Libertarians and the Alt Right

Sometimes I wonder if it was always like this and I was just less aware, but it seems like race is on the tongue of every leftist media personality lately. Typically I don’t see a great deal of merit in their complaints, other than to note that wherever demographics are not homogenous, demographic disparities exist in socially significant categories of status and behavior. Shockingly enough, very few people see fit to respond to leftist cries of racism, other than to deny that they are racists, which never seems to do any good for anyone.

Libertarians and the Alt Right

Libertarians and the Alt Right

I almost shouldn’t have to state that libertarianism itself doesn’t have much to say about race. The non-aggression principle, in theory, can and should transcend such categorizations and be applied to all two legged creatures, with the notable exception of Kangaroos. In practice, any movement that seeks to alter society as much as libertarianism does, without addressing the topic of race, might as well be trying to buy things without money. It’s not impossible, but you have to do some kind of Rube Goldberg operation to address a lot of issues, and that’s pretty much impossible to do in a hyperinclusive mass democracy, where people feel no obligation to inform themselves before they decide who gets the nukes.

Republicans and conservatives haven’t been particularly helpful either. Avoiding the topic altogether is the preferred option. Though while I can see the reasons they prefer not to discuss it, this is causing them to lose elections entirely too frequently. Dodging questions has this nasty habit of making you look guilty as sin, and constantly reassuring people you’re not a racist while the word might as well not have a definition these days, makes you look like an idiot.

So libertarians and the right more generally are reduced to memorizing nonsensical talking points about the war on drugs, the welfare state, the legacy of slavery, and a host of other platitudes which amount to apologizing for not being a communist. They keep on trying to explain away inequality by blaming it on the government, as if human beings didn’t pass on traits through their DNA. It’s profoundly irritating to those of us who have bothered to try and understand the subject of racial disparities throughout the world, and throughout time. Worse than this, our more respectable counterparts are often joining with our mortal enemies, in trying to exterminate scientific facts from the collective human consciousness.

Why? Because if they don’t, they’ll be called racists. Their careers will be ruined, their social standing will suffer, and depending on the time and place they might even be arrested or assaulted or murdered over this. Shockingly enough, no matter how much one tries not to be a racist, disagreeing with communists always seems to bring the accusation anyway. Even if you’re a gay Jewish immigrant, you’re literally going to be called a Nazi if you dare to suggest a different public policy than the television set has decided will be the future of the country.

You would think with all this madness and violence going on over the racial tensions, the libertarians, who fancy themselves the smartest people in the room, and often are, would have something to say about the subject. Well, they do in fact do this from time to time, but then they get run out of polite society, and become the alt right.

Libertarians have, since the coining of the term, attempted to separate themselves from typical left vs. right spectrum of political thought. Despite having attracted some of the most brilliant and articulate minds in the history of our species, this still has not brought them much in the way of political success. While the movement has certainly grown a great deal and we can credit a list of really excellent people for what they’ve done to spread the ideas, attempting to intellectualize away certain realities of the world in which we live, eventually exposes one as not having much interest in changing the overall course of human events. Moreover, nobody gives a shit about libertarians because the immediacy of our problems makes violence an unfortunate necessity, and their avoidance of this fact makes them look like irresponsible children.

Left and right is natural to us, and libertarians are never going to escape it insofar as we describe left and right as ideas and patterns of behavior, as opposed to political parties. It is not a conspiracy to take your social freedoms on one side and your economic freedoms on the other. Libertarians are just as left/right divided as the rest of the country, and you can’t understand anything else about libertarians until you understand that.

On the left side of libertarianism, just like in the Democratic party, you see the embrace of homosexuals, immigrants, and things they’ll be referring to as racial minorities until the last white man is dead. Judging people for vices, or just about anything at all is seen as wicked statist authoritarianism. Their views on race could be summed up as, kill whitey. Some would say I’m oversimplifying matters, and I am, because these people are idiots. I’m not going to bother addressing communists just because they call themselves libertarians. I really don’t believe these people have a right to live anymore.

