Vanguard News Network

I like Alex Linder’s new term for them: “Littletarians”

Why dont the filthy kikes take their Libertarianism BS to I$rael.

In I$rael the Jews think and act in a collective manner yet to the Americans they preach unrestrained capitalism and ‘libertarianism’.

I agree, Libertarianism is similar to the John Birch Society, in that they both divert people from the real hidden knowledge, which is, that jews are pulling the strings in politics and culture.

So we have neotards, retrotards, turdworldiemudtards, libertards, patriotards – help me somebody me’s havin’ another I.D crisis!

Oh what-the-fuck… me’ll just settle for bein’ a ornary-common-law-garden snake-ecto-peri-omni-dronaculating-neo-nazi-tard-hi-hi!

(the albino variety, of course – and well-fanged heh-heh…)

It took me many years to “see through” the fallacy of libertarianism, so I congratulate you on getting there so quickly. But some distinctions are still called for.

Ron Paul is criticized as being a libertarian. However, remember that a President that actually followed the Constitution would “look” libertarian to a large extent. He would not impose it on the States, however, where the real action would take place. Indeed, just because of that non-imposition is why he would look libertarian.

Tell Me Again, Why Are You a Libertarian?

by Wilton D. Alston (Negro)

“Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper name.”
~ Ayn Rand, Anthem

“Belief is beautiful armor.
It makes for the heaviest sword.
Like punching underwater, you never can hit who you’re trying for.”
~ “Belief,” John Mayer, Continuum

It should come as no surprise to anyone reading this article to find out that I’m a member of a number of on-line discussion groups. (This is tantamount to a geek admitting that he watches Star Trek!) I’m a member of one listserve devoted to my fraternity, several devoted to the college I attended, and a couple devoted to the issues of libertarianism, including what it does and/or does not entail. (Geek Definition Alert: a listserve is a group of e-mail addresses that all receive any message sent by any member as long as it is addressed to the list. In essence is it a mailing list, managed automatically and available via a specific name that is itself an e-mail address.)

One issue that is seminal to my belief in libertarianism generally – and market anarchism particularly – is that of racism and how it is manifest in a world where performance and freedom truly hold sway. What I mean here is not that people in a truly free society suddenly forget their preferences or their biases and we all hold hands and sing Kumbaya all day while eating mangos and chitterlings. What I mean is that no one receives any help or hindrance from some over-arching body simply because they inhabit skin of one shade or another. One can clearly see my thoughts on this matter from my very first essay on LRC.

The discussions we have on my favorite libertarian listserve about this issue are fascinating, generally. They remind me of the breadth of thought among libertarians. They also remind me of the limits to perspective that can march under the flag of ideology masquerading as logic. How market anarchism will effect the interactions of different races is a particularly fertile area of dispute. As I listen to some of my comrades debating, certain aspects of what I perceive them to mean stick in my craw just a little bit. One such area is the recurring theme of “forced integration” that those who wish to justify closed borders always seem to posit. If any single issue is a harbinger for how far apart even those within the general category of libertarianism can be on an issue, immigration is it!

Some seem fond of stating, as a fact, that people generally prefer to associate with those of the same race, and that this preference is natural. Certainly I do not wish to debate this point. It strikes me as a tautology searching for an application. Basically, who cares? What does it prove? What should we do differently as libertarians with this data? Is the Non-Aggression Principle modified as a result? Hardly. Do we change our approach to property rights in the wake of this shocking discovery? Nope. So again I’d ask, who gives a large rat dropping if people like to be with the groups of people they like to be with? Great! Good for them. Freedom supports this wholeheartedly.

I gather from many of our discussions that there are a number of authors who tend to rely on pointing out these things. All too often, these people are celebrated as being “anti-PC” and as such, heroes of a sort. I hear their names and their articles quoted more often than I’d like. Occasionally these people – whom I frankly have no interest in knowing more about – speak eloquently (and apparently persuasively) about the ostensibly high likelihood of problems or unrest should the races mix, whatever “mixing” entails. That this cannot be classified as the same type of race baiting made famous by such forward thinkers as Hitler probably should shock me, but after a while on these lists – and active attendance at more than one Internet intellectual rodeo – fortunately or unfortunately, it does not. (No doubt these authors mention dogs and cats sleeping together and a flood or two as well in their screed, but that’s probably unfair to racists everywhere, so I apologize for saying it.)

