based collectivists who are so utterly without anything to redeem them (and know it), that they pick out something they didn’t have to earn (their ever so correct opinions) and claim that as their most valuable asset. I decided to notify them of my existence in the following manner:

“Meanwhilst, “in the real world”, Blacks get together to filch from Whites, Mestizos get together to make American open borders a fait accompli, and Arabs get together to preach radical, anti-West jihad.

Oh, and as to your post-racial fantasies: have you noticed that the greater the number of inter-breds, the less liberty there is in a place? Deprived of any other identity, mongrels attach themselves to the all-powerful state to find some sort of belonging.

You state that believing in racial differences is the product of a sense of personal inferiority. Yet, if racial differences do exist, and judging by the performance of Blacks on just about any metric they do, then they should be believed in.

You state that the success of a nation is the result of its freedoms, not its race. But a nation’s freedoms are the product of its race. Why was classical liberalism only ever tried in the West?

You claim to libertarians: well, then, presumably you are opposed to social engineering. Yet, that is precisely what is necessary to convince the people to welcome every ethnicity under the sun into their embrace. The miscegenation you celebrate is the direct result of half a century of government propaganda to the effect that “if it feels good, do it”.

Every self-governing people in history has resisted large scale immigration. It is the empires, the late Romans and the Persians and the Mongols and the Soviets, which welcomed the great unwashed mass, caring as they did not for their people but for their military might.

“Diversity, tolerance, araciality” are the swan song of every civilization, and the beginning of many a dictatorship.

Is it possible to be a race-based libertarian? If you consider opposing government propaganda, social engineering and the whims of emperors to be libertarian, it most certainly is.”

That resulted in a veritable Niagara Falls of verbal diarrhea, as I was accused, in posts lacking any sort of evidence or argument whatsoever, of ignorance. I guess the truly enlightened do not need to discuss and debate: they just know what the case is.

Remembering what Kirk said about libertarians being like wild-eyed anarchists, albeit ones that don’t even know which sex they are, I invite you to watch the bitch fight progress.

Posted by Alex Zeka on Tuesday, March 7, 2006 at 03:24 PM in Blogs & BloggingLibertarianism

Ritalin: Beyond Just Drugging Your Kids

Between 2000 and 2004, use of drugs intended to keep ADHD patients focused doubled among adults aged 20 to 44,... use rose 113 percent among women 20 to 44 and 104 percent among women 45 to 64, both far more than among men.

I’d like to see some stats on the numbers of women drugged on diazipines and SSRIs. Did not I read that these drugs also suppress libido?

There is a pharmacy near where I live, in a very posh section of town, “professional women” can be seen frequenting this place in the droves, I’d bet they’re filling their purses with Prozac. We live in sick culture, I’ll say that.

Posted by leslie on Friday, September 16, 2005 at 11:51 AM in Libertarianism
Comments (25) | Tell-a-Friend

Individualism and its discontents

The robust – I might say characteristically robust – response from a number of MR people to John’s “jolly Indian” post set me thinking about the problem of Individualism.  And it is a problem for us.  Not so much, perhaps, in cases such as Razib’s, who today answered a query about “the substantive difference between you (Razib) and the Majority Rights crowd” as:-

“Majority [group] Rights vs. Individual Rights”

Now, I agree with Razib here.  MR is primarily a vehicle to discuss the present and future life of Western Man, while GNXP argues for “Eastern Man’s” interests in the West and ONLY in the West by commending to us the lot of an atomised individual.  (And if you are offended by that recommendation, you bloody well should be.  It is offensive.)

Offensive he may be, but Razib is no evil genius.  He is an uncomplicated young guy pursuing his “individual rights” in an entirely predictable way, and I don’t disdain him for that.  I do disdain him, along with all GNXPers, for acting like the worst leftist and blackening our names for doing what we can to defend our group interests.  But if he and we can agree that he does it in the name of a competing interest – he doesn’t want to be excluded just because we prefer our own kind – then at least we all know where we are coming from.  Namely, the Salterism which GNXP’s David B so utterly failed to disprove or discredit because it can’t be disproved or discredited.  It is manifestly true.



Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, August 26, 2005 at 07:52 PM in Libertarianism
Comments (35) | Tell-a-Friend

What We Mean by Individualism

A libertarian peace treaty with communitarians from the Mises Institute

Brad Stone recently delivered a lecture at the Mises Institute concerning the relevance of the work of Robert Nisbet to the libertarian movement. He argued that it is important for libertarians to also be “communitarians,” defending traditional social institutions from the state. He cautioned against the valorization of the individual and any position that acknowledges only individual rights as ideas that lend themselves to a growth in state power.

