Libertarians support ethnic cleansing of whites

The libertarian position has always been to go with the left on everything except economic leftism.

As the left abandons economic leftism, and at the same time goes lefter and lefter, this leaves libertarians indistinguishable from leftists, and libertarians going lefter and lefter.

And as the left goes frothing at the mouth batshit insane, the libertarians froth with equal enthusiasm.

The highest point of absurdity so far is Reason magazine backing the official narrative on the McKinney pool takeover by black kids

Police responded to a fight that had broken out between a girl and a mother. A video of the encounter establishes that the fight did indeed take place, but it only involved a couple people—not the large swath of teenagers who were later detained by officers. When the officers arrived, they treated all the minority teenagers as suspects and ignored the white kids.

The problem was not that a fight had broken out. The problem was that a fight had broken out because a bunch of black teenagers had invaded someone else’s pool without permission.

So Reason magazine no longer supports your property rights if you are white.

Tags: , ,

51 Responses to “Libertarians support ethnic cleansing of whites”

  1. You are right that as we go into kulturalkampf mode, libertarians are becoming harder to distinguish from the Marxists. I think the fact that libertarianism has been hijacked by SJWs is the reason we have seen a significant growth in the alt-right over the past few years.

    • peppermint says:

      Libertarianism was a way to pretend to be Civil Rights Act compliant while advocating for the continuation and extension of institutional White supremacy. The Left has deconstructed the institutions so much that little is worth fighting for, making libertarianism pointless, and has called out the libertarians for precisely what they were, also making libertarianism pointless.

      Our parents had the responsibility to raise us as well as they could while mouthing politically correct slogans. Thus, they hid their power level as libertarians.

      Paleoconservatism only became illegal about a decade ago, which is why libertarianism collapses now. Meanwhile, Christian conservatism has always had a consent agreement with the Cathedral.

      I don’t know why I’m bothering to comment, because literally everyone knows this, including progressives.

  2. Mae'r llwynog brown cyflym says:

    Libertarians are not unitary. Murray Rothbard was pro-slavery. Take a look at some Jew-haters picking on him for that:

    http://www.destroyzionism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/rothbard-children.jpeg

    Reason magazine is pop-libertarianism. The Cato Institute is pop-libertarianism on the Washington beltway.

    Ron Paul is somewhere between pop-libertarianism and Murray Rothbard. So is the Mises Institute.

    In Stalinist Russia, Reason and Cato would be Stalinist. Murray Rothbard would be hiding in Siberia.

  3. Hidden Author says:

    What if it was whites trespassing at a black pool party? Your attitude and Reason’s attitude would flip-flop in that case. 😀

    • Erik says:

      What if it was greens trespassing at a blue pool party? Your attitude would be five-dimensional in that case, surely.

      • Dr. Faust says:

        What if peanut butter eggs dirt? Would something tricky corvette or does the frequent motivation constantly stalactite?

      • Erik says:

        Just to make the subtextual message clear: I’m implying that whites trespassing at a black pool party, particularly in the depicted manner, happens less often than a blue moon, and that your question is therefore an irrelevant red herring. It’s as though Germany invaded Belgium and you wanted to discuss “But what if it had been Belgium invading Germany?” and similar hypotheticals.

    • jim says:

      Whites would never trespass at a black pool party.

      For one thing, the pool would be unusable, full of dead animals, pond scum, old rusting shopping carts, etc.

      Blacks cannot have nice stuff, so they steal it from whites. Thus, for example, Detroit was a nice place, arguably one of the nicest. They ethnically cleansed the whites out of Detroit. Detroit fell apart, so they moved on to ethnically cleanse whites out of other nice places.

      A small proportion of the population has a major effect on the ability of whites to have nice stuff, because, like locusts, they are continually moving on to what they have not yet destroyed.

      If blacks stayed in the places that they had already seized and destroyed, they would not be such a big problem.

      • Mae'r llwynog brown cyflym says:

        >Whites would never trespass at a black pool party.
        They would be much less likely. But you’re not answering the question.

        Killing blacks for no good reason is bad, right? Granted, since blacks are lower value, it’s less bad than killing whites.

        • jim says:

          What question was that?

          • Mae'r llwynog brown cyflym says:

            >What if it was whites trespassing at a black pool party?

