The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Tobias Langdon Archive
Heretics and Halfwits: Furedi’s Freedom-Fighters and the Lethality of Libertarianism
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show 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, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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

Enigmas. I’ve been beset by them recently. Last week, I added six piranhas to my big tropical-fish tank. The piranhas were going to look magnificent, sliding in a sleek silver school between the gleaming, multicolored shoals of gentle neon tetras and guppies. But I didn’t have time to watch the piranhas right then. No, I had to rush off to a “Moderate Muslim March” organized by my libertarian heroes at Spiked, the online forum for disciples of the Jewish freedom-fighter Frank Furedi. The march was intended to oppose the “shameful censorship” of the film The Lady of Heaven, which “Islamist mobs” have intimidated off all cinema screens in the UK because they regard it as heretical and blasphemous.

Islam + Freedom = Islam

Spiked were expecting a big turn-out at their Moderate Muslim March. After all, as that great libertarian intellect, the Spiked editor Tom Slater, has so ringingly put it: “I’m sure” that “the vast majority of [British Muslims] would have no truck with this extremist fringe.” Well, for technical reasons I can’t disclose exactly how many moderate Muslims turned out for the Spiked march in defense of free speech. Let’s just say that the turn-out was a big disappointment. And an enigma. But not as big as the disappointment and the enigma that awaited me back home. To my horror, I discovered that my tropical fish-tank was ruined. Only the piranhas were left alive in a haze of blood, scales and fish-fragments. What on earth had happened? I still don’t have a clue. Perhaps I should ask the libertarians at Spiked whether it was a good idea to introduce piranhas to a tank full of gentle neon tetras and guppies.

Two bad mixes: piranhas and guppies; Muslims and free speech
Two bad mixes: piranhas and guppies; Muslims and free speech

Well, satire and sarcasm over. I’m sure that even the libertarians at Spiked would tell you that it isn’t a good idea to house piranhas with guppies. In fact, I’m sure they would tell you that it’s a fucking stupid idea. But it’s nowhere near as stupid as an idea that Spiked and other libertarians have supported for many decades: the idea that Muslims should enter and inhabit Western nations without limit or restraint. Muslims are cultural piranhas and they devour free speech. They also devour every other freedom that libertarians claim to be passionately concerned about. But Spiked won’t admit this or be honest about the true nature of Islam. I was joking above when I said that Spiked had organized a “Moderate Muslim March” in defense of free speech. They’ve done no such thing, because they know it would be a complete failure. When Tom Slater, the current head halfwit at Spiked, expresses his certitude that the great majority of British Muslims would never think of limiting free speech what he means is: “I’m not sure at all and I have no intention of finding out.” In the rest of his editorial, Slater alternately postures about being tough on Islamism and plugs an even stupider version of the old “Anti-racists are the real racists” line. According to Slater, it’s “racist” to think that Muslims can’t handle free speech and need protecting from offense.

Muslims need no guidance from bluehairs

This halfwitted argument will have precisely no effect. As a not-so-former Trotskyist, Slater should recall Trotsky’s polemics against Stalin. How effective was Leon in arguing that Uncle Joe wasn’t a true Leninist? Spoiler alert: Not effective at all. Leon ended up with an ice-ax in his head while Uncle Joe sat snug in the Kremlin, supreme ruler of a mighty empire. But the halfwitted rhetoric of the Spiked collective is made worse by their dishonesty about Islam. Here’s Brendan O’Neill, former head halfwit at Spiked, first being dishonest about the Lady-of-Heaven controversy, then refuting his own dishonesty:

What is most striking about the noisy protests outside the cinemas showing this supposedly sinful film is how much the protesters sound like the godless woke mob. … Radical Muslims who believe they should have the right to crush culture that offends their religious sensibilities have clearly learned a thing or two from the secular cancel-culture brigade. They’ve dispensed with the fire-and-brimstone case for punishing those who blaspheme against their faith. Instead they’ve embraced the very modern idea that we all have the right to be protected from offence. Which we don’t, by the way.

This confirms that today’s censorious culture, in which everyone from gender-critical feminists to pro-life societies on campus are being cancelled for causing offence, has emboldened regressive elements in society. The cancellation frenzy has resuscitated ideas that really ought to have died out in the 20th century, if not earlier. This includes the idea of blasphemy, the notion that it ought to be a punishable offence to mock or simply just depict gods and prophets.

