Much ado about very little. Obviously it’s an empirical question whether there are differences between the races and obviously people have different motives for pointing them out. Obviously such differences are difficult to talk about. Who wants to think their group is innately deficient in some desirable trait? It is far from proven that talking about race and IQ has any bearing on important questions of public policy. No great changes resulted from publication of The Bell Curve. By contrast, the facts suggest that changing attitudes and policies about sex, childbearing, childrearing, divorce, and women’s role have very large effects on crime rates, joblessness, drug use, poverty, and so on.

Thanks a lot for this article. For many years, I have known that all anti-discrimination laws must be repealed. I self-identify as libertarian, but far too few so-called libertarians agree with me. And even those that are willing to say they agree with me, usually soft-pedal whatever they do say. I think this issue is extremely important. I even feel often that I wish to applaud raw racism or bigotry of whatever kind. People who think or act so should be defended. I often hear the phrase ‘freedom of association’ but hardly ever hear also of ‘freedom of disassociation’. What I have known for years that if I cannot discriminate, I am not free.
I hope that many people read Mr. Neff’s post. It is quite lengthy, but also quite rewarding.

Blacks generally exhibit disparate behavior.

After reading your article, Priss, it just dawned on me what term best describes my beliefs: I am a racismist, plain and simple. Next time anyone asks if I am a racist, I will correct them accordingly. Thanks for all your great articles on this site.

Regards,
Palerider1861

Do you acknowledge any form of welfare safety net for citizens ?

every child of these couplings goes on to mate, and what happens then?

America in a nutshell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqXoFFoqouM
Video Link

The desire to be with ones own kind is a natural part of being human. There is nothing wrong with that. The idea that racism is bad is Western concept and it is used as a way to control people. Once you recognize that, then you can ignore all the BS about racism and move on.

This is the result of ACOWW, or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs

https://www.facebook.com/disgruntledmillennial/videos/1974616036145637/?hc_ref=ARTYJdXCsU0rQdFBjiVyPQNqBAw0YaNDfDb1U_SectxlBr2kltuQ5zMunRVUtEIiwlo&fref=gs&dti=267928420015011&hc_location=group

Why should mulattoes respect whiteness? They grow up in a society that ideologically says whites are to blame for everything whereas blacks are noble and cool.

And besides, their white mothers rejected white men as wussy inferiors and sexually served a black man as natural rightful lord over their wombs.

Ideologically and iconologically, ACOWW is total defeat of the white race, and it is spreading all over US and EU.

Every year, more and more white wombs are colonized to create mulatto wenches like this.
And white Americans even elected Obama, a product of ACOWW when it still frowned up by society when he was born.

hey Gramps,

I only perused this article and comments lightly, until I saw the video, and watched it yet again

I remember watching it when he made that speech, as I too was ‘weeping’ for my country, and have been doing so ever since that false flag horror on 9/11, and the subsequent atrocities and catastrophes the neocon Jewish Zionists and their Christian lickspittles have wrought all over the planet.

I oppose any proposal to replace monetarism with a gold standard

the problem isn’t monetarism per se, but rather our monetarism is being controlled by private, unaccountable international banksters for their own nefarious agenda$ at the direct expense of the republic and its people and economy.

I need to study much more about Objectivism

I wouldn’t

Objectivism is the name Ayn Rand gave to her ‘philosophy’, and it’s not worth really studying, because for one reason, Ayn Rand in particular never lived by such a literal philosophy.

Objectivism and Libertarianism are attempts at trying to encompass the real world requirements of politics and the exigencies of life- with a religious-like attempt at a motivating philosophy behind it all. Ron Paul is the person who has come closest to it’s messiah, as he alone seems to possess the character needed to embody the ideas, but then again, he too makes concessions and exceptions to the dogmas.

I wouldn’t waste my time on them, except as a curiosity to find out what others are raving about.

cheers

Bah. Another libertarian-bashing article from what looks like a crypto-commie. Most of the people he cites are maybe libertarian hanger-ons, but not formal Libertarians.

Libertarians created the civil rights law, and correctly understand racism to refer to anti-rights legislation based on race or nationality–not attitudes.

The only people who get confused are conservative commenters above who pay attention to this tripe.

No

But it would be incorrect.

Arthur R. Butz, ´The hoax of the twentieth century, The case against the presumed extermination of European Jewry’, Costa Mesa CA, 1977, 1989

The esence of social democracy is the belief that the goverment should redistribute income from the rich to the poor through taxes, and subsidies.
This belief, conviction, still exists in NW European countries on the continent, GB is less social.
In actual politics it is broken down, thanks to the EU.
You are right that words as racism and antisemite have got a meaning, alas a not defined meaning.
A racist is anyone who cares for his country and culture, an antisemite is anyone who criticises jews, for anything.