If you’re a right libertarian, people are going to call you a racist, and eventually they’re going to be right. Their constant shifting of the goal posts aside, the reason Democrats hate racism is because it is harmonious with racial reality. If you’re a right libertarian and you fancy yourself an intellectual, I imagine you’re going to have a hard time not becoming familiar with subjects like race and IQ, crime demographics, and who runs the media and financial institutions while telling you you’re the oppressor. I’m not saying you’re gonna get a fashy haircut and start curb stomping degenerates or anything, more typically, your path from here forward will involve a great deal of keeping your mouth shut so nobody discovers your crimethink.

Perhaps for you, that treacherous journey begins here.

I should state, I’m certain there are those who would say that I’m no authority on the alt right. The alt right has a nasty habit of doing that to the alt right, but that’s not the point. I’m not claiming to have done a great deal of reading on the definition of the alt right, because I don’t think it is necessarily something you write a list of positions about. I only stumbled upon it by googling neoreactionary after I was accused of being one, and they had better memes than the libertarians so I jumped ship. I’m oversimplifying, but this is sort of true, actually.

People say the alt right is racist. While I think it would be unfair to categorize them as a “hate” movement, they are racist insofar as they do not suffer from the libertarian and conservative incapacity to meet leftist cries of racism with more than apologies. They have legitimate arguments, and solutions to the racial tensions that are making so many people miserable these days. Not the least of which is separation, or white nationalism.

I’m going to ask you to take a few things for granted here as I go forward, because decisively making the case for each point would simply be beyond the scope of this text. Even if you think I’m wrong about these things, I think you’ll find I make pretty compelling arguments on my show.

Human beings are animals not entirely dissimilar to others. They mate and give birth to live offspring who take their DNA and all the genetic traits that come with it from the parents. When two white people have a child, we all expect the child to be white, and if not somebody is going to get in trouble. As it turns out, people pass on more than their skin color through their DNA. Traits like intelligence, hormones, and even certain tendencies of behavior are all informed by our biology through a combination of environmental factors and genetics. People can squabble as much as they want about nature or nurture, but the best available evidence suggests that people are born with a certain degree of genetic potential beyond which no environmental factor can improve.

It should not surprise us then, that there are disparities in these traits between racial groups. Peoples who shared a general gene pool in one environment, are going to face different selective pressures than peoples who shared a different general gene pool in a different environment. Some environments demand people reduce their time preference and plan ahead to survive and leave progeny, while others favor brute force and malaria resistance. When that happens for thousands of years, you end up with peoples who do not interpret the world the same way, and are biologically all but destined to act on those interpretations in ways that are incompatible with one another. I don’t imagine that was such a huge problem before we figured out intercontinental travel, but times have been rather trying for all involved ever since.

In the United States and Europe, we seem to have been convinced that “diversity is our strength” despite every light in the cockpit telling us this plane is about to crash. Blacks are burning down their own neighborhoods because they’re 13% of the population and 30% of those shot by police, and if you think them committing half the violent crime has something to do with that, you’re a Nazi who deserves to be assaulted.  Muslims are taking over entire cities in Europe without an ounce of resistance from the people of those cities, but this lack of resistance hasn’t stopped them from raping the women of the lands they are conquering. Americas southern border has become a dumping ground for welfare recipients, criminals, and people without much to offer in the way of marketable skills.

If you attend libertarian events, you’ll notice a certain notorious demographic pattern. White males, mostly of the heterosexual variety. This is sort of an important thing to understand if you’re a libertarian, even if you’re not white. If you don’t like biological determinism, feel free to blame it on the public schools and the media, but if you see a black guy at a libertarian conference, he’s probably the keynote speaker and everybody wants to know his unique insights on how to steer blacks from communism. Without white people, there is no libertarian movement. Pokemon cards have more influence on government policy than libertarians will in the absence of white people.

If the demographic goals of the Democratic party are reached, it will be the end of white people in the United States. Uncontrolled immigration combined with preferential job placement, antidiscrimination laws, and a welfare state that subsidizes the worst sort of breeding patterns, will breed us out, while the high taxes that pay for all of this bleed us out. Either, we will become extinct as the left would certainly prefer. Or, we separate along ethnic lines and cease to be the United States. There is a third option, but we would all prefer to avoid that one.