Alarmingly, cinema managers have capitulated to the theocratic mobs that have gathered outside their premises. In one of the most disturbing video clips I have seen so far this year, a cinema employee in Sheffield uses a megaphone to tell protesters that the film has been withdrawn from the schedule. ‘Allahu Akbar!’, the crowd yells in victory.

This is chilling. Call me an old-fashioned secular democrat, but isn’t it completely wrong, and morally perverse, to allow small numbers of religious hotheads to determine what the rest of us can see and watch? This grants a veto to fundamentalists, allowing them to shape public culture to their own tastes and prejudices. It is profoundly illiberal.

… It isn’t The Lady of Heaven that is shocking (and anyway, moviemakers should be perfectly at liberty to shock as much as they please). No, it’s the fact that in modern Britain, small numbers of Islamic activists can compel an entire cinema chain to dump a movie that they don’t like. This suggests our culture is being held hostage to intolerant minorities. And people say cancel culture is a myth. …

The Lady of Heaven controversy hasn’t caused much media or political traction yet, but it really should. This feels like a sequel to the Salman Rushdie affair. Cinemas ditching a film at the behest of furious theocratic protesters? What have we become? More importantly, what has become of freedom? (Shame on Cineworld for cancelling The Lady of Heaven, The Spectator, 7th June 2022)

So the libertarian Brendan O’Neill is “alarmed,” “disturbed,” “shocked” and “chilled” by the sight of Muslims behaving like Muslims, as Francis Carr-Begbie put it at the Occidental Observer in 2014. But Brendan isn’t just “alarmed” and “chilled”: he’s also deeply dishonest. Muslims have not “learned from” or been “emboldened” by the “godless woke mob” and “secular cancel-culture brigade.” Brendan knows perfectly well that “the Salman Rushdie affair” began in 1988, long before those censorious battalions of blue-haired SJWs and bearded transwomen became a noisy part of Western culture. Brendan also knows perfectly well that the death-sentence on Salman Rushdie was proclaimed from Iran by the Ayatollah Khomeini (1900–1989). The “godless woke mob” had no influence on Khomeini and the illiberalism of modern Iran owes nothing to Western secularism and everything to Islam. It’s the Islamic Republic of Iran, after all, not the Trans-Friendly Safe Space of Iran.

Ayatollah Khomeini, not much influenced by the “godless woke mob”
Ayatollah Khomeini, not much influenced by the “godless woke mob”

I also recommend that Brendan and Spiked investigate the culture of Pakistan, where “Islamist mobs” have often imposed impromptu death-sentences on alleged blasphemers and rallied in support of Islamic heroes like Mumtaz Qadri, who machine-gunned a Pakistani politician to death for daring to question Pakistan’s harsh anti-blasphemy laws. I can assure Brendan and the other libertarians at Spiked that Islamist mobs in Pakistan are not influenced by the “godless woke mob” in the West. But I think Spiked already know that, which is why, despite their incessant posturing about “free speech,” they ignore very interesting (and unpleasant) stories like this:

A mob in Pakistan tortured, killed and then set on fire a Sri Lankan man who was accused of blasphemy over some posters he had allegedly taken down. Priyantha Diyawadana, a Sri Lankan national who worked as general manager of a factory of the industrial engineering company Rajco Industries in Sialkot, Punjab, was set upon by a violent crowd on Friday.

In horrific videos shared across social media, Diyawadana can be seen being thrown on to the floor, where hundreds began tearing his clothes, violently beating him. He was tortured to death and then his body was burned. Dozens in the crowd can also be seen taking selfies with his dead body. The incident began when rumours emerged that Diyawadana, who had been manager of the factory for seven years, had taken down a poster bearing words from the Qur’an. By the morning, a crowd began to gather at the factory gates and by early afternoon they had charged into the factory and seized Diyawadana. (Man tortured and killed in Pakistan over alleged blasphemy, The Guardian, 3rd December 2021)