The left-liberals always talk about needing to ‘have the conversation’. They could publish a book of the conversations that are allowed. Left-libs are like children; they think if they have a single reason then they possess truth. They can’t cope with debate, that’s not what ‘conversations’ are.

There used to be two words – I remember a time in uk, prob 90s, when both were currency – racialism meant neutral categorisation, racism meant prejudice. One of them disappeared with the millennium fireworks.

Troll.

“The fight for property in nature goes on all the time.”

That comment reflects both the fact of animals not recognizing the property of other animals and your ignorance. Not to mention your apparent animal-like lack of recognition of the property rights of other people.

Property behaviors in nature amount to “mine” and “ours” but not “yours”. It wouldn’t be nature, red in tooth and claw, if property of other animals were recognized. Instead they fight, both animals and so-called humans.

Of course people can take such fighting to unimaginable levels.

Rockwell and Tucker sold out, and have absolutely nothing to show for it. Shocking, I know.

Please name one libertarian who supports slavery.

Would it be racist of me to point out that the first slaves in America were white Irish? And would that mean then that the Irish were racist because they had no blacks back then?

So, I say that I am indeed a race-ist. Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean belief in race reality. Ism doesn’t mean hatred, chauvinism, or supremacy.

Use the term race-realism. Words morph over time and change meaning. Often they change meaning purposefully. For example, ” Conspiracy Theorist and tinfoil hat nutters was made equal by CIA, especially post JFK murder.” Many conspiracy theories become conspiracy facts.

Another example, Mexican can mean somebody from Mexico, or a Mestizo. So, when speaking of a Mexican, in order to not confuse, you have to say Mexican National. Mexican National is a citizen of Mexico, the country, and who may also be a Mestizo. If somebody is a Mestizo racially, that is more accurate than calling them a Mexican.

So, hyphenated terms are what we have to use now, in order to be precise.

One can be a race realist, and not be a racist. It is stupid to walk around with contradictory information in your head. It makes you malfunction. Don’t malfunction, life is too short.

To see first hand, race differences and then agree with the “were all the same” narrative, implies cognitive dissonance.

People that insult their own intelligence by believing in two contradictory things at the same time, are committing a sin against themselves.

Nowadays, racist means White. It doesn’t matter what you do or say, if you’re White, you’re a racist. A CUNY professor recently said women who had White children were racists. People have to just laugh at this word.

“The truth shall get you fired,� versions of which appear on more than one site on the Internet.

Some honest talk about libertarians and Jews and Israel.

LewRockwell.com was the major outlet for libertarian prose. Every libertarian of note, needed to publish there. The money man for the site was a Jew. For twenty years NO libertarian writer who wanted to be publish on LewRockwell,com. could say anything negative about Israel. The least libertarian country of the West is Israel.

For over twenty years ONE Jew distorted the whole libertarian intellectual political outlook regarding the ME and the world.

This was an intellectual high crime.

Clearly Jews are anti universal freedom of speech.

Think Peace — Art

p.s. Lew and his writers all knew this – but did nothing.

p.s. One must question their honest dedication to libertarian principles.

Someone observed correctly that in reality an antisemite is an individual hated by jews. You may not even know that jews exist, but if for some reason they don’t like you than that’s what you’ll be called.

It is nature that lacks the concept of the property of others.

No, it does not. The fight for property in nature goes on all the time. And property keeps changing hands.

I have also mentioned intellectual laziness. Try harder.

We notice that you’re a contemptible cuck.

Your supposed classic definition is peculiar because it reflects the use of the term today. That definition is generic as to be useless.

The classical definition of racism — the practice of denying another equal services, protection and or opportunity guaranteed by law based on a benign trait, such as skin color, hair style, etc.

How one felt, or even thought about them is inconsequential. I may not like you, but if I do nothing that prevents you access to the rights as citizen —

It would not be a racism – bigotry is not racist. One can be a bigot and racist, but feelings, private thoughts have no bearing on what constitutes racist behavior. It was strictly a term that made discrimination manageable in reference to behavior not feelings. There may be some grey areas –

But the definition I note was the standard understanding. Women have made the matter about feelings as well. This bleeding any meaning out of it.

TG is performing the commonest attack on libertarian thinking, to highlight the “extreme” example and use it to throw the baby out with the bath water.

In general, libertarians invite this by the way the discuss their own philosophy, though I think this article largely avoids this error.

TG claims to be in favor of increasing personal freedom and responsibility. This IS libertarian thinking, and the main goal of a lot of the weird theorizing that TG labels “nonsense” is simply speculation and argument about how far personal freedom and responsibility can go.

Do you really have that much of a problem with it TG? A libertarian could make pretty compelling case about all your points. There are far too many in the world making the opposite argument, about how liberty simply has no place in the world.

The real crime is noticing things.