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            It’s a stupid question for reasons enumerated above, but I’ll take a stab at it anyway:
            The blacks would drive the whites away from the pool with verbal confrontation, intimidation, and insults, escalating to violence if that failed, which it wouldn’t, because the whites would flee. Don’t misunderstand: I’m not insulting blacks here; we whites would do well to imitate their strong sense of us-and-them and their distrust of the authorities.

      • LSM says:

        I cant believe free northerner linked to you. Not only are you uninformed about black people, you have no clue what Libertarians actually believe. I am stunned at your lack of knowledge on multiple fronts.

    • peppermint says:

      When do Whites ever trespass? Whites will literally cry when a landscaper tells them they can’t play frisbee on the grass.

  4. Samseau (@Sam_seau) says:

    Most followers of Libertarianism haven’t even read the foundational texts like Von Mises, Hayek, or Rothbard (by far the worst of the three). Look at how badly the Mises institute has turned into a shill operation:

    https://mises.org/blog/trump-stumps-25-tax-increase-gets-free-market-lesson-china

    They attack Donald for being against free trade with China, despite the fact that China has one of the most rigged markets in the world. These guys don’t have a fucking clue – not the guys who run the Mises institute, nor any of their blind followers. I lay down some hardtalk in the comment section, I felt bad at having to school them so badly.

    It’s funny – I know Von Mises and Hayek would not support their own institutions today, as someone who has read their work extensively. It’s amazing at how quickly things become corrupted by special interests or morons. Thank God the internet allows people to communicate so effectively, without this technology we would be well and truly doomed.

    • jay says:

      You should. Hard truths are needed.

    • jay says:

      Good to see you branching out from return of kings.

    • OLF says:

      No, it is you who are in fact ignoramus in need of schooling. Why would we care if China uses slave labor? Why object to the importation of the cheap stuff? It has much sense as refusing to take free stuff that fell from the sky, i.e. none. Economic protectionism makes no sense, it just subsidizes one part of the domestic population, at the expense of the other part. Instead of asking for makeshift work for the plebs, take it up with the USG to remove regulations so plebs can find meaningful employment. Honestly, americans are spoiled little brats, most spoiled and bratty people on the planet… but one can only hope for a civil war in USA.

      • Samseau (@Sam_seau) says:

        Refusing to take from slaves is better for the civic virtue of a country in the long run.

        Consider the American Civil War: The American South lost to the North because the North had citizens who produced most of their goods for themselves, while the Southerns had become complacent and lazy relying on Northern manufacturing and slave labor. As a result the common White Southron had no money to actually build up the land and make large families; only the plantation owners could manage to accumulate enough capital to fund cities for growth. The end result was the North outnumbered and outriched the South.

        The fact is Slavery is toxic for both the Master and the Slave; it creates co-dependency on each other that rests upon a contract of violence. It does not make either the Slave or the Master better off in the long run.

        I do not think Slavery is morally wrong because it is wrong to have Slaves, it is morally wrong because it is toxic for virtue of the citizens of the state. It makes the masters hedonistic and lazy and the slaves dumb and helpless.

        • peppermint says:

          Slaves are already dumb and helpless. Is enslavement of horses also bad? Should we use peasants for everything, like China?

          Or was the South’s problem simply that the people who stole industrial secrets from England then settled in the North?

          Or was it the fact the the South had a landed gentry, while the North had always been ruled by its middle class?

          One way or another, the North industrialized first, followed immediately by much more extreme decadence than seen in the South, including John Brown signaling meltdowns (most Northerners would just say niggers are equal and try to get a one night stand with a nigger sow in order to brag about both their edgy opinions and sexual prowess to get in a human female’s pants, but John Brown was so autistic as to take the rhetoric seriously)

        • Sam says:

          I might add look at this Next Big Future post on economic growth. All major economies have used government intervention to move ahead. That Asia has done so successfully is beyond dispute.

          http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/06/bill-gates-believes-studwell-has-answer.html

          • jim says:

            All major economies have used government intervention to move ahead. That Asia has done so successfully is beyond dispute.

            Bullshit.

            If that was the case Hong Kong and Singapore would be poor, while India would be rich.

            Compare North Korea and South Korea. Compare Taiwan with communist China. Compare India under the license Raj with India after the collapse of the license Raj.

            What is socialism with Chinese characteristics? Answer: Manchester Capitalism.

            What happened was that Hong Kong got ahead on plain untrammeled uncomplicated capitalism, and then everyone else proceeded to imitate Hong Kong.

            Like India and China, they made progress to the extent that they abandoned government intervention.

