The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Ronald N. Neff Archive
Libertarians Are Inherently Anti-Semitic and Racist
And there’s nothing they can do about it
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Before I get going with my thesis, I have to discuss what it means to be racist. This is no easy matter, because most of the people who talk about racism (and in particular those who accuse others of being racists) do not bother to say what they mean.

Let’s start with a thought experiment. In the October 14, 2007, Sunday Times (of London), geneticist and Nobel-prize winner James Watson said that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really,” and added that people want to believe that everyone is born with equal intelligence but that those “who have to deal with black employees find this not true.” He is also reported to have said that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.”

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

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

Suppose instead that your friend says, “Watson is a pretty smart cookie and he’s a world-famous geneticist, so I’d be willing to bet he’s right about this.” Would you still say your friend is racist? Again, probably you would.

Now suppose that he disagrees with Watson, but says that what Watson said is an empirical matter; and therefore he devotes some time to studying the sources that Watson might cite for his comments. Will you say that he is a racist for even considering the possibility that Watson is right?

And suppose your friend concludes that there may be some merit to what Watson said after all? Surely you will say then that he is a racist.

Or if (per impossible, of course) it turns out that Watson is right, is your friend still a racist?

In other words, can holding true beliefs make one a racist?

There was a time — in living memory — when what counted as racism was fairly straightforward. If you harbored negative feelings or thoughts about people of a race different from your own (no matter who they were and no matter what race you are) or invidious, or even merely unflattering, ideas about them, and all just because of their race, then you were a racist. And there were varying degrees of racism. It was one thing to want to keep Jews out of your country club or to move out of a neighborhood into which blacks had recently moved; it was quite another to favor the gas chambers for Jews and lynchings for blacks.

It was once the case that being a racist had something to do with a person’s feelings or beliefs.

That is, it was once the case that being a racist had something to do with a person’s feelings or beliefs. And as for the latter, it did not matter if those beliefs were true. For example, if you believed that having black neighbors would lower the value of your home, your belief was probably true. But if you said that you didn’t want to live in a neighborhood where there were black people and you cited declining property values as your reason for wanting to move, your belief about blacks was true, but at least some people would consider you a racist. Not a lynch-favoring racist, but a racist nonetheless.

When I was ready to enter kindergarten in 1954, my mother, a Catholic, did not want me to go to a Catholic school. (She herself had not found the experience of a Catholic education to be one to which she wished to subject her children.) She visited the local elementary school in Baltimore — Brehms Lane Elementary School, now a charter school — and spoke to the female (!) principal. I was not present for most of the interview, but as she was leaving the principal’s office, Mom asked the principal whether there were “coloreds” in the school, and the principal assured her that there were none.

I suppose most readers will say that my mother was a racist for asking the question or even considering it. But was the principal a racist for answering it? After all, it was not the principal’s fault that no blacks lived in the district served by Brehms Lane at the time. It was not her fault that parents were required to send their children to neighborhood schools, or that they could not send them to schools wherever they might want in the Baltimore City School System. And it was not her fault that what she said was true. No one can know at this date what the principal’s views on the subject may have been, but at least in this exchange, I have to think that she expressed no view tinged with a racist motive or belief.

I’m sure there are readers who will disagree with me, but we don’t need to go into that.

There is another thing I must mention at this point. There was also a time — again in living memory — when the first word to spring to mind about a person who might ask about the “coloreds” in a Baltimore elementary school was not “racist.” It was “prejudiced.” Even as late as 1971 (October 16, if it matters), in a flashback episode of the TV show “All in the Family,” when Archie meets Gloria’s new boyfriend, Michael, and expresses some severely raw anti-Polish sentiments, Michael in his exasperation cries out that Archie is … “prejudiced.”

Once the various “civil-rights” acts of the 1960s made it illegal to “discriminate” against others in commercial transactions on the basis of their race, a certain legal problem arose. How was one to prove in a court of law that a particular action resulted from illegal discrimination? Discrimination had become, it seemed, a matter not of action, but of motive. There was no way to penetrate into the mind of the accused, and it was certainly easy for anyone accused of discriminating to claim that the motives for his actions were other than racial prejudice.

A new standard had to be devised, and it was. And it was attached to an old word, to wit, “racism.” (Well, not really an old word. Neither it nor “anti-Semitism” even occurs in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, where one would most naturally look for them. In fact neither word existed until the 20th century.) The standard was “disparate impact.”

Racism stopped being a matter of individual thinking and became a collectivist invective.

The value of “disparate impact” was that it allowed accusers to look at behaviors and their results, and apply the dreaded word “racism” to them without having to inquire into the motives or thinking behind them. Implicit in the new use of the word, however, was that the motives or thinking had been established by a statistical examination of the results of a person’s behavior, and the person’s motives were reprehensible merely on the basis of the consequences of certain decisions.

Philosophically speaking, racism stopped being a matter of individual thinking and became a collectivist invective. It lost the individualist character it had when your neighbor didn’t want to sell his house to a black family, and it took on a collectivist character. Your neighbor became a racist because of institutions he could be associated with, and collectives of which he may not even have thought of himself as being a part. It applied no longer to individuals as individuals — persons with their own motives and interests — but to individuals understood as members of collectives and institutions.

Entire institutions and policies could be labeled as racist, along with the people associated with them, and no one would ever have to argue that anyone had been motivated by any dislike for anyone else. It was not enough to make the simple factual statement that a particular policy harmed this group or that or was disadvantageous to it; the policy had to be stigmatized with the label “racist.” And the evidence for the stigma was the statistical outcome, that is, that not enough blacks were hired or not enough had been successful in negotiating certain kinds of contracts.

Racism became the greatest evil in society. It was not “who we are,” as they say. A murderer or a rapist, an embezzler or a wife abuser could hope to be reabsorbed into polite society after suitable demonstrations of remorse or reform. Not so the racist. Perhaps only the child molester was so reviled.

(I must pause to admit the necessity of some qualification here. Certain persons self-identified as racists by virtue of their membership in, say, the Ku Klux Klan, could be forgiven for their lapses. The political dynamics are a little hard to follow, but that they exist can hardly be denied. Thus, in 2010 Bill Clinton could excuse the membership of the Democratic senator Robert Byrd in the KKK; but in 2002 the Republican Trent Lott had to resign his position as majority leader of the Senate once people decided to make an issue of his kind words, spoken on more than one occasion, for the presidential candidacy of fellow senator Strom Thurmond as a Dixiecrat in 1948. In short it was easier to be forgiven for burning crosses in front yards than it was to be forgiven for praising a man — not for being the man, mind you — but for praising another man who had supported segregation. I leave it to others to propose explanations.)