The ‘noticing’ on these boards is generally fantasizing.

it has convinced half the world of universalism via its (((culture))) and (((academia))).

j j dessalines version 2.0.

the white version.

very good.

mssr dunn is correct.

and the winner is…

???

particularism.

libertarianism is one among many universalisms.

universalism is the unknown known, the secreted cudgel, that (((master))) beats us with.

enough!

the universal nation is not a nation at all.

it has convinced half the world of universalism via its cutlure and academia.

The words “racist” and “antisemite” have no real meaning, colloquially speaking. They constitute no more than generic verbal weaponry.

The same applies to “misogyny”, “homophobia”, and many, many other words.

It is the case, however, that some of these words have formal meaning in, for instance, psychiatry. Unsurprisingly, whenever a formal meaning does exist, it is completely unrelated to its conversational use. And, to make matters worse, it remains unclear if, even in those domains, their meanings are able to stand to rigorous scrutiny.

Both racism and anti-antisemitism are the results of research and pattern recognition. The real crime is noticing things.

“Libertarianism is the lowest common denominator to which people will spiral down. Eventually reaching the state of nature.”

Total BS.

It is nature that lacks the concept of the property of others.

In reality, almost everyone and all property belongs to some government. That is the default setting of the left and right – might makes right – which is part and parcel of the animal world.

Well that’s quite a posting.

I would suggest, however, that the problem with libertarianism is that it is, as a pure philosophy, incoherent.

I have no problem with people wanting to increase personal freedom and responsibility. Sure. But to say that these principles can solve all human problems – ignoring morality and culture and ethics etc. – is I think a folly.

“Libertarians” have argued for the freedom to choose to own or employ slaves. Yes really. Currently a lot of the peeled shrimp in the United States is peeled by leaves in Malaysia – and woe betide anyone who wants to put a stop to this trade, that’s interfering with economic freedom! Libertarians also believe that big corporations have the freedom to ship factories to countries with the lowest possible labor costs – and also that they have the ‘freedom’ to restrict individuals from importing goods from countries where they are cheap! That the rich should have the ‘freedom’ to bribe public officials. You get the idea.

So libertarian principles? Certainly, as long as these are not the only ones. Libertarianism as a pure philosophy? Without morals and ethics etc. pure libertarian logic is a pretzel that can be bent to be whatever you want it to be. As a stand-alone philosophy it’s nonsense.

no. libertarians are inherently autistic. and there’s nothing they can do about it.

until they stop being libertarians.

a country of nothing but superior people is necessarily more socialist than norway.

there’s no excuse for poverty or gross inequality when everyone is superior.

drrr.

if i were a dictator the first people i’d send to the GULAG would be the men with toupees. then i’d send the libertarians…

if i hadn’t already sent them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN4SKZ_emvU
Video Link

While I agree with most of what Senator Bryd states in this video I would never call him an eminent conservative. Anything but, as he was the Prince of Pork directing huge amounts of taxpayer dollars to West Virginia when he was chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

I think it was a good article, but curiously a good number of the commenters don’t seem to be getting the point of what the author is saying.

I always enjoy the “dog eat dog” characterizations of libertarian thinking. Just saying it wouldn’t be libertarians drafting your children or taking your income at the point of a gun. And further, I have some amount of faith in the empathy and love of average people, which is to say there is nothing about libertarian thinking prevent voluntary charity or uncoerced hiring to help out a disadvantaged group. Wouldn’t it be interesting if all the average joes were taking care of each other. It would change the world for the better.

The author’s breakdown of how racism has become a bludgeon is good insight. I’ve recently been wondering why racism is such a big deal–I mean real racist thinking. So what, people unfairly judge others all the time for all kinds of things, right, including income level, diet and weight, personal appearance, politics, religion, the list is long. So why is race so different. I mean, if someone judges me based on my skin color, it doesn’t bother me that much, but if they steal my gym shoes, now that’s a problem. Obviously, race is a political organizer tool, but there’s just not much there, there.

Is anti-semetic a bad thing, like racism….just hollow words meant to manipulate the culture into accepting jewish rule and subjugation.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-04/secret-fbi-analysis-martin-luther-king-jr-exposed-latest-release-jfk-files

Judging by the hysterical response, your comment most likely hit somewhere close to the mark.

What can libertarians do about this? Very little, I’m afraid. They have tied themselves into a knot worthy of a Gilbert and Sullivan comedy. The problem is that in adopting disparate impact as their standard for racism, they have accepted the terms of the discussion set by collectivists. It would help if they could bring themselves to eschew using the disparate impact standard, if they would cease to reduce mental acts to external numbers. It would help if they de-legitimized the term entirely, not only in their own writing, but wherever they encountered it, insofar as it is possible at this late date.

This seems too complicated.