The latter option is commonly referred to as white nationalism. The nation state is universally purported to exist for the purpose of serving the best interests of the people of the nation. Setting aside for a moment whatever quarrels one might have with the State as an institution, this is the perfectly normal state of affairs for human beings throughout the world, and has been for just about as long as we’ve got written history. For white nationalists, those people just so happen to be white. Like most other racial groups, we place a degree of value upon this, and aim to see it preserved through public policy. Depending on who you talk to, the policy might be absolute exclusion of all non-whites, or some degree of merit based immigration might be permitted. But the purpose of the State is to preserve the people and their interests, and the racial identity of the people is held in very high regard.

Mind you, it is only heresy when white people do this. Nobody is demanding that Japan or Israel open up their borders and subsidize waves of foreigners into their country. The mere mention of preserving the white race today is met with such hostility, that I find it hard to believe more white people aren’t absolutely terrified by it. If I were to accuse Jews of some special wickedness for preserving their people, I’d understandably be seen as pretty hostile towards their survival, funny how that doesn’t seem to go both ways. (Jews are not whites by the way, Google it.)

Now, if you’re a libertarian you might be saying to yourself right now “but Chris, this is statism,” and you would be correct. You might even call it fascism, and I wouldn’t find it particularly useful to argue with you. White nationalism generally involves having a government. I could make the case of a white nation without what we would commonly recognize as a modern government, but that’s the Rube Goldberg thing again. Or should I say, Hans Hoppe.

Libertarianism taken through to its ultimate logical conclusion is a society where all property in land is ultimately privately owned. A man’s home however, may or may not be his castle. Land owners dictate what happens on their land, and to imagine that our conveniently zoned plots drawn out by our municipalities would long remain in a free market for land is naive. If one is not subject to taxes in his ownership of land, then he is more or less welcome to begin collecting them, and more resources than the average person can come up with are going to be aimed at gaining that privilege.  A land developer might build an entire city and claim it as his own and let people live on that land under certain conditions. Such as contributing to the maintenance of common areas and security expenses. It would not be difficult to imagine such a community might choose to prohibit drug use, or even homosexuality. In fact, the better the community was, the more discriminatory it would by definition have to be. When the people making the decisions find themselves more interested in making money than in obtaining votes, it is hard to imagine they wouldn’t have some kind of ethnic policy. Whether anybody wants to admit it or not, we know that the best places to live, especially for libertarians, are going to be mostly white.

So I don’t see white nationalism as being inherently at odds with libertarianism. For most libertarians, I imagine white nationalism would be their market preference. You can take issue with the merit of how the rulers of a society are chosen, but the rulers are going to be there one way or the other, and ultimately what affects our lives is the decisions those rulers make. If you like the non aggression principle and you’re cognizant of demographics, you’re going to want to influence those decisions to favor the interests of white people, and diversity just doesn’t meet that standard.

Where libertarians typically come into conflict with the alt right has more to do with policy proposals in the here and now, than in some abstract concept of an ethnostate or covenant community. The libertarians entirely too frequently just want to try and chip away at the government in whatever opportunistic order they can. Leave the borders wide open with a cradle to grave welfare state, and some people think this is going to turn us into Ancapistan. Legalize drugs in the presence of that same welfare state, and watch the ayahuasca thrust us toward a post scarcity future.

Those of us with a little more maturity would prefer public policy to guide us toward a more libertarian future. I won’t mince words here, I’m talking about a eugenics program. It doesn’t have to be as brutal as genocide and forced sterilization, but if you think government policy isn’t already dictating evolutionary pressures on our species you’re kidding yourself. Taxing working people to subsidize the breeding of people who do not work is not just bad economic policy, it is bad genetics, and I think you would have to be pretty naive to think that was lost on the part of the people who set these policies. They do these things, in combination with immigration, to make a dumber more dependent society.

It is not unfathomable that one could organize economic policy in such a fashion as to do the opposite. I’d go so far as to say we could dramatically improve the quality of our people in a generation just by slashing taxes and limiting wealth redistribution schemes. But what if we also started funneling government money to our think tanks and activist groups like the left has done for decades? What if Roe vs. Wade was overturned, and white areas reduced access to abortion while black areas increased it? What if, instead of a suicidally altruistic immigration policy, only the best and brightest were permitted to enter Western societies?