The “godless woke mob” in the West had no influence on those righteous incinerators in Pakistan or on the Pakistan-born Muslim hero Tanveer Ahmed, who murdered a heretic called Asad Shah on British soil in 2016. However, Brendan O’Neill and other libertarians would doubtless be very puzzled by the recommendation that they investigate the cultures of Pakistan, Somalia, Bangladesh and other Muslim countries that have supplied millions of vibrant new citizens to the West. Libertarians would ask: What possible influence could culture in Muslim countries have on the behavior of Muslims in the West? Muslims would have long ago embraced the Enlightenment and bought “I ♥ Liberty” T-shirts if it weren’t for “multiculturalism” and the “godless woke mob” leading them astray. Or so libertarians like Brendan O’Neill keep on saying. If Brendan really believes that, he’s halfwitted. If he doesn’t really believe it, he’s deeply dishonest.

The Second Hungarian Uprising

I go for the second option myself. And I think that Brendan is deeply dishonest whether he’s condemning censorship or celebrating contrarianism. Here, for example, he celebrates the contrarianism of some Hungarian schoolchildren:

It’s only June and already we’ve had the funniest news story of the year. Following some iffy behaviour by Hungarian football fans during Euro 2020, UEFA instructed Hungary to play its next few games behind closed doors. No crowds, no fans, no noise — this was to be Hungary’s punishment. But Hungary, in its clash with England in Budapest on Saturday, exploited a UEFA loophole to allow 30,000 schoolkids to attend the game. After all, what kind of trouble could a few thousand fresh-faced under-14s cause? Well, a lot, it turns out. As soon as the England players took the knee — as they’re still robotically doing, more than two years after George Floyd was murdered 4,000 miles away from England – a chorus of boos filled the stadium. It was an extraordinary noise: an army of children registering their disdain for the puffed-up performative virtue of 11 adults from overseas.

It would take a heart of stone not to laugh. The tutting moralists of UEFA who thought that banishing the gruff men of Hungary from football games would make for a safe, sanitised experience clearly hadn’t reckoned with the rebellious streak in Hungary’s youth. …

[But the] booing of those Hungarian schoolkids was entirely rational, and even quite heartening. It was not a crescendo of racial prejudice. It was a statement of youthful revolt against lofty outsiders who seem to have gone to Budapest as much to educate the rabble as to play some football. Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán has a point when he says the taking of the knee is a ‘provocation’ and that it has ‘no place on the pitch’. For a while now it has been clear that knee-taking is less an anti-racist gesture than a signifier of moral supremacy. … Football fans, contrary to the prejudiced delusions of the chattering classes, are not dumb. Neither, it seems, are Hungarian schoolchildren. They know when they are being demeaned, when they are being reduced to problematic creatures requiring neo-colonial correction. And guess what? They don’t like it. … Those Hungarian kids were not being brattish hooligans – they were simply rebelling against the colonising instincts of the West’s woke elites. Good on them. I wish we had more kids like them in the UK. (The cultural imperialism of taking the knee, Spiked, 6th June 2022)

Brendan celebrates in that article but doesn’t explicate. So tell me, Brendan: What explains the “rebellious streak in Hungary’s youth” and their “youthful revolt” against “cultural imperialism”? Why don’t we have “more kids like them in the UK,” ready to resist the “diktats of identity politics” and “rebel” against the “woke elites”? Well, Brendan made no attempt to answer those questions. After all, if he’d answered honestly, he would have exploded his own libertarian lunacy. So I’ll explain on his behalf. Hungary’s youth is “rebellious” and resists the “diktats of identity politics” for a couple very simple reasons. It’s because Hungary’s youth is stale-pale — Hungary hasn’t imported millions of Muslims — and Hungarian youth aren’t exposed to with the woke propaganda that White children in the UK are inundated with in UK media and schools.

No anti-White Blight

So are Hungary’s grown-ups, of course. This is because Hungary hasn’t been enriched by mass immigration by non-Whites from the Third World. Consequently, there is no pressure from non-Whites and their leftist allies to create a cult of minority-worship in Hungary that blames all non-White failure on racism by Hungarian Whites. It’s the large numbers of Black players in English soccer that justify the “robotic” anti-racism of the “woke elites.” Unlike children in England, Hungarian children aren’t taught to idolize Black players who could never have created soccer for themselves and contribute nothing to soccer but their athleticism. Just as in American football, the brainpower and tactics in soccer are supplied by Whites, not by Blacks. Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a big thing in Britain because Blacks are a big thing in Britain.