            Your argument is that India and China are half socialist, and are doing fine, and are therefore doing fine because socialist. Reflect on how they were doing when they mostly socialist.

          • k says:

            South Korea since the 70s is probably the strongest case for crony capitalism. At least, judging from what Koreans tell me. Time will tell, though.

          • Sam says:

            If you say I’m arguing for socialism then you misunderstand. The system I’m talking about used to be called the American system. Tax and other incentives for breaking industries with tariffs against imports. The Japanese were very successful doing this and the Chinese have copied them.

      • Sam says:

        “…Why would we care if China uses slave labor? Why object to the importation of the cheap stuff? It has much sense as refusing to take free stuff that fell from the sky, i.e. none. Economic protectionism makes no sense…”

        You don’t understand the economics of highly technical product production. It takes enormous amounts of capital and ongoing company internal intelligence to produce today’s high tech products. It’s a form of technological monopolizm. If you give them up you may never get them back.

        • jim says:

          You don’t understand the economics of highly technical product production. It takes enormous amounts of capital and ongoing company internal intelligence to produce today’s high tech products. It’s a form of technological monopolizm. If you give them up you may never get them back.

          Slave labor etc is not a form of competition to high tech.

          If your high tech sector needs protection, you have already lost it.

          I was for a time in one of the few remaining businesses in the US that produced high technology physical objects. My boss’s number one fear was that the EPA bureaucrats would descend on us dramatically dressed in moon suits, and declare that we were producing “toxic waste”

          By the way, do you know that caustic soda is not toxic waste, and you can pour it down the drain. Sulfuric acid is not toxic waste, and you can pour it down the drain. But sodium sulfate is toxic waste, and requires billions of dollars in bureaucracy. Don’t tell the EPA what happens when you pour caustic soda and sulfuric acid down the same drain.

          It is basically illegal to produce high tech physical objects in the USA, and those that continue to produce high tech physical objects are able to do so only because grandfathered in an unprincipled exception.

          • Sam says:

            The type of system I’m talking about would be supportive of industry. If the government didn’t want the waste they would pay to clean it up as long as the products produced were of sufficient value.

  5. Mister Grumpus says:

    I’m always the back-of-the-class doofus commenter here, but anyway…

    I’m now unfortunately convinced that Libertarianism is, at bottom, little more than the ideological belief that all humans are really “white on the inside”, and that this can be brought out of them through “sufficient education.”

    …which sound sadly familiar to what I’ve heard some other people saying.

    • peppermint says:

      — Libertarianism is, at bottom, little more than the ideological belief that all humans are really “white on the inside”, and that this can be brought out of them through “sufficient education.”

      No. Libertarianism pretended to be that, while advocating against any government recognition of race and for strong property rights in white flight areas and law and order in gentrifying areas.

      It was annoying to leftists back when they had paleoconservatism to contend with, since it took their talking points and twisted them into advocacy for more or less traditional White values and a society that Whites would be able to flourish in. Now that leftists are openly anti-White, it is no longer possible to pretend to agree with them.

      Our parents faced different challenges and thus had different strategies from us. We can only be outwardly apolitical while going full Nazi on the Internet, or go full SJW and tell ourselves we enjoy a dildo in our butts and that cucking is the thinking man’s fetish, as the CEO of Troll, INC said. Interpreting libertarianism as edgy SJWism is historically incorrect, but it would be correct if there were any libertarians around today.

      Literally everyone knows this, of course. Liberals are quite proud of how they shoved the libertarians out of the Overton window.

  6. Occupant says:

    A black teen was murdered the other day at a pool in Fayette County Georgia.

    http://www.ajc.com/news/news/crime-law/one-teen-killed-four-others-shot-at-fayette-county/nmcj6/

    Although officer Casebolt’s brandishing of his side arm at the McKinney pool might seem excessive (rather than brandishing a Taser or pepper spray, for instance) there is colorable grounds that it was appropriate.

    If black lives matter, then police officers are the thin blue line between black lives and private pool party crashing thugs.

  7. Dr. Faust says:

    Libertarians are leftist and have been for awhile. How they reconcile being left and libertarian is something I don’t understand. Unlike leftists though they believe that black failure is a result of insufficient free market and not whites casting white voodoo spells.

    Molyneux is a bigger champion of free markets than anyone else today and he’s left on everything but the economy.