I can understand why libertarians and conservatives become skeptical of people who think themselves uniquely qualified to to play god in the way the left has become so comfortable doing. The thing is, us refusing to play god doesn’t stop the left from playing. This is a fight for our survival whether we like it or not, and for better or worse the State is the weapon in play. We have to control it, and use it to our interests, because the only alternative in the present day is to have others control it and use if for their own.

We cannot concern ourselves with how the founders intended us to govern, because our rivals do not adhere to this same standard.  A bunch of Republicans preventing the State from acting for a couple of years, only to hand control back off to communist activists in the next term, is not going to work out in our political or darwinian interests. We have to do things that are understandably deemed corrupt just to compete with the left.

The leaks coming out of the intelligence agencies, and the courts preventing Trump from controlling the borders during wartime, are just two examples of the left taking advantage of the system in ways we disadvantage ourselves by refusing to do. If the left wants to ban “hate speech”  then we should ban “communist propaganda” with all the same vagueness and uncertainty of their thought control program. Every Democrat (and for that matter, every Jew) in the intelligence apparatus should have their security clearances revoked and they should be replaced with right wing ideologues. After Trump packs the spy agencies with loyalists, then Congress can pass a law preventing the next president from pulling a similar stunt. We have to stop trying to be neutral about education curriculum, the communists have been using the schools to brainwash kids for decades. It’s time to push a right wing social engineering agenda into the public schools. You’re never going to privatize the industry as long as there are large numbers of leftists in the society, and those schools are presently breeding grounds for communism.

The list of examples could get kind of long, but the idea here is to make it difficult for leftists to operate, not only politically but in their business and social lives as well. If the right stops trying to play by the rules, we can socially engineer the country through public policy. Imagine a world where being called a Democrat was worse than being called a racist, and Facebook took the hammer and sickle as seriously as the swastika.

It sounds crazy to a lot of libertarians at first, but when measured against the alternatives it begins to sound more reasonable. This is far more reasonable than anything we see coming out of the Democratic party, but that’s a rather low bar to set. I even think we’d be compelled to understate the reasonableness of this to compare it against anything coming from the Libertarian Party, or even the Republican Party.

Frankly, white nationalism is a lot more reasonable than modern American democracy. It’s more sensible than continuing to be one nation, under God, indivisible, with racial tension, and high taxes for all. This whole sea to shining sea thing was cool, until we forgot that nations were made up of human beings who pursue group interests at the expense of other groups. Those groups can be defined in a lot of ways, but anybody who thinks race ain’t one of them is kidding themselves.

For many years, the right has tried to limit the power of the State because they rightly perceived it as a threat to their safety. Recklessly, leftists have used every usurpation they can get away with to grow the government and confirm our fears. Limiting the government now would be foolish. Let us terrorize the left until the best that they can hope for is limiting the intrusions of the State.

I keep the lights on here by selling premium memberships, as well as bumper stickers and shirts. I also solicit donations, and encourage you to shop through my affiliate links. Without that support, this show will cease to exist.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

  • Richard Chiu

    Unfortunately, you are putting the cart before the horse.

    Yes, a genuinely desirable libertarian community anywhere in the Western world will be predominantly white. But it will be so because those with the attributes which contribute to the desirability of such a community are predominantly white, not because they are a majority of whites. To accept people into your community just because because they are white is to ensure that it is soon filled with the majority of whites who are just as Marxist (culturally and economically) as the majority of any other race. That will be a predominantly white community, but it won’t be an even slightly desirably libertarian one.

    To impose standards for admission to a desirably libertarian community anywhere in the Western world without regard to race ensures a predominantly white community. But the reverse is not true. There are too many predominantly white communities that have no hint of desirable libertarianism for this to even be a serious dispute. You ensure the failure of libertarianism by making skin color a significant criterion of participation, rather than intelligence, ability, and commitment to libertarian principles. To be clear, I don’t believe that having a skin color preference is itself anti-libertarian. The preference could be for people who enjoy classical music over rap, or like chocolate more than strawberries, or are morning people rather than night people. There is nothing anti-libertarian about any of these preferences.