But Black Lives Matter is not a big thing in Hungary because — guess what? — Blacks themselves aren’t a big thing in Hungary. Suicide-bombing and rape-gangs aren’t a big thing in Hungary either, because — guess what? — Muslims aren’t a big thing in Hungary. It’s that simple. Without non-Whites, Hungary has no anti-White blight: no identity politics, no rape-gangs, no suicide-bombers, no acid-throwers and no non-White schoolchildren hacking at other schoolchildren with machetes. Instead, Hungary has White schoolchildren booing a Black-enriched England soccer-team as it “takes the knee” in worship of Blacks before playing the overwhelmingly White Hungarian soccer-team.

V for Viktory

Whoever could have guessed that not having non-Whites would enable Hungary to avoid the endless cultural and social problems caused by non-Whites? Well, the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán — approvingly quoted by libertarian Brendan in his article — guessed that very thing. But get this: Orbán isn’t a libertarian. In fact, he’s an illiberal reactionary and the “godless woke mob” in the West call him a racist. But if Orbán were an anti-racist libertarian and had followed the Spiked recipe for societal bliss, he would have opened Hungary’s borders long ago and allowed non-Whites to flood in. After that, Hungary would have swiftly acquired all the cultural pathologies so loudly and often condemned by the freedom-fetishists at Spiked. And Hungary would also have had a suicide-bombing or two by now, even as vibrant rape-gangs flourished in enriched cities like Budapest, Szeged and Pécs.

Fortunately for Hungary, Viktor Orbán isn’t a libertarian. And if an illiberal reactionary like him defends Hungary’s freedom and independence so successfully while libertarianism fails completely in Britain, I can reach only one conclusion: that libertarianism is lethal for liberty. Libertarianism is, in fact, far more stupid than putting piranhas into tanks of neon tetras and guppies. Piranhas will only devour other fish. The core principles of libertarianism, like love of open borders and belief in racially mixed societies, will devour entire nations. And they are indeed devouring entire nations, because — surprise, surprise! — those core principles of libertarianism are also the core principles of the “woke mob.” It’s almost as though libertarianism and leftism are allies in the war on the West.

But how can libertarianism be so harmful to the West, when libertarianism is such a heavily Jewish movement? I’ll leave you to ponder that enigma as I go to feast my eyes on the guppies and neon tetras in my piranha-free fish-tank. And while I feast my eyes, I’ll dream of the day when the West is free again of piranhas in human form.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
Hide 19 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Notsofast says:

    omg, you’re going to drag out the corpse of salman rushdie (hey wait a minute, he’s not even dead) as an example of muslim intolerance towards writers and ignore the never ending string of journalists killed by the zionist israeli occupation of palestine. just last month shireen abu akleh was assassinated by an israeli sniper who shot her in the neck, in a 1″ space between her helmet and flack jacket. i think you are putting the emPHASis on the wrong sylLABle.

  2. But how can libertarianism be so harmful to the West, when libertarianism is such a heavily Jewish movement?

    I was unaware that William Godwin, John Stuart Mill, Lysander Spooner, and the stalwart New Englanders who resisted the Sixteenth and Eighteenth Amendments (so popular in the rest of the land) and the resultant New Deal were Jews. Or Rose Wilder Lane, Roger MacBride, Isabel Paterson, Henry Louis Mencken, Albert Jay Nock…

    Most people who bitch about Jews bitch about their being communist. Come here, and they bitch about Jews not being communist.

    Fortunately for Hungary, Viktor Orbán isn’t a libertarian.

    Which church is he establishing? Which monarchic claim does he back?

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    , @xyzxy
  3. Notsofast says:

    i would like to add a comment, that is a little more to the point of the article. all of the muslim refugees flooding the e.u. have been driven there purposefully by the zionist powers that be in london, washington, berlin, paris and tel aviv, as well as the other subservient zato members of this dark kabal.

    the single most glaring short coming of this article is it’s failure to mention the 1-0 hungarian win in budapest, (the first since 1962) followed by 4-0 drubbing of the english school girls at the hands (i mean feet) of the hungarian national team (worst home loss since 1928). rule britannia.

