Libertarians and the European Union: A Rejoinder to Petr Mach Reply

“Victory for the Eurosceptic forces would likely be a victory for protectionism, economic nationalism, immigration barriers, and Putin.”

They say that like it’s a bad thing.

I always did think Reason tended to be a bit neoconnish and this illustrates it.

Support for “free trade” (globalization) is definitely an area where I disagree with orthodox libertarians, who apparently do not realize that regional super-states (like the European Union or the apparatus of NAFTA) and a de facto global super-state (in which the American empire is senior partner and military arm) have largely been created in the interests of fostering “free trade.”

Globalization is the primary force that is causing the re-proletarianization of labor in the post-industrial countries, along with neo-liberal domestic economic policies.

Mass immigration is the “reserve army of capital,” as thinkers from Ralph Nader to Alain de Benoist have pointed out, and only serves to hasten the re-proletarianization process.

Also, it’s possible to be neither a Putin-idolator or a Putin-phobe. Contemporary Russia is not the Soviet Union, and while Russia certainly remains an imperialist country,  it is largely a backyard imperialism, comparable to American imperialism as it was during the nineteenth century. Nothing to get worked up about, from an international or geopolitical perspective.

By Dalibor Rohac


There is much to agree with in Petr Mach’s response to my article about the European Union (EU). As he puts it, my defense of the EU is “utilitarian,” not a principled one, and I fully accept that it is possible to imagine alternatives to the current political arrangements in Europe that would be much friendlier to individual freedom than the status quo.

Unfortunately, Mr. Mach’s text does little to address my main concern, namely that such alternatives might not be on the menu of options available to us at the moment, and that the likely political dynamics of an EU downfall carry a big risk of making the continent, as a whole, less free.


Kevin Mac Donald Attacks the Libertarian Strawman 7


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.


Could America Become Mississippi? Reply

By Jamelle Bouie



The racial polarization of the recent elections—where the large majority of whites voted for Republicans, and majority of minorities voted for Democrats—could continue for decades. Does a dramatic change in your social environment make you more conservative, and if so, what kind of change would it take?

Working at Northwestern University, psychologists Maureen Craig and Jennifer Richeson apply that question to demographic change, and, in particular, to white Americans vis-a-vis the prospect of a United States where the majority of Americans are drawn from today’s minorities. Does a threat to one’s status as the demographic “in-group” increase political conservatism? The answer, in short, is yes.

Using a nationally representative survey of self-identified politically “independent” whites, Craig and Richeson conducted three experiments. In the first, they asked respondents about the racial shift in California—if they had heard the state had become majority-minority. What they found was a significant shift toward Republican identification, which increased for those who lived closest to the West Coast.


The Stark Truth: Robert Stark Interviews Keith Preston Reply

Listen to the interview at Counter-Currents.Com

Robert Stark welcomes back Keith Preston of Attack the System. Topics include:

  • Keith’s article “Who am I? Left, Right, or Center”:
  • How his anti imperialist views on foreign policy overlap with the far Left as well as Paleoconservative and New Right thinkers
  • How he finds his critique of capitalism often overlaps with both those of the far Left but also those of Catholic distributists and social nationalists on the far Right
  • How he shares some views on social issues with the Left, but swings back to the Right on decentralist, anti-statist or civil libertarian grounds
  • His support for regionalist and ethno-identitarian movements as a bulwark against imperialism and the Leviathan state
  • The cult of guilt by association versus intellectual freedom
  • Making a case against mass immigration to anarchists
  • His podcast “Who Are the Power Elite?”:
  • The difference between power elite analysis and conspiracy theories
  • Power elite analysis versus theories of democratic pluralism
  • How the power elite uses demographic, cultural, and class conflict to protect its own position of dominance
  • Robert Putnam’s book Bowling Alone and the concept of social capital
  • His podcast “Creating Alternative Infrastructure”:

Sticking to what they know: Israeli firm wins bid for wall construction on U.S.-Mexico border Reply

By Chloe Benoist


Elbits provides the surveillance system for the Israeli-built wall in the West Bank (File Archive)
Elbits provides the surveillance system for the Israeli-built wall in the West Bank (File Archive)

An Israeli military contractor, whose surveillance technology is used along Israel’s apartheid wall constructed in the Palestinian West Bank, has been chosen by the United States to provide similar services on the southern border with Mexico, Israeli media reported on Wednesday.