As it happens, I have lived for 30 years+ in one of the most diverse places in Europe (the Spanish Mediterranean coast) with large communities of North African Arabs, Black Africans, British, Germans, Belgians and now Russians and Eastern Europeans. New arrivals join their respective communities, speak their own languages, don’t mix much with other communities, and are generally happy to be here, with almost no friction at all between these different races and cultures.

After reading articles like this, and looking at the situation in the US, I have to ask myself how this is possible, with my best guess being;

1) Immigrants having the same rights as the Spanish to schooling, healthcare, job opportunities BUT NOT HAVING POLITICAL RIGHTS OR THE RIGHT TO SPANISH NATIONALITY. Actually most of them are here for economic and other reasons, and have no interest in politics, and are not planning on becoming Spaniards.

2) The acceptance among immigrants that this is NOT THEIR COUNTRY and their Foreign Resident status is OK and doesn’t interfere with what they want to do.

The key point seems to be that there is no political or ethnic challenge to the Spanish. It’s accepted that this is Spanish territory run by Spaniards.

If this is right, then the mistake in the United States, right from the start, was to not explicitly define the US as an Anglo society and restrict political power (citizenship) to this founding group. The US could still be fully multicultural, but with immigrants, foregoing political power and accepting that they live (through choice) in a tolerant Anglo society.

“Libertarianism’s arguments are worthless in the face of its inherent racism.” — Neff

I’m not sure how to parse it logically: I agree that libertarianism’s arguments are worthless, but that has nothing to do with racism. So does that mean that I agree or disagree with whatever it is Neff is saying?

I like my own idea of what libertarianism is: it is, or it should be, a political philosophy based on the love of individual liberty. But, for example, I oppose any proposal to replace monetarism with a gold standard. I even oppose the entire body of ‘Austrian’ economics as booshwah.

To me, Neff’s article is another one of those articles by self-styled libertarians that I can’t read through thoroughly to the end, because … how shall I put this? … because it’s of libertarians, by libertarians, and FOR (and ONLY FOR) libertarians). I know, I know, I need to study much more about Objectivism and about “Austrian” economics … I need to study until I can follow the insane ravings of those who construct, in some hermetically sealed realm of reason, what is apparently known as ‘libertarianism’.

In other words — so that ‘libertarians’ can understand me — I am a’pseudolibertarian,’ in their terms.

Maybe I am a conservative, except there the problem is that there isn’t much of the political world left that I want to conserve … so here I am … without an identity … in this era of identity politics. Well, maybe there’s enough left of a political world that I can positively say that I oppose the spread of nuclear weapons …. and I would argue that as a ‘conservative’ stance …. but to return to dykstra’s comment:

“I am a social democrat, a racist and an antisemite.
“I am a racist because I am attached to the Netherlands as a country, and its culture.
“I am an antisemite because I condemn Israel as a brutal colonial power.
“The problem with both words is that they’re just emotional, are not objective, do not have a well defined content.”
— jilles dykstra

(1) I don’t know what a ‘social democrat’ is anymore, it’s like ‘conservative’ that way.
(2) I too, dystra, am a racist because (Heavens help me) I am attached to the USA as a country and to its culture, and, even more so, because I am an unrepentant white man!
(3) And, I too, dykstra, am an antisemite, because I condemn Israel for its attack on the USS Liberty, not to mention its dirty-dealings in such contexts as (per USMC General R.H. Barrow) that Israeli troops were deliberately threatening the lives of Marines serving as peacekeepers in Lebanon.

However, as to ‘racist’ and ‘antisemite’, I would say that these words have acquired meaning, dykstra, thanks to the neocons and neoliberals who claim to own them. Just as the Objectivists and such have defined me, dykstra, as a mere ‘pseudolibertarian’ or as the neocons or corporate conservatives have defined me, as a mere ‘paleocon’ or maybe as a WN leftist.

BTW: If libertarians are going to cite to eminent conservatives such as the late great Senator Robert Byrd, then I am going to cite a source for his biography

https://www.biography.com/people/robert-c-byrd-579660

and also, Byrd’s fateful speech on the eve of the 2003 invasion of iraq, in opposition to the neocon government

Video Link

That speech is known as the “I weep for my country” speech, as all true conservatives continue to weep for our country, when it’s all over but the tears, and the tears, the tears keep flowing like a river …

Remember that White variance in brains/looks/talent/character is extremely high. Hence, whites occupy both extremities of human quality.

The hierarchy of economic productivity is :

Talented whites (including Jews)
Asians (East and South)
Hispanics
Blacks
Untalented whites (aka these WN wastebaskets, and fat femtwats).