  4. lloyd says: • Website

    I say. 2 per cent Jews in a country, country benefits. More. Country goes down the drain. 20 percent Moslem, country benefits. More, country has problems. I don’t know the percentage of Moslems in UK, but I congratulate them there for exposing British hypocrisy. Now just imagine a mildly pornographic historically factual movie in U K about Anne Frank. It would never reach a theatre.

    • LOL: Verymuchalive
  5. Tobias,

    (I’m breaking my usual rule here by posting the same comment to you I posted at the Occidental Observer. BTW, you really didn’t know about piranhas??)

    Spiked columnist Inaya Folarin Iman:

    “Islamists mobs must not be allowed to dictate what films can be shown in cinemas.”

    That’s what Jew mobs do — the ultimate heresy is disobedience to “Holocaust” scripture. And we know what happens to heretics.

    How are we hustled into fighting endless criminal wars for the Jewish State? (For that matter, why do our borders stay open?) Because “HOLOCAUST!!” The “Holocaust!!” bogeyman stampedes the goyim into attacking any “New Hitler!!” the Chosen decree.
    — Ghadaffi is the New Hitler!!
    — Saddam is the New Hitler!!
    — Assad is the New Hitler!!
    — Putin is the New Hitler!!
    — (Insert New Hitler!! here: ___________)

    Iran (((the grand prize))) cranks out New Hitlers!! wholesale…
    — Khomeini is the New Hitler!!
    — Ahmadinejad is the New Hitler!!
    — Khameini is the New Hitler!!

    Even as we sink deeper into the (((Ukraine War))) we’re being psyched up to provoke the (((long-sought Iran War))). Keep in mind a (((CIA coup))) overthrew the democratically-elected leader of Iran way back in 1953, and the (((shysterized US))) has been supporting war crimes against Iran ever since.

    — (

    Mass devastation to modernizing Muslim lands is the direct & intended result of (((9-11))) — enabled by the ironclad censorship Jew mobs impose on 9-11 truth-tellers. Black & woke Spike Lee, to his credit, featured some 9-11 truth in his HBO documentary “NYC Epicenters.” But even he has to take a knee to Jew censors:

    — (

    Keep in mind that “moderate Muslim” states were in fact emerging among Israel’s neighbors — such as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, & Iran. We’d like to think Israel would welcome Islam emerging from its medieval past — but noooo, that’s exactly what Israel is determined to prevent, and if it takes a 9-11 to prevent it, so be it.

    It’s a fairly (((simple formula))):
    — spook the West into attacking modernizing Muslim lands,
    — traumatize & radicalize their Muslim inhabitants,
    — shove them into the West (& out of Israel’s way),
    — gaslight the White goyim into “celebrating diversity” (& their replacement),
    — if they oppose replacement, presto! — “New Hitlers!!”

    To summarize, movies exist that thoroughly expose “Holocaust” mythology, (((9-11))), and (((lots more))). But Jew mobs “dictate what films can be shown in cinemas.”

    Rather than directly opposing Islamic fundamentalist terrorism (the (((intended result))) of destroying modernizing Islamic lands), let’s redirect (as much as possible) Islamic fury at our common enemy. When Muslim mobs are marching, consider distributing (((censored truth))) — in leaflets, pamphlets, & signs with photos of Israeli atrocities against the Muslim world & the West. There is no shortage of such opportunities.

  6. @Reg Cæsar

    I was unaware that William Godwin, John Stuart Mill, Lysander Spooner,

    None of these people called themselves Libertarians, and the same goes for Mencken and his ilk.
    Libertarianism is a post-WWII movement of which many of the prominent proponents have been Jewish – eg Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard etc.

    Most people who bitch about Jews bitch about their being communist. Come here, and they bitch about Jews not being communist.

    Mr Langdon made a reasoned case as to why harmful to Western societies. In the last paragraph he mentions the Jewishness of many of its exponents, something which is obvious to most people with any knowledge of the subject. Langdon makes one reference to this, which you inflate to him bitching about Jews not being coommunist. Far from bitching, he was being very understated indeed. He could have been much more explicit – Spiked is basically the project of Frank Furedi, a Professor of Sociaology, ex-Trotskyite and of Hungarian Jewish extraction.

