Libertarianism

	If at the end of our first month in power we have not shut down half the state, we are failing.
	– Dr. Sean Gabb

	Get your fist out of my wallet and into my butt!
	– Libertarian proverb

	What do you call a man you never met? A stranger. What are you morally forbidden to do to a stranger? You may not murder him. You may not attack him. You may not enslave him. Neither may you rob him. What are you morally required to do for a stranger? Not much. Even if he seems hungry and asks you for food, you’re probably within your rights to refuse. If you’ve ever been in a large city, you’ve refused to help the homeless on more than one occasion. And even if you think you broke your moral obligation to give, your moral obligation wasn’t strong enough to let the beggar justifiably mug you. Note: These common sense ethics regarding strangers, ethics that almost everyone admits, are unequivocally libertarian. Yes, you have an obligation to leave strangers alone, but charity is optional.  One last question: What fraction of your “fellow citizens” have you actually met? Virtually zero. The vast majority of your countrymen are, in fact, utter strangers to you. When you tell your kid, “Don’t take rides from strangers,” you don’t make an exception for anyone who happens to share your citizenship. Modern government–and most of political philosophy–is just a massive effort to pretend otherwise.
	The point of the pretense is twofold. First, to make unjustified demands on some strangers’ behalf: You’re going to help the American elderly, the American poor, and the American sick whether you like it or not. Second, to help us forget our basic obligation to leave all strangers alone: We’ve never met you before, but you still owe us. When libertarians say things like this, people ridicule them as cold and cruel. But those people are just dodging the issue. Even staunch anti-libertarians would be baffled if a homeless man announced, “Give me my money!” instead of asking, “Spare change?” After all, the beggar is a stranger. All the libertarian is pointing out is that your other “fellow citizens” are strangers, too. You’re not cold and cruel when you refuse to help; they’re being pushy and totalitarian when they refuse to take no for an answer.

~:~

	I like libertarians. I used to be one. I want to reach out to them and help them. The main thing holding back National Socialism is hatred and anger, and sometimes we need to offer a smile and an open hand rather than a fist to the face of a libertarian who doesn’t see the whole picture yet. Libertarians are starting to get it. They’re almost there. They see that the banks work against us. They see that an interventionist foreign policy works against us. They see that the government as a whole largely works against us. They simply haven’t yet asked the one critical question: who is behind it all?
	Ben Garrison is in the exact same boat. He creates comics against the central banking cartels, big government and cronyism, and against both political parties as being pawns of a “higher ranking force”. But he is somehow shocked and refuses to accept the fact that it was jews who originally edited/defaced his comics. Graciously, openly, and in a friendly way–present them evidence. Show how other countries protect their borders and culture, but only the West is encouraged to accept mass foreign immigration. How race mixing is pushed strongly in the West by the same jews who fight it in Israel. How only the practice of Christianity is being put down worldwide and not that of any other religion–while Islam and Judaism receive all sorts of benefits. I think it’s important to remember that NatSoc is about love and respect–for our people. I know we’re in the middle of a cultural war, but ultimately, you get more flies with honey than vinegar.

~:~

	You want to know the truth about our hatred of libertarianism? The truth is we don‘t hate it. We wanted it, almost every single one of us. Perhaps even all of us. We believed in the good of humanity, in live and let live, in leaving others alone as long as they left us alone. You know what happened? They didn‘t leave us alone. They came for us and attacked us. They destroyed our hobbies, they besmirched the name of our ancestors, they ridiculed us for our hobbies, and they made up lies about our bodies so as to ‘belittle’ us. That is the truth.
	For so long we ignored it. Freedom is more precious than anything, right? Wrong. We all learned that. So will you. You will only be pushed so far, you will only endure so much ridicule, you will only tolerate so much filth before you’ve had enough. You will realize what ‘degeneracy’ is. You will see how it has destroyed nations, ruined families (even the very concept of family), you will see it spread disease, poverty, and hatred. You will see fools brag about how ‘tolerant’ they are as they march to the guillotine. You will bear witness to the horrors of undiluted ‘freedom.’ There’s nothing wrong with ‘freedom’ when it is focused on what is good and pure. Libertarianism is a great ideology when you live in a Protestant Anglo-Saxon society. Libertarianism is suicide when you live in a ‘progressive, multicultural hellhole.
	So now we must restore the natural laws. No more can we let people decide for themselves, as not only does it lead to our destruction, but to theirs, too. The negro was far happier and more prosperous under colonialism. So were we–that’s the truth. We all need leadership, and we need to enforce what is right. Welcome back to a hierarchical world where your opinions mean little; only cold hard facts will be used to determine how we will run society. We have always been obsessed with the truth. You will learn that truth is more important than your freedom. And the truth of the world is that we are not equal and freedom destroys us. The truth of the world is that women are happy when they are mothers and that they are inferior to men in many aspects. The truth of the world is that blacks commit far too much crime, and if we insist on treating them equally we will only harm ourselves and them. The truth of the world is that jews hate us and are trying to destroy us, and that if we do not fight back, we will lose. The truth is that there is nothing wrong with fighting back. The truth is that there is nothing our enemy hates more than us discovering the truth.
	Truth is more important than freedom.