Here’s the thing about this forced integration objection that amazes me. It only makes sense based upon the current U.S. racial demographic. (We’re working on that though. Pass the salsa homes!) A white person in the U.S. can possibly avoid almost all contact with another race, if he really tries hard. A black person who ascribes to such a view would rapidly find it impractical. I simply cannot avoid routine, dare I say, intimate contact with other races.

I am, as best I can tell, the only black person who posts to that particular libertarian list frequently. I am one of a few black people who write for LRC regularly, again, as far as I can tell. I am relatively certain that if I attended the Austrian Scholars Conference with plans of spending a lot of time with only “my people” I’d be in for a disappointment. To all these points, I have but one sentiment. So what?

My perfect scenario would be to live in a world where no one gives a flying hockey puck about the race of another. I don’t feel this way because I’m more evolved or less interested, or because I haven’t had bad experiences with other races in the past. (Heck, I’ve had a few bad experiences with my own race too.) I don’t place a lot of emphasis on race because that is simply not a viable option. Such an approach would be largely counterproductive for any American black person. For an American black man who subscribes to the logic of libertarianism it would be ridiculous!

However, some libertarians suggest, as best I can determine – supported by “thinkers” of some ilk – that this overt reliance upon race makes sense as a personal modus operandi. Some even suggest that initially evaluating people based upon race is “efficient.” Why would collectivist logic make sense in this case, yet not in the many other cases we libertarians debate? Why not use majority rule if the collective is a viable logical unit? Because people are individuals and treating them as such is the only valid moral option.

Let’s try a thought experiment. If we – given whatever race each of us is – were in a locale with a different racial demographic, say, Africa, would this point of view – evaluate by race first – be reasonable? What about if we lived in Japan? I think we would see such an approach for the folly that it is. One of the lessons I have found the most powerful in my quest for truth via libertarianism is that of universal morality.

By extension, the argument from morality has been foundational in much of my thinking. Applying that principle to this issue of race relations leads me to one conclusion: Any technique for interacting with people that I would use here in the States, that I would not use if I were in Africa or Japan, is flawed. The people are of the same species, with the same inalienable rights, sharing the same frailties. (Yes, of course, local customs may differ from place-to-place. I’m not talking about when one takes off his shoes. I’m talking about whether or not one respects and values the person with whom he is about to interact, ceteris paribus.) How I interact with an individual cannot be different based upon something inconsequential to that relationship such as geography. My approach to people should work just as well in Nebraska as in Harlem as in Zimbabwe as in Israel as in Saudi Arabia. If it does not, then my approach – and all mental gymnastics I’ve employed to justify it – is flawed in a very basic way.

Conclusion

There have been other essays that speak powerfully about the larger issue we discuss here. The basic point I attempt to make is: An overly strong belief in or reliance upon any group – be it a group created by biology or a group created by ideology – is absolutely bound to lead to improper conclusions and actions, particularly if one forgets to employ evidence, logic, and reason. The ideas are the thing, not the groups. Individuals exist in reality; groups exist only in the abstract.

If we – the people ostensibly committed to freedom and liberty for all – want to evaluate based upon groups, then let’s stop spouting off about all this individual freedom stuff – and the sooner the better.

April 19, 2007

Wilt Alston [send him mail] lives in Rochester, NY, with his wife and three children. When he’s not training for a marathon or furthering his part-time study of libertarian philosophy, he works as a principal research scientist in transportation safety, focusing primarily on the safety of subway and freight train control systems.

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

Here’s another, from Strike the Root:

The saddest thing is that we know exactly how to bring peace to the Middle East –and everywhere else for that matter! Solving the problem of collective violence might have been a real head-scratcher in the Middle Ages, but it takes a truly modern education to pretend ignorance now!

