Letting the Free Market Bare Its Teeth

Jack Whorley, American Renaissance, April 11, 2014

How libertarianism can advance white interests.

As more and more whites shed their racial illusions, they invariably begin to wonder what kind of race-oriented political action is possible. I believe that at least in our time, racial politics will be effective only when they are not explicit, and are camouflaged as part of a larger political program.

When I became racially conscious, I wanted to join a political party that acknowledged the reality of race. However, the few overtly racial political groups I found were not attractive. They lean to the far right: They take socially conservative positions against activities I think are not harmful—such as sexual relations between consenting adults—or or are harmful only to oneself, such as drug taking.

But even if I were socially conservative, openly racial politics is a dead end. Most voters find racial awareness unpalatable, if not reprehensible. Any party with an explicitly “pro-white” position will find only a handful of supporters, and many would be afraid to support the party openly.

However, there is a concept on which race realists and mainstream whites can agree, and that is individual liberty. Some people theorize that whites have evolved a uniquely developed sense of personal liberty. This is where libertarians and race realists can find common ground.

The main argument against libertarianism, of course, is that it promotes unlimited immigration. However, there is a school of libertarianism, of which Hans Hermann Hoppe is the most prominent spokesman, that recognizes the importance or borders. Since the modern state has stolen so much wealth from its people and turned it into “public” goods, the people have the right to keep out aliens, who have not contributed to the creation of those goods.

Another objection to libertarianism is its permissiveness—acceptance of drugs, prostitution, gambling, pornography—which detractors believe harms society. I don’t share that concern, but surely race realists can agree on one thing about “vice:” Its effects last only for a generation or two, whereas the loss of white populations and homelands can be permanent. Perhaps those who are worried about the consequences of a permissive society should be able to set those concerns aside in favor of more pressing matters.


I doubt that the brand of paleoconservativism endorsed by most race realists is necessary for our survival, and I believe a free-market alternative has greater promise—at least for now. This is because it speaks to ideals of personal freedom that libertarians can support. The challenge is to frame key pro-white concepts as “pro-freedom” concepts, in the following way:

The freedom to choose how to spend your own money

If there are to be entitlement programs at all, they should be pared down to the barest necessities: food, shelter, emergency medicine. Anything else would depend on private charity. Liberals can pay for anything they like–with their own money. This would be a huge benefit for the country, since it would be much more difficult for freeloaders–of any race–to have herds of children who also grow up to be freeloaders or criminals.

The freedom to hire the best candidate

There must be no racial preferences or quotas in the public sector. However, the strictly libertarian position would allow racial preferences—indeed, outright racial discrimination—by private actors. In the short term, this may be bad for whites because some private schools and businesses are so mesmerized by nonsense about “diversity” that they would discriminate viciously against whites if they could. However, there are bound to be schools and employers that would drift towards selection on merit, and they would soon pull ahead of competitors that select on diversity. Also, the principle of free choice, even if it works against us in some cases, would be a huge gain, as follows:

The freedom to choose customers and tenants

Private businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason at all. A landlord should also be able to choose his tenants. Such action should be perfectly legal, and could be the basis of increasingly explicit white communities. The first acts of open discrimination would be publicized and might attract demonstrations and boycotts. However, as the practice became more common–and as non-whites also recognized the benefits open preferences for their own groups–discrimination would become better accepted and more widespread.

Policies such as these let the free market flourish, and promote meritocracy. They also restrict the power of government. Therefore, both libertarians as well as those who wish to ensure a future for white populations and believe whites can thrive on a level playing field can agree on them. Advocates for whites may find paleoconservatism more desirable, but they should remember the spoiler effect of unpopular fringe ideologies. Many liberals, for example, argue that the Democratic Party lost the Presidential elections in 2000 and 2004 because of the vote for Ralph Nader.

If a pro-white political philosophy is to gain traction in a world that now finds it abhorrent, it cannot overtly present itself. Pro-white advocates will have better luck adopting mainstream ideologies that include advantages for whites.

Topics: , , , ,

Share This

Jack Whorley
Jack Whorley is a former liberal.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • One of these days, maybe, we’ll quit trying to justify ourselves in terms of an ideology which denies us the right to organize around race and tribe and an ideology whose adherents hate us.

    The other big danger in trying to meld ethnonationalism into libertarianism or selling ethnonationalism in libertarian terms is that it creates a huge grab bag of ideological and philosophical paradoxes that our enemies can use against us, or at the very least only to confound and confuse and make crazy people who try to have both. Knowing our current climate of cultural Marxism, one who tries to be both a serious ethnonationalist and a serious libertarian will wind up drifting to libertarianism and denying ethnonationalism like Peter did Christ.

    Do yourself a favor. Ignore tripe like this, ditch libertarianism like a bad habit, and embrace race.

    • AndrewInterrupted

      I mentioned a few months ago here, on that grab bag theme, how Libertarian views run the gamut. A friend who was actively involved with them finally dumped them:
      He said: “I got tired of trying to herd cats”.

    • Anna Tree

      Any political ideology, that be socialist, liberal, conservative, libertarian or else, is bounded to an eventual self-destruction if not in homegeneous country.
      QD is right, without a component of ethnonationalism, no political party will work for whites, soon or later.

      • ThomasER916

        Whites simply need to stop speaking generically and start asking the question:

        What’s good for Whites?

      • AndrewInterrupted

        Where have you been?

        • Anna Tree

          Hi Andrew, I didn’t leave, kept reading articles and comments 🙂 Just very busy with a project. I also have to answer someone here, so I try to restrain myself until I do!

      • Any ideology can become a destructive cult.

        My take is that if we get race right, everything else will take care of itself.

        Just the people commenting in this thread have the ability to put their heads together and come up with constitutions, governing philosophies and modes of economic organization that would serve a white ethnostate of 200 million people at least functionally well, if not outstandingly well.

        • Anon

          There is no such thing as an ideology….only a bunch of men, with weapons who are willing to tell others what to do and cut their throats if they don’t do that.
          3000 years of history basically amounts to that.

          • History is the story of strong men leading armies.

          • AndrewInterrupted

            Now that American women have ended the white patriarchy in America they don’t have to worry about such things. The will form self-help groups and force Equal Pay laws–and that will fix those throat-cutting bullies. All those you-go-girls have to do is give them an aggressive thumbs-down–and make a big poopy face and those kinds of people back down. The poopy face is a very effective weapon against such types. And withhold sex. That works, too.

        • connorhus

          I don’t think we need to get race right QD. All we need is a level playing field and rules that don’t change. Personally my opinion is true Constitutionalism is all we need. If it ain’t in there don’t let the Federal boys do it or run it and as long as the rules don’t change we all know who is gonna come out on top racially.

          • Some good points there. I beg to differ slightly. I would venture to guess that the framers of our U.S. Constitution certainly got the “true Constitutionalism” part right, but even that didn’t guarantee that we would be free from a multi-racial society. It didn’t even guarantee that there would always be “a level playing field”.

            As I understand things, there needs to be a very explicit declaration preferring whites and their interests over all else in our ideology whatever that happens to be. We must strongly espouse a homogeneous society and that must be foremost in our thinking, otherwise the best of political and social ideologies will mean little in practical terms.

          • jayvbellis

            Racial realists in the US don’t get all tears eyed about the American Independence movement, the Declaration of Independence or even the Constitution.

            Some Affirmative Action Black woman judge in the South East cited the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal” – she used that Communist egalitarian nonsense to dictate homosexual marriage equality.

            I knew that race denying “TRUTH” in the DoI would come back to bite us in the arse.

          • jayvbellis

            Oh shut up.

            The dark, Black mobs destroying our cities, destroying our civilization don’t care about White Constitutions, they don’t waste any time reading our constitutions.

            They don’t read!

            They are not stupid.

            You have been very stupid.

            Stop being stupid.

            Stop wasting your/our time obsessing about Constitutions or even laws outside of the law of the jungle, the law of Nature.

          • connorhus

            I guess you don’t read well either…huh?

            No matter what you think of Blacks or browns, they are not the ones facilitating things. They are not adept enough. If the political powers were forced to follow the Constitution as it was intended We would not have any of these problems brought on by the search for die-versity.

            It really is that simple.

          • I am also not stupid, though in the past I have been quite unwise. I realize that before we can win our revolution, we must work within the confines of our own laws.

        • Sick of it

          Folks continue to say such things, yet liberal nonsense leads to everything that is destroying us. It has happened over and over again…but let’s just ignore it so we can enjoy our decadent lives without the fear of anyone questioning us (i.e. like spoiled children). As folks move to the left, they throw out all concept of ethnic solidarity.

      • Right on, Anna!

      • Garrett Brown

        Anna! Where you been? Welcome back!

        • Anna Tree

          Thank you Garrett! I am here, just very busy as I told Andrew earlier above.

          • Garrett Brown

            I did not see that response, forgive me. Shamefurr dispray….

    • Daniel Schmuhl

      Libertarianism is poison even if some of the ideas are good, this is even when you ignore some of the insane positions like open borders that are the norm for libertarians. Libertarianism is especially dangerous because it’s so attractive to white males. It gives them legal and philosophical support to act selfishly and individualistically, while white civilization destroys. Much of the problem is with whites selfishly pursuing their own economic interests at the expense of the group.

      • That’s the beautiful thing about just about everyone who contributes at least one comment to this thread. We have this amazing ability to take some ideas from some ideologies and some ideas from other ideologies, while rejecting those ideologies’ bad proposals. This amazing ability used to be called independent thought.

        And we can use this amazing ability without a bit of care that some left or right or libertarian or totalitarian ideological cultist is going to wave his bony finger in our faces and preach to us about our “inconsistency,” as if they’ve ever won anything worth a damn.

        • Aussie_Thinker

          Well said good sir!

          Independent thought us rare these days. About a week ago I was having a debate with a mulatto on the topic of homosexuality, which transitioned into a debate on race (he happens to be gay as well, which made this interesting). He was just spouting the regular nonsense even when confronted by logic and fact. In the end he took something I said the wrong way and had a hissy fit (probably didn’t help we were both quite inebriated).

          Now all the while we were having a somewhat intelligent debate, there was this hard left leaning female who started insulting the Prime Minister with the usual, nonsensical, brainless insults that the left constantly use, I.e. bigot, racist, etc. The worst part was she hasn’t the brains to back up any statements. Needless to say she really got on my nerves.

          • This is why I rarely do political debate outside of our favorite sources and media, and why the TV political talk shows are becoming more and more banal. Because it’s all so deja le meme chose, the same kind of people shouting the same slogans at each other. Nobody ever changes anyone’s mind. And hardly any room for real unique or independent thought.

          • Aussie_Thinker

            Ideals are too entrenched in the minds of some to be changed, even when slapped in the face with facts and/or logic.

            Continuing on from my story, I was pointing out the differences between races, and how that COULD (not has definitely, but could) also mean differences in intelligence. The mulatto then finally says what I figured he had been thinking the whole time while trying to sound factual – that if there were differences in intelligence, and we acknowledged them, there would be discrimination.

      • Very well put, thanks Daniel!

      • BillMillerTime

        So if i want to live my own life without harming others, I am “acting selfishly and individualistically”? I suppose you think that I should live my life according to your tastes and dictates? Read only those books approved by the state? Listen to state-approved music and attend state-approved plays and movies? Think only state-approved thoughts?

        Do you understand why those of us who believe in self-ownership absolutely despise fascists?

    • Thanks QD, excellent points!

    • Pro_Whitey

      I tend to agree with you, although I think that it is better at first to approach conditioned whites with economic arguments rather than racial ones. I know of at least some people who are die hard Democrat voters, but they can spout comments about the Jewish or other races that make me blush. So the potential is there, but they have been strongly conditioned, so I think an initial indirect approach is better.
      The main problem I have with libertarianism is the blinkered view that there are no or limited externalities to fornication/adultery/sodomy (I won’t even bother with their stance on drugs). Our reproductive urges are a powerful force, and successful societies (like America of about 50 years ago) had learned to harness those urges for the continuation of society by encouraging marriage, and, where fornication has resulted in a pregnancy, sometimes forcing marriage. The result was relatively well-established paternity so as to yoke the father to an obligation to support and raise the children, and, using the old rule that a wife was not to refuse her husband sex, providing a sure outlet for sexual urges. Trying to enforce monogamy also had the benefit of limiting the spread of venereal disease, which can lead to sterilization. By contrast, since “sexual liberation” white population numbers have been crashing here and in Europe. I guess one must recognize the potential for many complex origins of this phenomenon, but it stands to reason that white men spewing their seed into condoms, mouths, anuses, and uteruses shut down by birth control, and the children slaughtered while still in the womb “because it’s not the right time,” would play a big role in bringing down reproduction rates. Keep that up long enough and there is no future to be concerned about.

      • BillMillerTime

        Look at each negative trend. I can point out how the all-powerful state has either caused it or made it worse.

        Adults should be free to lives their own lives and take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The state is violence, and should be used to protect lives, liberties and justly-acquired property of its citizens. Trying to redistribute morality is a fool’s errand.

    • Garrett Brown

      I knew before I even clicked on the article you would be one of the top comments. I would love to hear you speak some day about the subject of Libertarianism in person. You seeem very knowledgeable and can identify for what it really is.

      • I hardly fashion myself to be an inside and out expert on libertarianism. I do however pride myself on being a fast learner, almost as fast as the speed of light. If there is a lesson to be learned or a moral of the story, I think I’ll learn it quicker than just about anyone. I’m also pretty good at watching the way people’s actions either match or contradict their words. And also pretty good at constructing and deconstructing arguments and philosophies.

        What is the conclusion here?

        Open borders plus racial egalitarianism is the price of the ticket to ride on the libertarian train.

        However, I doubt you’ll ever want to hear me talk about this or any subject. While I don’t have a face for radio, I do have a voice for silent movies.

        • Garrett Brown

          Unless you sound like a little girl we should make it happen!

        • BillMillerTime

          Actually, there are plenty of people who call themselves libertarians who are not on board with open borders and racial egalitarianism. You would know this if you actually cracked a book by, say Hoppe, or had more carefully read the article above which cites Hoppe.

          • Sure, and I might need two hands to be able to count them all.

            There are probably more blacks in the Ku Klux Klan.

          • sbuffalonative

            I’ve been hearing for 20+ years that the Libertarian Party is considering changing their position on immigration.

            Here is their current position:

            “The fundamental choice before us is whether we redouble our efforts to
            enforce existing immigration law, whatever the cost, or whether we
            change the law to match the reality of a dynamic society and labor

            www lp org/issues/immigration

  • JSS

    “If a pro-white political philosophy is to gain traction in a world that now finds it abhorrent, it cannot overtly present itself”

    This is far to close to the tactics of our enemies who can’t be mentioned here. I understand the need to be politically realistic, but I also feel like investing in our current system on a federal level is a total waste. Perhaps I am naive but I would like to believe that in a White nation the need for racially explicit politics would be self evident.