    Fortunately for Hungary, Viktor Orbán isn’t a libertarian.

    Which church is he establishing? Which monarchic claim does he back?

    Orban is concerned with conserving Hungary, its traditions and people. In the West, this used to be what Conservatives did.

    • Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht
  7. xyzxy says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    As another replied, Libertarianism as it is conceived today is mostly a Jewish product.

    On the ‘popular’ level it is Alice Rosenbaum and her cult. Within more technical economic circles you have the Mises school. Typically discounting racial/ethnic distinctions, Libertarians argue that in essence ‘all men’ are the same, and differences in kind are due to environmental factors (such as education and unique local conditions). Therefore economic (and other social policy) should not take race into account.

    Rand, no doubt the most read of the bunch, argued that viewing behavior from the standpoint of groups was both irrational and collectivist. Once she spoke the ‘I’ and ‘C’ word, it was the last word, at least as far as her cult was concerned.

    For his part, the more sophisticated and intelligent Mises argued against the idea of ‘polylogism’; a view asserting that, the logical structure of human thought and action is liable to change in the course of historical evolution. Racial polylogism assigns to each race a logic of its own.

    and, the physicist does not mind if somebody stigmatizes his theories as bourgeois, Western or Jewish; in the same way the economist should ignore detraction and slander.

    [Lifted from the section, “The Epistemological Problem of a General Theory of Human Action” in Human Action]

    With a little insight and reflection you can easily see why this sort of thinking was Jewish, and, consequently, where it will take you if you jump on board.

  8. @Verymuchalive

    Libertarianism is a post-WWII movement of which many of the prominent proponents have been Jewish – eg Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard etc.

    Ayn Rand never called herself ‘libertarian’. Because she had a feud with Rothbard – as Rothbard exposed her BS ideology.

    I’ve never encoutered evidence that Rothbard or Rothbardians are ‘anti-White’ or ‘Jewish supremacists’. Au contraire: Rothbardian Prof Walter Block (who’s Jewish) has an actual paper on the evils (!) of circumcision!


    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  9. TG says:

    Islam is a religion of peace and all who say different must be killed.

  10. @Vergissmeinnicht

    I do take your point about Ayn Rand. Rothbard, like Ron Paul and others, was what is now called a Paleaolibertarian. These people are few in number, an ageing demographic and have very little political influence. I have no quarrel with any of these people.

    What passes for Libertarianism now is essentially support for open borders, unilateral free trade and forcible integration. These people are merely shills for globalism and corporatism ( “Paypal cancelled your account. They’re a private company. The state isn’t involved. Nothing to see here. Move along, please” ) I do have a serious quarrel with these people.

    • Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht
  11. @Verymuchalive

    Paleo-Libertarian Hans-Hermann Hoppe made the ‘Libertarian Argument Against Open-Borders’: Rothbardian Lew Rockwell accepts that, but Rothbardian Walter Block does not.

    Bryan Caplan is not a Rothbardian nor an Austrian Economist, but he is an Anarco-Capitalist – he is famous for being an Open-Borders advocate but he stands with Freedom of Association.


    Point being: Not sure it’s that simple to define “What passes for Libertarianism now” – it’s a diverse movement. But sure, you’re right – Paleo-Libertarians are a small and weak group (sad!), meanwhile Reason Magazine’s version of ‘Libertarianism’¹ is much stronger.

    1. Reason Magazine was AGAINST Ron Paul because “he’s a racist”. Yup, really.

    • Thanks: Verymuchalive
  12. Anon[410] • Disclaimer says:



    Why not call it “Rosenbaumism?” Libertarianism is the new name for Objectivism, which was invented by the Ashkenazi female Alisa Rosenbaum, who went by the pen name of Ayn Rand. Objectivism is a cultural model seeking to maximize the evolutionary strategy called “Individual Selection,” which is the opposite of Group Selection (the model the Ashkenazim traditionally follow). I speculate she insincerely promoted this model in an attempt to weaken Europeans, who already were evolutionarily drifting toward an Individually Selected direction starting from the Enlightenment period in the 1700s.




    “which “Islamist mobs” have intimidated off all cinema screens in the UK because they regard it as heretical and blasphemous.”