That is why :

1) WNs are never given a platform by respectable whites, and whites will never unite as a unified group (this is of no benefit whatsoever to successful whites).
2) Bernie Sanders supporters are lily-white, despite his far-left views.
3) WN is a left-wing ideology, as their economic views are left-wing.
4) WNs (the minority that are straight) are unable to even get any white women, as white women have no reason to pollute themselves with this waste matter. Mid-tier white women thus prefer nonwhite men over these WNs, which makes sense based on the hierarchy above.
5) WNs have the IQ of Negros, the poor social skills of an Asian spazoid, etc. They truly combine the worst of all worlds. Again, this is to be expected of creatures that nature has designated as wastebaskets.
6) This is why white unity is impossible; there is no reason for respectable whites to have anything to do with white trashionalists.
7) Genetically, the very fact that superb whites even exists necessitates the production of individuals to act as wastebaskets for removal of genetic waste. WNs are these wastebaskets. This is also why WNs are disproportionately gay (as Jack Donovan has pointed out).
8) The first half of the 80s movie ‘Twins’ was in fact a good depiction of this. These two twins effectively represent the sharp bimodal distribution of white quality. Successful whites are personified by the Schwarzenegger character, while WNs by the DeVito character. Ignore the second half of the film because in reality, these two would never be on friendly terms, as nature produces waste for a reason.

This pretty much all there is to what White Trashionalists really are.

Quite the opposite in fact.

We all know that WN wiggers rank at the absolute bottom of any ranking of any desirable human trait.

“Salvaged” but never tried.

That’s a good one.

agree

You should not be surprised by its popularity here at unz.com or anywhere.

Libertarianism = selfishness+indifference+intellectual laziness

Libertarianism is the lowest common denominator to which people will spiral down. Eventually reaching the state of nature. We are in the process of undoing the Western civilization (Greek – philosophy, Roman – law and Christian – ethics) which strived to tame natural selfishness and indifference and which was intellectually demanding. By advocating selfishness and indifference the only way is down. If Ayn Rand project was the product of NKVD or CIA it would be considered the most successful ever psyop launched against the Western civilization.

So called “racism” and antisemitism are both reality based reactions to observable patterns of behavior.

The former is not based upon some irrational fear of pigmentation, but upon an aggregate of verifiable empirical observations, which would lead any impartial observer to conclude that blacks- as a collective (and certainly not all blacks) – are far more likely to commit crimes of violence and property crimes than are whites.

In like manner, “antisemitism” is the immunological response of any healthy society or culture to the encroach of “the Jews” upon it and is also based upon the empirical observation of societal phenomena, in this case extending back over a thousand years. The Jews (again, as a collective and not all individual Jewish individuals) have proven to be a toxic, even fatal (once their numbers achieve critical mass) pathogen in their host cultures.

It is odd that modernity, which prides itself upon being a child of the Enlightenment and the scientific world view (grounded in empirical observation and the experimental method) should reject, prima facie, such common sense reactions.

Not “tried and failed” so much as “never gets off the ground,” despite libertarian assurances that it is mankind’s default state.

Most recently, central state control was rolled back from large areas in the Middle East. Other armed groups promptly began fighting for the monopoly on punitive force left by retreating State agents. No Galt’s Gulches so far as I can tell. Now the central States of Iraq and Syria–better armed and more popular–are taking those areas back.

The entire libertarian project needs to check its premises if it is to be salvaged.

>> Neff makes a good basic point, which is that many libertarians prefer to signal their PC-ness than to stick to their own (rather clear) principles. But did he really need 8,000 words to make it?

Since you ask: Yes — for it and for the other points.

The race cards are more often than not misused, either intentionally or out of ignorance. Many attempt to use the race cards, when in fact they should be using the ethnicity cards.

source: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethnicity_vs_Race

The racial classifications of humans, are Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. Therefore only three race cards exist, and if played they need to be played properly.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid
source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

On the other hand, there is a large variety of ethnicity cards.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

Think about it. If someone doesn’t agree with Muslims or maybe Mexicans, they’re not a racist, they’re an ethnicitist.

Where has it been tried & “failed”?

said:
” And no Jews died in gas chambers. That is just a fantasy of Jewish propaganda. Of course it is difficult to investigate the claim, since Jewish influenced governments will throw you in jail if you try. But the forensic evidence is pretty clear on the point, just the same.”

Nailed it!

The ‘Nazi gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible.

If the ‘holocaust’ was proven fact there would be no laws against scrutiny of it, there would be no persecution of Revisionists who exercise their right to free speech.

For a thorough demolition of the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers & alleged Auschwitz homicidal gassing process see analysis at:
http://forum.codoh.com/search.php?keywords=model&t=10798&sf=msgonly

http://www.codoh.com

The tide is turning.

Proof?

Did a “WN wigger” steal your girl?

Libertarianism is a FAILED position; I’m quite surprised to see so much support for it on this site.

If you refuse/object to your child partnering with a white drug dealer, thats good advice. If you object to your child partnering with black drug dealer thats racism.

The use of the term ‘anti-Semite is bandied about so much it has lost it’s meaning,

The Palestinians are Semites so what does that make the Jews ?

