Libertarianism is for Losers

Or at least it is now.

Like many on the dissident/alternative/new right I used to be a libertarian. Libertarianism seemed logical and rational and there was seemingly no shortage of libertarian writers who were willing to speak politically incorrect truths and piss the egalitarian left off. Libertarians want absolute liberty in economics, politics and society as a whole. Who doesn’t want freedom? As it turns out this is far better in theory than in practice. Libertarians in their quest for the ultimate freedom reject tradition, heritage and even natural occurrences like racial and gender differences. In the past decade libertarianism has become just completely insane. They have become little different from the SJWs they supposedly stand against.

Libertarianism is essentially just a new form of classical liberalism which in the end  gave way to social liberalism. Classical liberalism had a revolutionary aspect to it but it did not go far enough and didn’t offer as much to the ordinary man as socialism or watered down variants of socialism did. Now it would seem something similar is happening to libertarianism. Libertarians often have right idea about staying out of foreign wars and ending foreign aid, but they have traded in their edgy anti-PC heritage in favour of aping the left in every aspect save markets. Then again some are in fact no different from the average leftist. Take for example the Bleeding Heart Libertarians (BHL) who are literally just SJWs who haven’t fully accepted the government; hell they are even against capitalism . Libertarians aren’t going to win over enough supporters by being about fags, weed and open borders.

At an International Students for Liberty Conference held last year the former idol of libertarians, Ron Paul, was denounced as racist and a Putin stooge because he refused to support anti-Russian saber rattling. The conference attendees abandoned someone who worked tirelessly in favour of libertarianism in favour of condemning nationalists, promoting the already overpowered homosexual lobby and making a porn star a featured speaker. A year prior to this prominent Libertarian writer Jeffery Tucker attacked right libertarians for being sexist, racist, homophobic, and not caring enough about egalitarian policies. That is a typical leftist tactic.

They really seem to think that they can win homosexuals, drug users, sexual libertines and others who are firmly in the leftist camp over to them because they attempt to walk a middle line. Elizabeth Nolan Brown notes that libertarians have been supportive of homosexual rights for a while but LGBTQ lobby is now more concerned with gibs and enforcing laws which protect their minuscule minority. She notes that the GOP isn’t going to win big with homosexuals; true but neither are libertarians! She herself essentially admitted it earlier[i]. Another contributor to Reason, Paul Derick, went on a  gay dating app to find gay conservatives. Look a minority of a minority are conservative, GOP must get behind them!

Admittedly issues regarding immigration, race and multiculturalism are far more important to address but that doesn’t mean we need to pretend that the LGBTQ lobby is necessary or beneficial. They are not interested in liberty or fairness; they are interested in pushing their own identity politics to their fullest. By caving into them we have seen major blows to our understanding of society (which is built upon the family unit) and biology (which clearly states that there are men and women not trans this or that).

Feminists are another group libertarians are championing. Sharon Presley, for example, notes how many early feminists were anarchists, libertines and other such libertarian types. Cathy Reisenwitz is an example of a current libertarian feminist. She doesn’t seem any different from mainstream, non-libertarian feminists. Feminists are rent seekers like the gay lobby and minority racial groups, and they could certainly care less about liberty because they want to impose their worldview upon everyone. Again most feminists are not going to support libertarians but even if they did why would you want their support? They are decidedly anti-family and anti-Occidental civilization. They are a destructive and unnecessary force.

Many libertarians don’t go full SJW when it comes to social issues, but they still embrace unfettered immigration. In a recent article the Cato Institute’s Alex Nowrasteh basically admitted that unchecked immigration hurt the poor, but screw ’em. It isn’t the first time he has condemned those less fortunate than him. He also ignored (or lied) about welfare use, dismissed basic biological data by stating race isn’t real and also essentially argued that we shouldn’t worry about culture clash or violent crime. His article was all unfounded optimism. Then again he must have ethnic identitarian reasons for wanting open borders; America retaining its traditional demographics hardly helps a half-Persian like him.

He – like so many other libertarians and conservatives – is also completely wrong about Hispanics, as the Pew Research Center shows. Moreover, the younger the Hispanic the more likely they are to vote Democrat – and they have a far younger population (the pew research article linked also shows that non-Whites in general are far more likely to vote Democrat). This was all well before the rise of Trump. Nowrasteh mentions a Borjas study concerning the Cuban Marielitos migration to Florida but fails to mention the racial conflict that the Marielitos caused and how Afro-Americans were impacted far more. If libertarians are so down with helping out the Afro-American community (which so many seem to be), then they can’t be open borders supporters.

Evidence from Canada shows immigration being a burden while in Denmark they saved 6 billion pounds by cutting back on migration! In UK researchers found that immigration was not economically beneficial to host country and moreover it hurt poor countries immigrants come from. One point which is frequently ignored or forgotten is how immigration does not help with an ageing population, something most Occidental countries are struggling with. As Steve Sailer notes a great many legal migrants are low-income. In fact, only White immigrants had a median net worth of more than $500 – how does this help economy? Oftentimes the incomers aren’t interested in doing any sort of work, as we can see with “refugees” in Germany now; great contribution to the economy eh!? Even wealthy migrants aren’t necessarily a boon as can be seen in Vancouver and Australia today.