Over the years, more and more practices, policies, and institutions were labeled “racist,” where no intent or invidious purpose could be reasonably alleged. There was a debate in Fairfax County in the 1970s about a certain street. Like many streets in Northern Virginia, its name changed when it intersected a (more or less) perpendicular street. Since I do not recall which streets were at issue, I shall call the perpendicular street Brehms Lane. It happened that on one side of Brehms Lane the intersecting street bore the name A Street, and on the other side B Street. It was asserted that this was a racist state of affairs. The basis for this claim was that many black families lived on A Street, but very few on B Street. For several years, real estate agents had been legally prohibited from telling their clients whether there was a substantial black population in a neighborhood in which the client might be interested. But in this case, when the real estate agent identified an address as being on B Street, he was implicitly telling the would-be homebuyer that the neighborhood was populated by few if any blacks. Those making this convoluted argument were insisting that it was necessary to change the name of B Street to A Street, so that the mere name of the street would not be informative (though of course the street address would probably continue to be informative).

It is perfectly obvious that it had taken years for the facts of residence on one side or the other of Brehms Lane to sort themselves out in the manner alleged. It was also perfectly obvious that no one could ever be found who had supervised the sorting out of the two neighborhoods. In fact, the role played by Brehms Lane in this division may even have gone unnoticed by a majority of homebuyers. It was the division itself that was racist, not any person or group of people as people. It was the county that was racist, or at least the street-naming department of the county. And anyone who opposed the renaming was also a racist.

That was the one respect in which the beliefs or feelings concerning race remained a factor in the judgment. Once the institution or organization had been found to be racist, anyone who disagreed with this determination was indeed a racist. Disagreement with accusations were also determinants of what counted as racism.

The various laws called “civil rights acts” were probably more responsible for more and greater regulation than any other set of laws in U.S. history.

It did not take long for us to be hearing over and over about the discriminatory, i.e., racist, hiring practices, or promotion practices, of this or that company or corporation; and the corporations so accused were more than happy for the accusations to be dropped and to disappear from headlines. To that end, they paid millions of dollars in class-action lawsuits claiming that people had been offended or injured. The assertions by officers of the corporations that there had been no intent to discriminate were completely irrelevant and gave them no relief from the accusations. Pay-offs to race hustlers succeeded where protests of innocence were of no avail.

In just a few short years, accusations of racial discrimination became the primary instrument whereby the state’s authority and influence invaded and grew in society. The various laws called “civil rights acts” were probably more responsible for more and greater regulation than any other set of laws in U.S. history. Moreover, often the so-called laws were not laws at all, at least not in the sense of having been created and passed by some legislature. They were usually court decisions.

The regulations and decisions regarding “discrimination” (and complaints resulting in them) were found to be productive, by expansion, into grievances by women, Asians, homosexuals, and others even when the accusations had no racial component. The operative word became “minority.” Any group who could successfully claim to be a minority had access to the protocols of anti-discrimination laws that racial minorities were using successfully. (Women, of course, are not a minority by any numerical meaning of the word. That they have attained the status of being a kind of “honorary minority” exposes a manipulation of English for political ends that is imperfectly known or documented. The columnist and essayist Joe Sobran was one of the few who could pick up on manipulations that were obvious — but only after he had drawn attention to them — and those manipulations relating to our subject were only, if you will excuse me for saying so, a minority of them.)

The most unlikely actions became tarnished with the dread labels. Liberals, who one would have thought on the basis of what they said about themselves would be vehement defenders of the freedom of speech, turned out to have doubts about its sacredness when it came to matters involving racial or other “discrimination.” I have already alluded to the legal circumscribing of the free speech of real estate agents, but that circumscription was greater than merely telling would-be buyers who lived in particular neighborhoods; it was career suicide for them even to mention the crime rates in particular neighborhoods.

And it was not just the speech of realtors that was under attack. In 1994 a HUD program, “Moving to Opportunity,” generated a number of protests in Baltimore by white middle-class people who objected to HUD’s moving lower-class blacks from the public-housing projects into their neighborhoods. HUD actually toyed with the possibility of filing discrimination lawsuits against the protesters for protesting, with the claim that there could be no legitimate reason for them to object to the program other than racism. The program was quickly terminated and the HUD secretary, Democrat Henry Cisneros, concluded that it was unwise “to offer a program like this during an election year.” The important thing to notice here is not that the program was not implemented; it is that accusations of racism could be used to threaten or even stifle the exercise of free speech and redress of grievances, and official liberal voices were raised only to protect re-election prospects.

Anti-Semitism, a special kind of racism

Joe Sobran learned that if one should wonder aloud whether the American alliance with Israel was in America’s (and Americans’) interest, the charge of anti-Semitism (a form of racism) was soon to follow, and withal exclusion from publications and forums in which he would otherwise have been welcome. Even death did not put an end to the slanders and libels that followed on such accusations, and almost no one except his admirers mentions Sobran these days without at least intimating that he was an anti-Semite and making some apology for it.

But it may be said that Sobran was writing in conservative outlets. And conservatives are notorious for exiling their own. Even Russell Kirk was not safe from the neoconservatives’ penchant for Trotskyite denunciation and marginalization. Surely libertarians are not so spineless.

I ask you to consider the cases of Hans-Hermann Hoppe and of Robert McGee. In the November 1996 issue of The Freeman, the monthly publication of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), Hoppe, already one of the leading Austrian free-market economists in the world, reviewed The Failure of America’s Foreign Wars, a collection of essays by Jacob Hornberger and Richard Ebeling. Hornberger is the founder of the Future of Freedom Foundation (and a former employee of FEE), and Richard Ebeling is another Austrian economist (and was a future president of FEE). Hoppe, while reviewing the book favorably, criticized Ebeling for equating the evil of Hitler and Stalin. Hoppe thought this an error, since Stalin had killed some 20 million of his people in peacetime, and Hitler had killed but a few hundred during peacetime, and most of them were fellow Nazis.