It was one thing to want to keep Jews out of your country club or to move out of a neighborhood into which blacks had recently moved; it was quite another to favor the gas chambers for Jews and lynchings for blacks.

This is so moronic. Who is calling to kill Jews and blacks? Seriously? Who is calling for that? It is just another straw man argument. In any case, lynching was a form of justice used to correct a corrupt legal system, on the local level. It was punishment for both blacks and whites, who were criminals. And no Jews died in gas chambers. That is just a fantasy of Jewish propaganda. Of course it is difficult to investigate the claim, since Jewish influenced governments will throw you in jail if you try. But the forensic evidence is pretty clear on the point, just the same.

I ask you: if your best friend agrees with James Watson, is he a racist? Your answer is probably, Yes.

Guess again. “No.”

If a “racist” is someone who doesn’t ignore genetics and doesn’t hide their informed, honest, opinion because other people don’t like it, then the word “racist” really doesn’t mean much, does it?

actually thats a cuck argument borrowed from your leftists (((masters))). The old ” the left are the real racists” As if ‘any means necessary leftists gave a shit about you fucking rationality. The fact that some high cog wits on the web are de-weaponizing Hitler/your’re raaacist through satire and parody doesnt actually make them socialists. nor does the fact that the white yeoman who have been carpet bagged bagged by jews and and elite race traitors; are just about up in arms about the frauds perpetrated on them, doesn’t make them equivalent to welfare niggers. The fact that not every one has completely figured out the complex good cuck bad cuck population replacement while monetizing the cost onto the displaced game, doesnt make them stupid it just makes them naive to trust jews and elite white traitors, and naive to play be the rules when clearly you all needed to be dragged into the street and hung in the fifties at the latest.

In no way to I think Libertarianism is an answer to our problems, in fact its precisely because of what you assert it is not. People who signal PC holiness while claiming to be libertarians are not libertarians, just like cucks that signal PC holiness while claiming to be enlightenment constitutionalist conservatives are not. True libertarianism is dog eat dog and one doesn’t lament the dead dogs one understands the dead dogs are food of the uberman. But in neither system can you prevent someone from claiming to be a muh constitution muh liberty, you can not arrest them for subversion of the system. for spreading demotism.Its said any institution not specifically right wing will eventually degenerate into leftism. Well I can think of many specifically right wing organizations that degenerated any way because the left targets them specifically. The maxim should be that any right wing institution that does not regularly give helicopter rides to the leftmost 5% of its members will eventually be cucked.

Jeff Tucker is the epitome of a cuck. What a pathetic loser. (And he’s a really weird guy in person, too.)

The Left Libertarians always have been ready to drop any pretense to being other than Leftists the very second they sense that traditional conservative culture might have a chance to rise. And when the Left Libertarians get going, such as when they decided that everything to do with honoring anyone who is white and Southern, not only do they quickly sound and act like Marxists, but they manage, easily, to get almost all Libertarians who are not seen as Left-Libertarian to go silent.

In Russia before and after the 1917 Revolutions, virtually 100% of Libertarians fist backed the overthrow of the Tsar and then backed the Bolsheviks out of fear that a counter-revolution could re-install the Tsar and re-establish the Orthodox Church.

That is the reality of the ideology of Libertarianism.

“I ask you: if your best friend agrees with James Watson, is he a racist? Your answer is probably, Yes.”

If you are reading this in UR, you will more likely than not draw the opposite inference or no inference at all without further information being presented.

People convinced that they must ‘solve’ the ‘race problem’ for themselves will never be happy because it’s built as a insoluble construct. Time spent musing about it will be time you will, as they say, never get back. If the above piece doesn’t convince you that ‘overthinking’ is to be avoided, nothing will.

“Those frequent calls you hear for an “honest discussion about raceâ€� are merely bait: answer them and lose your job, lose your social status, lose your friends, perhaps lose your family. It’s a way of sifting out the non-conformists in a society that wants an honest discussion about race no more than it wants an epidemic of German measles.”

Yes, the “honest conversation about race” is the American leftist version of Mao’s “Let a hundred flowers bloom”, a ruse to smoke out the hidden opposition and stomp them.

See: http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2013/08/let-hundred-conversations-bloom.html

So when a Left-Wing Antifa nutcase goes into a Texas church and kills 27 Christians, what kind of hate is that, anti-Gentilism?

And why do these violent crazies never go into a synagogue and shoot up the place?

Fomenting hatred of white Christians is a MUCH bigger problem than anti-Semitism.

Well, in fairness it is indeed a vitally important point for any who might consider libertarianism as a political position worth supporting, perhaps justifying some consideration at length.

And, of course, it’s as easy to pick holes in a concise piece for omissions and failures of clarity or evidence as it is to criticise a comprehensively written political comment for being over-long.