Overall, the presentation was insightful. The importance of families and other such small communities (“subsidiary institutions” in the language of Catholic social teaching) should be a topic of concern to libertarians, and precisely for some of the reasons that Dr. Stone identified, such as the provision of services often connected to the modern welfare state. The introduction to Nisbet was also welcome as a point of intellectual history in light of the connection between the Old Right and the modern Austro-libertarian movement.


Posted by jonjayray on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 at 06:51 PM in Libertarianism
Comments (6) | Tell-a-Friend

A latter-day Fusion … or a war in the soul

My thanks go to Michael R for a link to a Lew Rockwell article written last month by Ira Katz.  Michael wanted in particular to point out a quote in the article by Ortega y Gasset from his classic of 1930, The Revolt of the Masses.

It is not that one ought not to do just what one pleases; it is simply that one cannot do other than what each of us has to do, has to be.  The only way out is to refuse to do what has to be done, but this does not set us free to do something else just because it pleases us.  In this matter we only posses a negative freedom of will.

Without commandments, obliging us to live after a certain fashion, our existence is that of the “unemployed”.  This is the terrible spiritual situation in which the best youth of the world finds itself today.  By dint of feeling itself free, exempt from restrictions, it feels itself empty.  An “unemployed” existence is a worse negation of life than death itself.  Because to live means to have something definite to do – a mission to fulfill – and in the measure in which we avoid setting our life to something, we make it empty.

This was Katz’s opening shot in a bid to reconcile libertarianism and Conservatism, somewhat akin to Frank Meyer’s Fusionism of the 1950’s and 60’s.



Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 at 06:03 PM in Libertarianism
Comments (2) | Tell-a-Friend

Why I am a libertarian conservative

I normally mention my own political outlook only in passing.  I am more interested in understanding what is happening in the world about me than I am in proposing my own grand theories.  And in that respect I think I am a mainstream conservative.  Conservatives don’t like grand theories.  I do however find libertarian ideas a very useful framework for thinking about problems.  I think that most of society’s problems are caused by governments usurping choices that could better be made by individuals and that government is just about the worst way of doing almost anything.  So libertarians normally have a good answer to most social problems—allow more freedom for individual choice.  Libertarians have ideas and concrete proposals with a clear rationale and persuasive precedents.  And that is a great contrast with the dismal Leftist reflex of solving everything via ever more pervasive coercion.  And libertarian proposals in most spheres are normally congenial to conservatives too.

Where libertarians normally part company with conservatives is over moral issues.  Conservatives want less regulation than Leftists but they do want some regulation.  Exposing part of a black woman’s breast at a major sporting event upsets some conservatives dreadfully, for instance.  I am afraid that I remain a total libertarian on such issues.  What people do with their own bodies seems to me to be supremely their business.  And all arguments that some idea or claim should not be uttered or made known simply suggest to me that the idea or claim concerned is a powerful one that cannot easily be opposed.  I would not go so far as to say that any censored idea or claim is automatically correct but I think there is a strong presumption in that direction.  So the argument that sexual restraint should be fostered by censorship of sexual expression suggests to me that the arguments in favour of sexual restraint are weak.


Posted by jonjayray on Tuesday, April 5, 2005 at 09:49 AM in Libertarianism
Comments (7) | Tell-a-Friend

Robert Locke on the Libertarians

Marxism of the Right


Posted by Phil Peterson on Friday, March 18, 2005 at 05:27 PM in Libertarianism
Comments (8) | Tell-a-Friend

This liberty nonsense

I was still sixteen and a schoolboy in the Summer of Love, such as it was in the suburban South London we knew then.  So I was too young and, anyway, far too reserved to give myself up to the general intoxication.  By the time another year had flown by and my boyish innocence had fallen away so grass smoking and the love-in was joined in the public’s image of youth by communist-orchestrated violence on the streets and the sheer fun of defying authority.

From that, at least, I was comprehensively saved by my drug of choice: horsepower.  Four wide wheels, grunt under the bonnet, juice in the tank … yes.  But left-wing politics?  Jesus, man, fuck that.


Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, March 10, 2005 at 07:33 PM in Libertarianism
Comments (6) | Tell-a-Friend

image of the day

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Majority Radio

Recent Comments

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Chasing The Red Cape of Jewish misrepresentative terms against our own interests' on 07/01/15, 10:08 AM. (go) (view)

Mick Lately commented in entry 'Chasing The Red Cape of Jewish misrepresentative terms against our own interests' on 07/01/15, 10:08 AM. (go) (view)

documenting the sins commented in entry 'Chasing The Red Cape of Jewish misrepresentative terms against our own interests' on 07/01/15, 10:07 AM. (go) (view)

Mick Lately commented in entry 'Chasing The Red Cape of Jewish misrepresentative terms against our own interests' on 07/01/15, 09:29 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Chasing The Red Cape of Jewish misrepresentative terms against our own interests' on 07/01/15, 05:10 AM. (go) (view)

