Kevin Mac Donald Attacks the Libertarian Strawman


Another oldy.


by All-in-All

The Alternative Right (including Third Positioners) has a long history of making ignorant attacks on libertarianism which strikingly parallel those made by the socialists of the 19th century. This should not be surprising since white nationalism and most of the Alt-Right are basically just classical social nationalists. Libertarianism and White Nationalism by Kevin MacDonald is the latest of these sallies into error, and I thought I’d take a minute to bust his balls for talking about things he obviously doesn’t understand.

libertarianism is considered part of the conservative mainstream. It doesn’t ruffle the feathers of the multicultural powers that be.

This is just hysterically and obviously false. Some libertarians, such as Walter Block, are notorious for defending discrimination (racial, sexual, national, religious), defending private, exclusionary communities, and calling bullshit on the claims of racist, sexism and ‘homophobia’ that constantly loom. Some Libertarians, such as Hans Hoppe, are also famous for repudiating democratic and republican governments and stressing that hierarchical and even patriarchal societies are both normal and generally admirable. Finally, there is basically no one who is as open to the idea of human biodiversity, and in particular hereditary intelligence, as the libertarian fringe.

libertarianism is an ideology of national dissolution that would greatly exacerbate problems resulting from immigration.

Libertarianism is an ideology of state dissolution. Like the mainstream left (i.e., Republicans, Democrats and their toadies), MacDonald and his crew frequently make the mistake of confusing the State – a predatory/parasitic agency – with society, a collection of individuals engaged in various relationships commercial and otherwise. MacDonald would do well to re-read his Nietzsche, where the distinction is made clear.

Several prominent libertarians have advocated open borders except for immigrants clearly intent on violating personal or property rights. As Krejsa notes, libertarians ignore the reality that the peoples crowding our shores often have powerful ethnic ties and that they are typically organized in well-funded, aggressive ethnic organizations. These ethnic organizations have a vital interest in a strong central government able to further their interests in a wide range of areas, from welfare benefits to foreign policy.

MacDonald (and Kresja) are guilty of misunderstanding libertarianism on several points here. For one, libertarianism does not advocate open-borders, per se. What it contends is that property owners, and not a criminal gang exercising a legalized monopoly of robbery, have or ought to have control over ingress and egress from their personal property. Libertarianism does not promote ‘open borders’: it denies that borders have any meaning whatsoever. The boundaries between various gangs do not require anyone to recognize them.

Likewise, MacDonald (and some anti-immigration ‘libertarians’) obviously do not understand the subversive and counter-productive nature of ‘help’ from the state. The state is as useless and destructive in the provision of security as it is in the production of shoes. A closed or restrictive border policy will not, in fact, improve life within the country. Instead it will systemically choose the wrong and easy targets to keep out while ruining the economy and getting people used to a Gestapo gang constantly pestering them and demanding their papers. Perhaps MacDonald should look into Europe before the Great War, wherein there were no border controls, no immigration laws and no race-police. Nonetheless one did not find France or Denmark overrun with Turkish drug dealers.
MacDonald argues that these organized ethnic blocs might have a tendency to use methods to achieve welfare and other privileges for themselves and allied groups. This is certainly possible. What MacDonald ignores is that it was white, native-born Southern Protestants and Yankees who both enacted and promoted the welfare state and who continue to be its most vocal supporters. While foreigners might be socialistic and leftist, it is an empirical reality that they are typically less-leftist than native born white Americans, who are some of the most radical liberals on the planet and more likely to be hard-socialist than practically anyone outside of Nepal. If MacDonald wants to get rid of the welfare whores and state socialists he can find no better place to start than with the John Smiths and Joe Pisanos of America.

Further, the immigration policy advocated by Libertarians ignores the reality of racial and ethnic differences in a broad spectrum of traits critical to success in contemporary societies, particularly IQ, criminality, and impulsivity.