(It is worth noting here that FEE was generally thought to be friendly to revisionist history in the past. In particular, one of their long-time seminar speakers was Percy L. Greaves, who specialized in Pearl Harbor revisionism. His wife, Bettina Bien Greaves, is still listed as a resident scholar and trustee of FEE.)

The following month, Robert McGee wrote an article in which he contended that Palestinians were suffering numerous human-rights abuses by Israel, which was receiving help to commit those abuses from the U.S. taxpayer in the form of foreign aid. In response to outrage from Zionists and Israel Kirzner, who was on the FEE board of directors, the president of FEE, Hans Sennholz, fired the editor of the November issue, the book review editor, and the editor of the December issue. Sennholz also announced that the three fired editors would have no further association with FEE so long as he was president. McGee provided his account of the matter in the July 1997 issue of The Last Ditch, under the title, “The truth shall get you fired,” versions of which appear on more than one site on the Internet.

Egalitarianism, collectivism, and reductionism

Speech was circumscribed in other ways. News reports of crimes deliberately omitted the race of the accused. Exceptions were made when whites had committed crimes against blacks, but otherwise the accepted orthodoxy was that race was irrelevant in reporting a crime. Even to ask the race of a perpetrator was imprudent. A kind of egalitarianism had swept the nation, and rare it is for any intellect to wonder aloud just how relevant race is to any fact that may be under discussion. The example of James Watson, whose Sunday Times interview resulted in his being removed from every post of honor he held (except his teaching post, for he was tenured) and in his being universally reviled and driven to the brink of poverty, serves as a warning to us all.

Those frequent calls you hear for an “honest discussion about race” are merely bait.

Examples could be compounded almost without limit, all serving as the same morality tale: question egalitarianism, particularly the equality of the races or other “minorities,” in America, and life as you know it is over. Those frequent calls you hear for an “honest discussion about race” are merely bait: answer them and lose your job, lose your social status, lose your friends, perhaps lose your family. It’s a way of sifting out the non-conformists in a society that wants an honest discussion about race no more than it wants an epidemic of German measles. A similar lesson was learned by James Damore, a software engineer at Google, who believed he was starting an “honest discussion” about sex differences as they apply to the career choices of women.

This modern egalitarianism is championed under the banner of “diversity,” a term popularized in this technical meaning by Bill Clinton during his administration, and which has its roots (again, in this technical sense) perhaps in the writings of Carroll Quigley, one of Clinton’s teachers at Georgetown. To quote from the Wikipedia entry:

Quigley’s work emphasized inclusive diversity as a core value of Western Civilization, contrasting it with the dualism of Plato. He concluded [his 1966 book] Tragedy and Hope with the hope that the West could “resume its development along its old patterns of Inclusive Diversity.” From his study of history, “it is clear that the West believes in diversity rather than in uniformity, in pluralism rather than in monism or dualism, in inclusion rather than exclusion, in liberty rather than in authority, in truth rather than in power, in conversion rather than in annihilation, in the individual rather than in the organization, in reconciliation rather than in triumph, in heterogeneity rather than in homogeneity, in relativisms rather than in absolutes, and in approximations rather than in final answers.”

But surely all this is familiar in general terms if not in the specifics even to the average reader, who will be wondering what all this has to do with libertarians.

Before I answer that question, let me say that it is my desire not to mention any more groups or persons by name. My purpose is not to discredit, embarrass, or mock any organization or personality; there will be no footnotes. A name will sometimes be unavoidable, but such is the plan I intend to follow insofar as I can. I recognize that it imposes a hardship on the reader who may wish to double-check my assertions. Such readers, I am sorry to say, will simply have to do their own research to see whether what I am about to describe is true. I think they will find that the effort will not be arduous.

Almost imperceptibly, and no date can be assigned to the event, libertarians began to accept at least some of the discussion as set by the Left and its tenets of egalitarianism. The idea of “equality under the law” or “equality in the eyes of God” or even “equality of rights” was gradually supplemented by the idea of equality in other respects. To be sure, libertarians did not fall into calling for an equality of outcome, but “equality of opportunity” as a slogan did rear its head from time to time.

Critical references to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — as statist a measure as ever was passed — began to disappear.

Small obeisances to the dominant views of American history and of despised legal institutions began to show up here and there. The evils of slavery in the American South were being mentioned and amplified a little more often. Reverential references to “The Rev. Dr.” Martin Luther King — had the titles become part of his name? — would crop up every now and then. At the same time, critical references to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — as statist a measure as ever was passed — began to disappear, along with articles critical of the many anti-discrimination laws that were being passed and the many anti-discrimination judgments that were being handed down. Oh, if you pressed any authors, publishers, or think-tank personnel, they would of course aver their commitment to liberty and admit that the Civil Rights Act and anti-discrimination laws were of course violations of the right of association. But writing about them in no uncertain terms was much less likely to happen.

And always there were the implicit apologies! If a writer did want to object to anti-discrimination laws, it was necessary to fold into the objection some “acknowledgement” that discrimination, though it should be legal, was probably nevertheless stupid, ill-conceived, or wicked. Libertarians who talked about discrimination began to sound like attorneys for pornographers in the 1960s who argued that even filthy smut peddlers had rights that were protected by the Constitution.

Every now and then there would burst on the scene the need to discuss admissions practices of universities and quota systems. Normally the lead objections were taken by conservatives who would cravenly admit the need for redress of past injustices to blacks and propose systems or procedures that were not so objectionable as the ones under dispute at the time. Libertarians could avoid involvement by hiding behind the point that schools should be free to admit whom they wished for whatever reasons they wished, or behind the point that state schools supported by the taxpayers should not be race-conscious. But to get involved in those discussions in any manly way was not to be their practice. For the most part, the only libertarian — or semi-libertarian — who was willing to discuss anything like the issues James Watson had raised was Michael Levin.

In its August 1974 issue, Libertarian Review published a favorable review of John R. Baker’s Race by Hans Eysenck and favorable reviews in its December 1973 issue (also by Eysenck) of Arthur Jensen’s Genetics and Education and R.J. Hernnstein’s I.Q. in the Meritocracy. Its April 1974 issue carried opposing reviews of Steven Goldberg’s book The Inevitability of Patriarchy and George Gilder’s Sexual Suicide by Riqui Leon (negative) and Murray Rothbard (positive). It is almost inconceivable that such reviews would appear in any libertarian publication today, except of course for Riqui Leon’s review, which consisted of the sorts of flutterings we are now accustomed to: insults and gasps of horror that modern society’s egalitarian view of sexual differences should be challenged, along with shivers of disbelief that anything so retrograde would be considered (gasp!) in a libertarian publication.