It’s embarrassingly simple, of course, but you’ll wear out the batteries on your TV remote scanning for a mention of it anywhere.

What is the solution to the problem of collective violence? Why, just this:

Stop believing in groups!

“Groups” don’t exist, any more than a “forest” exists independently of the trees it describes. A “Jew” doesn’t exist. An “Arab” doesn’t exist; neither does “ Israel ” or “Muslim.” There are people and land and trees and sky. There are no “groups.”

http://www.strike-the-root.com/62/molyneux/molyneux1.html

“There are no ‘groups’…a ‘jew’ doesn’t exist…; neither does ‘Israel’…’ says the jew, while his brother taxes and jails you for the sake of the “chosen people,” which includes his brother…

It’s really about time to act. Enough talk. “It” won’t come unless somebody brings it.

I’m sorry, could someone summarize Joo Jewels’ post? I keep falling asleep somewhere in the second or third paragraph.

Race & Groups: The Libertarian Blind Spot
By John “Birdman” Bryant

John Donne could never have been a libertarian because he believed that “No man is an island”, while libertarians seem to prefer a sort of reverse philosophy which holds that every man is an island. In particular, libertarians are so busy celebrating “the individual” that they give little or no attention to a phenomenon which is at least as important as individuals on the political landscape, namely, groups. It is true, of course, that groups can be regarded as collections of individuals, but it would be foolish to try to discuss politics purely on the basis of the behavior of individuals and without reference to groups, just as it would be foolish to try to describe the operation of a computer purely on the basis of the behavior of individual molecules and without reference to such important molecular groups as chips, wires, cards and hard disks.

In a way, libertarianism’s greatest success is in dealing with a very important group — government — by pointing out that social happiness is generally proportional to the extent to which the government keeps its nose out of the business of the citizens. But libertarians virtually ignore the political impact of all other groups, and in particular have failed to heed Lord Acton’s injunction that “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. And altho I am certainly no fan of the Left, it is clear that the Left has a far better grip on reality than the libertarians with respect to Acton’s observation, since the Left long ago recognized the danger which corporations pose to the body politic.

So what then are the groups on the political landscape which libertarians ignore? They include groups with a financial interest in politics (corporations, labor unions), groups with a racial, ethnic, sexual or similar interest (blacks, Jews, homosexuals) and those with other specialized interests (gun control, gun rights, anti-censorship, anti-porn, medical freedom, etc). Such groups are not limited to lobbying organizations, but include any type of organization that has political clout.

Actually, it is not quite right to say that libertarians ignore these groups, since libertarians probably do direct mail solicitations to many of them. But what libertarians fail to appreciate is that it makes far more sense to view the political game as having these groups as the players, rather than the vaunted “individual” with which libertarians are so enamored. The problem, however, is not just that libertarians organize their political perceptions poorly. Rather it is that their focus on the individual keeps them from seeing how the political process works, and thus prevents them from being an effective part of it, and in addition has caused them to embrace propositions which directly contradict basic libertarian principles.

To explain, we begin by noting that the essence of the American political process — at least as it involves legislative activity — is not what the Founders conceived it to be (and what most libertarians seem to think it is), namely, the reflective consideration of what constitutes the greatest good for the greatest number. Instead, the political process may be summarized in one simple phrase: paying off the (few very wealthy) individuals who supply substantial money and the constituencies who supply both substantial money and substantial votes. And who are the constituencies? Very simply, they are the groups which libertarians ignore, and which constitute the major players in the political process. And what is more, such groups are the driving forces behind the types of legislation that libertarians hate: Welfare is driven by the black block vote; the largest recipient of foreign aid is Israel, driven by the notoriously-powerful Israeli lobby; laws hindering business are driven by labor unions; dumbed-down federalized education is driven by teachers’ unions; restrictions on alternative medicine are driven by medical organizations and drug manufacturers; affirmative action is driven by large companies seeking to hurt their smaller competition for whom such programs are a greater proportional burden; drug laws are driven by anti-freedom groups and the enforcement bureaucracies, and so on.