    • The world finds our philosophy abhorrent.

      So what is his solution?

      Throw ourselves into the arms of an ideology whose adherents find our philosophy abhorrent.

      Smart, really smart.

    • “It cannot overtly present itself” – This sentiment sounds to me like another case of not expressing oneself freely, not being too open and honest about our racial interests. We must whisper our beliefs while blacks, Hispanics and every other racial group shouts their interests and preferences from the rooftops!

      • jane johnson

        But all their recent bellowing started out as whispers; in churches, clubs, and kitchens. Back in the day, none of the so-called progressives, or their pet “civil rights leaders” came out and said that they wanted big cites run by corrupt, incompetent blacks, but that’s what we have, and what they intended all along. And now, it’s spread to the whole country, but it was never presented that way; not to Whites, it wasn’t.

        • gemjunior

          Good job Jane. I all has to start somewhere, and we are it. I’m happy to do all the whispering in all those places you mention – sometimes I’m embraced, other times I have to be content with disgusted headshakes and HOPES that one day a seed will sprout when the person isn’t so indignant at the diversion from groupthink. Hope it spreads.

    • Sick of it

      You are not naive, considering that the current way of doing things is totally controlled by those we cannot name. Those who do not realize this are hopelessly naive.

    • What sort of policies? Would you want allies? I am 3/16 northeastern American Indian and my wife is Japanese, so I am on my own side, unless and until I feel complete reciprocity.

  • sbuffalonative

    However, there is a concept on which race realists and mainstream whites
    can agree, and that is individual liberty. Some people theorize that
    whites have evolved a uniquely developed sense of personal liberty. This
    is where libertarians and race realists can find common ground.

    I’m sorry but every Libertarian I have read or heard speak praises open borders as a cornerstone of a free society. Most openly express non-racial views.

    I too believe that whites have evolved a highly developed sense of personal liberty which other people may recognize, admire, and hope to emulate.

    But we ARE unique. We can’t absorb thousands, millions of people who don’t share our views but only seek to exploit them for their own racial/ethnic advantage. And once that’s achieved, white personal liberty is overwhelmed and shut out.

    When I hear the majority of Libertarians saying, ‘we need to control our borders and decide who we want to live with us’, then I might consider Libertarianism as a viable option.

    • I won’t be able to make AR this year…if only, if only, it was one weekend later.

      But if anyone reading these words goes, see how many libertarians are there, see if they fill the front rows and are first to stand and cheer the speakers.

      I bet that if anything, a libertarian that goes to AR will be more likely to be outside with the cabal of losers protesting the conference.

      • BillMillerTime

        How much money do you want to lose on your silly bet?

    • AndrewInterrupted

      “…I’m sorry but every Libertarian I have read or heard speak praises open borders as a cornerstone of a free society. Most openly express non-racial views…”

      I’ve never heard a Libertarian speak of open-borders. The ones I meet are very protectionist/isolationist. They also require smaller and smaller government. The only common theme I noticed amongst them is they’re not judgmental about what happens behind closed doors. Whether it be drugs, sex, barking at the moon, etc.

      • sbuffalonative

        www lp org/issues/immigration

        “Yet our system offers no legal channel for anywhere near a sufficient
        number of peaceful, hardworking immigrants to legally enter the United
        States even temporarily to fill this growing gap. The predictable result
        is illegal immigration.”

        “In response, we can spend billions more to beef up border patrols. We
        can erect hundreds of miles of ugly fence slicing through private
        property along the Rio Grande. We can raid more discount stores and
        chicken-processing plants from coast to coast. We can require all
        Americans to carry a national ID card and seek approval from a
        government computer before starting a new job.”

        “Or we can change our immigration law to more closely conform to how millions of normal people actually live.”

        “Crossing an international border to support your family and pursue
        dreams of a better life is not an inherently criminal act like rape or


        • AndrewInterrupted

          It’s just that the other half of the Libertarian cats refusing to be herded are saying opposite things. Maybe it’s best that they are written off to the potheads in Colorado.

      • Anon

        A more honest way of putting it is they show extreme cowardice in the face of evil and a total unwillingness to stop evil people from doing evil things and try to deny the shame of being something other than a man by trying to manipulate others into not exercising such power. Since their argument amounts to little more than you naughty guys with the guns and the lynchmob should be more tolerant with the murdering, raping scumbags, at best they deserve to be ignored.
        But it is real tempting to string those types up right next to the murderer, on general principle. Why? Because these people value their ridiculous ideologies and don’t value people. Whatever protects, provides for and makes a good life for good (white) people is what is correct and should be done. Usually, that involves a free society where everyone minds their own business….but such a thing is EARNED. It’s earned with basis in real power and white supremacy. The liberal wants none of that. The libertarian wants the former to magically appear but really doesn’t care as long as we have none of the latter.
        Liberals are malevolent wussies. Libertarians, sometimes, are good, decent folk….but still wussies. Libertarians give up their wives, daughters etc. to the negro hordes to rape and want you to do the same so they don’t feel bad.
        I’m not sure which is worse….the liberal (stabs your in the back) or the libertarian (runs if for no other reason than having to take moral responsibility). Neither have a particular right to breathe my air….and if they don’t like that, perhaps they should consider arming themselves or investing in some of that government they think should be so limited.

        • BillMillerTime

          What a ridiculous strawman you have built.

        • The phrase “by any means necessary” takes on a completely new meaning when a fallen elf says it.

      • I respectfully disagree. I have had my fair share of political discussions with libertarians and I have found most of them to very pro-open borders.

        • AndrewInterrupted

          I wonder if it’s a regional thing? Since all the nearby border in New England is Canada. That must be why. We don’t fuss over Canadians. The Algonquins and the Canucks can be a hassle sometimes, but nothing on the level of the Latin hordes. But, the Latins have certainly found us.

        • Sick of it

          I’ve encountered a mix in LA and TX.

      • Clover

        A lot of pro-White people have been attracted to libertarianism, mainly I think because of the opposition to warmongering and neoconservatism in general. But they, the libertarians, are still led mostly by either open multiculturalists or those “colorblinds” who would prefer a gold-backed Nigeria to a welfare state Sweden.

      • Garrett Brown

        Robert Sarvis, the Libertarian that ran for governor of Virginia last year, was very pro open borders. It was one of his main points of interest on his web site. Maybe listen more closely, most Libertarians are very supportive of non border ideology. it’s part of their ultimate “free market” dream.

        • AndrewInterrupted

          I was mentioning in another post that I think it’s a regional difference. Similar demographics coming and going across the Canada/U.S. border don’t cause the crime wave like in the South. Border topics rarely come up in New England.

          • Garrett Brown

            Hmm, yes that’s quite possible.

    • BillMillerTime

      Hans-Hermann Hoppe advocates borders. Murray Rothbard was a race realist who supported Pat Buchanan.

      Sounds to me as if many people on this site hear the word “libertarian” and immediately think of the idiots at Reason magazine.

      • silviosilver

        Would you prefer to live in an all-white society with a Swedish-style social democracy political system, or in an American-style racially mixed society with a libertarian political system?

        • Grantland

          How about a free society of Whites? “Free” in the American, economic sense; and free of those non-whites we choose to exclude.

      • sbuffalonative

        Here is the Libertarian Party position on immigration and the border. I believe this was from their 2000 campaign:


        We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.

        We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive.

        We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.

        Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference.

        We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.”

        Another source:

        “Libertarian perspectives on immigration:

        The current Libertarian Party (US) Platform states that Libertarians are prepared to welcome refugees, and the LP works against discriminatory policies. In addition it states that a free market requires the free movement of both capital and labor across borders. The platform does allow for control over the entry of people who pose a credible threat to security, health, or property. [1]

        Older Libertarian Party (US) Platform stances were more pro-open borders. The 2004 Platform called for “the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally”. [2] Due to fears from the 2001 Terrorist attack, this was changed to permit some immigration controls.

        Libertarian proponents of open borders

        A number of present-day libertarians argue for open borders or for radically expanded and liberalized immigration drawing on primarily libertarian arguments.[3] These include George Mason University economist Bryan Caplan,[4][5][6][7] Michael Huemer[8][9] Donald Boudreaux, Alex Nowrasteh, Walter Block,[10][11] Ken Schoolland,[12] Will Wilkinson, David R. Henderson[13][14] and others.”

        You can google ‘Libertarian Party and Open Borders and Immigration’ and find numerous sources.

        Libertarians believe in absolute free trade which means absolute free movement of labor. They have no sense of racial solidarity and they believe millions of Mexicans would be great for the American economy. They don’t care about the long-term social and cultural implications.

  • However, there is a school of libertarianism, of which Hans Hermann Hoppe is the most prominent spokesman, that recognizes the importance or borders

    And HHH’s “school of libertarianism” is so popular among and embraced and loved by official American libertarians that Hoppe himself is hiding out in Turkey.

    • Anon

      I wonder what Hoppe would say to my suggestion we sterilize the border with nukes and return only the heads of immigrants to their country of origin.
      Oh wait a minute, being a libertarian, what Hoppe thinks isn’t important to anyone at all so who cares.

      • Hoppe? I don’t even think we need to go that far. The situation is not that desperate, yet.

      • Return the heads or stick ’em on top of the border fence posts?

      • Sick of it

        He’s a brilliant man and has a lot of good ideas, but one must ultimately reject his solution.

        • To be fair, Hoppe has himself said something along the lines that he’d trade a lot of economic growth for an ethnostate.

          Hoppe is basically sane. I only wish he’d give up on trying to save libertarianism from itself. Come up with a new name for his school of thought.

          • EiSkogsNisse

            Yes I have a picture of the quote right here. It is from his book Democracy the God that failed.
            Hoppe has a greater understanding of liberty than most libertarians, and like you, I only wish he would try to stop salvaging the libertarian moniker. Libertarianism is dead. When leftists feel comfortable with adopting your ideology then you know you have done something wrong.

          • EiSkogsNisse

            Yes I have a picture of the quote right here. It is from his book Democracy the God that failed.
            Hoppe has a greater understanding of liberty than most libertarians, and like you, I only wish he would try to stop salvaging the libertarian moniker. It is dead. When leftists feel comfortable with adopting your ideology to suit their own needs then you know you have done something wrong.

          • Okay, what he actually said was not quite as strong or as blatant as what I thought he said.

            Big but…

            This makes him worlds more sane than the typical libertarian, for two reasons:

            One, he’s rejecting open borders and at least implicitly embracing ethnonationalism.

            Two, he’s rejecting the ideological rectitude that libertarians (and other kinds of ideological dogmas) try to foist on the world, that it’s all or nothing, that if we don’t accept every piece of their pie, we might as well not have any of their pie. Ideological rectitude has been one of my big bug-a-boos for some time, some times I think it’s a mental illness.

          • BillMillerTime

            OK, QC, I just up-voted your comment. There are clearly a lot of libertarians who are stark raving mad. (It’s why don’t use the label myself anymore.) Hoppe is a towering intellect.

          • AndrewInterrupted

            That is the Libertarian group that I was speaking of.
            The ones who were border/sovereignty conscious as
            well as protectionist/isolationist.

    • BillMillerTime

      “Hiding out”? Where do you come up with this stuff? Given that Hoppe’s wife is an upper-class Turkish woman whose family owns a luxurious hotel on the Black Sea, why *wouldn’t* he want to spend his retirement years there?

  • So, according to this article, I’m supposed to deny who I am and what I believe. No thanks, pal. I’m selective about who I share my beliefs with, but I defiantly refuse to play games that involve keeping my mouth shut. I’m not going to stand on a street corner wearing a sheet, but when someone starts pushing out PC nonsense about race, I will respond politely but firmly. I think that’s reasonable. It’s unreasonable and unhealthy to deny who you are.

    • There’s another thing. According to Mr. Whorley, we’re so weak and out of the mainstream and so fringe that we have to cuckold ourselves into these libertarians, who have such a stellar track record of political success.

      Inconvenient truth: From 1988 to 1997, libertarians, esp. right-libertarians of the Ron Paul variety, tried to cuckold themselves into our movement.

      • Anon

        We don’t have a movement. I have little respect for libertarians but they had Ron Paul. We don’t have anyone. Libertarians are so weak they don’t have a say in anything but they are on the map, so to speak. We are not. There are no white nationalists of any worthy mention. Those who used to be worthy of mention (example, David Duke) have regressed. Taking on a, I don’t want anyone to be offended by me attitude, they’ve become nobodies. Nobody is offended because they are now beneath notice.

        We don’t even have a William Luther Pierce for our times. What we have is “nice guy” white nationalism. Quiet….safe…..submissive…..irrelevant.
        Most white people own guns and know non-whites are evil. They also know jews are waging race war against us. They don’t really know what to do about these things and don’t feel safe (they are NOT safe) to talk about this openly. But they know….to the extent that they are far more white nationalist than those who identify as such.
        One day, probably sooner than later, someone very similar to Hitler is going to come along and gather those people together and take over. There is very much a hunger and need for someone like that. Millions if not tens of millions of angry, armed whites are looking for that guy and his movement to join. Those people read Stormfront, Amren, some might show up at conferences etc. but 99% of them don’t see any point to the current, nice, safe, submissive, irrelevant movement that currently exists.

        • jayvbellis

          Google Northwestfront dot Org

          The main guy is a great writer and excellent speaker, much better than Dr. Pierce

        • I don’t see the near to intermediate future being a good one for the concept of freedom, unless some racial miracle happens for us. Otherwise, we have one of two options, both involving systems of governance that we would have considered too heavy handed in the past: Either someone in the mold of Vladimir Putin, someone who tries to manage and finesse a less than ideal situation, a non-ethnonationalist sort of Yugoslavia, for the benefit of his own tribe, or someone in the mold of Hugo Chavez, an idiocratic near-despot who hurts productive white people for the sake of non-whites.

          Give me such a choice and no other options, and it’s an easy choice for me to make.

  • So CAL Snowman

    My idea of of “libertarianism” involves black masks and gasoline

  • Ed

    Libertarianism is a high school boy fantasy. I’ve come to the conclusion it’s worse than liberalism. Of late libertarians have been pushing open borders and guaranteed income. Libertarians make no allowances for culture which is problematic.

    • sbuffalonative

      Every Libertarian I have seen speaking on c-span has been an open border fanatic.

      And I agree about no allowance for culture. These people seem to believe everyone is interchangeable and it’s not race, religion, or culture that determines success or failure, it’s ‘freedom’.