Elbit Systems announced on Sunday that the US Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had awarded its subsidiary a $145 million contract to deploy border surveillance technology in southern Arizona, Reuters reported.

But according to Bloomberg analyst Brian Friel, quoted by Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the one-year contract could expand to a broader $1 billion deal if the US Congress passes stringent immigration legislation.

Elbit Systems is set to install watch towers along the border with sensors for spotting, tracking, and classifying data, along with command and control centers.


Most Americans Support Legal Status For Undocumented: Poll Reply

A note to my paleo-leaning friends: Immigration restriction is a failed movement, a political dead end. Americans are becoming more immigration-friendly, as they have with marijuana decriminalization and gay marriage. Still, there are alternatives to both compulsory multiculturalism and totalitarian humanism from the Left and old-fashioned nationalism (or fascism) from the Right. The time is now for Pan-Anarchism.

By Elise Foley

Huffington Post

Main Entry Image

WASHINGTON — While most Americans think undocumented immigrants should get a chance to become legal residents, they’re split on whether a recent uptick in deportations is a good or bad thing, according to a poll released Thursday by Pew Research Center.

The report comes at a time when both immigration reform and deportations are being hotly debated. The House GOP is considering whether to move forward with reform, potentially including legal status for currently undocumented immigrants. While advocates push for legislation, there’s a parallel effort to convince President Barack Obama to slow the rate of deportations and provide reprieve to families and communities torn apart by deportations.

The new poll found broad support for allowing some undocumented immigrants to remain in the country legally, which would in effect stem the tide of deportations. Seventy-three percent of those polled support such a measure, while 24 percent oppose allowing undocumented immigrants to stay.


Why we on the Left made an epic mistake on immigration 1

By David Goodhart

Church and State

Members of the Bangladshi community photographed in Whitechapel Market, in east London, 7 September 2010. (Photo: Rebecca Reid)

Among Left-leaning ‘Hampstead’ liberals like me, there has long been what you might call a ‘discrimination assumption’ when it comes to the highly charged issue of immigration.

Our instinctive reaction has been that Britain is a relentlessly racist country bent on thwarting the lives of ethnic minorities, that the only decent policy is to throw open our doors to all and that those with doubts about how we run our multi-racial society are guilty of prejudice.

And that view — echoed in Whitehall, Westminster and town halls around the country — has been the prevailing ideology, setting the tone for the immigration debate.

But for some years, this has troubled me and, gradually, I have changed my mind.


Practical vs. Moral Objections to Open Borders 1

By Jason Brennan

Yesterday, the Swiss did something evil: they voted to restrict immigration. Tyler Cowen comments:

In my view immigration has gone well for Switzerland, both economically and culturally, and I am sorry to see this happen, even apart from the fact that it may cause a crisis in their relations with the European Union.  That said, you can take 27% as a kind of benchmark for the limits of immigration in most or all of today’s wealthy countries.  I believe that as you approach a number in that range, you get a backlash.

…One of my objections to the open borders idea is that I think it would be negative for sustainable, actually realized flows of immigration.


Switzerland Goes Fascist… 3

Say the totalitarian humanist bureaucrats and parasite of the EU.

By Eric Margolis

Democracy can be so inconvenient. Take Switzerland, the closest thing the world has to a perfect democracy.

Switzerland’s eight million citizens vote by referendum on all major issues. The Swiss cantons have made key decisions this way for over eight hundred years.