People who at one time might have referred to the United States in its founding as the freest country in history began instead to refer to the United States in its founding as the freest country in history “except for slavery.” I would have thought “even with slavery” would have been closer to the truth. And as time wore on, the qualification became something like, “with the tragic exception of slavery.”

It was no longer enough to tell us how evil Woodrow Wilson was in getting the United States in a war when it had not been attacked or how evil had been the violations of rights while the United States was in that war. No, in order that we fully understood just how evil Wilson was — getting American citizens killed by the thousands was apparently not bad enough — we had to be told he was a racist.

It did not matter that the particular article might be about World War I, and that Wilson’s racism had nothing to do with it. We had to be reminded that he was an evil racist, just in case there was anyone who had somehow not learned this after a dozen repetitions. In the new movie theater installed in the White House, Wilson had allowed (or perhaps had decided on his own) that the first movie shown would be D.W. Griffith’s “The Birth of a Nation.” It doesn’t matter that “The Birth of a Nation” was probably the greatest and most innovative movie in existence at that time. Apparently Wilson should have picked some inferior movie.

One almost gets the idea from reading such accounts that libertarians could somehow forgive Wilson for going to war and violating rights on a massive scale, if only he had waited a year so that he could show Griffith’s “Intolerance” instead.

It looked as though an epidemic of infected writing was in the works. An author of an article on stop-and-frisk could not object to the practice solely on the basis of the rights violated by the policy. Oh, no, what really made it wicked was that it was racist, and nothing Heather Mac Donald might say about it would change anyone’s view about that. The outsourcing of America’s prison industry to connected “private” enterprise would have been defended by certain policy-wonk libertarians if only it were not (horribile dictu) … racist. And what really makes the number of men held in U.S. prisons a scandal is that a disproportionate number of them are black. Presumably getting the proper quota of Jews and Latvians into prisons would make the policy palatable.

You want to talk about segregation? Be sure to mention that America’s past government policies with respect to blacks were odious. Or disgusting. Or uniquely abhorrent. Make sure you refer to U.S. history with respect to racial injustice as shameful, brutal, or disgraceful. One writer even referred to it as America’s ultimate disgrace. Now, I would have thought that fire-bombing the civilians of Dresden, or dropping nuclear weapons on the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or carrying out genocide upon American Indians — I mean, Native Americans — would have qualified for that prize. But, nope, it’s the racism of its history.

(I almost anticipate that some critic of this article will challenge me on whether I think that slavery was evil. You are not allowed only to use facts of any sort when you write about slavery. You must tranquilize your tender readers with the message that you are like them and you respect their delicate sensibilities that so need reassurance every time the subject comes up.)

Libertarian jumpiness about race was also felt in its discussions of the Left.

Social Security was condemned on any number of accounts in studies done during the 1970s, but the kicker was that, because blacks do not live as long as whites, and therefore do not derive as much in benefits as whites — this according to one libertarian policy-wonk paper — the program is racist.

A libertarian conference was held not so very long ago dealing with the drug war and its racist component. Not, I would have thought, the most salient point.

Libertarian jumpiness about race was also felt in its discussions of the Left. It was possible to read lengthy dishonest articles explaining what libertarians had in common with leftists that would make it possible for them to work together. A few incompatibilities might be mentioned and dismissed, but the injustice of anti-discrimination laws was not even whispered as having a role in the discussion, even though it was patently obvious that there would never be agreement on that point.

Lonely indeed the one libertarian writer who could be depended on to defend discriminatory hiring practices explicitly, and even he might occasionally add, “no matter how evil or stupid we may think the reasons.”

Elsewhere, it was assumed that no libertarian would ever defend the covenanting of neighborhoods. Perhaps he would defend the right of a homebuilder to insist on racial covenants as a part of future sales documents, but never, no never, could he mention such a right without making it clear, by mere assertion and without argument, that it was odious or hateful to do it. Such things could not be mentioned in peace and left to the reader to form his own responses. Instead, readers had to be guided to have the correct attitudes and make the correct responses.

In a misguided effort to work with the Left, one libertarian publication allowed a leftist writer in its pages to praise the work of Antifa in shutting down a solitary “white power” advocate who published on the Internet under a nom de guerre. Antifa, of course, accomplishes its goals with threats and implied threats and, in this case, by publishing his real name and address. We are not told exactly what pressures it may have brought to bear on the poor fellow, or to what left-wing hooliganism he may have been subject, but Antifa’s success was complete when the man discontinued his on-line activities, and in consequence, like Winston Smith, he was able to voice expressions of improved mental health (!). The publication in question published this article, even though it had been informed about Antifa’s record of violence and enmity for free speech. The article was presented as a celebration that we do not need the government to protect us from “white nationalist lone wolves”; the “free market” can deal with them. Do not look for corroboration of these claims on-line: the article has been bowdlerized and in an almost comic reversal of the action taken against the white nationalist, the on-line edition of the article now hides the identity of the group that shut down the work of this solitary disturber of the peace.

One libertarian writer even wrote that sit-ins at lunch counters whose owner had plainly posted, “No blacks allowed,” did not violate his property rights. I suppose “Employees only” on a bathroom door would be allowed, but not a sign on the front door referring to race. Surely here, if anywhere, one would expect the property-rights sentiments of libertarians to make themselves felt. And for the purposes of this article, it does not matter what the arguments were that the writer cited. What matters is that he was bending over backwards to make them, as though the sit-ins of the 1960s were still a burning issue.

The libertarian vulnerability

It would seem that libertarians have adequately protected themselves against the charge of racism, would it not?

But this cannot be. Perhaps you noticed it as you were reading. Libertarians had gradually accepted disparate impact as the basis for their claims of racism. There is no way to condemn stop-and-frisk as racist without accepting disparate impact as your basis for charging racism, unless you are willing to interrogate everyone who orders it or carries out the order. Even black and Hispanic cops carry out those searches.