      Millions of Mexicans aren’t going to cross the border and be transformed by ‘freedom’.

      • AndrewInterrupted

        I don’t see that in Rand Paul. He isn’t unequivocal in that area. I have a hard time describing what Rand Paul is. He has that protectionist sound I like, but he’s too much his father’s son.

        • Anon

          That’s easy. Rand Paul is a satanic liberal dog who does exactly what he is told by the exact same people who tell Obama what to do.
          If Rand Paul ever got it into his head to so much as speak his mind about anything, he’d be immediately killed. But since he is an evil jackass who cares nothing except what his masters will reward him for his groveling, such a thing does not so much as occur to him.
          Does that clear things up?

          • Anon

            Which brings up Ron Paul. This man has said a great many things, often in print. A good deal of it is on the right track.
            But he’s never done a single thing in his entire career. The most I can say is he proved to what should be everyone’s satisfaction that yes, our elections are in fact rigged. I wouldn’t say proved so much as part of a joke at our expense, he was allowed to show us, to the point of literally catching Obama “accidentally” on a hot mike saying so, openly.
            Those running the show do this occasionally. Ron Paul is a sign that they no longer care about controlled opposition anymore. They have so little concern anymore that they don’t have a guy like Ron Paul, giving lip service to anything reasonable.

          • jayvbellis

            The final word on Ron Paul.

            After all was said and done… Lot’s were said, nothing good for our people was done.

          • Rigged, but not even unofficially “rigged”. The mainstream media rigs elections for us. This is a large part of why we won’t subscribe to cable or dish TV; I will never tolerate their filth in my home.

          • AndrewInterrupted

            You’re repressing. Don’t hold it in. Tell us how you really feel.

      • ThomasER916

        Since race exists, millions of Mexicans will simply bring their DNA of poverty, crime, and stupidity with them. There will be no transformation.

        Our ‘freedom’ is the story of Whites. A Mexican or African ‘freedom’ is the stuff White governments steal and give to them.

        • AndrewInterrupted

          People repeat the mantra:

          Diversity=white genocide.

          That popular cut and paste.

          Since Obama began using the term: “the transformation” in many speeches (with no elaboration as to what it meant) I think that banner should have morphed into:

          The Transformation=white genocide.

          The transformation looks to mean from white to non-white.

          • ThomasER916

            I agree. We should control the conversation by being open, honest and fearless.

      • BillMillerTime

        So TV is how you get your education about libertarian thought? OK, now it makes sense to me.

        Just do what I did and kill your TV.

        • silviosilver

          The point that libertarians don’t care much about culture is accurate. Libertarians value traits such as hard work, discipline, resilience, and thinking ahead but they tend not to understand how the broader culture influences the adoption of and adherence to these traits. For libertarians as long as a cultural practice “isn’t hurting anyone” it’s all good. That said, I doubt an Ayn Rand could bring herself to comment favorably on hip hop.

        • sbuffalonative

          You seem to have a problem differentiating the medium from the message.

          How is an unedited, live broadcast of a lecture by a representative of the Libertarian Party different from being in the room listening to the same speech? How does TV alter the message?

          You can google: c-span Libertarian Party Immigration Open Borders and watch LP representatives speak for themselves.

          If you don’t want to watch video that was somehow tainted because it appeared on TV, you can read their current position here:

          www lp org/issues/immigration

          The fundamental choice before us is whether we redouble our efforts to
          enforce existing immigration law, whatever the cost, or whether we
          change the law to match the reality of a dynamic society and labor

          Also. Jared Taylor has been on c-span. Appearing on TV doesn’t de-legitimizes everything AR stands for.

  • KevinPhillipsBong

    Libertarianism would’ve been great for the country back in the 1950s-1970s when whites weren’t on the verge of being overrun. But it provides no cogent rationale for opposing white displacement. In short, it’s too late for that now. (And I say that as a fan of libertarian thought.)

    • Anon

      Try pre world war I. Our federal government was created in order to steal the wealth of this nation and use it to wage illegal, evil world war as part of a long term plan to genocide the white race. That began with WWI and really took off by WWII. If, instead, at the time, the majority of whites refused to cooperate into forming a gigantic federal power and better yet, didn’t show up in any appreciable numbers for these highly unpopular wars (each world war was opposed, at the time by 95% of people and waged anyway), much of what is going on today would not be possible.
      In fact, Hitler would almost certainly have won the second world war and destroyed the power base of the jackasses doing all this. More likely, Hitler would have been a starving artist somewhere and the Czars of Russia would have killed off the jewish Bolshevik invaders. In fact, there is a specific event that, had it gone differently, the world and the fate of white people would have been VERY different. The US navy seized a boat full of illegal jewish gold headed to fund the murder of the Czars. They were supposed to impound it and arrest those involved (and hang them). Instead, they accepted some bribe money and let it through. A couple of hundred million innocent white people murdered later and communism was born.

      • The specific event is one that actually one that happened a few years before that.

        Gavrilo Princip’s bullet hitting Franz Ferdinand. If he would have missed, the world would be a lot different, and in fact, a lot better, today.

        • Sick of it

          Yet the same tribe was deeply embedded in German politics at the time. The rot had already set in, regardless of the assassination which launched a world war.

          • I don’t think it had so much to do with that tribe, as it did with what turned out to be the clusterfudge of the foreign relations paradigm of the secret treaty.

      • Who Me?

        It may be comforting to reflect that “if” this, that, or the other thing had happened, things would be so much different or so much better, but “if” didn’t happen, and we are stuck with that fact. What we have to do now is take the situation as is actually IS and fix that, not spend our time and energy wishing things had gone a different way in the past. We can only chalk it up to lessons learned, and deal with reality as it is.

  • r j p

    Jack Whorley takes free markets to a social level.
    Truly free markets always find equilibrium.
    There is no need for rules or “libertarian” values, which is essentially a lack of rules.

    • BillMillerTime

      The rule is the non-aggression axiom. If you enter my house to do me harm and try to run my life, I am in my right to use lethal force if needed to repel the aggression. If it’s you and a mob, same principle applies. If you and the mob have elected a fearless leader whose platform is invade my house, do me harm, and run my life it doesn’t all of a sudden become moral.

      Most people are “libertarian” most of the time in their everyday dealings. Moral people do not use force or fraud to, say, compel a plumber to come over and fix the pipes, all the while whining about how they’re entitled to reap what they did not sow. We ask around, we negotiate terms and a price, and the exchange is voluntary. That is how things are done in a civilized society.

  • Puggg

    This very website declared Rand Paul the renegade traitor of 2013.

    Then I have to read this.

    What will we end up with if we take the advice written here?

    More Rand Pauls.

    • BillMillerTime

      And if we reject the advice what do we end up with? Wearing funny costumes and barking “white power!” at the moon? Blaming everything on the tiny band of Eskimos?

      I take a back seat to no one in my political pessimism. Want to hear something a bit discouraging? Given the current system, a Rand Paul or a Ted Cruz might be the best we can hope for. Sucks, doesn’t it.

      When the system collapses and America splits apart into eight or so pieces, then maybe the white remnants can form some kind of ethno-state. And maybe within that white ethno-state there will be enough room for the different regions to develop their distinct political cultures. One state might have a more “libertarian” flavor with officially-tolerated “red light” districts and clothing-optional beaches. Another state might have the kind of social controls over individuals that seem to be so favored by many here where they’ll put you in a cage for possession of a naturally-growing weed, or for owning a sex toy, or for reading the wrong kinds of books.

      I try not to spend too much time worrying about white survival. Either whites are smart enough to eventually wake up and change the nation’s course, or they prove themselves too maladapted to survive, and they die out except for a few scattered pockets around the globe.

      I don’t go door to door telling people that they should want to be free, and I don’t waste much time trying to persuade whites that they should have a white racial conscious.

  • EiSkogsNisse

    I understand where you are coming from Whorely, I’ve been
    down that road myself, but libertarianism is not what you think it is. Have you
    actually ever asked yourself what libertarians stand for? You would assume it
    is liberty right? Unfortunately it is not, it should more aptly be called: free
    market cultural Marxism. That is why you too should turn away from this road, it will lead to nothing good. Allow me to elaborate:

    You see libertarians love to talk about freedom, how they
    will fight government control, how they will fight any kind of restraint or
    oppression be it from government, society or tradition, people should be free
    to do whatever they want. Disregarding the obvious problems of such a society
    libertarians often fail to mention how this free society will come about? How
    will it be maintained? What is required in order to have liberty?

    To have liberty requires a lot of restraint, you need
    namely to have a moral, responsible, and independent people capable of
    self-government. You need a stronger local community than a central one, in
    turn this requires an ethnically homogenous local community consisting of
    families the basic building block. In other words traditionalism is key. Moreover(libertarians
    hate the part which comes next) if someone were to try and subvert the
    foundational values of liberty the local community must force the person to
    change either by social pressure or ostracization.

    Now I like Hans-Hermann Hoppe too because he is one of
    the few who actually understands what is required to have liberty and how to
    maintain it. However you’ll find few other libertarians if any promoting these
    ideas I’ve put forth. The values libertarians love to promote: Homosexuality,
    drugs, open borders, tolerance, anti-racism and so on, well, these values will
    get you nowhere least of all towards liberty. And that is why libertarianism is
    not a movement for liberty but for free market cultural Marxism, as if that
    will somehow improve things……

    I love liberty and that is precisely why I am not a

    • I think one problem that most libertarians as individuals have is that they assume that every person is like them. A given libertarian finds no problem with the complete legalization of what are now termed illicit drugs because he has the ability to read The Lancet and other medical literature about the deleterious effects of using drugs that are currently illegal, so he knows he will never use them himself no matter their legal status. Therefore, he thinks that that’s the way everyone else thinks. And yes, I’ve had one use just about that exact line of reasoning to me.

      I don’t know that much about the United States Postal Service, but I highly doubt that the letter carriers who serve black ghettos and Hispanic barrios ever see many if any copies of The Lancet in their mail bags.

      Dumb impulsive people need some form of heavy handed central authority, government or otherwise.

      • Zaporizhian Sich

        There are only three such “heavy handed central authorities” capable of dealing with dumb, impulsive people. They are central governments, religion and families, specifically both the nuclear and extended family combined. Those are the three main sources of authority in any society.

        • A fourth option is a benevolent warlord. A future Putin-like leader in/for America would do well to identify semi-friendly black people (which isn’t hard, there are some on YouTube) and set them up as vassals and viceroys, give them all the tools they need to crack down on the black undertows in the cities in which they live.

  • MartelC

    Libertarianism, as it current stands, is a stealth left wing movement.
    Do you notice how Reason mag, and all the ‘champions’ of libertarian thought champion open borders, legalizing drugs, gay marriage….
    its all you ever hear them talk about.

    If I only support multiculturalism for other ethnic groups and not my own then I am not a multiculturalist, i am advocating an in-group out-group strategy – the same goes for libertarians – when was the last time you heard a libertairian adovcate getting rid of affirmative action or lunch counter laws?

    • EiSkogsNisse

      Better yet when did you ever hear about libertarians wanting to get rid of the Civil Rights Act? Never, instead we get the Cato Institute blathering about how latent Jim Crow laws still exist.

      • BillMillerTime

        You’re right, no libertarian ever advocates eliminating the Civil Rights Act. Well, aside from Walter Block, Lew Rockwell, the late Murray Rothbard (when he was alive), Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Ron Paul, Laurence Vance, and a long list of other libertarians too numerous to mention.

        But sure, other than all those guys (and whoever heard of them?), no libertarian advocates eliminating laws which compel integration or eliminate freedom of association.

        (Forgive me, but I find that ridicule is often the best weapon against willful stupidity.)

        • EiSkogsNisse

          And how many of those were ever in any position to actually implement change? The only one is Ron Paul when he ran for president. As for the rest they’ve never been in a position to do anything about it. Just look at Rand Paul. Sure he started out by criticising certain aspects of the act but then he recanted and said that he would never touch it. If you look at the Libertarian Party’s(I love how they offer their agenda in Spanish) platform you’ll find no mention of the Civil Rights Act. Most of the names you mentioned were part of the now defunct paleolibertarian off-shoot who always were more enlightened when it came to matters such as race. But most other libertarians will not talk about removing the Civil Rights Act.

    • ThomasER916

      I’ve discovered how to determine if a Political Ideology is sliding to the “Left.” – The more they are explicitly anti-White, the more they are Leftist.

      Whites invented the terms “Left” and “Right.” That’s describing “us” and not “systems.” When you become an explicit White ethnocentrist then things make a LOT more sense.

  • Luca

    “But even if I were socially conservative, openly racial politics is a dead end. ”

    Whether I, or anyone else here, dislikes this statement…it is absolutely realistic and true, especially racial politics that overtly favor Whites.

    If it were not true then the Klan would be running candidates and they would be gaining popular support.

    A non-racial platform, which would promote the freedoms he mentioned would achieve a much better society for all of us, in which the best and brightest could thrive and the sacred cows would be slaughtered.

    You have to read between the lines and avoid the knee-jerk reaction. He is not talking about the mainstream libertarian party we are familiar with. He is talking about a hybridized version.

    It’s worth rereading and considering. It would get much further than a “Whites Only” party, which could never make it out of the starting gates and it would achieve results that are light-years ahead of where we are now.

    • Coral Rose

      This is exactly how I took this article since he’s speaking of libertarianism not necessarily joining the Libertarian Party. I didn’t take it that he was suggesting open borders but possibly interjecting libertarianism into our political viewpoints. He’s merely pointing out that the free market allows the cream to rise to the top (if you’ll forgive the pun).

  • Hal K

    If a pro-white political philosophy is to gain traction in a world that now finds it abhorrent, it cannot overtly present itself. Pro-white advocates will have better luck adopting mainstream ideologies that include advantages for whites.

    This is exactly wrong. Where has the author been for the last 50 years? What he is advocating is more of the same. Explicit pro-whiteness is the key. Implicit pro-whiteness is just more of the same.

  • MartelC

    Perhaps those who are worried about the consequences of a permissive society should be able to set those concerns aside in favor of more pressing matters.

    Perhaps you should read Burke at length, particularly the idea of imposing abstract theories on complex societies.

    Perhaps you should realize that decandence goes hand in hand with tyranny.

    “Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites…in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

  • NoMosqueHere

    Another objection to libertarianism is its permissiveness—acceptance of drugs, prostitution, gambling, pornography—which detractors believe harms society.


    All of these “vices” are harmful to a society. Our white ancestors readily accepted this fact because they actually lived in a real society that valued white civilization. Today, we live in a third world free for all. It won’t last, at least until the country is destroyed.

