Wednesday, December 12, 2012

An argument against libertarianism

From "Trainspotter," a commenter at Occidental Dissent:
As I’ve previously mentioned on Occidental Dissent, I come from a libertarian background myself. I was very active in libertarianism during my college days. Very active.

Now, looking back on it all, I realize that I was in essence diverted from the real issues confronting our people into the false radicalism of libertarianism. Libertarianism is nothing more than a harmless safety valve, of no real threat to the system at all. These people (myself included, at one time) really thought that we were “against the system.” But, in truth, we didn’t challenge any of the most fundamental premises upon which the system is based, upon which the system draws its strength and power. In a sense, the libertarian movement is just a false flag operation.

Libertarianism has no beef with most of the fundamental forces that are destroying us. Miscegenation? That’s just great. Anti-miscegenation laws? Biggest horror since the Holocaust. MTV? Private, so fine and dandy. An anti-white media and academia, where the bastards work as a TEAM? Crickets chirping. Jewish perfidy? You’re a Nazithatwantstokillsixmillionjews! Massive Third World immigration? That’s great! Preservation of whites as a people? Kook! Protection of the white working class? No way, Jose.

Replacing entire peoples is perfectly justified if, at a particular moment in time, it makes economic sense to import mud serfs. The libertarian would have no problem wiping out a thousand year old culture if it meant greater profits for a few months. I am not engaging in hyperbole here.

I’ve known lots of these people, and that’s how they think. I also had a brief, but interesting, conversation with Ron Paul years ago. I’ll relate it at some point, and it will further demonstrate that these people simply can’t be trusted on immigration issues or racial preservation. And keep in mind, Paul is on the “right” of the libertarian spectrum. Can’t even depend on that segment, the segment of libertarianism far more favorable to us than most.

These people are utterly useless, and many of their positions are borderline insane. Of course, some of them would quibble with the above, perhaps pointing out “Well, at least you’d have freedom of association!”

To which I say, no you won’t! Can anyone seriously believe that a Third World Amerikwa is going to have freedom of association? And that’s one of the many contradictions of libertarianism: with no sense of the irony involved, they can’t even promote policies that would make libertarianism more likely. They are perfectly content to allow hordes of Third Worlders to come in, knowing full well that the muds are not libertarians, and are in fact far less libertarian than the white people they are replacing/displacing!

For example, Southern California used to be a hotbed of libertarianism. No more! The white libertarians who used to live there have been largely displaced by non-whites. And these non-whites are overwhelmingly in favor of fully funded taxpayer programs.

In other words, libertarianism isn’t even a sound enough organizing principle to preserve itself. If a purist libertarian state ever came into being (highly unlikely) it wouldn’t last a fortnight. The morons would allow unlimited immigration of non-white, non-libertarian immigrants. In their wacked out view, they would have no right to stop them. Besides, the non-whites would be great for the economy and there would be all sorts of “cultural enrichment” (libertarians don’t seem to consider their white daughters being raped to be a particularly pressing problem. Never once heard a libertarian address that point. Nope, diversity is our strength!

“But at least there wouldn’t be government welfare!” the libertarian proudly retorts. Yeah, Sparky, that’s great. We can then go to 95 percent non-white in three months instead of two. Great accomplishment, that. You guys are real fighters for liberty!

The brain dead libertarian founders would soon be submerged in a brown sea, and the new denizens would quickly reinstitute massive government programs.

Again, some libertarians would quibble with what I’ve written, but what I’ve described above is in fact the heart and soul of libertarianism.

And, EVEN IF freedom of association were reinstituted in a Third World Amerikwa (not gonna happen), it would still suck. Great, I get to have “freedom of association” as a tiny, marginalized minority in Brazil North. I won’t have a nation or a culture, my people will have no future, but I’ll be able to go to a whites only Ruritan Club once in awhile, where a few of the vanishingly small number of remaining whites occasionally hang out. That is, before they die out entirely.

That’s worth figthing for? You gotta be kidding me.
TabuLa Raza responds with this:
The Libertarian Case for Free Trade And Restricted Immigration
By Hans-Herman Hoppe
May 2001

“It is frequently maintained that “free trade” belongs to “free immigration” as “protectionism” does to “restricted immigration.” That is, the claim is made that while it is not impossible that someone might combine protectionism with free immigration, or free trade with restricted immigration, these positions are intellectually inconsistent, and thus erroneous. Hence, insofar as people seek to avoid errors, they should be the exception rather than the rule. The facts, to the extent that they have a bearing on the issue, appear to be consistent with this claim. As the 1996 Republican presidential primaries indicated, for instance, most professed free traders are advocates of relatively (even if not totally) free and non-discriminatory immigration policies, while most protectionists are proponents of highly restrictive and selective immigration policies.

Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, I will argue that this thesis and its implicit claim are fundamentally mistaken. In particular, I will demonstrate that free trade and restricted immigration are not only perfectly consistent, but even mutually reinforcing policies. That is, it is not the advocates of free trade and restricted immigration who are wrong, but rather the proponents of free trade and free immigration. In thus taking the “intellectual guilt” out of the free-trade-and-restricted-immigration position and putting it where it actually belongs, I hope to promote a change in the present state of public opinion and facilitate substantial political realignment.”

No comments:

Post a Comment