Actually, it is Nationalist-Leftists who are openly anti-semitic, racist, and socialist.

Untalented people tend to be leftists. WN wiggers tend to be no exception.

Antiracists are leftists. Commies, socialists, antifa…all leftist, all antiracist scum.

No one need point out the connections between losers, leftism, and antiracism.

Except maybe wogs with small dicks (redundant, I know).

As for wiggers, Jews are famous for their wiggerism, love of blacks.

A brave effort here from someone who evidently has taken the opposite approach to my own in response to the general libertarian kowtow to political correctness over the past couple of decades.

As a younger man, I self-identified as a libertarian, even flirted with viewing myself as anarcho-capitalist. The individualist and anti-state stance seemed right for the problems of the late C20th, and the principles seemed eminently defensible. That changed when I watched a fairly dramatic purging of perceived “racists” from libertarian respectability. I responded to this, perhaps because my basic nature is conservative and not radical, as this writer says is inherent to libertarianism, by mostly ceasing to identify with libertarianism, since as a movement it had become part of the worst problems of late C20th/early C21st US sphere political culture.

The completeness of the turn to dishonest political correctness was highlighted for me recently when I posted on antiwar.com a comment merely listing (in entirely temperate terms) political views formerly considered perfectly reasonable that are now routinely censored as “hatred”, and the supposedly libertarian comment editor there, Thomas Knapp, promptly deleted them as supposedly promoting hatred. His basic politically correct dishonesty – that of falsely conflating disapproval or dislike with “hatred”, was evidently perfectly acceptable to the supposedly libertarian management of antiwar.com, and this basically dishonest attitude is one I have encountered repeatedly throughout mainstream libertarianism for many years now.

So I take the view, unlike this author, that libertarianism is basically flawed as a world-view, in that it lacks sufficient intellectual tools with which to address, in practice, issues that require an understanding of collective loyalties, such as nationalism, racism, and religion. The author here tries manfully to take the alternative view, that “real libertarianism” is not to blame for what its prominent adherents, by and large, have almost universally fallen to, but for me that is all too reminiscent of communists insisting that the communist regimes of the world do not represent “true communism”.

I suppose when it came down to it I was never a true believer in the basic faith of libertarianism, but rather a political empiricist who formerly saw in libertarianism a useful counter to the problems of the day. When mainstream libertarianism chose to kowtow to political correctness on race in particular, it was impossible for me to ignore the falseness of my former position, and I was forced to end my loyalty to libertarianism. Libertarianism has been a contributory part of some of our worst problems, and no part of any solution to them, now, for decades. Can men like the author of the piece above change that? I hope so, but I doubt it. Such men (and make no mistake – I respect and admire his stand, and the above is an excellent piece) were pretty comprehensively routed and purged from mainstream libertarianism over the past few decades.

If you listen beyond he married a Nirobian and became a Muslim I applaud you because this nonsense shouldn’t be tolerated by any thinking person. Does this man have one Muslim friend? I doubt it, one wonders if he has one black friend. Jeff Tucker, does not represent Rothbardians, he’s off in some sjw world that he thinks works and let him have it. This social commentary with a supposed high brow is just lazy.

I’m not sure how to respond to this article but with contempt. It seems like you’re making a case for the open admission of racial inferiority, and then trashing libertarians for wanting to abolish state welfare? Perhaps I’m missing something here, the disparate impact notion is one I’ve not thought much of until reading this, but do you really think in terms of groups of people like this? Any libertarian worth his salt will tell you culture and likeness are big factors in why people associate it’s not inherently racist to want to live in a white neighborhood, wanting to have
something in common is a normal part of the human condition. So the question I’m asking after reading this screed is, are you really questioning inherent racism of libertarians, or is it just you.

But now let’s try this: If you agree with James Watson, are you a racist? That is, does anyone say of himself that he is a racist? Does your answer strike you as a little odd?

‘Racist’ blurs race and ism and confused people. The proper spelling should be race-ist. That way, people are more aware of the true meaning. Race means race and Ism means belief. So, race + ism = belief in reality of race, racial differences, and/or necessity of racial consciousness.

So, I say that I am indeed a race-ist. Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean belief in race reality. Ism doesn’t mean hatred, chauvinism, or supremacy. It means belief. Now, race-ism can be radicalized into supremacism, as with Nazism or Black Islam stuff or even certain extreme strands of Zionism, as with Meir Kahane. But rational race-ism seeks to understand race and racial differences for what they are.