    • Sick of it

      Those in power want to use said vices to destroy us, as they have in other countries (see Victorian England, the Netherlands, etc.).

    • BillMillerTime

      For most of this country’s history, hemp, opium and coca were completely legal. Our great-grandparents could walk into a pharmacy, plunk down cash, and walk out with bags of the stuff. Drug prohibition was brought about by the “progressives.” The societal harms brought about drug prohibition long ago exceeded the actual harms caused by drugs.

      We don’t live in a “third world free for all.” We live in a militarized police state. And you want to blame libertarians for our plight? Really?

  • Traditional Conservatism is pretty close to libertarianism anyway. The main differences are the social issues and the military issue, but neither of those are particularly relevant to our primary concern here. If the Republican party did nothing but return to traditional Conservatism, that would be enough.

    • Long Live Dixie

      Traditional conservatism meaning what? I think you’re speaking of Classical Liberalism, which is not traditional conservatism at all.

      • Traditionally, American Conservatives are essentially Classical Liberals, and both are similar to Libertarians.

        • Long Live Dixie

          That’s certainly true, but it shows that American conservatism is not conservative. Classical Liberalism is a Leftist movement that found its greatest success in the radicalism of the 18th century. I don’t think that conserving radical Leftism can be considered conservative in any meaningful sense of the word.

          • Classical Liberalism is laissez-faire capitalism and small government. It is the polar opposite of the contemporary Left. I’m not sure what your idea of Conservatism is, but it is evidently quite different from most people’s.

          • Sick of it

            There is virtually no comparison one could make between the Founders and madmen like Robespierre and Marat.

          • BillMillerTime

            Do you think that contemporary American politics can be explained by reference to the seating arrangement in post-revolutionary France?

    • AndrewInterrupted

      Traditional Conservatism is pretty close to Hoppe Libertarianism, I would agree.

  • italian guy

    I guess our top priority is an international pro-White ideology, everything comes later, it doesn’t matter if you want a socialist country, if you are libertarian or a fascist, if you want more or less government in your life, preserving the White majority in our nations is the first and most important point. We shouldn’t get carried away and screaming for the death of innocent people (in this case non-whites living in White countries) that’s for sure (obviously too), but we shouldn’t be weak and accept mixed race people or a non-white quota just to not be extremists.

  • ThomasER916

    All of this has been pitched before but it’s all bullcrap. Libertarianism is Free Market Cultural Marxism. It does nothing for Whites, and it’s certainly not a moral system for Whites.

    What is good for Whites?

    Anything that favors Whites, advances Whites, protects Whites and expands Whites is what we need.
    Libertarianism isn’t “good” for Whites because it denies that Whites have a right to together in their collective self-interest.

    Fascism was bad for Whites because it denied that Whites have a collective self-interest beyond their nation state.

    The “Free Market” isn’t good for Whites because it denies that Whites have a collective self-interest to protect their race from economic terrorism through force.

    Capitalism is somewhat good for Whites since it doesn’t deny us the ability to tariff non-Whites or force them out of our society.

    The problem with all of these systems is none of them are explicitly pro-White.

  • Kathy M

    Libertarianism, if it could work at all, would only be possible in homogeneous societies. Some people, like the majority of Arabs, need to be under dictatorial rule. Show me a libertarian nation anywhere in black Africa.

    • sbuffalonative

      Yes, I agree.

      In theory it could work in a society in which everyone shared the same values and respect for others.

      Even in a homogenous society, this is difficult to achieve.

      In a multicultural society it’s impossible.

      • Truth Teller

        Not everyone has to share the same values. The right values should be enforced. Majority rules is a stupid concept. If a country is full of stupid people, local wealthy oligarch families should control it.

    • Zaporizhian Sich

      All Hispanics and blacks must also be governed by dictatorships as well, because we know what they will do to one another if given the chance.

    • Truth Teller

      In unstable nations, libertarianism can work as long as the ruling classes have an iron fist whenever someone gets too out of line. An iron fist can be used to protect freedom. For example, women can be free to dress as they want and if they get raped, the rapist gets the death penalty. If this keeps happening, the death penalty will happen often but the rape genes will be taken out of the gene pool eventually. It’s evolution.

      If you create conditions where the temptation is maximum as well as the punishment for succumbing to the temptations is maximum, you create a society where you push people to the limit. When these people are pushed to the limit and permanently punished, they are taken out of the gene pool.

    • AndrewInterrupted

      That is so true. Their frontal lobes haven’t evolved far enough to prosper in western civilization. They will always need an Idi Amin or Saddam Hussein to control them. That’s why it’s sickening to me when the U.S. tries converting the world to a system that only works well for people of European descent.

      It’s a social engineering nightmare.

  • sbuffalonative

    Dear Mr. Whorley:

    I’m happy to learn that you’re a former liberal. Welcome to the club.

    While I see Libertarians supporting our Constitutional rights of free association and choice, I have a fundamental problem with the philosophy of Libertarianism and it is this:

    Libertarians fundamentally believe that most, if not all, of our problems are caused by our lack of freedom; that government creates laws to restrict freedom and therefore governments are ‘evil’. No government, no laws equals freedom and happiness.

    This is wrong.

    The reason we have laws is not because government is evil. The reason we have laws is because too many people act irresponsibly.

    We could do away with every law today and I can guarantee you that in less than 10 years, we would have the same laws. Why? Because government is evil? No. Because everyone would be out for themselves and there would be chaos.

    Do away with speed restricts and how many innocent people would die? Does your neighbor have a right to speed down your street while your children are out playing? Do you have a right to expect him to respect community standards? Whose standards? Yours or his?

    Do away with noise ordinances and I can assure you that my neighbor wouldn’t put me through a second sleepless night of his playing loud music because if he believes he’s free to do so I’m just as free to stop him.

    And what about businesses? I’m not anti-business but heck if a business could dump their untreated industrial waste into my source of drinking water because it’s their freedom to do so because it’s good for their business, they would do so without consideration to anyone.

    Now, many of our laws are ridiculous and should be repealed. But until people and businesses can act responsibly and respect those around them, some restrictions on freedom have to be expected. If we all lived in rural areas separated by acres of land, Libertarianism might work. But in a modern society, it’s an unworkable fantasy.

    • I agree. Libertarians often have a very idealistic view of humanity. That is fundamentally why Conservatism appeals to me more. Conservatives start from the premise that people are nuts.

  • jayvbellis

    Strongly disagree.

    This race denying, individualist Libertarian cult is killing our people.

    All the other groups from Muslims, to Blacks, homosexual extremists, a certain ethnic/religious people that we’re not supposed to mention, all these groups work for the power of their group at our expense, it is only Whites that fall for this race denying, individualist Liberatrian cult.

    Lenin once said:

    “The Capitalists will sell us everything including the role which we hange them”

    He was right.

    Whites who only care about their own selfish economic interests will always sell out our working class White kinsmen to hire temporary low cost, happy non White slaves…

    Then the non White minimum wage skates will revolt, and the result will be Zimbabwe, Haiti, Detroit, Algeria.

    Want to see Libertarianism in real world practice?

    Somalia – no government, no taxes, everyone has guns, can use drugs, pursue their own economic efficiency.

    Please send these Libertarian know it all loners/losers to Somalia. Give them lots of Milton Friedman and Any Rand books.

    Hope they suffe rthe same fate as Amy Biehl.

    • ThomasER916

      That’s because Libertarians deny race exists, but they only deny it to Whites. A Libertarian’s society for Whites probably would look like Paradise. The problem is the world is full of non-Whites and Libertarians deny Whites explicit ownership of anything. A Negro Libertarian society is Liberia, which was founded by Mulattos and destroyed by Negroes.

      Whenever you bring up race, Libertarians quickly attack the “Redneck.” Like Liberals, Libertarians only believe in race when it’s time to hate Whites. Never mind that no race has ever produced “Rednecks” like Andrew Carnegie, Mark Twain or Philo Farnsworth. They’re all, by definition, “Rednecks.” Mexico is full of “wetbacks.” They’ve never produced geniuses in droves. That is a characteristic of Whites and only Whites.

    • Puggg

      You might strongly disagree, but from what I’m reading so far, you’re right in the mainstream of the people who have left comments here so far.

      If this was a game, this would be an even bigger blowout than the last Super Bowl.

  • Einsatzgrenadier

    Whites don’t need libertarianism. A form of it, namely classical liberalism, may have worked during the Gilded Age of the late 19th century, when the US was a racially homogeneous country, but it will not work today because of a demographic revolution that threatens to turn the country into a developing nation. What whites really need is to start taking pride in their race, by seeking inspiration in earlier, pre-1960 formulations of white racial and national identity. Whites must once again recognize their status as biological creatures attuned to the empirical realities of human physical existence. In order to survive, they must reject the infinite malleability of human nature and once again return to a world of limits and living within those limits, in harmony with nature. The state must again serve the biological needs of the white race. It must be an extension of their own instinct for racial self-preservation. Only when the state reflects this underlying biological imperative can whites be free of liberal tyranny and the 3rd world invaders who threaten to completely destroy them.

    • Ethnonationalism is a necessity. Ideology is optional.

      Some days, I wish I’d wake up to discover that every book about aracial ideology had been burned during the night. That way, we’d be able to throw off our self-imposed mental shackles and then be able to solve our race problems. Once we’ve done that, then we can get back to work on writing new books about ideology, preferably new ideologies. Except this time around, the first scrivener who wants to make us think that his abstract worldview is more important than our tribal well being and that the latter should yield to the former and not the other way around, should be burned at the stake. As a warning to the rest.

      • JSS

        “Except this time around, the first scrivener who wants to make us think that his abstract worldview is more important than our tribal well being and that the latter should yield to the former and not the other way around, should be burned at the stake. As a warning to the rest”

        Your sounding more aggressive then usual this evening but all I can say to that statement is amen.

        • It’s just a rare evening that I don’t have to make the rounds of the rubber chicken gossip circuit here at the state capital. Don’t worry, I’ll be back to my usual dorky self by Monday.

      • jayvbellis

        Pretty much agree.

        Except Whites now need to practice effective force/violence.

        Burning at the stake is from a different time, not realistic today. Same with most gun fantasies.

        Fist fights, thrown garbage – that’s what needs to be done to the libertarian traitors like Rand a paul.

        • Throwing garbage in Rand Paul’s face would please me.

          I’ll be happy with him losing his next election and him knowing his open borders promises is what made him lose.

          • BillMillerTime

            I would also. I’ve been disappointed by Rand Paul ever since he got elected. First he back-peddled on his opposition to those portions of various “civil rights acts” which outlaw freedom of association. Then he threw Jack Hunter under the bus even after Hunter’s auto-da-fé. Then he started moving making pro-amnesty noises. More recently he’s been on Sean Hannity’s show blaming events in Crimea on Obama’s weak international leadership – as if a US president’s writ extended right in to Russia backyard.

      • Zaporizhian Sich

        That would not be my method of choice, they are worthy of a visit at three in the morning though.

  • ThomasER916

    The best thing for Europe and Europeans are a collection of explicit, Pan-Nationalist, White ethno-states with VERY limited Welfare and teen labor. When a young White must work they learn a LOT about the world. Ethno-states protect culture, race, and identity. A Pan-Nationalism that respects borders and culture of White nations, and makes internationalism a crime of insurrection and treason punishable by death is an ideology for Whites.

  • rasher223

    I wouldn’t believe everything every “libertarian” says.

    Some of them could be plants to discourage the greater population from embracing it. (open borders)

    You can be sure the US govt will try to sabotage any attempts to undermine their rule.

  • Padrig

    Hans Hermann Hoppe is economically “libertarian” and that is about where it ends from what I have read. What is pitched here, and the thrust of Mr. Hoppe’s arguments that I have read, are eons apart. He is worth reading for the RR crowd, but this “‘anything goes” libertarianism isn’t something I have seen him pay lip service too. In fact, I have seen other libertarian luminaries say that he is not libertarian at all. I would have to somewhat agree, as he isn’t cut from the same cloth as any other libertarian I can think of.

  • Anon

    And here we have THE problem with white people. White people want racial determination but not to offend anyone. They want the rule of law but not to be told what to do. They want a just society but be allowed to engage in wickedness themselves personally. Most of all, they want someone else to be responsible while they themselves take no risk and only feel free to criticize their betters but to disobey them to the point of non-survival. They won’t defend themselves….want the shelter of King, hold him in contempt, hold his entire kingdom in contempt, want to harm others in that kingdom, won’t contribute and then define the King as wicked when he crushes them for the good of the people under his bailiwick.
    How it is going to be instead. The current situation is unsustainable. We are basically coasting on the righteousness of our forefathers. When what they built finally crumbles, the entire world will disintegrate into massive war. Some places will engage in genocide. Some places just won’t get along with their neighbors. Every single person will belong to some small, probably ethnic enclave. How successful that enclave will depend heavily on the rules it has and the complete lack of freedom its individuals have to do anything other than what they are told. Libertarians will all be slaughtered in the very first minutes of such a thing due to the extreme lack of survival value and unwillingness to use power to make things the way they should be rather than to wish and flap their gums about these things. The point is, all these groups will be in competition with each other and need a basis for building power and alliances to survive. There is no room for conceited tomfoolery and disobedience in such a situation. In the better places in the world, you might get some small say by voting with your feet. More likely, they’ll chop off your feet and then kick the rest of you out of the village…..if you catch my drift. If you really want a say, you only will get one to the extent you are important to others.

    • Martel

      Its not about offending anyone, its about the fact that the average European is frightened of anything which has to do with racial activism. I’m glad the author recognizes the situation unlike many others who miraculously still believe that overtly supporting white ethnic interests will get them anywhere.

    • Lion’s Mane

      Libertarianism must not include an unwillingness to defend liberty and personal and familial and community safety. Basic law and order is still absolutely necessary, and those who resort to violence must be met with force sufficient to stop them dead in their tracks.

    • Zaporizhian Sich

      I can care less about offending people, indeed I revel in offending those who deserve to be offended when there is something to be gained by doing it.

      • BonV.Vant

        I like to offend people! The fact that people get offended when I speak the truth offends me!

      • While I do not revel in offending folks, I don’t mind doing it. For me, it is like shoveling snow; sometimes it is necessary. I regularly receive hate email, to which I usually reply “Good! Good if you are offended. Go (deleted censored) yourself and (moderate) you!”

        I wonder however, whether the far left hates me for being an outspoken paleo-conservative more than the far-right hates me for being partly Amerind and married to a Japanese lady. I am not Jewish, but I would rather not be gunned down the way Alan Berg was.

        • Zaporizhian Sich

          I would rather not be gunned down the way millions of my father’s countrymen were at the hands of Bolshevik Jews. The Left hates you far more than anyone on the far Right could. The Left is organized, armed to the teeth, and has both a goal and a plan. The right, for the most part, at this moment, has neither.