‘Libertarianism’ denies none of this. What it says is, as I stated earlier, only property owners have any right to determine what is done with or on their property. Thus if you try to prevent a man from having a Mexican worker in his employ or try to prevent a man from Thailand from occupying any of the vast tracts of empty wilderness in the United States, you are a criminal thug and may be met with violence, lethal if necessary. Perhaps MacDonald does not mind being a gangster or employing gangsters, but if so he has no business complaining when he finds himself with a bullet in his head; whether it was fired by a white American or a Turkish peasant is immaterial from the libertarian point of view.

Social utility forms no part of the thinking of Libertarianism.

And here we see the socialist shining through again. ‘Social utility’ forms no part of the thinking of Libertarianism because ‘social utility’ is mystical garbage used to camouflage statist power grabs. As Ludwig von Mises said, “Man becomes a social being not in sacrificing his own concerns for the sake of a mythical Moloch, society, but in aiming at an improvement in his own welfare.” There is, quite simply, no such thing as ‘social’ utility.

it simply posits a minimal set of rights (to ownership of one’s own body, ownership of private property, and the freedom to engage in contracts) and unflinchingly follows this proposition to its logical conclusion. The only purpose of government is to prohibit the “physical invasion” of another’s person or property. It is a utopian philosophy based on what ought to be rather than on a sober understanding of the way humans actually behave.

MacDonald’s incomprehension of libertarianism is almost as funny as it is sad. Libertarianism is not ‘utopian’; in fact any libertarian who is not an idiot in a coma realises that people are petty, stupid little herd animals who are often immune to reason. What libertarianism posits is not that people are angels or even could be made into angels but that the entire functioning of society depends on private property and contract, and that the extent to which these are abridged, society – all of it – is endangered.

Similarly, the libertarian idea that we should alter government as if the governed are an atomistic universe of individuals is oblivious to the fact that a great many people will continue to behave on the basis of their group identity

MacDonald loves to wrestle some Straw Men. Libertarianism never claimed that people were ‘atomistic individuals’, and this claim of his is ripped directly from the pages of the socialists who attacked the economists for positing a ‘homo economous’ who had nothing but material/acquisitive impulses. This was not true of the economists and it is false of libertarianism. Libertarianism claims that people have subjective values and ideas, and no one recognized the importance of ideology (both conscious and unconscious) in shaping behaviour more than Ludwig von Mises. Whatever forces or ideas shape people’s behavior. what libertarianism does do is give a prescription for what legal force is permissible to use in regard to their behavior. If they become violent, they may have violence used against them. If they remain non-violent, then means such as boycott, persuasion, name-calling or what have you are acceptable. That this is apparently beyond the comprehension of a scholar like MacDonald demonstrates how little his intellectual box is.

I don’t have the energy to deal with all the rest of his inane fallacies, but I thought I’d list a couple more of them to show how he has obviously made zero effort to educate himself on the subject:

A libertarian utopia would also unleash exploitation of the weak and disorganized by the strong and well-organized.

For example, parents could sell their children into slavery.

8 replies »

  1. As far as I am concerned only the existence of a White Euro Nation is whats important. All else is side issue or even false flag.I recall debating a Libertarian spokesman in San Diego 30 years or more ago about immigration.He strongly supported open boarders.Libertarianism always sounds nice but it doesn’t fit human nature no matter how you slice it. It depends totally on the word “IF”.

    • And I recall debating a White Nationalist 30 years ago who…

      I know you are getting along in years now Tom, but that is no excuse for relying on a 30 year old debate for your knowledge of Libertarianism or any other subject.

      Why not read at least Chapter 7 “On Free Immigration and Forced Integration” in Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s “Democracy: The God that Failed” ?

      Catch you at the DailyStormer!

      • Just stating a fact. My library has many libertarian books that I have read over the years. One of my favorites are the works of Albert J. Knock. Unfortunately libertarianism for the most part just doesn’t fit the NATURAL MANS WIRING. However accepting a label can be very misleading. But I venture to say that the Natural man faced with fight or flight will not stand on many libertarian principles.

  2. Libertarian society sounds like the movie Elysium, just without the spacestation. Not for me thanks, but you gents have fun. I dont see any problem thou having a libertarian state along with an European ethnostate, an african ethnostate, a multicultural, multiracial one ( like the one we have at the moment ) and others, after secession. So unless you plan on ruling the entire continent in accordance with your libertarian ideologi, we should all be able to get exactly what suites us all. Why the nagging?