There is no way to say that the drug war is racist without making disparate impact the basis for the claim, rather than the feelings or beliefs of the people who pass the laws or those of the people who enforce them. Talk all you want about white convictions versus black convictions, and drugs used by whites versus drugs used by blacks. You can make the case that unequal enforcement is racist only by looking at numbers, not at the hearts or minds of the people you wish to accuse. It’s a kind of reductionism: we know what is in the heart of people who impose disparate impacts because they impose disparate impacts.

Without even noticing it, libertarians accept the habits of thought bequeathed to them by collectivists and positivists.

It’s easy enough to make the case that originally drug laws were racist, having been passed with an explicit racist intent. Roy Childs was one of the first libertarians to make this point at a presentation he gave in Washington. The people who passed the original anti-drug laws were pretty explicit about who were the targets of their legislation.

But we are not talking about the origin, but rather the current patterns of enforcement. And to make the case that those patterns are racist, one cites numbers. And in citing numbers, one is implicitly accepting disparate impact. To cite disparate impact as evidence, we are looking at a sequence of events. We are not asking questions about cause and effect. Racism (and its subset anti-Semitism) has become a description of events, not an explanation for the actions that men take. We reduce men’s beliefs and feelings to numbers, and then we group people together into an appropriate collective. Without even noticing it, libertarians accept the habits of thought bequeathed to them by collectivists and positivists.

But still, you may say, it sounds as though libertarians accept the modern thinking on racism. And they have shown themselves willing to act decisively where there is suspicion of anti-Semitism. What’s the problem?

The problem is this: ask any libertarian what he thinks about welfare. What he thinks about public housing. What he thinks about Pell Grants and Head Start and other education programs. What he thinks about anti-white hiring practices.

Ask him what he thinks of congressional redistricting undertaken to ensure the election of blacks to Congress. Or busing white children into predominately black schools. Or ending foreign-aid programs.

If he is honest, if he is not a coward, he will tell you that they all must go, and the sooner, the better. And that means he will have voiced his opinion to allow a disadvantage to fall with disparate impact on blacks. In a powerful way.

Nearly all libertarians favor repealing Great Society programs that benefit primarily blacks and were designed to benefit them. Repealing them will not have an “equal” effect on whites and blacks. Repealing them will have a disparate effect on blacks.

Libertarianism’s arguments are worthless in the face of its inherent racism.

And as soon as those opinions are voiced — nay, thought — the libertarian brands himself a racist. He may have only benevolent thoughts about his dark brothers, but he wants to hurt them economically in a way that does not hurt so many whites. Let him try to explain how much better blacks will e in a free market. Let him see how far that gets him. How far did it get Thomas Sowell?

No, by the terms of the debate as they exist (and not what we may want them to be), terms that so many libertarians have accepted, libertarians are racists. Indeed, libertarianism is a racist doctrine, and to be abhorred by all right-thinking, right-feeling people. Its arguments are worthless in the face of its inherent racism.

Libertarians are not just racists. They are necessarily racists. Inherently racists. Not just happen-to-be racists because they didn’t support Barack Obama for president. Deep-down, irredeemable racists. Racists to the core. None of their protests and none of their past writing will save them. If they advocate ending Section 8 housing, the world will know they are racists.

“Stop-and-frisk” affects only blacks living in certain areas and primarily only the young men at that. The same is true of the drug laws and the prison statistics. But repealing Great Society programs affects women and children, and even a large number of respectable, law-abiding black men. Those repeals would have so all-embracing a “disparate impact” on blacks that they might even be called genocidal. One can almost hear libertarianism’s enemies declaring that the disparate impact of libertarian repeals almost makes the Jim Crow laws seem mild by comparison. Such will be the thanks libertarians can expect for trying to protect and enlarge the liberties of those they imagine they will be helping. (This applies with equal force to the libertarian position that the Indian reservation system and welfare for Indians should also be repealed.)

It will not matter a tad whether libertarians think James Watson was right or wrong. Even feverishly denouncing the writings of Arthur de Gobineau or Houston Stewart Chamberlain as pseudo-science won’t save them. They advocate policies that will have a disparate impact on blacks, and that makes them racists.

Perhaps they will even support the removal of statues of Confederate generals on the grounds that erecting memorials is not a proper function of government. Or perhaps they will object to removing them, but only because of the expense to the public treasury. No matter. They want the government to stop sending money to black families, and they are racists. Let them try to say that the only reason they have a dim view of Lincoln is that secession was lawful or that he violated habeas corpus. Their writing will be seen as the cheapest rationalization designed to cover up their inherent racism so evident in so many ways.

If that weren’t problem enough, the foreign policy they favor would be. The noninterventionist policies they recommend would have a disparate impact on Israel, and their rejection of foreign aid entails an end to aid to Israel, and their refusal to go to war in its behalf will be called an abandonment of an ally left to die. Advocating that policy brings with it the charge of being anti-Semitic, as Sobran and McGee discovered. Moreover, libertarians’ ability to perform simple arithmetic might also lead them to recognize that Adolf Hitler is not the greatest mass murderer in history after all, that in terms of lives destroyed he comes in behind Stalin and Mao Zedong. That will surely win them the anti-Semitic brand, if not the “Holocaust denial” brand.

The reduction of domestic spending “disparately impacts” blacks, and the reduction of foreign spending “disparately impacts” Israel.

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

If they will return to the individualism that gives rise to libertarianism, they can limit the use of the term “racism” and its derivatives in their own writings to the feelings and beliefs of individual persons. When they do that, they will discover that the possibilities for calling anything racist are severely limited, and they can return to focusing on rights and their contravention.

For constitutionalists, there is a parallel: if the government limited itself to its Constitution, many functions it now performs would disappear. If libertarians in general will limit their use of the (mostly useless) term “racism” to its dictionary meaning (let us say, pre-1968 dictionary meaning), most of the functions it performs in their discourse will disappear. The reason this will be of little help to them, however, was given by Sam Francis in the May 1999 issue of American Renaissance (citing which surely invites charges of “racism”): a person who does not employ this term in its standard (i.e., non-individualistic) meaning “may try to define the word differently, but he will need to spend most of his time explaining that he does not mean by it what everyone else means.”