But even more important than the libertarian blind spot on groups is the fact mentioned above that ignoring groups has caused libertarians to violate fundamental libertarian principles. To explain, we note that libertarians are enthusiastic advocates of private property, and apparently have no objection to multiple-owner property such as condominiums or stockholder-owned corporations. So logically it would seem they would agree with the notion that countries are owned by their citizens, and may rightfully be defended by force from invaders and other trespassers. And yet we hear no end of libertarians who sing the praises of “open borders” and unlimited immigration.

Which, to put it kindly, is illogical. And also insane.

The insanity springs from what in philosophy is known as reductionism, ie, the belief that the whole is just the simple sum of its parts. The reductionist, then, holds that a country is just a bunch of disconnected individuals, hopefully libertarians.

But this is foolish. A country is not a disconnected bunch of individuals, no matter how much libertarians think they are disconnected from everything except the Internet. It is a group of people who share a language and culture, with the result that their values are similar, and their desire to live together in the same geographic location is considerable. In Sir Walter Scott’s words:

Breathes there the man with soul so dead
Who never to himself hath said
“This is my own, my native land”?
Whose heart hath ne’er within him burned
As homeward his footsteps he hath turned
From wandering on a foreign strand?
If such there be, go mark him well:
For him no minstrel raptures swell;
High tho his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;
Despite those titles, power and pelf,
The wretch concentered all in self;
Living, shall forfeit fair renown
And doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonored and unsung.

Love of country, like love of one’s mate or one’s family, is often not well-perceived until separation. But it is real and palpable, and it has driven men since the dawn of time, as it drives them today. So for that overeducated clique of highbrow deep-thinkers known as libertarians to simply toss this emotion into the intellectual wastebasket as if it were somehow irrelevant to social order is fatuity raised to the nth degree.

Love of country, like love of family, depends on one element more than any other: likeness. One’s countrymen are like oneself in language and culture, just as one’s family is like oneself in genetic relationship. In fact, this notion is so basic as to be rooted in our very language, and not just once, but twice: We like those whom we are like, and we are kind to those of our own kind.

And one of those elements of likeness is race. It is not the only likeness — language and culture are also likenesses — and it may not be crucial in all cases to regarding someone as one’s countryman, but it is clearly important.

So what, then, is going to happen to a country which allows open borders (particularly coupled with the temptation of such freebies as welfare and Social Security), whose president celebrates the end of history for the white majority, and where the cult of multiculturalism is rammed down employers’ throats and slipped quietly into the minds of youngsters by the New World Orderlies of the Education Establishment? What will happen is very simple: The country, along with its culture and language, and probably its race, is going to dissolve.

And that, as it turns out, does not bode well for libertarians. This is because America, more than any other place on earth, has nourished the idea of individual liberty and brought it to fruition. The culture of America is the culture of liberty. But liberty-loving libertarians seem indifferent to throwing all that away. They are so enamored with corporate profits and so indifferent to the culture which has emerged from the coordinated efforts of the white European race that they are quite happy to flush the American nation down the toilet by allowing swarms of Turd- worlders to intermingle with, and eventually replace, the core American population. And even worse, sending the American nation down the tubes may in the long run turn out not to be as profitable as believed by the calculating Economic Man which libertarians have reduced human beings to; for shipping jobs overseas when American workers are too “inefficient” means the loss of an industrial base and the skills of workers who are employed in that industrial base, a situation which leaves the nation vulnerable in times of war when “free trade” is only a memory. Yes, it is perfectly true that this may result in higher prices for labor, and thus for consumer goods, but pricey goods are a small price to pay for priceless culture. Or to put the matter another way, Do libertarians really want to sell their freedom for a filthy mess of Turd-world free-trade pottage?

Part of the open-borders/free-trade problem is that libertarians recognize that, without the temptation of government handouts, immigrants who come here would be those who want to work, and would therefore — at least from an economic standpoint — be good for the country. But this fact still doesn’t change the culture argument against open borders, or the reality of immigration as it is now going on. Nor does it change the fact that, if the lower-status jobs which immigrants usually take cannot be filled, this will generate pressure for mechanization and automation which will have a long-term beneficial economic effect.