~:~

	The problem with libertarianism as an ideology is that it lacks a full two-thirds of what encompasses a system of belief. Libertarianism is an economic policy masquerading as a political ideology. Economy, society, and government comprise the full range of ideological belief, but libertarianism is exclusively an economic school of thought. Economics alone does not a civilization make.
	Libertarianism, economically, feels rather agreeable. A man is entitled to the sweat of his brow and the fruits of his labor. A man has no obligation–legal or moral–to strangers, nor to his neighbors save such behaviors that would make them reciprocate and do well by him. This is why libertarians eschew welfare for systems that would provide jobs to those on welfare so that they may provide for themselves. Libertarianism is most often characterized as being for a completely free market–ending all government subsidies and letting any business, no matter the size or category, fail if its practices lead to failure.
	But that is where libertarianism ends. No regard for social behaviors has been made, and so when libertarians in the political scene are forced to speak of social issues, their only reply is to copy their economic doctrines, change applicable words, and paste them into place… with disastrous results. They have translated their wholly free market economy into a wholly free market for the purchase of product. Any product. Under libertarianism, any drug of any sort would be available to anyone with enough currency to procure it, and the price of the drug would be dictated, of course, by the free market. Heroin, ecstasy, marijuana, morphine, vicodin–all drugs–available without script or restriction of quantity. Any and all behaviors–sodomy, pederasty, pedophilia, bestiality–all acceptable. Private ownership of nuclear weaponry–as well as the raw materials to build and distribute such–legal. Libertarianism’s utter lack of regard for social protection makes it a nigh-genocidal ideology.
	Governmentally, libertarianism fares slightly better, but even then its copy/pasting leads to a political body that cannot effectively govern in any respect. Libertarians are often said to want “small government”–which, were it true, is a noble cause–but libertarianism demands virtually private government, which is definitionally oxymoronic. To give an example of libertarianism’s lack of government, a typical criticism in this aspect is, “Who would build the roads?” The US Constitution stipulates that the government must “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Government organization and implementation of national infrastructure falls under both defense and welfare. Regarding tranquility, libertarianism would remove all noise and behavioral ordinances, as that restricts freedom on a personal level (again, falling back to the absolute “free market” parody).
	There are aspects of libertarianism which are commendable. In the broadest sense, their desires for less centralized government control over the economy, providence, and society are commendable, as most of today’s governments are, by the reckoning of the Founders, entirely totalitarian. However, libertarianism fails to comprehend that there is a healthy scope of government–indeed that general well-being is a charge of government itself–and fails in the one thing in which it purports to believe: the freedom of the individual to pursue success, protected–not from failure–but from the syndicates, cabals, and individuals who would seek to take that from him.

~:~

	It’s true that simply making something illegal doesn’t stop it from occurring, but keep in mind that not all law enforcement is about addressing injustice. Government is a tool for organizing and structuring society which encompasses more than just the judicial aspect. In this case it works like a subsidy versus a tax. You tax things you want to discourage (or, more often than not, the government just wants a reason to take money from people), and you subsidize things you want more of (or, more often than not, the government is bribed into providing free money for things we don’t need more of, like corn subsidies). Anyway, law enforcement against prostitutes, for example, and those that buy them discourages the behavior. If you disagree with that, you can at least agree that it discourages people from conducting this business out in the open where decent folks would have to look at it.
	Either way, it is a net good to severely punish prostitutes and johns just for the fact that it is unwelcome, indecent behavior in an ideal society. As others have already pointed out, it also gives men a way to obtain sex that is easier than taking the route of becoming a respectable man of good character. It also gives women an easy out for earning an income while wasting any potential they may have otherwise had in terms of motherhood or a career. It also normalizes degenerate behavior, which as an influence should be actively suppressed in society. It’s pretty easy to understand, really. One problem with libertarians is they’re pseudo-ethicists and attempt to justify why we morally ought to want to create better conditions in society. They place unnecessary barriers between themselves and action, intentionally to disable a moral actor from engaging and dispensing with degeneracy and evil.
	The fact of the matter is that libertarians can’t admit that their ideology is dying because people are realizing how stupid and ineffectual it is and can’t admit to themselves that it was invented and perpetuated by people who want to live in a world where the only thing that matters is economics, everything is openly owned by private entities, and all of their degeneracy and sociopathic criminality is not only impossible to speak out against without violating their “freedoms” but institutionally encouraged and rewarded. Libertarianism is a desire to cherrypick what works out of traditionalism and classic conservatism while still permitting culture to be as libertine as possible. It is the movement of people who want to fix the world but don’t want to go through the pain of changing themselves. They want to believe that you can solve these problems by shuffling laws around and giving people more freedom than they already have.
	Giving people the freedom to destroy themselves and their societies and not enforcing any sort of culture that shames them for doing this is exactly what got us into this mess to begin with, and libertarianism has absolutely no answer to it. It is a failed ideology and it has completely failed to provide any sort of compelling argument for why it should exist and why it is worth perpetuating or propping up. To the libertarian, every man lives in his own little self-contained universe and the things he does mostly only effect himself. It’s hopelessly solipsistic and narcissistic. People don’t live in self-contained microcosms. If I do heroin, I’m not “just” hurting myself. I’m hurting my community. I’m hurting my fellow taxpayers who are paying to subsidize my bad decisions. I’m hurting my nation and my people by not only failing to live up to my true potential but by becoming an active burden that they need to take care of.
	Libertarians refuse to see this or pretend that it is not relevant. Their entire ideology is based off of a deeply-rooted blend of “Me-ism” and materialism. That is why it will never work and will always fail whenever attempts are made to implement it. The only reason libertarians are less dangerous than communists is because communists will always start killing people to try and force their ideology to work while libertarians will just collapse inwards and be fiscally ruined and culturally scrubbed by competitors less burdened by a sense of morality and fair play.