  • Marc Zuckurburg

    I’m not for white interests.

    I’m for comprehensive immigration reform.

    Anything that gets me my comprehensive immigration reform, I’m game.

    My net worth took another serious hit today. What’s this world coming to?

    • Zaporizhian Sich

      Cry me a river, troll.

      • Romulus

        Sich him Buddy!. Lol
        In all seriousness, though, I think this poster’s schtick is intended to be satire.

    • ThomasER916

      Oy vey! What’s the world coming to? Our Tribe can’t even make a decent living anymore.

    • Garrett Brown

      Facebook is dying just like MySpace Marky 🙁 sorry.

      • Marc Zuckurburg

        The difference though is that I have a secret extradition free tax haven in either South America or Southeast Asia. You ain’t got no secret extradition free tax haven.

        Only lusers get caught flat footed without a secret extradition free tax haven, that’s what my daddy always taught me.

        • Garrett Brown

          Your daddy was a good Jew!

  • Conrad

    No matter what we do, we must lay the emotional foundation for our future work. Think of how the leftists did this in past decades.
    Small, almost imperceptible, bits of propaganda added to movies, TV & radio programs, written materials (comic books thru text books). They would reaffirm the social mores of the day using black & brown faces. Even “Amos & Andy” and “Aunt Jemima” served their purpose. The ‘Lone Ranger” had Tonto. “I Spy” had Bill Cosby. Others followed like “The Mod Squad” “Julia” & a string of brown and black comedians on the “Ed Sullivan Show”.
    We quite literally laughed ourselves into minority status, and maybe even extinction. But all is not lost. We can use the same methods to retake our nations. The methods still work on the masses. Now we just need to use them.
    I am not saying that we should use only this plan of action. We need to work on all fronts, using all methods. Just don’t over look the subtle.

  • Reverend Bacon

    Mr. Whorley;

    Well, it doesn’t look like the amren audience is exactly dancing in the aisles. I tend to be of the same stripe of realist as you, but we’re in the minority it’s clear.

    I think where your argument needs work is where so-called libertarians like Rand Paul tend to fall apart: pollution; and two things that are part of pollution but deserve special mention: immigration controls and internal population controls.

    Clearly, other countries overpopulate, and they attempt to export that problem to the US. All of those countries are non-white countries, mostly low-IQ ones. More people mean more pollution and greater carbon footprints. Whites really don’t overbreed like other races. Blacks, which have dramatically outbred whites, have grown from 10% to 13% of the population in 50 years, despite lower life expectancies, many deaths due to homicides, and more abortions. Asian and Hispanic populations are the two worst overbreeders; the reason we will be the minority in 25 years is because of the overbreeding.

    An enlightened libertarian would include externalities like breeding into the policy mix. Having a child sucks up public goods like air, water, and space. Those who seem to have a stake in the future of the country seem to breed responsibly; those who don’t are mostly looters anyway, so they breed themselves more loot. Turn off the loot, turn off the breeding. Pay for abortions, sterilizations, and birth control, all of which help pollution.

    SImilarly with border control. Open borders have never really been part of the classic Ayn Rand Libertarianism (remember, Galt’s Gulch’s border was pretty secure). But until the anti-Libertarian, anti-white policies of “robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul” are stopped, there will be huge incentives to come here for the free loot. That’s the way to play it with Libertarians: we can’t open the borders until we fix the system that makes them invade in the first place. Once we do that, we could secure our borders with that yellow police tape.

    If you think about an economy with no blacks, it’s just shockingly liberating. They cost us trillions in taxes for prisons, special low-IQ classrooms, police, ambulance rides to the store, Section 8, EBT, etc. They cost us trillions more in crime, lost productivity of those they murder and rape, diminished property values, etc. Blacks are, essentially, pollution. Now, no one will ever let us just ship them back, but pollution should be taxed to get less of it. I like the idea of shutting off welfare, but I’d like also to see more of them pay their freight. Chain gangs could rebuild our roads and railroads, instead of simply lifting weights and smoking joints in prison.

    So maybe the Green party would also become race realists. Anyone who looks at the pollution problem sees this anyway: pollution is driven by essentially two values: a population, and its propensity to pollute (essentially its carbon footprint, but not exactly). 3rd world countries are increasing the latter as well as the former; ultimately, it’s going to come down to population. Stop the breeding, save the planet. And save the whites.

    • Northerner

      Asians aren’t natural over breeders. China’s population is as large as it is today because they’ve been around for a very long time. They already had 400 million people in the year 1900. The vast majority of their people also reside in their own lands.

      If we look at modern Asian nations like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, their rates of birth aren’t much different from Europeans, possibly even less.

      • Sick of it

        They are still sending their people to live here in our nations.

      • Einsatzgrenadier

        According to your logic, the Egyptians, who have also been around for a very long time, should be just as overpopulated, but they aren’t. The Chinese once had one of the highest fertility rates in the world, similar to sub-Saharan Africa, but this was eventually reduced by harsh totalitarian measures. Many Asian populations clearly do have a propensity to r-selected behavior.

        Also, the Chinese are colonizers. Because their population is so large, it only takes less than 5% of Chinese to swamp whole countries.

  • Clover

    Libertarianism is based on the assumption that the amount of money they have approximates closely the amount of “value” they “created.” But in the real world, it’s who you know, more than what you know, that really matters. Look at CEOs(and the management class in general) and their ridiculous rates of pay. Do they really “create” that much value? Put another way, had a CEO, payed 4 million a year, not been there, would the world be 4 million dollars poorer? We all know the answer is “no.” I could talk about even more ridiculous examples, like Basketball players, fashion models, and those who were born or marry into their money. Libertarians hate hate hate when these groups are mentioned, they totally destroy libertarian economic theory and the “rational market.” Libertarians like to focus on nerds, so let’s look at Mark Zuckerberg. He is a classic example of who you know mattering more than what you know, his “invention” was little better than MySpace, but he went to Harvard and had the right connections, and that was how he was able to market his site.

    There is a reason young people are so overrepresented in libertarianism, they often can’t see this because they haven’t spent much time much time in the real world. They are often nerds and think that just because they have an SAT score at the 95th percentile means that they will have an income at at least the 90th.

    Those who understand all this understand that libertarian ideas like “supply side economics” are bogus, and that libertarianism, if actually applied, would hurt the White working class. Automation, free trade, and mass immigration have greatly tipped the scale in the direction of capital over labor, this is what has led to the massive inequality we see today. A much better pro-White policy, and one we can get the “respectable” Whites to agree to, is subsidized daycare. We already subsidize daycare for the poor and disproportionately non-White, why not subsidize it for the middle and upper middle class as well? It would encourage more fertility among those disproportionately White and smart. We could pay for it by increasing taxes on the rich, and why not increase taxes on the rich? The rich and powerful as a class ruined our country.

    • 1. I can perhaps make the case that highly paid professional athletes, up to a point, are adding more value, (in as much as “value” really means anything today), than he’s being paid. Where I think you’re right is in terms of the CEO example. I don’t see at all how a given CEO who is making, say, $10 million a year or more, is adding more than $10 million of profitability to the corporation he or she is leading. Really, CEOs are nothing more than managerial munchkins, highly paid employees. If they seem to have “success,” they’re just bouncing off either the success of the product or service the company is known for, created a long time ago, or taking credit for the successful ideas of someone in middle management.

      2. Supply side economics and libertarianism are really unrelated, other than the fact that many right-libertarians embrace it as a model. But a socialist can just as well embrace supply side economics. Because the goal of SSE, with the Laffer Curve in mind, is to maximize tax revenue. Obviously, any socialist who wants big government welfare programs has a vested interest in maximizing tax revenues.

      3. We don’t need to keep on fighting battles we’ve already won. We’ve already beat the Indians, and the “rich” are already being taxed at rates above their percentile shares of national personal income. Let’s try to win fights we need to win but have not yet.

      4. Free trade and immigration are winnable battles, but we’re not going to be able to hold back automation. I’ll probably live long enough to see good chunks of humanity made professionally redundant.

  • NorthernWind

    Individual liberty is not compatible with racial politics. I’m a communitarian for that reason. I’ve had it with this idea that the individual is the basis of society. Humans are tribal; the tribe is the basis of society. Atomized individuals are unable to act as cohesive group. In my view, individual desires and interests always have to be constrained by the broader community which itself needs to have a will (a will which is more than aggregated individual desires).

    Look at the groups that are in opposition to us. Blacks place being Black first. Jews place being Jewish first. See the trend? We need to think in term of Whites as a group, a group that needs to work towards its own interests. What we don’t need is to lend our support to people who believe that there is nothing sacred beyond the individual. People who believe that community is only something we do to benefit as individuals. Ugh. It’s silly and counter-productive for the survival of the White race.

    • I don’t necessarily agree with the first sentence, except that individual liberty, when taken to the level of a religion and worshiped above the well being of the tribe, is definitely not compatible with racial politics.

      My view is that individualism and racial collectivism need not be each other’s bane, that they can be two sides of the same coin, both exist to help the cause of the other. Individualism can and should exist to make the collective better, and collectivism can and should exist to make life easier for individuals within the collective.

      That said, it’s easy to see how individualism-cum-religion is nothing more than a weapon that our enemies use against us.

      • NorthernWind

        I meant individual liberty in the libertarian sense, as Nozick, for instance, would conceive of it.

        I basically am in agreement with everything you wrote.

        • Zaporizhian Sich

          Individual liberty is never absolute for one simple reality. That is one’s rights and liberties end where another’s begins. That is where people’s individual liberties give way not only to the liberties of others, but the welfare of the community as a whole.

    • Northerner

      Blacks and Jews both have large, self-perpetuating “victim complexes”. They consider themselves on-going victims of White racism, and are quick to play the race and anti-semite cards, respectively, with great frequency. Their “us vs them” mentality is ingrained.

  • jayvbellis

    Judas is the quintessential Libertarian, pursuing his own economic utility, selling his service to the market. How did Judas end up? Is a Judas well thought of, respected today?

  • jayvbellis

    I invite Jack Worley to go “door to door” as a Libertarian missionary in all Black Englewood neighborhood here in Chicago. The neighborhood is very close to the University of Chicago, Milton Friedman’s old stomping ground.So you should get a warm reception… The warmth of your blood flowing out of knife wounds…


    • r j p

      More likely from his gunshot wounds. Englewood is 99.9% black.

      It’s treat looking at the Southside and near south suburbs from the Rock Island Line out of LaSalle Street Station. Westside is just as bad. Somebody I do some work for gave me a tour of the area where he grew up once (he’s in his 70s). Just another warzone with vacant gravel lots, vacant uncut lots, and board-ups everywhere.
      The thing that I thought was even more unbelievable was there was a billboard advertising abortion services on the side of a building that sold either caskets or was a funeral home (I can’t remember, but it was one or the other).

  • M&S

    Private businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason at all. A landlord should also be able to choose his tenants. Such action should be perfectly legal, and could be the basis of increasingly explicit white communities.
    And your excuse would be? “I love my own more?” “I don’t like black criminality?” “I don’t want to pay for background checks?” “‘Ban The Box’ leaves me no choice?”
    As soon as you make it explicit that your ‘freedom to choose’ with whom you do business as associate is harming blacks by virtue of giving them a street rep, that reflects statistics, it will be argued that you are creating ‘disparate impact’.
    For an Antira, the notion that you need to reach for an excuse is the same as saying you have none. Which is why whites _must_ begin to act exclusively for and within their own racial interests. As a matter of private, unrecorded, transactions.
    Those in the retail market must get out of them and begin using things like exclusive sales lists and online/home delivery shopping so that there are literally _no store fronts_ for other races to come to.
    Real Estate must be traded against an internal system of held credits to go completely outside the banking industry (where there is a perfectly legitimate excuse as the foregoance of Red Lining is a large part of what crashed the housing market).
    Medical and Education must be brought within private communities as an extended form of Home Schooling.
    The first acts of open discrimination would be publicized and might attract demonstrations and boycotts. However, as the practice became more common–and as non-whites also recognized the benefits open preferences for their own groups–discrimination would become better accepted and more widespread.
    Sir, read _The Turner Diaries_. As ugly as they are in the ultimate sense of racial conservatism and genocide, they are dead on accurate with regard to people’s attitudes have been so badly warped around the perception that popularism as going with the flow is what keeps them employed and well provisioned with toys.
    THIS FEAR is what makes them hyper aggressive in pursuing Antira themes because they have subliminally come to associate the loss of the one with the ‘anti-social behavior’ label of the other.
    That won’t change until you have a way to exit the system from a position where your money and how you spend it, privately, is the driving determinator for your racial position.
    Come for the rights to choose your kid’s education, come for the assurance of decent jobs for the properly qualified. Even come for the guns with which to defend one’s life as possessions. And idiot whites will still follow the whinging “Oh well I still have…” as an extension of “And maybe they will choose some other poor bastard who can’t move away…”.
    But the moment government takes away the right to _spend money_ for otherwise legal things, as you see fit with those whose skin color you choose (because their bargain deals are given exclusively to you), then you have nothing left to lose.
    And maybe people will fight.
    Policies such as these let the free market flourish, and promote meritocracy. They also restrict the power of government. Therefore, both libertarians as well as those who wish to ensure a future for white populations and believe whites can thrive on a level playing field can agree on them. Advocates for whites may find paleoconservatism more desirable, but they should remember the spoiler effect of unpopular fringe ideologies. Many liberals, for example, argue that the Democratic Party lost the Presidential elections in 2000 and 2004 because of the vote for Ralph Nader.
    Whites are already screwed by the very notion that if we aren’t liberal, we are detracting from the liberals socio-economic posturing as ‘game’. Enabling blacks and other ethnies through victim entitlements (aka Other People’s Money) creates ‘whole new customer bases’ whereas white individualism makes them a hard sell.
    Liberals and by extension, Libertarians, do not believe in the proper maintenance of ‘ties that bind’ because they are too short sighted in their vision to accept what crashing TFRs and depleting resources mean to a Free Market that no longer has dominant control over the resources because it no longer can summon the population mass to man the guns and jobs which protect them.
    Self-ism is vicious because it is close-ended with ‘satisfies me’ as an immediate and eternal goal.
    As such, you are looking at a class division amongst our own people as much as a racial one between ourselves and other groups.
    If a pro-white political philosophy is to gain traction in a world that now finds it abhorrent, it cannot overtly present itself.
    Nor should it try. Again, because there is no convincing someone that it -can- get worse than this, until they see that the warped ideology they have followed has destroyed the very system of exploitation they manipulated as white minority status, coupled with severe resource warfare and migrant populations (coastline rises if nothing else) will mean they no longer have the market controls to be able to sustain their gaming strategy.
    Those kinds of people are as worthless as they are ruthless. We should not buy in folk who come to us as victim refugees of the disaster they caused.
    Pro-white advocates will have better luck adopting mainstream ideologies that include advantages for whites.
    Sounds like a very little carrot and a whole lotta fraud sir. No government or media or indeed population, which has exclusive social licensing agency control over ‘what is mainstream’ (as the active dispossession of a majority population in favor of a criminal minority) can be trusted not to constantly attempt to whittle away existing guarantees in tomorrows renegotiated social contract.
    This is why nations which are homogenously ethnic are also stable in their exclusionism of foreign intrusion while those which are multicultural are suicidally unable to stand up for the notion of what a nation is, as the collective ideals of ONE people who make it up.
    Again, it is the deliberate blurring of lines and outright misstatement of ‘what made America great’ (the labor of whites and the wealth of exclusive white-owned resources in our own lands) enabling factors which is the cause of our downfall as the wealth classes seek to expand their control, worldwide, to sell more junk to more people who cannot do as Americans did in raising themselves up. Either because they are not allowed to, the old fashioned way (ask a Native American) or because they lack the ability.
    Since our very wealth as lack of needs is what makes us such a poor commercial investment as consumer class, we have no value to those who seek poverty as a means to enable their ‘Christian Values’ as Charity using Other People’s money.
    To make themselves rich disenfranchising their own populations.
    Let’s get something clear here: Even at a paltry 7.5 billion people there are not sufficient resources to sustain the world’s lemming-stupid R-Breeders at anything /near/ what Westerners have grown accustomed to. Going half way with better mortality abatement and assured food only begets envy, not gratitude. Even as it ensures that, by 2100, it will be a 14 billion population planet where whites form roughly 4% (560 million souls) of the total.
    _At that point_ we are as good as extinct sir. We will not have the weapons, the warriors or (at present rates) The Will to take what we need to remain a First World Power and without the benefits of that lifestyle, whites will fragment even more, until our nation cannot hold and we are swept away by either annihilation or blending.
    At present rates (NASA is non-existent) it will be at least 2 centuries before we can so much as harvest the resources of our own solar system to make up the difference. And that is about 7 decades too long to save the ENTIRE PLANET from a Malthusian Fallback into Neolithic entropy. With 435 active reactors, world wide, to make it even more ELE fun.
    Whites can only be broken of the seriously sick habits of Christian Charity unto suicide and Capitalist greed unto disenfranchisement of their racial insurance policy (i.e. the rest of us) by finding out _now_ what it means to be excluded from white interests, completely.
    ‘Mainstreaming’ with non-white political interests not our own is the _last thing_ we should be doing. Because you can either support 2-3 billion at a pre industrial level or 200-300 million at a high SES, post-21 level. But this Earth cannot do both.
    When people finally have the guts to really look at Darwinian Selection, not as a guilt trip but a proven hierarchy of those who can do the most leaping ahead to take the resources necessary to do so and those who cannot, _still living as they always have_ (no extinction required) and couple this with the obvious primitivism of the Hispanic and Black cultures who actually have the benefit of living amongst us, they will know what to do to secure themselves as their families’ future.
    They can then ‘mainstream’ with us.
    If there is time.