The big problem is ‘racism’ has been defined to mean Racial Supremacist Hatred. But when Ism is defined in such a way, it negates the possibility of having a useful term that simply means belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Because mere race + ism has been defined to mean Racial Supremacist Hatred, it’s difficult to come up with any objective term about race reality. The term ‘racism’ was specially designed to suck out all the air so that a neutral rational term is near-impossible.
Suppose I define heliocentrism as a hateful supremacist ideology that the sun is great and everything else sucks eggs. Such should be called helio-supremacism or helio-chauvinism. Heliocentrism should just mean the belief that planets revolve around the Sun. It’s a belief in objective fact based on science. But if heliocentrism is defined as hateful supremacy of sun-worship, then a neutral term is impossible.
Or take the term ‘humanism’. It doesn’t mean humans are the bestest thing in the cosmos and has supremacy rule over everything. It means humans have both limits and worth as moral beings and that humans should be mindful of their role, responsibility, and rights as humans on the planet.
But suppose ‘humanism’ is defined as hateful supremacy of humanity or a conviction that humans are the greatest things in the universe and all must bow down to humans.
Such an attitude should be called human-supremacism, human-chauvinism, or human-megalomania. After all, Ism just means belief. So, there is no reason for ‘humanism’ to mean anything extreme. As it happens, ‘humanism’ is defined properly. It doesn’t carry supremacist meaning.
But for some reason, ‘racism’ has been defined to mean ‘my race is the best and all others better be our slaves or be exterminated’. Since when does Ism mean something that extreme?

Same goes for nationalism. It should mean belief and defense of one’s nation. Nationalism can turn cancerous and become imperialism or jingoism, but nationalism as nationalism isn’t extreme. It is belief in the right of one’s nation to survive as territory, history, and identity. But the PC media have defined nationalism(esp among white gentiles) to mean something extreme. So, even the most basic nationalists in Europe who want self-preservation and self-determination are labeled as ‘far right’. Mere bread-and-butter nationalism is now associated with imperialist Nazism.
So, if Poles and Hungarians want to preserve their nations(while respecting other nations), they are compared with ‘dark forces’ of Nazism and extremism and ‘far right’. When something normal as basic nationalism is defined in such extreme way, it sucks out all the air in the room. When mere nationalism is ‘nazism’, then it’s impossible to have a term that simply means belief of national independence and sovereignty. When a neutral or basic term is defined radically, it serves as a terminological black hole. It sucks in and destroys all other possible meanings. It is because a neutral term like race-ism has been made extreme that there is, as yet, no effective term for Basic Belief in the Reality of Race and Racial Differences. This is why the most important thing is to rehabilitate the term race-ism to mean what it should mean: Belief in reality of race and racial differences, and/or realization that such awareness will naturally lead to racial consciousness.

As ‘racism’ and ‘antisemtism’ are used in America today, they mean the failure to show proper deference, even reverence, for blacks and Jews. It also means daring to say NO to blacks or Jews or daring to notice negative aspects of the black experience or Jewish influence. So, if in the past, ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ meant treating blacks as inferior or Jews as suspect, now it means failing to treat blacks as superior and Jews as the rightful masters. Today, ‘racism’ means the right of black superioirty, and ‘antisemitism’ means the right of Jewish supremacism.
Same thing with ‘homophobia’. What used to mean an extreme animus against homos just minding their own business has come to mean the refusal to bend over backwards to worship homos. So, if a bakery won’t bake ‘homo wedding’ cake, it is ‘homophobic’. If a politician refuses to march in the homo ‘pride’ parade, he or she is ‘homophobic’. Or, if a church says NO to homo colors and banners, it is ‘homophobic’. (Granted, even the original use of the term ‘homophobia’ was bogus since ‘homophobia’ doesn’t exist. Phobia is a clinical terms for extreme pathological panicked fear of something harmless. While it’s true that many people feel revulsion about homo, it’s not an irrational fear. It is natural healthy reaction to the icky act of homo fecal penetration or tranny penis or poon mutilation.)
Those terms now guard black, Jewish, and homo supremacism. Blacks, Jews, and homos have become difficult and arrogant because they’ve gotten used to their privileged status as Magic Negro gods, Super Jewish Masters, or wonderful homo angels. Even jokes about homos and trannies will not be tolerated. You better call him Caitlyn.

“it was once the case that being a racist had something to do with a person’s feelings or beliefs”

Neff makes a good basic point, which is that many libertarians prefer to signal their PC-ness than to stick to their own (rather clear) principles. But did he really need 8,000 words to make it?

I am a social democrat, a racist and an antisemite.
I am a racist because I am attached to the Netherlands as a country, and its culture.
I am an antisemite because I condemn Israel as a brutal colonial power.
The problem with both words is that they’re just emotional, are not objective, do not have a well defined content.

The last word is missing in this version of the article…

… I see a bright future here for the “humanitarian” and “thick” *libertarians.*

Jeffrey Tucker Goes Full SJW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpKEdOUHYKA
Video Link

Actually, it is Nationalist-Leftists who are openly anti-semitic, racist, and socialist.

Untalented people tend to be leftists. WN wiggers tend to be no exception.