In another article Nowrasteh again calls on pro-immigration stances from the GOP. He also completely buys into the media hysteria surrounding Trump and his “imminent demise.” Again he fails to note stats such as what I posted above concerning Hispanic voting habits (they have been pro-Democrat in every federal election since 1980, though more than likely before then as well) and that race, culture, religion are all of critical importance. This also raises another problem with immigration, namely how parties compete for foreign votes and neglect natives. They will go so far as to promote demographic displacement.

David Bier pulls the same emotional blackmail as the left when it comes to calling for more refugees to be settled in the United States. Does he know it would be cheaper and easier to let them stay in their general areas? I doubt he cares either way. Eric Boehm claims immigration is great because some Olympic athletes in US team are immigrants. Again we see the old claims of they are good for the economy even when there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. One thing Boehm notes is that foreign wars are more expensive than immigration. I’m sure he is correct but why does being against immigration mean supporting unnecessary wars? Libertarians used to be both and I still am. End both and watch the cash roll in.

Even if immigrants were as economically beneficial as many claim they are (which of course they aren’t), the fact is it is still unnecessary because of cultural, racial, ethnic, religious reasons which are always forgotten about by these people. Hell these issues are the most important ones to take into consideration.Demographic displacement is a problem and one libertarians should have their eyes open to.

Are they really so stupid as to not see that if the population of a country changes than the values will as well? Do they honestly think that libertarian values will have any cache in a non-White America? In the end libertarian ideals are only really popular with Whites and North-West Europeans in particular. But even then most could care less. Given that it was in Europe that the concept of liberty developed and it is sustained by European descended populations, one would think they care about race but no of course not. Many deny there are racial differences (Jeffery Tucker, for example, denies any heritable correlation to IQ) and use every opportunity to  condemn those who are willing to discuss racial differences. The Trump campaign has caused a a great many libertarians to go above and beyond the call of duty when it comes to signalling their liberal status by attacking Trump for being a racist and assuring the world that they are against White identity politics (but not, of course, other groups’ idenitarianism).

Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute used to be quite friendly to race realists and immigration skeptics but as Gilbert Cavanaugh points out they have given in to the politically correct left. Both sites have been undermined by the pro-immigration Anthony Gregory, Walter Block and Jesus Huerta de Soto among others.  Race matters and yes, it is more than just skin colour; IQ, propensity towards violence, etc. are all aspects of racial difference. Let’s be real even with no welfare state the West is attractive because Whites build efficient and livable countries. And if most immigrants were White than sure there would still be problems like language boundaries or variation in folkways, but it wouldn’t be as problematic.

Libertarianism certainly won’t attract working people and even lower-middle class people as they will be the ones to deal with foreign labour competition, they won’t benefit from corporate tax exemptions, unregulated banking or housing markets, nor from the continued march of cultural marxist dogma. It certainly won’t win over great swathes of the growing non-White contingents in the West. Sadly it would seem that libertarianism, like all forms of liberalism, has ultimately lead to nihilism, hyper-individualism and crass consumerism.

No instead of actually being rational and logical many libertarians prefer to pretend they are Oriental despots lording over the uncouth and uncultured masses, who need their supposedly great insight. They have serious mental problems if they think that one can import entirely new groups of people and not have there be any kind of cultural changes. They are also mad to think that by cucking to the left on social issues they will see libertarianism triumph and moreover remain un-impacted by pro-statist values of the left. Succumbing to leftist narrative on social issues certainly doesn’t advance society and strengthen our civilization, in fact it helps destroy it. They are at best naïve and at worst complete traitors.

Libertarianism has become a selfish dogma for privileged and rootless cosmopolitans who could care less about faith, family, race, culture and tradition. They are completely in it for themselves. Earlier I compared them to Oriental despots, well that was unfair because at least Oriental despots understood the value of tradition and recognized that there were differences between the various peoples of earth. Even the greediest and most degenerate didn’t promote civilizational suicide.

There are still a few libertarians with decent views but sadly they have lost ground to this new libertarianism which is nothing but losers.




[i]Note also how she likens Geert Wilders to a neo-nazi, this is typical behaviour of an SJW; does she know nothing of Wilders’ programme? Moreover, she fails to notice that Trump is not in favour of foreign interventions. I don’t support the homosexual lobby but it is true that cutting Muslim immigration back will help them as Muslims are vehemently against them.


About Thomas Jones
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Libertarianism is for Losers

  1. The basic problem with libertarianism is the belief that it is a universal value. Limited government is only supported in any meaningful numbers by white Americans. The magic dirt idea lived on for far too long and now we are left with the mess

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s