    • r j p

      Real Estate must be traded against an internal system of held credits to go completely outside the banking industry ……

      That’s called a co-op. Most banks won’t finance co-op housing purchases. A co-op (gated) town could essentially do whatever it wanted because it’s not like right of first refusal refusal for a condominium, any member of a co-op can blackball an applicant for any reason without having to disclose the reason.

    • Romulus

      I applaud your comment sir. Perfect insight. A bit wordy, but blunt.

  • Peter Connor

    As far as I am concerned, businesses DO have an absolute right to choose their customers, freedom of association. To avoid leftist thugs, just show a little nuance in your approach.

    • r j p

      Freedom of association was outlawed by SCOTUS initially with Shelley v. Kraemer.

      • Peter Connor

        I’m an attorney. My point is that if you don’t shout your reason from the rooftops, you can turn anyone down. That’s what attorneys do; we usually turn clients down because we don’t trust them. Anyway, try it.

        • LACountyRedneck

          That’s also what landlords do.

          • r j p

            They are running PSAs in Chicago about a black family trying to get an apartment but are continually told the apartment has been rented.
            There was a property owner in Orland Park (I believe) who literally control of his properties taken away from him for five years for not renting to a negro family.
            There has been one negro tenant in the seven unit flat I live in 15 years. I am fairly sure he was a meth, coke, or molly dealer. He parked illegally behind the building, I would be home at night awake on weekends and he would go on 15 minute drives at all times of the night but never returned with anything.

          • ThomasER916

            This is what the Mob is for. When Whites can’t figure out why the Mob exists, this is why. When the law doesn’t protect Whites, we become the protectors.

            I always tell a story about an LA bum who was the neighbor to my friend’s dad. He never paid rent and the laws made it impossible to evict him. He’d leave his trash in the hallway. When I asked WTF is going on he told me and they, being decent Whites, said “There’s nothing we can do. The police will do nothing.” Wrong. WE can do something. We waited until he came out at night then mugged him in the street, taking his keys and kicking the $hit out of him. Then we went into his apartment and threw all of his belongings in the trash, keeping nothing. The keys made it back to the landlord.

            No one said anything but everyone knew. We’d get nods from old men and old ladies would hug us out of the blue. His dad said the bum tried to get back in but no keys, no property, and no apartment (it was now cleaned and rented) meant he had nothing. Now the police were saying to him, “There’s nothing we can do.”

            Whites need to understand that we have a law, a code, and a duty to one another and our people. If the laws are anti-White then they’re not good. If the laws don’t protect Whites, promote Whites, or advance the interests of Whites then they’re no good. Any law that targets Whites or diminishes us is Evil. If the law isn’t good then it isn’t worth obeying. Find a way to exploit it. Lie and game the system until the law is gone or everyone writing, enforcing, and supporting the law is gone. Those are the laws of our People.

        • Sick of it

          Smart accountants do the same.

  • Raymond Kidwell

    I don’t know how I can say this without sounding too offensive, but mainstream people reject (white) racial groups because they tend to be run by crazy/idiotic people. The views tend to either be extremely simple minded or outright delusional. David Duke is about the only one that presents himself in a reasonable way, yet a lot of his associates are not high brow. Myself I agree with a lot of racial ideals (such as that whites should not be discriminated against) but I don’t understand the extreme obsession with race, the hatred of non-whites and so forth often brought forth. I also don’t see why it is so necessary to change the entire nation or the whole world to meet your goals. It seems unrealistic and in the least if you have the power to change the world, why can’t you run a small charity or small village. White Nationalists can’t even organize for simple things and constantly hate on and fight with each other. Yet they seem to have unrealistic visions of grandeur or self importance.
    And if you wanted to affect politics the easiest way would be to make a billion dollars first and start buying off politicians and running aggressive media campaigns to change public views. This may sound absurd, but its not. It will be easier to earn a billion and influence others than it would be to win high level national elections. It also is the only tactic that people use. I mean if someone wants to lower taxes then they simply put a lot of money behind a candidate that will lower taxes. They seldom run for office. Politicians themselves can’t have many beliefs because they have to sell them out to win.
    As well if you have a small group of intelligent people working together cohesively its not that hard to make absurd amounts of wealth. Yet working alone you’d be lucky to make miniminal wage. If I could find just two or three rational people who I could sit down with and talk to like adults, draw out a strategy, stick to that strategy and be able to trust each other, I would be thrilled to death. We could earn a lot of money, launch a lot of successful projects etc. but I have trouble finding people that can even do the basics. Yet some of them are somehow are busy talking about how to run a nation or something.
    What I have done myself is to work on a religion/culture. First I need to set ground rules such as members must be rational, I.Q. evaluations given etc. After that certain “winning principles” must be taught. Just common sense ways to think and act such as work together, don’t complain without reason, don’t cry “why try we’ll just fail anyway” don’t spend all your time talking and instead just do something, and just try to eliminate trashy thoughts and attitudes. From there perhaps raise up a small family, run a family business etc. and then expand outward.

    • Peter Connor

      Running for office is just subjecting yourself to media savagery, better to work behind the scenes.

      • Behind the scenes to what end? If you’ve set the stage for a world where racialism never has a public face, then what happens to all of that behind-the-scenes work when you are asked a very direct question about all of your work? Do you lie? Do you try and spin the truth? If you are not being blunt and brutally honest, then who are you fooling and who can say without a doubt what your true intentions are?

        You say you are an attorney. Okay, what happens to the credibility of a witness the very second you can show a judge or jury that the witness has either lied or has a tendency to hide and misrepresent the things he does?

  • The more I hear people claiming that implicit racial politics is the way to go, the more I understand how White America gets stabbed in the back year after year, and loses ground to people(non-Whites) who are obviously not implicitly racial in most of their speech or actions. I could probably begin to wax poetic about a million and one different ways that race-based societies are more stable and viable than multicultural ones. I could slice and dice through arguments put forth by the multiculty fanboys without much effort. But what would be the point of it all if my intended audience was so hamstrung by political correctness that it could never openly acknowledge or stand behind what I was saying? Even the most self-assured and confident man needs reassurance that his message is being perceived in the right way and having the right effect.

    Explicit racial politics has been neutered because of a few different reasons. The number one reason is that explicit racial politics and networking has almost always been presented to the public by some of the most rabid, hateful, self-absorbed and unstable people you could imagine. Finding someone who is both truly an advocate of racial preservation and not a self-absorbed, childish, self-serving hatemonger is really hard. Things like civility, reason and compassion are usually not synonymous with vocal White advocates. Not because the reasonable and compassionate ones don’t exist in great numbers, but because the reasonable and compassionate ones are too busy shutting their mouths and trying hide their true feelings while the more hateful and intolerant people step up to the podium and stand in the spotlight. You weren’t willing to do it, so it’s only logical that those whose motivations are more self-serving would eventually find their way to that position.

    In fact, probably half of the explicit racialists and platforms that you have seen over the years have either been propped up by informants and provocateurs whose mission is to keep the voice of Racial Nationalism a voice of intolerant and overly judgmental lunatics, or they’ve been propped up by people who just have a natural tendency toward atrophy and instability.

    Why is it that slavish devotion to certain social issues tears apart a White population and its focus on White racial preservation, but those same social issues hardly ever get in the way of non-Whites and their march toward their racial agenda?

    The author here simply doesn’t understand the issue to any great degree or sophistication. If your path to Racialism is too busy “not being overt” while the public is inundated with overt Racialists who are skewing the perception of race-based politics and Racialism, then at what point in your strategy is the public ever able to see the real face of Racialism and accept race-based nationalism?

    • There’s another reason why “white racial preservation advocate” usually conjures up images of toothless trailer trash wearing baggy white clothing. Why did Jared Taylor used to be a media guest fairly frequently but not in the long time? Because he looks and appears and talks on TV like someone who you would trust your teenage daughter or your country with.

  • BonV.Vant

    The ever ineffectual libertarians

    • AndrewInterrupted

      I don’t mind a person thinking out loud.

      • BonV.Vant

        Depends on the person

        • AndrewInterrupted

          Who is this Jack Whorley guy?
          Other than being a “former Liberal”.
          I tried Googling him.

  • BonV.Vant

    Libertarians represent the cowardice that has brought the white people to the position they are in. Libertarians think they can get something without having to pay the price for it.

    • r j p

      Libertarians think there won’t be drunks passed out in every alley or junkies on every corner. It is a childish view that assumes all will act in a moral manner, that just getting rid of laws will make everything better. Libertarianism is Democrat Party 2.0. ….

      • silviosilver

        I don’t know if they actually believe that. I think they just don’t care because they figure they’ll be making enough money to be able to insulate themselves from it.

  • Libertarians are always trying to shove their religion into any hole they can find. I have read that the free market will end racial distinction and racism, and now a lib comes along and tells me it will do the opposite. Its the answer to all of everybody’s problems!

    • BonV.Vant

      It is heartening to see that this weaklings proposal is overwhelmingly being rejected by the commenters on here.

  • Unfortunately, the bad ideas aren’t being discarded, they are becoming government policy.

  • James Gonzalez

    For all the commentors that don’t believe in individual freedom, I ask you, on what authority do you claim to know what’s right for others? How do you intend to police others?

    • DailyKenn

      Well said.

      When I was in high school we had the individual freedom to sit where we wanted in the cafeteria. The black students sat together and the white students sat together.

      There was no forced segregation; no forced integration.

      • AndrewInterrupted

        Prisons, the same thing. There it’s a matter of life or death. And it’s all natural and primal. Prisons are probably the best examples for fledgling social engineers, before they go brain dead on the blue Kool-Aid.

    • You’re being unfair when you claim that there’s an undercurrent of opposition to individual freedom in this thread.

      What you do read, sensibly so, is an aversion to individual freedom being worshiped, becoming a sacrament of an ideological cult, to the point where it ruins the racial and tribal and social well being of the underlying society and culture. Like I have said elsewhere in this thread, any abstract ideology has this problem, taken to the undesirable and destructive level of a cult.

    • silviosilver

      Perhaps on the basis of three thousand years of moral philosophy? Not that this always provides definitive answers, but it provides a way to think about ethics that in all likelihood would create superior societies to those run by people whose logic rarely extends beyond “well, uh, if it’s not hurting anybody it’s okay.”

  • James Gonzalez

    I think the author has the right attitude but the wrong fundamental idea. He should identify himself in the negative “I am not in favor of anything that restricts my freedom”, rather than in the positive: “I most certainly am a libertarian”.

  • Romulus

    This essay appears to be a prelude puff piece for r.paul. Our fellow regulars have already offered reasoned and logical counterpoints, so I’ll be brief.
    Tap dancing to the beat of nice nice political mainstream will not ultimately help, in my view.
    The other racial bodies existing ARE explicitly in groups and use all their efforts to achieve their goals. Playing intellectual chess in the long run is akin to having an American party the equivalent to ukip.
    Basically, we can have a racial identity as long as we’re inclusive and not rabid. Pffft.
    All would be welcome? Homos, trannys,deviants, any race who claims to be on the right hand side?
    Like Denneen borelli?
    How many decades would it take if we do it the nice way? Trying to use the same scam the marxists have used!
    My apologies if this post isn’t up to my usual caliber.

  • Evette Coutier

    Libertarians cannot win elections because they are not practical in their politics. Their message appeals to 8 to 12 percent of the population, and they refuse to moderate their presentation of their principles in a way that mainstream their brand. The truth is that a number of right wing parties in Europe have gone from nothing to winning elections and capturing voters by as high as 20+ percent overnight. Current libertarians will never achieve this because the only see politics as an issue of philosophy and not an issue of people and their needs.