    An excellent evolutionary strategy for the Muslims, and it works very well for the Haredi/Hasidic Ashkenazim as well. It’s the Europeans who decided during the Enlightenment that they will do away with the ethnically unifying power of traditional Christianity and replace it with atheism and individual pleasure seeking. I prefer a combination which I call Techno-Spirituality, which is the combining of Religion with eugenics/Transhumanism. Think of the original Star Wars trilogy, where the people fully believed in a unifying religion and an After-Life, but also embraced Transhuman technology such as sentient AI robots and cyborg technology. I wrote something about this just to get people thinking:

    ” I have a religious/monumental/spiritual belief that my envisioned Group-Selected nation should collectively seek to approach the realm of God by working together as a national family to become god-like ourselves via eugenics/transhumanism. It does not matter if we succeed or fail – it’s the effort that counts, and it’s the effort that gives our lives meaning and a purpose, which is to attempt to touch the realm of God together as a united national family, for God is pro-family, and we honor God in our attempt to become one with Him. God only helps those who helps themselves, and He is pleased and honored by our attempt to ourselves reach His realm. God understands that laziness leads to entropy, while hard work leads to higher orders of existence, thus He declares hard work to be a virtue, and laziness to be a Sin. Eugenics/transhumanism is the highest manifestation of hard work, and God is honored by our attempt to become one with Him. Again, in God’s eyes, it’s the attempt that counts, and as long as we try our best in the attempt to implement eugenics/transhumanism, we please God and increase our chances for transcendence into the next level of existence/After-Life/’Heaven.’”


    “Muslims are cultural piranhas and they devour free speech.”

    What does “free speech” even mean? The word “free” has no objective meaning. I think that one should just specifically state what types of speech should be legal, and what types should not. For example, maybe one can say that any speech that is not meant to deceive should be allowed, while speech that the speaker knowingly knows is false should be illegal. And then, in a Group Selected ethno-nationalist nation, there would be no ambiguous “Free Speech” policy; rather, speech laws would be more specific, such as saying that speech that benefits the ethno-nation would be allowed, but speech that is meant to harm the nation would be illegal. I wrote something about this in the past:

    “According to my ideology, the purpose of legal free speech is to share data and ideological/political/religious models either because it can help empower society in eugenic/transhuman terms or simply because it can add to the body of human knowledge.

    But, for the speech to be legally protected, it can’t be intentionally fraudulent, dishonest, and deceptive; the speaker must actually believe that the speech is, to the best of his knowledge, true. The speech cannot be intentionally created to confuse, deceive, misdirect, or defraud.

    If the speaker is unsure if whether what he is saying is true or not, he must ahead of time make the disclaimer that his speech is a hypothesis or speculation, being shared so that it can be further studied just in case the knowledge gained can either help mankind or simply add to our body of knowledge.

    So, I basically believe that Legal free speech must be honest speech. I don’t believe the First Amendment should protect intentionally dishonest and fraudulent speech, at least in my vision of a Transhuman Eugenic National Socialist nation. As such, no one would have to worry about “Fake News” since anyone proven to have INTENTIONALLY created the fraudulent or dishonest speech would be humanely euthanized by law and his family members and relatives tested for psychopathology and accordingly sterilized.

    Just to clarity, the speaker must actually believe that what he is saying is truthful. Even if it is unknowingly not true, it would still be protected speech since there was no intent to deceive. The speaker would just have to qualify his speech as “to the best of my knowledge” or “to the best of my cognitive abilities, I believe such and such to be true,” as opposed to saying something is true in the absolute.

    I believe that psychopathic dishonesty and fraud has no place in a Transhuman Eugenic National Socialist nation.”



    What is the objective definition of “liberty?

    • Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht
    , @Anon
  13. @Anon

    Right-Libertarianism is very diverse – many libertarians are not just non-Randian but, in fact, anti-Randian.

    Randian ideology (“Objectivism”) does weaken Group Selection¹, that’s true, but that could be merely coincidental – I’m not a mind-reader, hence I’m not going to say, “Ayn Rand wanted to weaken White people”.

    1. Funnily, Ayn Rand was ‘pro-egoism’ and, concomitantly, ‘pro-individualism’ – when, in fact, if you’re pro-egoism you should be pro-collectivism, because that’s evolutionarily adapted i.e. people of your race share more genes with you than people of different races, therefore by helping your race you are, in turn, helping yourself too.