Libertarians must come to grips with just how radical their philosophy is, and they should embrace that radicalism heartily and unwaveringly, even brashly. We are not “just folks,” and we do not fit in with the contemporary political “dialogue.” Radical thinkers of the past did not try to make their positions fit into the contemporary “dialogue,” and libertarianism is not just radical. If you will excuse the expression, libertarianism is “radically radical.” Libertarians do not advance their cause if they tone down the radicalness of their views in order to “make a difference,” or to raise money from squeamish donors, or to have influence in the halls of Power. The cause of liberty is based on truth, unassailable truth. And the louder libertarians profess it and the more consistently they defend it, the better the chances that it will be heard. I do not say that the Truth will out. But I do say that Whispered Truth and Diluted Truth will not. Truth honeyed with the shibboleths of the Left or the Consensus Universe is Truth betrayed. Let us be proud to say “sibboleth,” and mark ourselves as not belonging to the tribe of our opponents.

There is no compromise with collectivism.

There is no compromise with collectivism. It is certainly possible to work with non-libertarians, for there are honorable people — both on the Left and on the Right — who are not libertarians with whom we will share goals and views. But there is no working with collectivist movements. Temporary appearances to the contrary, libertarianism has no movement allies. And every time libertarians have sought to make an alliance with some other group, it was not long before that group turned on them and denounced or trivialized their most cherished ideals. We have tried to form alliances with the New Right (conservatives of the 1950s and YAF), the New Left (in the days of Carl Oglesby), the paleoconservatives (especially in the run-up to the Gulf War), and the mainstream Left during times of war (whose opposition to war, with a few exceptions, was only an opportunistic and partisan pretense). There was even a brief flirtation with neoconservatism in its very early days, when neocons described themselves as “liberals who had been mugged by reality.” Were movements men, we could almost say that libertarianism is the man against whom every other man’s hand is turned.

We cannot trick others into thinking they are “one of us.” They know themselves very well, and they will not be tricked into rejecting the state and its power. It’s very well for our historians to tell us that historically our roots lie with the anti-state Left, and that we and they are natural allies. But the Left has changed, and what is natural in an alliance with them now is what was natural in the alliance of Aesop’s fox and donkey with a lion. In such an alliance, we shall be lucky if we fare as well as the fox, rather than as poorly as the donkey.

What libertarians must do is face up to the essential radicalness of their position and embrace it. Defend it. And not cozy up to those who would weaken it or dilute it. When the attacks come with charges that libertarians are racists, as come they will, it may be that libertarians will suffer the fate of others who have been overwhelmed by absurd accusations of being Nazis or Kluxers and are simply swept away. Or it may be that libertarianism’s radicalism forms so great a difference between libertarians and all others that anyone who accuses them of any sort of collectivism whatever will be seen as simply ridiculous.

And though strictly speaking it is not a part of the libertarian “program,” it would not hurt if more libertarians were more vociferous about defending fellow libertarians who are accused of racism or anti-Semitism and rushing to their aid when their websites are hacked or blocked, and their PayPal accounts frozen. It would not hurt if they protested the flighty, capricious, and irresponsible use of those accusations by the Southern Poverty Law Center and others, and in particular if they objected to the unquestioning use by law enforcement and the media of unexamined slurs. And it would not hurt if libertarians made some visible effort to distance themselves from the collectivism of disparate impact.

There is only one other alternative for them, and I much fear that it, and not the suggestions I have made, is the one libertarians will in the end take: find a way to keep all the welfare programs intact and still call themselves libertarians. Find a way to argue that welfare rights are genuine rights. And if they can finesse their non-interventionist foreign policy to exempt Israel, they will have shielded themselves from being accused of anti-Semitism. None of these strategies is as absurd as it may sound at first. After all, the 2016 Libertarian Party candidate for president declared himself willing to surrender the individual’s right of association and enforce anti-discrimination laws. Instead of hooting at him, despising his views, and publicly repenting of the nomination, plenty of libertarians made excuses for him and voted for him anyway. I’m sure there are policy-wonk libertarians who are up to the challenge of doing the same with welfare and aid to Israel. I see a bright future here for the “humanitarian” and “thick” libertarians.

(Republished from The Last Ditch by permission of author or representative)
Hide 80 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Thomm says:

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

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

    • Replies: @Colleen Pater
    , @AndrewR
  2. FKA Max says: • Website

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

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

    Jeffrey Tucker Goes Full SJW

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

    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    , @LauraMR
  4. BozoB says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Again, the problem was the willful abuse of terminology. Ism was used to mean something extreme when Ism just means belief. The problem began with how the term originated in the first place.
    From the start, it should have been called racial bigotry, racial chauvinism, racial supremacism, or etc. Extreme racial attitudes should not have been called ‘racism’ as it implies that ism, when applied to race, means just about all the negative connotations under the sun.
    Worse, it wasn’t just the definition that did the trick. It was the ‘idology’ and ‘iconology’ of how the term came to be defined. While dictionaries offer definitions in words, the real power derives from the term’s association with certain images and sounds. This is why ‘racism’ has power only in relation to blacks. Hollywood and PBS and education have given us lots of images of saintly noble blacks martyred by KKK, rednecks, police brutality, and etc. So, images of black victimhood are baked into the minds of millions in association with ‘racism’. There used to be some degree of that with American Indians in the 1960s and 1970s, but interest in Indians faded, partly because Indians have little entertainment value and also because the Indian experience invokes what happened to the Palestinians. (It’s interesting that Tarantino’s Western deals with southern slavery than with American Indians. It goes to show how much the red man has fallen off the radar, even within the domain of the once most popular movie genre.) When people hear ‘racism’ in relation to non-blacks, there’s just a faint sense that it’s wrong but no great passion. After all, Hollywood, TV, and education don’t dwell much on Magic Mexican, Suffering Chinese, or some such. And certainly not much on Palestinians. This is why there is no sympathy for Palestinians among most Americans despite the tragedy of Nakba, Occupation, and now apartheid. While most Americans will theoretically agree that ‘racism’ against Palestinians is wrong, their minds haven’t been instilled with iconography or idolatry of Palestinian martyrdom. But suppose Hollywood, TV, and public education produced lots of movies, TV shows, songs, and symbols of Palestinian victimhood. Things would change. But when most people think of Arabs, they think of some Hollywood villain yelling “I will die for Allah” and blowing up people. (‘Iconology’ matter a tremendous deal. Consider ET. It was all just make-believe. No such creature ever existed or arrived on earth to befriend some boy. But Spielberg’s movie made ET so lovable, and so many adults and children were made to weep over ET. So, even though there are so many 100s of millions of people suffering all over the world, more Americans felt more compassion and love for a fictional space creature than for fellow mankind. No less fantastical than ET is the mountain-sized Negro who luvs a wittle white mouse in GREEN MILE. Negroes that big usually play NFL, beat up white boys, and hump white women. But GREEN MILE has white boys and girls weeping at the poor saintly Negro as some divine god figure.)
    So, what matters is not just the control of terms but controls of icons and idols in relation to those terms. As a child, I saw ROOTS and there’s a scene where Chicken George bawls after his chicken-of-freedom done get killed. It is a wrenching scene, and it makes you feel esp sorry for the suffering Negro. That image is baked into my mind. It’s like BLAZING SADDLES. Even though the white townsfolk are socially anti-black and hate the idea of ‘black sheriff’, the Negro’s clever use of ‘iconology’ of the Hepless Negro just tugs at people’s heartstrings. Even though I eventually grew out of Magic Negro Myth, it took some time and struggle since I got so much of that Holy Brotha and Sista stuff on PBS, what with MLK orating about the Dream. It took some effort to wean myself from Negropiate and see the Negro what he truly be: Crazy.