    • They can’t win because virtually nobody is buying what they’re selling. Who wants to live in a global raceless capitalist “paradise” with powerless governments? (Except they’ll have enough power to do enterprise zones in African cities.) Virtually nobody. Such a paradise sounds more like hell on Earth.

      The right wing parties in Europe that have gone from zero to credibility in 4.5 seconds are explicitly (or explicitly enough) ethnonationalist. Which is the polar opposite of a libertarian.

      • Evette Coutier

        I agree. They are selling a sugar coated version of anarchy. It is a utopian fantasy where all the world will get along if government just leaves them alone so they can all do business together. There is no historical evidence that any culture has or can exist this way. There is no biological, psychological, or sociological evidence people can or want to live this way.

        Philosophical fantasies do not will elections. The reality is that most people vote their pocketbook. The race realist movement would be wise to package their message wrapped in the economic consequences of mixed communities. In general, people are far more likely to choose on what they lose over what they gain. The white flight syndrome is a classic example. Whites left the cities because they were losing their property values and their safety. That was a greater motivation than the potential profits and securities of suburban life. OK, off my soapbox.

  • Why do you think she can’t or shouldn’t? Please don’t say “liberty.”

  • AndrewInterrupted

    A lot of people are saying that. It looks like the Colorado hipster potheads co-opted the place. Maybe that was a Cultural Marxist coordinated attack that is ready for the “Mission Accomplished” banner?

    The Libertarians used to be about the literal translation of the Constitution. That always made the Marxists nervous. That’s the
    last thing they want to see. As the late great Joe Sobran said:

    “The Constitution is no hurdle for the Obama administration”.


    • Sick of it

      Libertarians were partially derived from the libertarian socialists. This is not a new phenomenon.

      • BillMillerTime

        Oh really? You seriously think that?

  • ViktorNN

    Whoreley’s suggestions sound reasonable – but let’s get real – libertarians are the ones who need to get with the program, not the rest of us. Show me a libertarian willing to accept some basic pro-white principles and policies, and then I’ll be willing to consider some libertarian ideas.

    For example, this country needs a moratorium on legal immigration. Illegal immigrants need to be expelled by either “soft” policies like attrition through enforcement, or tougher ones like actually rounding illegals up and shipping them out. We need to end birthright citizenship. We need to stop chain migration of the families of non-white legal immigrants. Any new immigration in the future should be whites from white countries. Perhaps most of all, we need to stop business interests from flooding the labor market with as much cheaper surplus labor as they can get.

    The above policies are heavy-handed state-based solutions to the demographic problems white face in the U.S.

    Are libertarians ready to “get statist?” If not, then they’re not pro-white. Forget ’em.

  • r j p

    There is a bum that hangs out near the Chicago Board of Trade. He kneels and pretends like he is half blind, ill, and completely destitute. His son drops him off in a new car

  • Brutus

    I was a libertarian, until I saw that “the productive class” is not so descriptive a phrase as “the productive race.” Libertarianism holds that individual liberty is an unqualified good, because all are equally able and desirous to do good with their liberty. In fact, liberty is only good if good men do good things with it.

    In a predominantly Islamic country, liberty is extremely destructive, and this is why Muslims generally end up under a nasty tyrant. In a predominantly black country, liberty is at least as destructive, and so blacks generally end up under a nasty tyrant.

    • AndrewInterrupted

      Their brains aren’t there yet. The European brain is thousands of years ahead.

    • Truth Teller

      Dictatorship can equal liberty though. I don’t view liberty as a process but as an ends. Dictators can protect the liberties of minorities.

      • Brutus

        That’s a major reason why minority dictators end up in power in places like Egypt and Syria and Iraq, I think. Democracy in such places is the freedom to oppress Christians, Jews, and anybody else who isn’t of the majority.

  • Mr. Whorley, please persuade a majority of libertarians to be against open borders and things like ‘affirmative action’ and then come back and talk to us.

    This conviction about never ever ever being able to mention White interests, have you read some of the comments by average readers on places like Yahoo News? What you are talking about is the mainstream media and other entities controlled by our open-borders overlords, who gleefully sniff out racism everywhere they can imagine it. Do you think they are not going to notice a covert White strategy? Good God, they even try to portray the Stupid Cowardly Party as the new KKK. ANYTHING that Whites are behind is by definition ‘racist’. (You really haven’t noticed this?)

    And some of the things you are talking about, for example, rolling back decades of Supreme Court decisions, like those on interstate commerce, how in the world do you think you are going to accomplish this? It is as if you are saying, ‘Since it is impossible for you to climb Mt. Everest, follow me up K2!’ If something today seems almost impossible, let it at least be something that is coherent and vital, like the survival of Western civilization.

    With all respect, I can understand why libertarianism is big on college campuses, remembering my own exciting dorm-room debates, because it has the strange naive other-worldliness of an Ayn Rand novel. For example, on vices like drugs, prostitution, etc, would it really be just fine with you to have a bubbling cauldron of a meth lab or a house of prostitution next door to your family? You will likely say, No, that is what zoning is for. Exactly! The more you allow these vices, the more average law-abiding citizens will be caught in the fallout and will demand that they be regulated. Hence? Bigger government.

    Finally, not long ago it was political death in Western Europe for any party that wanted to be taken seriously to be explicitly against third-world immigration and to call for the preservation of the West. No more–because many Whites refused to chicken out and listen to advice such as yours.

    • There are some people who think they can take back libertarianism from the open borders crowd. If they can actually do that, and indeed do it, I’ll throw them a parade. I’m not optimistic about their chances. My take is that if the horse you’re riding dies, you don’t sit around and pray for weeks on end that it comes back to life, you go and find a live horse.

      But I don’t even think that’s what Whorley is talking about here. He thinks that we can hide behind libertarianism and disparately benefit from them. The problem with that whatever crumbs we can pick up from them are far outweighed by the open damage they cause us. That and when the media eventually discover that we’re trying to ride them, they’ll go ask the libertarians in question who will then tell us “Nazis” to get lost.

  • Fredrik_H

    The one huge flaw with libertarianism is the notion that if you cut off benefits immigrants will stop coming. As long as white countries are more affluent, more organized and generally better places to live they will flock to our borders and try to cross them.

    Embracing libertarianism also means dividing our strength. The white working class and lower middle class will be drawn towards social nationalism by necessity. They don’t have the money to be “polite” racists.

    Meanwhile, immigrants vote overwhelmingly socialist. In my country, the muslims vote 90-95% socialist.

    • AndrewInterrupted

      That’s the part that ‘useful idiots’ like ‘white’ feminists don’t understand. They think by voting for the Democrats and Hillary they will be “ending the patriarchy.” What these fools don’t understand is that they aren’t in the process of ending the patriarchy, they are in the process of replacing it with another. Wait until they see what they get when Black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, and Semite patriarchies take over for the White one. And the ‘white’ feminist vote is critical these next two elections, if we’re to have any chance at stemming this Latin barbarian horde.

      • Truth Teller

        I would agree if they actually were making their own political parties but according to their views, not necessarily. Those groups will always vote for the Democrat party aka the libertal party even if those groups are illiberal.
        It’s voter strategy. They know those groups are against women’s rights but they will still vote for the leftist party and ergo vote for what is wanted from their point of view. It’s a two party system in America so it’s guaranteed they won’t vote for the more conservative party. Some groups can be used as voter blocks and dumped once push comes to shove.

        • AndrewInterrupted

          The key is to convince white women that their new voting bloc is the white race.

          • Truth Teller

            That is a good strategy but what would you say to the white women who say that those groups will vote for the leftist parties in a guaranteed way and that they can be used as pawns for the Democratic party?

          • AndrewInterrupted

            Rephrase the question.

          • Truth Teller

            What would you tell a white women who says that she knows those groups as misogynistic but she also knows they will vote Democrat at all the elections?

          • AndrewInterrupted

            I would tell them that the Republicans are the white patriarchal party and the Democrats are the future Black/Brown/Red/Yellow patriarchal party, if the Republican party doesn’t flip the trend with their help in 2014/2016. They don’t understand that they are really just picking which patriarchs the western world is left with. A matriarchy always falls.

          • Truth Teller

            I’m not a Democrat or a Republican but what if they say the Democrat party can stay feminist while taking the votes of the misogynists because they would vote this way no matter what? Also that political parties don’t have to cater to their voters every whim as long as they have loyal blocks they can use and discard?

          • AndrewInterrupted

            The “loyal” blocs would ultimately be answering to a patriarchy. White women in 2014/2016 are the swing vote on WHICH patriarchy. If the white feminists think the non-white patriarchy will reward their “loyalty” for voting Democrat they are sadly mistaken. A Hillary win would be a temporary, cocaine high for women, then once western civilization has finished its descent, they will see the 3rd World prison their vote put them in. Gangsters have no honor.

          • Truth Teller

            It’s not that they think nonwhites will reward the loyalty, it’s that they know nonwhites will keep voting Democrat because there is a 2 party system.
            The Democratic party doesn’t have to cater to their misogynistic urges because they know these people will vote for them no matter what happens.
            Parties aren’t there to represent the entire voter base, they are to win elections. Just a few PC words and promises of welfare and the other voting blocks are hooked.

          • Garrett Brown

            Truth teller is an avid anti white. Ignore him/her.

          • AndrewInterrupted

            I thought it was a thick skull. Now I get it. Thx.

    • Truth Teller

      I think capitalism should be applied to Latin America and the Middle East too. I think the smartest families should have everything and that the dumbest families should be left to wallow.

    • We won’t be able to make the illegals go home nor will we be able to deter them from coming just by getting rid of the benefit magnets. The only way to keep them from coming is to have a forcefully guarded border, the only way to get them to go home is forcibly to round them up and send them home. Both solutions that almost all libertarians oppose to the last fiber of their beings, all the while shouting “racist nazi fascist collectivist” to anyone who proposes them.

  • Steven Barr

    Drug use, prostitution, gambling and pornography are vices which do great harm to white societies which nobody who genuinely cares for his race or nation can defend. And anybody who thinks they are “victimless crimes” should live in a neighbourhood full of junkies and hookers and then tell me their activities affect only themselves.

  • Steven Barr

    Murray Rothbard, the founder of modern Libertarianism, believed that parents should not face criminal charges if they let their children starve to death. Mad, just mad

    • ThomasER916

      He belongs to the Culture of Critique.

    • Truth Teller

      I think you have an obligation to yourself and your family possibly circle of friends but not to “society”. In other words, take care of your inner circle first. What does that make me?

      • ThomasER916

        Disconnected and delusional.

    • John

      It would seem, based on the evidence, that any movement that has been strongly influence by Jewish thinking, is antithetical to the West and our way of life. This is true whether it’s Libertarianism or the much more toxic Marxism. Probably due to their childhood indoctrination into the misanthropic criminal cartel and “rules of acquisition” shell game they falsely call a religion.

      • Armin Shimerman✡, Aron Eisenberg✡, Wallace Shawn✡, and Max Grodenchik✡ all played the main Ferengi characters on DS9.

      • Truth Teller

        It’s better to take one thing and leave the rest. You can beat them or anyone in acquisition if you use family cohesiveness and nepotism in order to reach the top. In other words, instead of placing the individual above society, place the family above society.

  • RyanP

    I am pretty much a libertarian already. But the libertarian message will never sell to a large number of people. Taking the official position that it should be legal for people to discriminate on racial grounds will have you labelled a racist anyway. Rand Paul has made statements about this. When he runs for president the left will play that clip non stop. I am sure they will throw in a back drop hooded klansmen and Nazi soldiers marching for full effect.

    • Garrett Brown

      So you’re “pretty much” for white genocide?

  • Truth Teller

    I think capitalism should be applied to Latin America and the Middle East too. I think the smartest families should have everything and that the dumbest families should be left to wallow.

    People whose families come from long lines of money within poor countries want to keep capitalism going and are actually far more cut throat capitalist than the typical American. If your family was part of the rich in a poor country, would you want to share it with the underclasses? They see the other families as scum and the underclasses not deserving a dime of their money.

  • IstvanIN

    What he calls libertarianism is what I would call freedom of association. I believe libertarianism would just continue the problems we have. So many White-owned, not to mention non-White owned, businesses already hire both immigrants AND illegals over real Americans, that the invasions would continue unabated. We would be surrounded. What we really need is freedom of association AND the will to defend what is ours. We need to enforce immigration laws as well as stop all immigration with force. Libertarianism sounds nice in theory but not in reality.

    • AndrewInterrupted

      Yes, the H1-B Worker Visa program has also turned out to be a white genocide tool for the Marxists. H1-B was supposed to be for filling “vacancies”, but in point of fact the program is used to replace white people with foreign, non-white people. H1-B has turned out to be a wet dream for the grievance industry occupation government.

      Here is an example of a company doing it up the street from me.

      • Truth Teller

        I’ve heard of people having to train their replacements who will work cheaper from other nations. The solution is to volunteer for it but ensure you teach your replacement the wrong things. Then your replacement screws up and it’s revenge in a way.

        • AndrewInterrupted

          Here is an example of what you speak.


      • JohnEngelman

        Yes, the H1-B Worker Visa program has also turned out to be a white genocide tool for the Marxists.

        – AndrewInterrupted

        Actually the H1-B Worker Visa program is a tool for the capitalists, and one that jeapordeizes American citizens of all races.

        • AndrewInterrupted

          Except that all H-1B workers are non-white. And they have a terrible habit of not leaving.

          • JohnEngelman

            I don’t care what color they are. They would have the same economic effect if they were pinkish white from Scandinavia. They would have the same economic effect.

            I do not dislike them. Nevertheless, their presence in the United States is bad for American employees of all races.

          • AndrewInterrupted

            You seem to miss the strategic importance/significance of race replacement. You better convert to Judaism before whites become a minority. Then toss the Jewish card like the rest of your grievance industry buddies. I will tough it out on the Americans’ side.

          • JohnEngelman

            How many times to I need to point out that my concern extends to decent people of all races, and that it limited to them?

          • AndrewInterrupted

            All races lobby against the white race. My definition of ‘white race’ is the traditional one: most everything east of ancient Khazaria. I would allow my ethno-state to be 95% white and 5% “other” for the reasons you state. People who assist the natural nation-makers should be rewarded. If not for Hart-Celler, the U.S. would be nearly 90% white now.

          • AndrewInterrupted

  • Truth Teller

    The will of the voting blocks except for what gets them to vote for your party in the first place can be ignored. Things aren’t under direct democracy these days. People don’t vote on specific issues in most cases. Rather they vote for a politician and the politician makes changes regardless of what the voter base wants. The politicians know you will keep electing them and putting them into office.