    But making any of them a substitute for admitting people into your community based on productive ability and willingness to respect property rights of others ensures that the community will not have the most desirable features of a libertarian community. There is nothing wrong with observing that people who prefer Bach to P. Diddy are more likely to have the traits that are required to be a benefit to building a libertarian community. But there are plenty of Marxists among those who enjoy classical music.

    Libertarians are a minority…of everything. No matter what you try to use as the substitute for reliably assessing an individual’s viability and commitment to participate in a libertarian community, it will be wrong more often than right. Libertarians are a minority of chocolate lovers and people who take their coffee black and A-type personalities and even STEM workers (in fact, Hayak makes a particular point about the vulnerability of narrow technical experts to the temptations of centralized planning).

    Marxism tries to convince us that race is SO IMPORTANT precisely because it is absolutely unimportant. Yes, there are statistical correlations between race and intellect, and thus between ability and willingness to participate in a libertarian community. There are greater statistical correlations between intellect and STEM degrees, or music preferences, or favorite foods, or IQ tests. That doesn’t make any of these an adequate indicator of commitment to respect the property rights of others in a libertarian community.

    • goodmatt10 1

      “”To accept people into your community just because because they are white is to ensure that it is soon filled with the majority of whites who are just as Marxist (culturally and economically) as the majority of any other race.””

      I don’t think he ever said being race was the only criteria, he just said it was an important one.

      • Richard Chiu

        It doesn’t have to be the only criterion. If you make it an important one, it’s going to displace the ability and willingness to abide libertarian principles, for the simple mathematical reason that there are immensely more whites than libertarians around.

        You have to relegate racial preferences to being categorically less important than the preference for genuine libertarians, just like you have to establish that a preference for gold over silver coin is categorically more important than preference for the country of origin, or silver coins from that country will crowd out gold coins (including gold coins from that country).

        • goodmatt10 1

          If your community also forbids many of the things Chris talked about – I’d say those rules, coupled with the race preference will work out pretty well.

          Every community can set whatever rules it wishes, and then experience the consequences, good or bad, and I’d imagine most communities will modify themselves as they see which ideas work and which don’t.

          In the end, I’m not worried what other communities do so long as they leave me to do what I and the others who agree with me want to do in our community – tho I realize such and idea is just a pipe dream.

          • Richard Chiu

            Well, you’re going to be the one bearing the consequences of your experiment along those lines. As long as I’ve warned you, it’s not really my business what you do with that warning.

          • goodmatt10 1

            Uh, sure. Gotta say, your comments are always fun if nothing else.

          • paendragon

            He seems to think “communities” will always do the smart thing, eventually, so he’s not worried – and yet the largest “communities” are called “nations” and “countries” so it seems he hasn’t actually been doing much thinking about it at all!

  • tz1

    In practice, any movement that seeks to alter society as much as
    libertarianism does, without addressing the topic of race, might as well
    be trying to buy things without money.

    Bartered Libertarian Syndrome?

    Race is technically disjoint to the politics, philosophy, economics, etc. That doesn’t mean it is without profound effect. If I’m writing a book on making a garden, I’m only going to note it requires good soil and proper moisture. People will sort of notice that sandy deserts or malarial swamps don’t make for good gardens.

    The other problem is the SJW shriekfest if you say anything. I won’t even talk about IQ (leaving that for Molyneux) other than to say Japan has, on average a higher IQ, but a lower birth-rate, yet it would be harder to turn a Japanese prefecture into Galt’s Gulch than Detroit. Too much Kung Fudalism – if you look you see the same Shogunate with a technological and industrial overlay. Kieretsu, Salarymen, “getting drunk on a (bullet) train!”. Or worse, up the IQ scale to the Ashkenazi in Israel, which seem to think they are smart enough to make socialism and fiat currency work. I know, it is extremely racist to point out that cultures with HIGHER average bell curve IQs can’t go libertarian.

    Legacy of Slavery the last time a bunch of rich elites brought 3rd worlders here (before 1808) so they could do the work cheaply instead of paying natives proper wages. Oh, and after over 2 centuries, I think it is reasonable to ask how many have assimilated and to what extent.