Last week, Swiss voters decided by a razor-thin 50.3% to begin limiting immigration from the European Union within three years, perhaps much sooner. The vote in non-EU member Switzerland sent shock waves across Europe and brought a storm of abuse down on the Swiss.

In recent years, the Swiss have signed a number of agreements with the EU harmonizing Swiss law with Europe that allowed unfettered Swiss commercial access to the European Union. Now, 56% of Swiss exports go to the EU.

The Swiss grudgingly agreed to adhere to the EU’s basic tenet of free movement of citizens across the EU’s member states.


On Immigration and Discrimination Reply

A Facebook reader raises this question for anarchists and libertarians:

Imagine someone seizes the property of a thousand people in an area and forces them into a commune. The newly -crowned dictator then invites a thousand other people into the commune against the wishes of the original thousand, and then forces the two groups to associate and trade with one another. Is this not what actually happens when the state dominates a territory, opens its borders against the wishes of most of its subjects, and forces it inhabitants to associate and trade with the newcomers through anti-discrimination laws?

It is interesting that our anarchist and libertarian comrades of leftist inclinations do not criticize anti-discrimination laws, to the degree they criticize them at all, with the same zeal with which they criticize anti-immigration laws.  Is is really their anarchist and libertarian ideals that motivate them on these issues, or are they more motivated by a desire to advance their own wider preferences for cultural cosmopolitanism and egalitarianism? It’s not that they’re “wrong” for holding these preferences? But do these have anything to do with the wider anarchist/libertarian paradigm per se? Or is it simply a matter of special pleading on behalf of favorite groups and individual preferences?

Of course, anarchists and libertarians officially do not believe in states beyond the level of voluntary collectives, proprietarian communities, or non-state tribal associations depending on what kinds of anarchists or libertarians they are. But there’s noting in any of these particular theories that could legitimately justify state imposed immigration law OR state imposed discrimination law. Of course, there’s the thorny question of how these matters should handled within the context of the actually existing state system, and there’s certainly enough grey area on these questions for reasonable differences of opinion to exist. And libertarians and anarchists of the Right have their own hypocrisies to match those of the Left.  But I have to wonder to what degree some anarchists and libertarians are ultimately going to be willing to trade in a social democracy run by leftists for an anarchism that reflects a genuine cultural and ideological pluralism,  and which includes communities and institutions where “conservative” values of different kinds might well thrive.

The anti-Southern vote in Virginia 4

Southern Nationalist Network

Conservative candidate Ken Cuccinelli won the vast majority of Virginia but lost Black urban centres, the DC suburbs and areas with large numbers of foreigners

Ken Cuccinelli won the vast majority of Virginia but lost Black urban centres, the DC suburbs and areas with large numbers of immigrants

A recent article in The Washington Post by Luz Lazo and Debbi Wilgorn makes the point that Third World immigrants in Virginia sided with Federal Government employees and Black voters to elect New York Leftist Terry McAuliffe governor of the Commonwealth despite winning only small, densely populated areas. Conservative Ken Cuccinelli won the vast majority of Virginia geographically, losing only largely Black urban areas, the Washington, DC suburbs and areas heavily populated by foreigners. Furthermore, the article points out that it was a sense of group solidarity and support for more immigration that drove the vote of immigrants. They were specifically appealed to in Spanish-language television ads by the McAuliffe campaign that demonised Cuccinelli. The Hispanic nationalist group La Raza was extremely active in Virginia on behalf of McAuliffe. More…

Who is Jeh Johnson, and Why Should Black People Be Hanging Our Heads in Shame? 2

Black Agenda Report

By BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

The Department of Homeland Security is a secretive, lawless, largely privatized police and surveillance agency, with its own prisons and soon, its own drones. Now it’s headed by a black man, a progressive Democrat, a Morehouse man & Pentagon lawyer who invokes Dr. King as patron saint for murderous US global empire, a certifiable member of the black misleadership class.