    What we need to do is rehabilitate the term ‘racism’ as ‘race-ism’ and define it properly. Race-ism should just mean a rational and neutral belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Now, race-ism can be rational and objective or it can be based on crazy theories, like that of Nation of Islam that says Dr. Yacub grafted the white race from the black race. Rational Race-ism on blacks would have to conclude that blacks pose a threat to the white race because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive. So, white race-ism in relation to blacks is multi-faceted. When it comes to general intelligence, whites have superiority and advantage. But when it come to muscularity and masculinity, it’s the blacks with superiority and advantage. So, if whites were to struggle for racial independence and liberation from black thuggery, it must be on the basis of white inferiority. Blacks are superior as thugs, and racial integration will destroy white manhood. Race-ism notices both advantages and disadvantages of one race vis-a-vis other races. White race cannot survive without white manhood since white women won’t respect men without manhood. White women will go with the negro and create mulatto babies who will turn out like Kaepernick the vile hateful Negro who looks down on whites as a weak and wussy race. (The fact that his mother is white doesn’t make him respect whites. After all, his white mother rejected white men and went with a Negro as the superior stud. This is why cucks are so dumb. They think that if more white women go interracist and have kids with blacks, it will make blacks nicer to whites. No, it will make blacks feel even more contempt for whites as a race of cuck white boys and jungle beaver whores.)

    Proper rational ‘race-ism’ is still a work in progress. After all, consider how much racial theories have been revised in recent yrs. Many social scientists assumed that very little evolution happened in last 10,000 yrs. Now, we know much happened. Also, it was believed that Cro-Magnons did NOT mix with Neanderthals. But recent studies have shown that Europeans are anywhere from 1 to 5% Neanderthal. By one-drop rule, one could say Europeans ARE INDEED Neanderthals. (I mean if Elizabeth Warren is an Indian and Shaun King is Negroid.) So, true race-ism is still a work in progress.
    Granted, past race-ism claimed to be scientific and led to horrible things, esp with the Nazis. But it’s a fallacy to say that because an -ism was abused in the past, it must be wrong in its entirety. That’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. After all, socialism also claimed to be scientific and led to communist excesses that killed millions. But the excesses and crimes of ‘scientific socialism’ doesn’t meant that socialism has NO value. Socialism has great value in right doses. Even American Conservatives are part-socialist. All but the most extreme libertarians believe that there is a collective need for certain attainments and guarantees.

    Once we properly define race-ism, we can then prove that everyone is indeed race-ist. Everyone in America notices race and racial differences. Their thoughts and behaviors are affected by racial differences, and this includes everything from residence, education, entertainment, sports, sex, marriage, leadership, respect, contempt, and etc.

    It is not uncommon for blacks to say they can sing louder or dance faster. And even white Liberals say as much. It’s not uncommon for Jews to say that, hmmm, maybe they are smarter.
    It gets confusing because noticing racial differences is sometimes deemed ‘anti-racist’ and sometimes deemed ‘racist’. How can this be? If anti-racism is the belief in the equality of races or the disbelief in race as a valid category, then how can so many people comment on racial differences and be deemed ‘anti-racist’?
    It all depends on context and tenor. ‘Racism’ in current usage really means saying something that reflects negatively on blacks. So, if someone says, ‘blacks are less intelligent’, that is deemed ‘racist’. But if someone says ‘blacks are natural athletes and run faster and win medals and bring glory to America’, that is ‘anti-racist’. But both statements are predicated on racial differences.
    Similar thing with Jews. A commentary on Jewish intelligence can be antisemitic or philosemitic. If someone says, “Jews are smarter and use their cunning to maximize Jewish power”, that is antisemitic. But if someone says or implies, “Jews are smart and contribute so much to medicine and science and are the holy men of our society who should be blessed and respected”, it’s philosemitic. So, even though both views are predicated on superior Jewish smarts, one is denounced while the other is praised. Of course, it’s like walking a tightrope, but there is an acceptable way to imply that Jews are indeed smarter as long as this reflects well on Jews as a wise, wonderful, and noble race.

    But, what about some people who are adamant about race being an invalid concept. The kind of people who ideologically believe that all races are equal, and racial differences are bogus.
    But even they are race-ist on another level. Ideologically or intellectually they may be anti-race-ist and egalitarian. But ‘iconologically’ and ‘idologically’, their attitudes, choices, and behavior do reflect race-ism, i.e. on the sensual, emotional, or subconscious level, they notice and act on racial differences.
    No one who has seen sports over the yrs can really believe that races are equal in athletics. Also, why do the most egalitarian progs prefer to listen to black music than Mexican music or Chinese music? Because blacks got more rhythm. And if someone’s child has to have brain surgery, almost all progs will be more relieved if the doctor is Jewish than a Somalian or Peruvian-Indian(even if educated in America). And if a Jewish/white/Asian guy has a grade point average of 4.0 and if a black person also has the same grade point average, even most progs will sense, at least subconsciously, that the Jewish/white/Asian person got a real 4.0 whereas the black person very likely got 4.0 thru grade inflation of a generous professor. I mean how did a nonentity like Michelle Obama make it through Princeton and Harvard? Surely, if a Jewish woman and a black woman both graduated with A’s from an elite college, even most progs are gonna sense on some level that the Jewish woman got a real A whereas the black woman got an ‘affirmative’ A.