We spoke earlier about the libertarian blind spot about race, and it is only fair to mention that this blind spot is partly the result of the desire on the part of libertarians to be regarded as “tolerant”. And while we may acknowledge this as a nobly-intentioned sentiment, the ugly fact is that we are all racists. We are racists because evolution has made it instinctive for every living thing to love its own kind — and what is racism but the love of one’s own kind? How fatuous it is to think that we are morally obligated to toss out the product of a billion years of evolution in order to keep from being guilty of a sin which was regarded as a virtue till only yesterday!

The reason evolution has made racism instinctive is that group membership helps the individual to survive. Groups give the individual members protection against other rival groups — and if you don’t believe it, just arrange for a sojurn in one of our multicultural prisons. So for libertarians to ignore man’s racial nature — to say nothing of the fact that the notion of individual liberty is a product of white European culture — is both unscientific and — if I may say so — suicidal.

In conclusion, if libertarians are realistic enuf to admit — and indeed to celebrate — man’s selfish nature, isn’t it time that they admitted and celebrated his racial nature as well? Or maybe all they need to do is realize that an interest in their race is really a selfish interest.

* * Back to the Home Page of John “Birdman” Bryant, the World’s Most Controversial Author * *

We Jews have always been the prime promoters of individual liberty…

Tell that to Ernst Zundel you dirty little heeb.

PK Says: “I talk about everything – including race and the Jews – in my book. And I’m a Jew. I’m not a religious Jew, but I’m a racial Jew. And in my book, I explain everything better than you will ever explain anything.”

“Ever,” huh? Which book do you refer to?

PK wrote:

So let me get this straight. Because there aren’t any Jews out there who say “hate me and kick me out of the country,” every Jewish “-ism” is a lie that is bad for everyone. You aren’t happy until the Jews advocate mass suicide.

in reply:
Well, let’s see.

Thus, they could never begin to organized and pose any sort of threat to – another ISM – Jewish SupremacISM, much less the JEW-controlled Democrat Party.

PK wrote:
I talk about everything – including race and the Jews – in my book. And I’m a Jew. I’m not a religious Jew, but I’m a racial Jew. And in my book, I explain everything better than you will ever explain anything.

in reply:
Good to see a JEW refer to his own race as a RACE.

An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

“The Founding Fathers were libertarians”

In the nineteenth century, libertarianism meant voluntary communism.
Many of today’s libertarians are explicitly anarchist (market anarchism)- wanting neither state nor government.

Didn’t someone else call for the “withering away of the state?”

in reply to PK:

you wrote:
Boldface type does not make your arguments stronger, New America. Excuse, but what exactly is the problem with the libertarian political philosophy? What does libertarianism have to do with libidos? The Founding Fathers were libertarians, and they didn’t have libido-control issues.

in reply:
Which group of “Founding Fathers” are you referring to?

Well, libertine practices lead to the same control systems used for animals; after all no one ever said farms were democracies…

PK wrote:
And again, you do not argue my comment that you people aren’t happy until all of the Jews advocate mass suicide. You don’t want them here, and you don’t want them in Israel. You are the one who is demonic because you want to destroy everyone of Jewish blood just for being of Jewish blood.

in reply:
Well, if you want to lead with the jaw…

By any means necessary…

you wrote:
I am not a Marxist and I am not a Freudian and I am not a religious Jew. I have my own philosophy that is best for everyone.

in reply:
If your “own philosophy (that) is best for everyone,” why don’t you define it more clearly, and particularly, why don’t you define the limits of your RACIAL Identity as a JEW, in the context of “Libertarianism?”

An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

in reply to Hooiser:

Hoosier wrote:
*snip* *end snip*

It looks like a combination of libertarianism, Scientology. and the Art Bell show.

in reply:
I’ve alway thought libertarianism and the Art Bell Show had a lot in common!