Mick Lately commented in entry 'The Naivete of The Native Species Long Evolved in Isolation' on 07/01/15, 05:07 AM. (go) (view)

Their new normal: "It's not shocking" commented in entry 'The Naivete of The Native Species Long Evolved in Isolation' on 07/01/15, 12:53 AM. (go) (view)

The choice of traditional roles and basic tasks commented in entry 'Females, Women, Actualization and Gender Differentiation' on 06/30/15, 03:27 AM. (go) (view)

Blowback commented in entry '"Rock solid, unwavering, enduring and forever!"' on 06/29/15, 08:17 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Should we deviate from authenticity in order to “game” women?' on 06/29/15, 03:07 PM. (go) (view)

Lindtner report from Roskilde conference commented in entry 'Majority Radio: Dr Christian Lindtner speaks to DanielS and GW' on 06/29/15, 02:30 PM. (go) (view)

Mick Lately commented in entry 'MajorityRadio: AltRight's Colin Liddell talks with GW and DanielS' on 06/29/15, 11:11 AM. (go) (view)

Mick Lately commented in entry 'MajorityRadio: AltRight's Colin Liddell talks with GW and DanielS' on 06/29/15, 10:40 AM. (go) (view)

Gladiator commented in entry 'WE AVOW OURSELVES TO THE DIVINE RACISM OF THE GERMANIC PEOPLES' on 06/29/15, 09:07 AM. (go) (view)

Chasing the red cape of "The" Left commented in entry 'MajorityRadio: AltRight's Colin Liddell talks with GW and DanielS' on 06/28/15, 06:44 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'MajorityRadio: AltRight's Colin Liddell talks with GW and DanielS' on 06/27/15, 09:48 AM. (go) (view)

Mick Lately commented in entry 'MajorityRadio: AltRight's Colin Liddell talks with GW and DanielS' on 06/26/15, 11:24 AM. (go) (view)

Татьяна commented in entry 'Since history repeats …' on 06/24/15, 05:50 AM. (go) (view)

"spirit" = logics of meaning and action commented in entry 'MajorityRadio: AltRight's Colin Liddell talks with GW and DanielS' on 06/24/15, 04:30 AM. (go) (view)

Guh? commented in entry 'MajorityRadio: AltRight's Colin Liddell talks with GW and DanielS' on 06/23/15, 08:15 PM. (go) (view)

Mick Lately commented in entry 'MajorityRadio: AltRight's Colin Liddell talks with GW and DanielS' on 06/23/15, 10:15 AM. (go) (view)

Roof's lack of capacity inverse relation to ours commented in entry 'MajorityRadio: AltRight's Colin Liddell talks with GW and DanielS' on 06/23/15, 07:20 AM. (go) (view)

Distribution "Key" commented in entry 'African Population Explosion - Augurs to Overwhelm Europe' on 06/23/15, 06:20 AM. (go) (view)

Coal Burned commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on 06/23/15, 03:49 AM. (go) (view)

comment by Andrew at Radix commented in entry 'Why Didn't You Keep Your Cohen Name?' on 06/22/15, 08:46 PM. (go) (view)

Wrong place at wrong time commented in entry 'Why Didn't You Keep Your Cohen Name?' on 06/22/15, 12:33 PM. (go) (view)

Mick Lately commented in entry 'Why Didn't You Keep Your Cohen Name?' on 06/22/15, 07:13 AM. (go) (view)

"only" seven kids commented in entry 'Why Didn't You Keep Your Cohen Name?' on 06/22/15, 01:11 AM. (go) (view)

Squelch75 commented in entry 'Why Didn't You Keep Your Cohen Name?' on 06/22/15, 12:57 AM. (go) (view)

Not so innocent black church commented in entry 'Why Didn't You Keep Your Cohen Name?' on 06/21/15, 10:29 AM. (go) (view)

certifiably: crazy and conflict of interests commented in entry 'Why Didn't You Keep Your Cohen Name?' on 06/21/15, 09:48 AM. (go) (view)

Compulsory Separation News commented in entry 'Why Didn't You Keep Your Cohen Name?' on 06/21/15, 04:08 AM. (go) (view)

Cuspernicus commented in entry 'Further Explorations In Heterosity' on 06/20/15, 09:48 AM. (go) (view)

neil vodavzny commented in entry 'Why Didn't You Keep Your Cohen Name?' on 06/20/15, 07:54 AM. (go) (view)

neil vodavzny commented in entry 'Why Didn't You Keep Your Cohen Name?' on 06/20/15, 07:49 AM. (go) (view)

General News

Science News

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.


Endorsement not implied.

Anti-White Media


Controlled Opposition





Historical Re-Evaluation




Nationalist Political Parties


Whites in Africa