    And then, look at sexual behavior of Europeans. As we know, most Europeans are proggy and cosmopolitan. In Europe, there is the far left, left, cuck center, and mild right. Anything right of mild right is ‘nazi’ or ‘far right’. So, most Europeans range from centrist to far left. And ideologically, they subscribe to the notion that all races are the same. But ‘idologically’ and ‘iconologically’, they behave with the full awareness of racial differences. On the sensual level, black music is appealing because it is funky and sexual in the age of hedonism. Europeans generally don’t listen to Arab music even though EU is filled with so many Arabs and Muslims. I mean even Arabs and Afghans in Sweden are likely to listen to rap and hip hop. So, there is a sense that blacks got natural funk and rhythm.
    Also, consider sex tourism. Europeans, even on the far left, see Africa as the Penis and Asia as the vagina. This is why white women fly to Africa to have sex with Negroes with big dongs and white European men fly to Thailand and Vietnam for yellow hookers. Now, ideologically, these people may say all the politically correct things, but in terms of preference in entertainment and sex, they feel and act totally race-istically.
    And this goes for business too. If Europeans have to build factories, why do they prefer Asian nations to African ones? Again, even if they ideologically believe that blacks are same as yellows, white businesses figure yellowd are more diligent, industrious, obedient, cooperative, and earnest than blacks who tend to be jivey, yibbity-yabbity, and given to funkyass tomfoolery.
    So, have the Asians assemble the audio devices and let Afro-funk play on those devices.

    So, if we are honest, we can fix the terminology and we can prove that everyone is race-ist, and that is not a bad thing. To be race-ist is neither good nor bad. It is just what it is, like breathing air or drinking water and peeing. It’s just part of reality.
    Surely, if a white Prog sees a Mexican thug walking towards him, he will be more confident in fending himself against nasty Guillermo. But if a white Prog sees a Negro thug walking toward him, he will be shi**ing bricks. Why? Because from sports, crime reports, school experience, and general observation, he knows deep inside that races are NOT the same.

  6. Schuey says:

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

  7. Schuey says:
    @FKA Max

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

  8. Randal says:

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

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

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

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

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

  9. Svigor says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  10. Randal says:

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

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

  11. Greg Bacon says: • Website

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

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

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

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

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


    • Replies: @helena
  13. n230099 says:

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

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

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

  15. Jake says:

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

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

    That is the reality of the ideology of Libertarianism.

    • Replies: @Wally
  16. @FKA Max

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

  17. @BozoB

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

  18. @Thomm

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

  19. Flemur says:

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

    Guess again. “No.”

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

  20. mp says:

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

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

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @jilles dykstra
  21. sample says:

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

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

  22. sample says:

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

  23. TheOldOne says:

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

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Wally
    , @utu
  24. AndrewR says:

    Did a “WN wigger” steal your girl?

    • Replies: @Thomm
    , @Thomm
    , @Randal
  25. Wally says: • Website

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

    Nailed it!

    The ‘Nazi gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible.

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

    For a thorough demolition of the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers & alleged Auschwitz homicidal gassing process see analysis at:

    The tide is turning.

  26. Wally says:

    Where has it been tried & “failed”?

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
  27. wayfarer says:

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


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


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


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

  28. Anonymous [AKA "R. N. Neff"] says:

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

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

  29. @Wally

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

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

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

    • Replies: @Wally
  30. Mulegino1 says:

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

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

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

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

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @druid
  31. utu says:

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

    Libertarianism = selfishness+indifference+intellectual laziness

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

    • Agree: Grandpa Charlie
    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
  32. Wally says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    “Salvaged” but never tried.

    That’s a good one.

  33. Thomm says:

    Quite the opposite in fact.

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

  34. Thomm says:

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

    The hierarchy of economic productivity is :

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

    That is why :

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

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

    • Troll: AndrewR, Randal
    • Replies: @Lurker
  35. @jilles dykstra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  36. Miro23 says:

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

    This seems too complicated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  37. Randal says:

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

    • LOL: AndrewR
  38. tjm says:

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

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

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

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

  40. @Grandpa Charlie

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

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

    until they stop being libertarians.

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

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


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

    if i hadn’t already sent them.

  42. TG says:

    Well that’s quite a posting.

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

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

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

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

    • Agree: Miro23
  43. @utu

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

    Total BS.

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

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

    • Replies: @utu
  44. Both racism and anti-antisemitism are the results of research and pattern recognition. The real crime is noticing things.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  45. LauraMR says:
    @jilles dykstra

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

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

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

    • Replies: @polaco
  46. very good.

    mssr dunn is correct.

    and the winner is…



    libertarianism is one among many universalisms.

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


    the universal nation is not a nation at all.

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

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

    j j dessalines version 2.0.

    the white version.

  48. Art Deco says:
    @Robert Dunn

    The real crime is noticing things.

    The ‘noticing’ on these boards is generally fantasizing.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  49. @TG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  51. @Art Deco

    We notice that you’re a contemptible cuck.

  52. utu says:

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

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

    I have also mentioned intellectual laziness. Try harder.

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
  53. polaco says:

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

  54. Art says:

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

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

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

    This was an intellectual high crime.

    Clearly Jews are anti universal freedom of speech.

    Think Peace — Art

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

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

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  55. Rich says:

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

  56. MEFOBILLS says:
    @Priss Factor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  58. @TG

    Please name one libertarian who supports slavery.

  59. @Art

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

  60. @utu

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

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

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

    Of course people can take such fighting to unimaginable levels.

  61. helena says:
    @Priss Factor

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

  62. helena says:
    @Stephen Paul Foster

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

  63. @Grandpa Charlie

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

  64. @mp

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

  65. anon • Disclaimer says: • Website

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

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

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

    • Replies: @helena
  66. Rurik says:
    @Grandpa Charlie

    hey Gramps,

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

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

    I oppose any proposal to replace monetarism with a gold standard

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

    I need to study much more about Objectivism

    I wouldn’t

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @helena
  68. woodNfish says:

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

  69. America in a nutshell.

  70. helena says:
    @Priss Factor

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

  71. helena says:

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

  72. @Priss Factor

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


  73. Anonymous [AKA "Sportster2005"] says:

    Blacks generally exhibit disparate behavior.

  74. johnnyreb says:

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

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

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ronald N. Neff Comments via RSS