    • Replies: @Alrenous
  14. Alrenous says: • Website

    Islam + Freedom = Islam

    You mean Islam + anarcho-tyranny = Islam.

    Whatever a “libertarian” is descriptively, it stopped being someone who likes liberty a long time ago. Any public libertarian is a Communist that happens to be slightly less Communist than usual.

    The idea of “freedom” is itself bait. What you want are property rights. Freedom from crime.

    If you own your neighbourhood, then if you don’t want Muslims to move in, then they don’t. They can only be a problem because someone is stopping you from owning your neighbourhood; anarcho-tyranny.

    Under property rights, there is no debate regarding Muslims at all. If it’s your business, then you decide. If it’s not your business, then it’s not your business. If someone else wants to let them move into their neighbourhood, then you can’t stop them.

    Put another way, it’s logically impossible for “the people” to own anything, and in America, DC owns everything. You’re just a serf that they may flood with Muslims at their discretion. Turns out they want to, so here you are.

    Someone may qualify for the description [liberty-loving] when they start arguing that maybe DC shouldn’t own anything and whether some wonk likes Muslims or not should be entirely irrelevant to whether your neighbourhood gets new neighbours from far away.

  15. Alrenous says: • Website

    Neither forcing folk to be individualist nor forcing them to be collectivist is compatible with liberty.

    Voluntary collectivism is good because it’s voluntary. Involuntary collectivism is bad because it’s involuntary.

    America spends a lot of time forcing folk to be individualist. Parasites like divide-and-conquer. If it’s involuntary, it’s a crime, driven by parasites.

    If they weren’t parasites they could do whatever it is voluntarily instead.

    • Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht
  16. @Alrenous

    I wouldn’t peremptorily say, “When the State forces you doing something you don’t want to it is a crime“, after all, I’m not an anarchist.
    But yeah: I believe there should be waaay more freedom than what we have today.

    Neither forcing folk to be individualist nor forcing them to be collectivist is compatible with liberty.

    I agree, but I’m referring to egoism – which’s central to Ayn Rand’s philosophy –, not liberty.
    And, BTW, I would indeed affirm, “Forcing folk to be collectivistic/individualistic is WRONG”.

    • Replies: @Alrenous
  17. Alrenous says: • Website

    If the State has actual value, it can ask for money or other compensation in exchange for that value. The only reason it needs the ability to force you to do things is if it wants something for nothing. If using force is legitimized, the State will quickly turn to direct robbery and extortion.

    The stationary bandit tends to resort to banditry.

  18. You made me laugh.

    Kith and kin is the best non-kosher ism.

    Hungary isn’t run by a confirmed Anglican, ex-American, and kibbutz volunteer of Turkish and Jewish descent raised in the Roman Catholic Church.

    It also has very few Mary Beard and Miranda Kaufmann equivalents.

    Eastern Europeans have their own dilemma with unrefined Indians.

    Despite pressure exerted by the feminine EU Commission and he who broke the pound, they have refused to exalt minority brats.

  19. Anon[489] • Disclaimer says:

    My comment above was challenged at the Occidental Observer, and I responded as follows:

    “You have learned the White Man’s script.”

    You are correct: my genetics are extremely primitive, thus I am innately incapable of any intelligent thought; rather, I simply borrow ideas from ethnic Europeans. For example, regarding my words on combining Religion with eugenics/transhumanism, I am borrowing the ideas of six Europeans: the writer of the original Star Wars Trilogy (unless the writer is Ashkenazi), Dr. Michael Anthony Woodley of Menie’s thoughts on Religiosity, Bruce Charlton’s thoughts on eugenically breeding for Religiosity/Spirituality, Matt Nuenke’s Prometheism, and Dalibor Den Otter’s Transtopia
    Anything original from India you’d like to contribute ?

    We Indians have a median IQ of 80 and are all R-Selected Genetic Sociopaths, thus we have nothing positive to contribute – just parasitism. However, if we practiced eugenics/transhumanism, we could become genetically superior to Europeans; however, we are too genetically primitive to ever decide to come together and initiate eugenics/transhumanism.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply -

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Tobias Langdon Comments via RSS
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Becker update V1.3.2