    They keep on trying to explain away inequality by blaming it on the government, as if human beings didn’t pass on traits through their DNA.

    My most clear counter example is the Y chromosome. A set of fraternal twins, one boy and one girl will be UNEQUAL in some ways more significantly than either to others of the same sex but different race. Such a small amount of DNA. Such a big difference. I know they try to deny those differences too.

    Even the “smartest in the room”, and the otherwise brave, as in Defending the indefensible like prostitutes and drug dealers, Walter Block won’t touch race. (note I posted the link before I read it, but as expected…)

    On the left side of libertarianism, just like in the Democratic party, you see the embrace of homosexuals, immigrants, and things they’ll be referring to as racial minorities But a strange embrace, that you can engage in debauchery, spread STDs which are expensive if not impossible to treat “as long as you don’t make me pay for it”. Immigrants that somehow teleport here instead of crossing border property and turning it into a trash-heap and sewer. And an Australian Aborigine that has read Mises and Rothbard.

    … The Alt-Right is more about DOING something as barbarians are at the gates shooting flaming arrows trying to burn down western civilization (which is a precursor to anything libertarian). Generally, except on the periphery, we don’t argue about the future utopias (ancap or otherwise), we are about shooting the barbarians and putting out the flames, and finding ways of fire and arrow proofing ourselves. Once we are safe we can figure out how little government we can live with, but the 80-95% tyranny isn’t going away without a fight and we can worry about whether minimal is 10% or 0% after we are victorious.

    Tom Woods and Bob Murphy are having another contra-cruise. I wonder if they will try to make it diverse by getting half women, and appropriate racial demographics.

    • UncleVladdi

      Re: “I know, it is extremely racist to point out that cultures with HIGHER average bell curve IQs can’t go libertarian.”

      That’s because intelligence is speed of thought and memory; smarts is how you use it. Smart but unintelligent people slowly arrive at the right answers, while dumb but intelligent people do dumb things faster and more accurately.

      And as for “racism” (being truthful about our observations) it might actually solve the problem of black laziness, impulsiveness, and promiscuity! Admitting a problem exists is the first step in solving that problem! Since melanin is not only a skin dye but also a neuro-transmitter, it will probably be easy to develop a simple beta-blocker to free blacks from their history of being unable to create stable societies or invent stuff!

      From a link Chris probably wouldn’t let me post here for you to see:

      “Neuromelanin Magnetic Resonance Imaging Reveals Increased Dopaminergic Neuron Activity in the Substantia Nigra of Patients with Schizophrenia: Neuromelanin has a T1-shortening effect, which was a similar characteristic of the cutaneous melanin.”


  • annoyalib

    outfuckingstanding piece

  • paendragon

    Chris, thanks for proving libertarians are just as retarded as your common leftists.

    Re: “Libertarians have, since the coining of the term, attempted to separate
    themselves from typical left vs. right spectrum of political thought. Despite having attracted some of the most brilliant and articulate minds in the history of our species, this still has not brought them much in the way of political success” … and … “Libertarians are just as left/right divided as the rest of the country, and you can’t understand anything else about libertarians until you understand that.”

    BRAVO! Now, here’s the simple, easy, logical rational and FACTUAL solution:

    1.) THERE IS NO “RIGHT WING” AND NO “RIGHT-WINGERS!” (‘alt-‘ or otherwise)!

    2.) SEE 1. ABOVE!!!!

    The whole “right-wing radicalization” slander attempt is typical of the criminal islamo-communazis’ immoral relativism – their #1 alibi to excuse their crimes is the Argumentum Tu Quoque “Two wrongs make a right!” fallacy: “We (leftists/muslims) aren’t evil because you all do it, too! Whee!”

    So, in order to “prove” this fallacy, they need to cherry-pick (or mock up fake) “evidence” that others “do it too!”

    Libertine “liberal” socialists (criminal gangster extortionists) are the real “islamophobes” – which is why they automatically defend the muzi crime-gang!

    THEY are the ones who recognize islam is scary, but since they are literal psycho-paths (thought killers) who instantly pretend the fear of fear is the worst crime (because it hurts feelings) they mock those rational people who openly admit it as “cowards.”