  8. Dr. Faust says:

    Jim, I think you should do a big post up on your theory that white is the new jew. Ideally, it becomes a meme and spreads through the altright. In particular im referring to the “whites casting spells on blacks” theory of white privilege.

    • peppermint says:

      Jew has always been Jew and White has always been White. There are endless examples of Whites building a civilization, feeling sorry abut White privilege, miscegenating, and vanishing from the page of time. There are endless examples of Jews acting like Jews. It is not helpful to sew confusion, and really, market dominant minority is what the Jews claim about themselves today, and they already promise market dominant minority status to Whites in the new multicultural Europe.

  9. 5371 says:

    [the left abandons economic leftism, and at the same time goes lefter and lefter]

    Possibly it is dawning on you that using the word “left” the way you do is a hindrance, rather than a help, to understanding.

    • jim says:

      All the different lefts tend to similar doctrinal extremes regardless of their original beliefs, in the sense that all aneuploid maligant metastatic cancers wind up looking very much alike, regardless of tissue of origin.

      • 5371 says:

        So the USSR in 1953 looked very much like Sweden in 2015?

        • jim says:

          The Swedish middle class is substantially worse off than American blacks. Sweden has been stagnating since it started to engage in excessive income redistribution from the productive to the unproductive.

          Swedes describe their system not as socialism but as “the third way” between socialism and capitalism. So, not as fucked up as socialism.

          • 5371 says:

            [The Swedish middle class is substantially worse off than American blacks.]

            This statement is so bizarre I can only assume you threw it out there to distract from the point at issue. Which was, if “leftism” is all one, why does it develop in such different ways?

            • jim says:

              Well if you are that far out of contact with everyday reality, there is no talking to you. Swedish third way does not suck as much as full on socialism, but it still sucks mighty bad.

          • peppermint says:

            The problem with comparing the situation of Swedes with the situation of niggers in the US is that niggers lack agency

    • peppermint says:

      See The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich for the meaning of socialism and the left. The tl;dr is it’s a fire that burns accumulations of social capital, and the end goal state is always the same, total slavery to eliminate distinctiveness.

      If the left isn’t pushing economic leftism as much right now, well, wait a while, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are waiting. Originally, the left was the people who sat on the left side of the room and advocated for all the nobles to surrender their titles (to the state).

      See also Molding‘s M versus Q Urplatain article.

  10. vxxc2014 says:

    Step back coldly and think like Men: We’re in a Resource conflict for America’s vast resources. That’s all. History is repeating itself with ordinary Americans as the native Indian Tribes of the 19th Century. That’s all.

    However if you accept that then inter-tribal warfare isn’t in our interests.
    They don’t mean to conquer or enslave us, they mean to eliminate us.

    The side that wins ceteris paribus will be the side that thinks coldly. So far that’s not our side.

    You thinkers apparently have nothing but thoughts to offer …so start thinking. We don’t talk our way out of this but some cold analysis would be nice.

  11. Mark Citadel says:

    Libertarianism is effectively proto-Liberalism. It cannot maintain itself for any length of time without devolving into Liberalism for the simple reason that Libertarianism denied Traditional hierarchy. It has a similarity to Communism in that it does, at base, view people as being inherently equal. In this it denies reality.

  12. freihals says:

    I can completely get the reason for this post and comment thread if the only exposure you have to libertarianism is from Reason/Cato/BHL. These people would lead you to believe that being a libertarian necessarily entails additional obligations and these additional obligations are almost always progressive. They also want you to believe holding socially/culturally traditional (to-the-right views) values is incompatible with libertarianism.
    Fortunately, they are flatly wrong. Libertarianism is not about social values or equality or “left” vs “right”. Libertarianism is singularly concerned with one thing: the proper application of force grounded and buttressed by absolute property rights. That’s it. Anyone that expands this is going off in a direction that is not libertarianism. As some in this comment thread have alluded to there is an entire community of libertarians that hold to traditional social values, e.g. Rothbard, Hoppe, Rockwell.
    A paleo anarcho-capitalist( think Rothbard/Hoppe) such as myself finds the SJW at Reason, etc. as offending as many here even if the reasons may be expressed differently.

  13. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Libertarianism is light on the liberty and heavy on the libertinism.

    A.J.P.

  14. […] has a discouraging report: Libertarians support ethnic cleansing of whites. But we all saw this coming. Contending for the soul of libertarianism is contending for the soul […]

  15. […] uselessness of libertarians. Read the […]

Leave a Reply