  3. MacDonald has done more damage to the radical right than any man alive. The last resort of any moronic anti-Semite is “well maybe I can’t refute what you say but Macdonald could, he’s a professor!”.

    All Macdonald’s “culture of critique” amounts to is “here’s a big list of powerful Jews who are assholes. Ergo all Jews are assholes and that as much explanation as we need for the state of our society”. Alright, that might be a little bit simplistic, he does argue that Jewish culture itself is intrinsically hostile to Western civilization. But even if that is the case would that be any great surprise given the history? And any society which could be pulled down by the actions of one small group of people is hardy robust or even functional in the first place. Even if it were true that Jews had deliberately used the system as a weapon against whitey the crucial response would be to realise that the system was fucked rather than Jews were evil, because if Jews can hack your shit so can anyone else. In which case you need a new system, not to exterminate a group of hackers.

    For the record, I think Jews aren’t intrinsically hostile to anything. I think they are well above average intelligence, so much so that they tend to become a significant force in anything that requires a little brainpower. Governmental administration for example. However, just like everyone else, they tend to follow the orthodoxy of the time. If Nazi Germany had not been hostile to the Jewish people I have no doubt at all that the finest theorists of national socialism would have been of Jewish decent within one generation.

    The author of this piece is absolutely right, all the conventional radical right are is dullard socialists just a bit too retarded to get the whole “class” idea. I think it a severe injustice that they are despised for being immoral when they should be despised for being idiots.

  4. “I dont see any problem thou having a libertarian state along with an European ethnostate, an african ethnostate, a multicultural, multiracial one ( like the one we have at the moment ) and others, after secession”

    That’s more or less my view as well, with a couple of important qualifications. One is that I don’t see self-determination merely as a matter of race and ethnicity. There’s also religion, culture, geography, political ideology, language, economics, etc. What about all the internal divisions among WNs over these things? Among libertarians? Among black nationalists? Second, there’s also the question of scale. I’m against the idea of creating separatist states larger than any of the current U.S. states, and even that is really pushing it. I think some kind of de facto city-state system with autonomous neighborhoods and satellite or federated villages, towns, and counties allows for self-determination through free association and avoidance of large scale violence. These also create a means through which new societies can grow up organically.

  5. “I don’t see self-determination merely as a matter of race and ethnicity. There’s also religion, culture, geography, political ideology, language, economics, etc. ”

    No doubt there will be continous political struggles within every ethnically homogenious nation. But civil war in europe today would be due to ethnic competition/conflict rather than political. And my suspicion is that most tea-partier types really are more concerned about losing their European neighborhoods and lifestyle, rather than actual economic change. In ethnic homogenious societies people are more willing to share their wealth, since it is with their co-ethnics/extended family, and the less close ethnically the less willing. Thus i think the political disagrements can be quite big without dire consequences in a homogenius state unlike in a multiracial one. I think The US could have tagged along pretty well if it hadn’t opened up to non-european and large immigration. This became the catalyst for cultural fragmentation and unworkable differences. And to answer The cultural and religious question: islam and muslims for themselves devided along shia/sunni and ethnic lines will be most stable (but still unstable) and no muslims in nonmuslim states. Buddhists will work fine in all states except muslim states. And for blacks, Barack Obama describes in his book what a relief it was to be among co-ethnics, when he first time went to visit his brother in Kenya, and how he would have prefered it if there hadn’t been any whites there. I think an ethnic state would solve many problems for blacks as well (although many white liberals would feel a hole in their soul, without the blacks to spill their narcissist pity upon). You can only become your full potential when you as people feel that you are the masters over your own destiny. I do think ethnicity is the basic condition, to build that feeling of freedom that Barack Obama was talking about in his blok.

  6. Kevin Mac Donald is the guy who thinks that marxism is a jewish strategy to destroy the white race by multiculturalism or some other idiocy, right? Yeah, he is a wacko….

Leave a Reply