    And these libertine “liberals” (criminal gangster extortionists) love to blame their victims!

    Here’s an obvious difference between the left and right: remember the old adage about “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day, but teach him how to fish, and you’ve fed him for a lifetime!”?

    “Rightists” (if they in fact really exist at all) are all for individual self-reliant responsibility, and so want to teach people how to fish (fend) for them selves, while leftists want their victims to become dependent on them, as slaves are to a master; i.e:

    “Vote for us again, or you won’t get tomorrow’s fish – CAPISCE!?”


    “Socialism” is criminal gangster extortion leading to slavery. That’s really all it is.
    And despite it’s fluffy label, there’s nothing “sociable” about any of that at all, ever!

    “Right wingers” are only normal people who don’t like being extorted by “socialist” gangsters.

    Gangster victimologists always feel endangered by proud individualists.

    Honestly, people – “right wingers” don’t actually exist. Hitler was a National SOCIALIST.

    And even “Fascism” was invented by Benito Mussolini, the devoted Italian SOCIALIST.

    So, what’s a “right winger?” It’s any normal person who wakes up enough to take a bit of time off from minding their own businesses to temporarily band together to vote to not be extorted any more by group-might-makes-rights-worshiping “socialist” gangster criminals.

    • goodmatt10 1

      Where did Chris say Hitler or Mussolini were right wing? You seem to be arguing against things he never said.

      • paendragon

        He says libertarians are convinced there is a right/left-wing split.
        So I was only agreeing with him that there is no ‘right’ wing at all.
        You seem to see an agreement as an argument. Are you a liberal?

        • goodmatt10 1

          Honestly I don’t what in the world your posts are saying.

          • paendragon

            What’s that? I can’t understand a word you say either!

  • paendragon

    Re:”Nobody is demanding that … Israel (should) open up (its) borders and subsidize waves of foreigners into their country.” ER – THEY’RE NOT?!

    Chris: Where have you been for the last full century?!

  • paendragon

    Re: “What if Roe vs. Wade was overturned, and white areas reduced access to abortion while black areas increased it?” ER that’s EXACTLY what PP is all about!

  • paendragon

    We don’t have to stop playing by the rules to over-rule communism – just define it properly: “socialism” is gangster extortion (where the group or state has all the rights, and its individual human citizen components only have responsibilities to obey it). “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is best defined as SLAVERY. Perpetual extortion (criminal takers force makers to work for them for free) is called “slavery.” Despite it’s fluffy label, there’s nothing at all “sociable” about SLAVERY. But there are already laws against theft, extortion, and slavery. With their false group rights must come group responsibility (RICO, for instance). These laws already exist. What we see is linguistic sleight-of hand, where theft, extortion, and slavery are called “Sociable” and the islamic global crime-gang is called “religion!”

  • goodmatt10 1

    “”For many years, the right has tried to limit the power of the State because they rightly perceived it as a threat to their safety. “”

    I don’t disagree with you much, but gotta here, the Right talks a good game, but their actual actions have been no different than the Dems.

    All you gotta do is look at that famous Tea Party sign where the man is holding it up and it says “Balance The Budget, But Hands Off My Medicare!”. Or how about Reagan – one of the biggest growers of govt ever – is practically at God status in most of their minds.

    Bush was just as bad as Obama, no, he was worse, because he was carrying our brand and he blackened it.

    • UncleVladdi

      How was Reagan one of the biggest growers of government ever?

      • goodmatt10 1

        Are you asking this as a serious question?

        Just for starters, he run up the first Trillion dollar debt anyone had ever heard of – might sound par for the course these days, but back then, no one had even heard of that number, adjust it for inflation you’re talking around 5T

        He gave amnesty to 3mill illegals – then mandated schools and hospitals must admit illegals, let’s not forget CA has not gone red every since.

        He shored up SS and Dept of ED

        He raised taxes 11

        He grossly abused the military intervening around the world in conflicts that were none of our business

        I can go on if you’d like me to. Ever since Reagan, running up huge Fed debts just became a norm in America. People walk by that debt clock in NYC all day and don’t even care.