An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

Hello New America. Here’s the Libertarian solution; ignore reality.

The ideas are the thing, not the groups. Individuals exist in reality; groups exist only in the abstract.

“Groups” don’t exist, any more than a “forest” exists independently of the trees it describes. A “Jew” doesn’t exist. An “Arab” doesn’t exist; neither does “ Israel ” or “Muslim.” There are people and land and trees and sky. There are no “groups.”

That’s the Libertarian solution in a nutshell. Pretty nutty, eh?
Deny the existence of groups, or “stop believing” in them. Forests don’t exists, just an individual collection of trees. Hives don’t exist, just an individual collection of bees – all acting in their mutual self interest. Oops, except bees, acting in their individual self interest form something called a “hive” which is – a group of bees. How can a bee exist as it’s just a collection of individual molecules?

Arabs don’t exist, or Israel, or Germany, or a football team, or a flock of birds, or a family. According to the Libertarians, nothing exists, if you take what they say literally. This paragraph does not exist, it’s just a bunch of individual words, not a group of words put together in something called a “paragraph.” Actually, it’s both a bunch of individual words AND a group of words put together.

I must have gotten tired of trying to hallucinate reality away, and so became dismayed by the truck sized holes in the libertarian philosophy. A libertarian says “ideas are the thing, not the groups. Individuals exist in reality; groups exist only in the abstract.”

But he or she will not be able to say WHY that would be true, other than it’s part of their religion.

Lots of jewcy information on libertarian communism.
I’ve been radical since the sixties- that quote, “groups don’t exist”- takes the kyke. Abstraction without regard to evidence.

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/Embassy/8970/

http://www.google.com/search?q=libertarian+communism&hl=en&safe=off&start=0&sa=N

in reply to Marwinsing:

you wrote:
On the South Africa situation.

Let’s not get all knotted here okay – I KNOW what I’m talking about – been living here forty-seven years with these primates and they’re a cakewalk.

Our biggest worries are the white race-traitors. The niggers are a walkover (well for this nut-head anyway). Yeah sure, Night of the Long Knives, Uhuru, White Genocide, a-blah-blah-blah-blah a-sob-a-sob-a-sob (doll gimme me a Kleenex) please!

Pah!

I don’t give rat’s arse for this nonsense. It’s hogwash. Tripe. I’ve been attacked a good few times in my day by hordes of these Afro-vervet-monkeys, only to shake ‘em off-a me back (and sent a couple of them off-a to the BIG SLEEP too – remember Angola? – a kike called Kissinger?) – BUT – it’s the white traitors… the poor, pathetic liberal excuses for white trash, that sell you out over here. Ask me I know – the libby wiggers HATE me here *LOL*

We (scattered) neo-nazis here are groundworking – and doing a pretty damn fine job of it too if I may say so.

On the white genocide thing – yes it’s true whites are dying like flies here; yes it’s true these black bipedic excuses for humans are wreaking havoc here; and yes it’s true 20% of the white population have fleed like headless chicklets from a hyena-infested chicken-coop since ANC-regime mob-rule circa 1994 – BUT – these same sorry Jesus freak-brainwashed albino cowards would have done the same if a nigger sneazed in a Swiss park/boulevard anyway so…

…the moral of this story is…

…are YOU gonna run when YOU become a minority in your country? – white man? Because if you do – then I don’t want to know you!

Because then you’re a FAKE white man in my eyes.

True white men DON’T run (unless they ABSOLUTELY have no choice) they stay and FIGHT for what is THEIRS.

Like this nut-head.

in reply:
Have you seem http://southafricasucks.blogspot.com?

An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

I note that the demonic damn JEWS have ownership laws of all Israeli media that absolutely forbid non-Israeli ownership; an excellent idea for their race, and an excellent idea for our RACE.

Lamont wrote:
*snip* *end snip*
Once the alien ownership laws are passed any company found to be fronting for alien jews should suffer confiscation of all assets and the race traitors fronting for the jews should be executed.

in reply:
I LIKE that!

An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!