California’s Model for 21st Century American Feudalism 1

By Joel Kotkin

California has been the source of much innovation, from agribusiness and oil to fashion and the digital world. Historically much richer than the rest of the country, it was also the birthplace, along with Levittown, of the mass-produced suburb, freeways, much of our modern entrepreneurial culture, and of course mass entertainment. For most of a century, for both better and worse, California has defined progress, not only for America but for the world.


Why Golden Dawn is the only Anti-Fascist Party in Greece 1

Excellent article by Greg Palast. I agree with every word.

On September 18, hip-hop artist Pavlos Fyssas, a.k.a. Killah P, was stabbed outside a bar in Keratsini, Greece. Larry Summers has an air-tight alibi.  But I don’t believe it. Larry didn’t hold the knife: The confessed killer is some twisted member of Golden Dawn, a political party made up of skin-head freaks, anti-immigrant fear-mongers, anti-Muslim/ anti-Semitic/ anti-Albanian sociopaths and ultra-patriot fruitcakes. Think of it as the Tea Party goes Greek.


A Homeland of Their Own Reply

F. Roger Devlin


Those who attended the 2013 American Renaissance conference saw a change in mood and emphasis from previous gatherings—probably the result of watching Barack Obama coast to reelection with just 39% of the white vote. The new feeling is that the strategy of “awakening” whites and gaining power through democratic electoral means is not working. The demographic shift is too fast and our own progress is too slow; the opportunities we thought we saw are vanishing, and a strategic reorientation is becoming inevitable.


UK foils ‘nail bomb and shotgun’ revenge terror plot targeting EDL Reply

How is this much different then a large scale gang war?

From RT

An Islamist terror cell planned to attack a British white power demonstration using a combination of homemade nail bombs, knives and sawn-off shotguns, a court heard on Thursday. The plan was only narrowly averted by the group’s own incompetence.

The Birmingham-based gang had intended to attack an English Defence League (EDL) rally in June last year, with the stash of weaponry.

Point/Counterpoint: Open Borders are the Solution 1

By Jacob Hornberger

All of us have been born and raised under a regime of controlled borders. We have also been inculcated with the notion that this is all part of a “free society” and a “free-enterprise system.”

But it’s all been a lie. The truth is that controlled borders are the antithesis of a free society and a free-enterprise economic system.

For one thing, free enterprise, in its genuine sense, is economic enterprise that is free of government control. When the government is punishing people for crossing borders in search of a better way of life, interfering with trade through sanctions and embargoes, raiding private businesses who have decided to employ foreigners, and interfering with liberty of contract and freedom of association between foreigners and Americans, that’s as far from free enterprise as a society can get.


Point/Counter-Point: A Libertarian Case Against Mass-Immigration 1

By Keir Martland

Government Property is an Oxymoron1

The consensus among modern libertarians seems to be that free immigration is the only libertarian stance possible in this debate because of the ‘economic benefits’ and that those who oppose free immigration are just statists who want the government to control who can and can’t move about from here to there.Conversely, it is my opinion that a state policy of open borders amounts to an infringement of property rights and that, consequently, border controls tighter than those currently in force are perfectly compatible with propertarianism, though certainly not compatible with the modern, vile, Marxist flavour of libertarianism to which many of us have become accustomed.


Immigrants Against Empire Reply

By Scott McConnell

Nearly 40 years ago, Daniel Moynihan and Nathan Glazer wrote that “the immigration process is the single most important determinant of American foreign policy.” Immigration determined the ethnicity of the electorate to which our foreign policy responds. “It responds to other things as well, but first of all to the primary fact of ethnicity.”


Join, or Die 2

by R.J. Jacob

Conspiratorialism and traditional distrust in elites has shaped American history since its initial conception beginning with the Anglo-Republicanism of the 17th century and it’s conspiratorial views of Charles I and James II, to the Boston Tea Party British colonists who saw More…