  • Truth Teller

    Liberty as a process doesn’t matter to me as much as liberty as an ends. I would rather have a dictator protecting my liberties from the people around me than to have a mob of people ending my liberties.

  • Hunter Morrow

    Down With Money, Up With Volk.

    Libertarianism is a money-loving jew-scam.

  • Truth Teller

    It’s not only Anglos and Jews that share this sentiment though. Imagine yourself as an upper class Spanish person in Latin America who doesn’t want to be forced to give up your first world standard of living. The difference is, the money is shared amongst the family and instead of the individual competing against society, it’s the family competing against society.

  • Garrett Brown

    Libertarian1234, where are you son? Care to defend your anti white political party?

  • Bob Dole

    Libertarianism can only exist within Nationalism, the Nation must come first. The Nation is a genetically similar people (race), a common language and a common culture (usually religious) all within a clearly defined land with clearly defined borders. If the Nation is not maintained, aliens will enter and use the freedoms granted by libertarianism against the Nation itself. Libertarianism, guided by a constitutional republic, worked very well for about 200 years, then the definition of the Nation changed and everything went to hell.

    • Fighting_Northern_Spirit

      I agree, only a non-diverse nation could sustain it. Same story for socialism, as the Scandinavians are finding out.

      • Jonathan Vere

        “Stuff white people like.”

  • Anna Tree

    I am sorry, I am not sure I understand what you ask (maybe because English is not my mother tongue).

    I don’t want to decide for others what they can or not do: I want my kin/race to decide for themselves what they can or not do: i.e. self determination and freedom of association for example, those are rights and freedom for everybody except whites! The authority? the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Where did I write I want to limit the freedom of others to make their own decisions?

    I am an atheist by the way.

    Oh… I think you were responding to my other post earlier about my sentence to Jack Whorley… Do you think (obscene) sexual acts in public are good for individuals and society? Those are no freedoms or rights. If you are horny take a room, me and my children don’t need to see you.

    I presume you felt I was targeting homosexuals, well it is a fact that if a hetero couple is semi-naked and doing sexual acts, they will get arrested, while a homosexual is excused as he is just showing pride!! Double standard and special rights. I am also against both.

    • Garrett Brown

      What is your mother tongue?

      • Anna Tree

        Am I that bad in English LOL?

        • No. Your English is great.

        • Garrett Brown

          You’re fantastic. Which is why I asked. I certainly couldn’t tell.

  • Three of my many axioms are:

    * Most people get the government they deserve most of the time

    * Black people who rule over other black people will salami slice their way back to almost if not the full Jim Crow or segregationist system under a different name.

    * The only reason some black people ever had a problem with Jim Crow or segregation was NOT because of what was being done, but because white people were the ones doing it. “Integration” as therefore nothing more than a coup where mulattos overthrew whites and installed themselves as the rulers of the blue gums.

  • This site is a great reason to hate being a white person. Embarrassing knuckle draggers, wrapping a priori racism into political philosophy. Get outta here.

    • John

      Speak for yourself brother. I kind of doubt that you’re white anyway. If you are, then you’ve either been living in a cave, get all your news from MSM or spend most of your time associating with liberals and other, similar losers. Steer your browser over to the Thug Report, New Nation News and the Semitic Controversies blog. Educate yourself, then come back and contribute.

  • Decentralization is the key to stopping mass immigration and saving the white race.

    Structure, governmental structure is the key to how governments operate.

    Haven’t any of you ever wondered why the public debate in america never goes into the differences in the governmental structures of america vs all the other white nations?

    EVERY OTHER white nation has a parliamentarian governmental structure. The USA has a presidential/separation of powers/federalist structure. Every single other white nation has a parliamentarian governmental structure. OK, France has a president. But in just about every other aspect, France is parliamentarian.

    And the USA is the MOST diverse of all the white nations. Check it out. Get the data. I did.

    And the USA has affirmative action. No other white nation does.

    Here is what I am trying to tell you: parliamentarian means decentralized. That means nations with parliamentarian structures put the real power of the government in the hands of politicians elected from small districts.

    Smaller means less diverse, in general. Smaller districts means fewer factions. Fewer factions means the populace has a more well-defined and strongly expressed common, shared interest. When the populace of a district is more homogeneous, they are more united and can more easily hold their politicians accountable.
    That is why the other white nations are able to fight back against the elite and their multiculturalism and mass immigration.

    Parliamentarianism is a form of decentralization.

    Decentralization is how we can fight back against the elite. The elite want multiculturalism and mass immigration..

    Multiculturalism enables mass immigration. Mass immigration, combined with multiculti/affirmative action and race spoils allows the elite to grow the supply of workers and earners and consumers. More workers and consumers in the white nations means higher GDP and growth, which means higher profits for the corporations that the plutocrats own and that control our govts.

    The key here is to give the white majority more control. You do that by decentralization, which increases democracy.

    You do that by sending more power to the states.

    Forget the GOP as your savior. If you want to vote for a party, vote for the Dems. By letting the Dems and their anti-white policies push you away from the Dems, you give control to the elites and their foot soldiers, the nonwhites.

    Focus on a united white front and power to the states.

  • dewdly

    Vice is destructive to the family and there is no possibilty of revivifying the white race without strong, stable, two-parent families.As innocent and appealing as “sex between consenting adults” sounds you should ask yourself why societies have rules about sexual behavior? European society has used taboo, religious proscription, and/or civil law to regulate sexual behavior because of its importance to our existence and survival – to the stability of the family unit, and to healthy childrearing. All of the sexual behaviors that are disengaged from reproduction and from the married man and woman are simply expressions of isolated sexual appetite, and self-gratification. Because such behaviors have lost their purpose, but retain their compelling and persistent nature, they are a danger to the individual, to children, to the family, and to the race.It has only taken fifty years of pushing contraception and forty years of legal abortion to reduce the fertility rates of whites to below replacement levels everywhere in the world. Making young, fertile women “safe” for consensual sex has meant deformation of the female, replacement of marriage with the serial, sexual relationship, delay of childbearing throughout their most fertile years, divorce, and childlessness.Fear of being identified as a social conservative is one of the things that is killing us.

    • Blindly following dogmas and placing superstitious cultism above flesh and blood is what has been killing us. Your notion of “sex between consenting adults” being detrimental to White society completely ignores the fact that the common theme among practically all White nations experiencing decline(socially, economically, demographically, etc.) is the rise in the non-White population, and removal of that White population’s ability to keep their society rooted in a race-based structure. White nations are not encouraged to be nationalistic and do what’s best for their nation and people anymore. They are told that they should be part of some one-world global experience, where they should be more concerned about some non-White thousands of miles away than they are their own people.

      If sex scares you, or the thought of grown men and women having sex and choosing to do something that isn’t approved by the demagogues of sexless conservatism, then I suggest you just don’t take part in it. Regulate sexual behavior? Really? Monkish adherence to Social Conservatism actually laid the path to the sexual revolution. Congratulations, and good luck on recreating that whole mess all over again.

      I’ll be blunt and tell you the truth: Part of the reason that there are unstable families is that many White men nowadays are effeminate sissies, wiggers, and “social conservatives” who are weak and who just aren’t very desirable from a female perspective. Another part is that a lot of the people who most women wouldn’t choose to have sex with are the ones postulating and promoting the idea of regulating sex. A healthy view of sex doesn’t always have to mean we start passing out chastity belts and shaming men and women to a point where they have to secretly seek out the not-so-socially-conservatives if their views aren’t toeing the line with your type of sanctimonious conditioning.

      • dewdly

        You miss the point. A racial revival doesn’t depend on having sex; it depends on having babies and then raising them within stable, nuclear families. Social conservatism for white people means conserving our ancient, evolutionary social forms and mores. Two thousand years ago, a thousand years before Christianity was imposed on the North, the Roman historian, Tacitus, in his observations of the Germanic tribes wrote:“No one in Germania laughs at vice, nor do they call it the fashion to corrupt and to be corrupted. Still better is the condition of those states in which only maidens are given in marriage, and where the hopes and expectations of a bride are then finally terminated. They receive the husband, as having one body and one life, that they may have no thoughts beyond, no further-reaching desires, that they may love not so much the husband as the married state. To limit the number of children or to destroy any of their subsequent offspring is accounted infamous, and good habits are here more effectual than good laws elsewhere.”

        • You miss the point. A racial revival doesn’t depend on having sex; it depends on having babies and then raising them within stable, nuclear families.

          That’s ridiculous. There are stable families and couples who have White babies, and a lot of times that couples’ ideology is the antithesis of a racial revival. Is an unmarried racially aware White couple who have babies somehow less relevant to a racial revival than a married White couple who have babies, but who support a multicultural America?

          Trying to regulate sexual behavior and basic primal instincts is just not something I would trust you or anyone else with. Most people just don’t seem to have a good understanding of human nature and society. People are having less kids for many reasons. A couple with one or two kids might have decided to have more if they believed they could have afforded it. That couple that had kids and then divorced might have stayed together if the wife wasn’t forced to work or the husband didn’t have to work a second or third job—putting a strain on their marriage—just to make ends meet. Financial instability and economic factors are one of the main reasons for failed marriages. Why not try and fix the underlying problems instead of trying to revive some tried-and-failed agenda where John or Jane Doe have their private lives micromanaged and regulated by a bunch of puritanical zealots?

          • dewdly

            Being “racially aware” must include the cultural forms that evolved along with the physical and mental characteristics of a people. The nuclear family is the product of the ancient peoples of Northern Europe; it is an organic system of reproduction and childrearing that requires the presence and commitment of both mother and father in provisioning, nurturing, protecting, and educating their young. The men and women of those Northern tribes could hardly be called “puritanical zealots” – you are about a two thousand years off, on that one – but like every human culture their rules about sex reflected what worked best to ensure survival, and to foster successful reproduction and childrearing. Their “basic primal instincts” were exactly like ours and they naturally made rules about sexual behavior that protected individuals from sexual exploitation, married couples from infidelity, children from illegitimacy and the loss of a parent, and protected the race from misegenation.Increasingly radical sexual libertinism in Western society is contemporaneous with the devaluing of marriage, the destruction of the family, the sexualization of children, increased fatherlessness, the thwarting of reproduction, the misuse and corruption of women, abortion, venereal disease, and miscegenation.No matter how awful times have been in the past, our people did not stop having children, divorce and abandon their children, nor did they kill them. We have never been threatened with extinction. We are now because we have introduced artifice into an organic, evolutionary system.

          • You’ve got the whole world figured out and everyone’s life mapped out for them. Shouldn’t be too hard for you to get a big following. Let me know how that works out for you.

          • dewdly

            Our common concern should be what happens to the white race.

  • Alec Smart

    Most libertarian leaders talk open borders, mass immigration, and go very very far out of their way to avoid any charges of being ‘racist’.

    So I can’t say I find voting libertarian attractive.

  • That good-looking Knoxville couple was not “killed”; they were murdered. There is a difference. When I planted an anti-tank mine in eastern Slavonia with an unexploded aircraft bomb beneath it, the parts of the next vehicle would be thrown far and wide, and everyone in it killed.

    I always accepted the surrender of enlisted men.

  • Epiminondas

    It states at the end of the article that author Jack Whorley is a former liberal. “Former liberals” are like “former prostitutes”. You may be willing to sit down and talk to them, but you don’t want to invite them to your birthday party.

    • jayvbellis

      “libertarian” sounds a lot like “Liberal”.

      “Liberals let Blacks get away with rape, murder all kinds of terrible things…


      Ain’t a dime of difference -avoid both like the Black Plague.

    • I highly doubt prostitutes(former or current) would be interested in your birthday party.

      • Epiminondas

        You miss the point. Whether interested or not, they aren’t the sort I would put on my invitation list. The rate of recidivism is too high for both.

        • No, I actually didn’t miss the point. It was a little obvious what you were saying. You are not the sort that they would put you on their invitation list either. As a liberal(not Leftist), I wouldn’t come to your birthday party if invited. Knowing some former “Leftists” who are now more liberal and even moderate conservative, I can say that they aren’t the types that would accept your invitation either. Do you now understand my point?

          • Epiminondas

            Sure. But you could have said “I’m an arrogant, insufferably bigoted Jew” so much more economically.

          • Well, that would be rather dishonest on my part, because I’m neither Jewish nor have I ever been described as insufferable or arrogant to those who have met me.

  • Pelagian

    Most realists embrace libertarianism only because the alternative is too hard to fathom.

  • jayvbellis

    Maybe we can get a very small % of these race denying Libertarian cult people to go pro White, or sort of, about the same percentage as hard core anarchists, there are “National Anarchists”, similar % of pro White homosexual extremists.

    For the rest of us sane, healthy race realists – avoid this Libertarian cult like the Black Death Plague.

    Don’t feed the Libertarians, don’t give them any encouragement. Like Vampires once you let them cross your threshold…

    They will never leave.

    Reason, common sense , 2,000 years of brutal racial realities have little or no effect on White people possessed by this race denying, hyper individualist Libertarian cult.

    United we stand, divided, individualist alone we fall.

    If we fall, we suffer the same fates as Whites in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.

  • JohnEngelman

    Libertarianism only benefits those who have reason to be confident in their ability to earn a good living. In an increasingly competitive and generally stagnant economy, the number of those people is declining.

    If you get job offers over the telephone you may benefit from libertarianism. By job offers I do not mean requests to be one of several people going in for an interview. I mean telephone calls from people who already know about your reputation and who offer to pay you more than you are currently earning without going in for an interview.

    Libertarianism does not benefit government employees unless they can easily get better jobs in the private sector. It does not benefit those who send their children to state universities.

    Libertarianism benefits those who own companies that are profitable with no help from the government, and those with diversified investment portfolios who understand the stock market.

    In general libertarianism sees the concept of freedom through the eyes of employers and investors. These are the same people who benefit from a high degree of immigration.

    Anyone who says that libertarianism is consistent with restrictions on immigration is dishonest or delusional.

  • JohnEngelman

    I am pessimistic about human nature and human potential. I think there is often wisdom in tradition. I am skeptical of the value of rapid social change. For those reasons I am socially conservative.

  • JohnEngelman

    I should therefore suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France, until I was informed how it had been combined with government; with public force; with the discipline and obedience of armies; with the collection of an effective and well-distributed revenue; with the solidity for property; with peace in order; with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things to; and, without them, liberty is not a benefit while it lasts, and is not likely to continue long. The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations, which may soon be turned into complaints…

    “But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.”

    – Edmund Burke from “Reflections on the Revolution in France”