~:~

	Libertarians have never fought for racists or true conservatives. I never asked for an endorsement, nor, for that matter, do I desire one. I fight to be heard. Libertarians offer platforms only to other libertarians and progressives with whom they sympathize. Any platform they offer to those who are conservative, traditionalist, or fascists is grudging at best–tacitly condemned and stifled at worst. They offer endorsement to progressives, whether demanded by them or not. Libertarians as a group have already chosen their side–they merely pretend not to have by promoting false equivalencies and pretending to stand for the rights of everyone. “Everyone’s right to express themselves is equal,” they say. But just like the progressives with whom they sympathize, some are more equal than others. They have favored sons. That is hardly a sin, but when their entire stance is the refusal to favor any son, it is a hypocrisy. And they refuse to acknowledge or admit it.
	Libertarians say this is not a particular problem. But it is. It is a very deep and concerning problem, because we fight enemies who will use our freedoms and rights as weapons against us. Agitators will come to meetings and shout us down, crying “free speech!” when they are ejected. Our enemies will form mobs to cause havoc and destruction when we assemble to discuss issues or share information, and cry “freedom to assemble!” when they are dispersed. Our opponents will slander us in the press with blatant distortions and outright lies, and when challenged or called out will hide behind freedom of the press. Mosley encountered this very problem when he attempted to stop Churchill from starting the Second World War. Trump is encountering this problem now. Hitler ran into it before both of them. The reason the Brownshirts, the Blackshirts, and now the Lion’s Guard were formed is that Communist agitators are masters of using the rights and freedoms of a nation to get their way. They will cut you with a knife, proclaim it their right to do so, and cry foul when you push them away or strike back with your fist.
	This is why libertarian hypocrisy cannot be borne. Communists, Socialists, Bolsheviks, and Jews will forever and always use our freedoms and rights against us as poisoned daggers. The only way to stop it is employ similar, if tempered, tactics. Even elder libertarians admit this. They themselves claim that a true libertarian society can only come about if all communists, hippies, marxist sympathizers, and welfare leeches are expelled and cast away. But to the matter of how this is to be done, they speak not one word. They see the problem, but much like the handwringing progressives of Europe who see the invaders as a problem but say it is impossible to deport them back they offer not even the faintest hint of a solution. No. There is a solution. There is a solution to getting rid of cultural marxism, just as there is a solution to sending the refugees back. But like the progressives with whom they sympathize, libertarians pretend that what is standing plain before them is not there. If they do see it, they deny it and refuse it, saying there must be some other way–that the situation can be solved without violence or compromising their libertarian mores and morality.
	They are wrong. This will never be solved peacefully. The enemy will not permit it. They are dyed in the wool fanatics that believe they are saving the world from itself and will die for what they believe, running the streets red with blood. If you are not prepared to do the same even to stop them, let alone to begin reversing the tide of what they have done, it is tantamount to conceding defeat right now. There are no lengths to which a rabid dog will not go to bite a man. It must be put down.
	What the European talking heads refuse to admit is that the invaders could easily be rebuffed. They came here under their own power. They can leave under their own power. If Europeans started executing every Muslim they see, the problem would sort itself out in under a year. They would self-deport back to where they came from if they were made to fear what lies before them more than what they fled. The same solution exists for cultural marxism and all the various flavors of socialist, communist, quisling, and opportunists that push it. To fight them legitimately within the confines of the rules is to propose the raising up of an entire nation within a nation–to have a second America preaching the truth to counter their lies, a second media machine, a second governmental process, a second source of mass information. This is categorically impossible to accomplish, and even if it weren’t, the powers that be would not permit it. The leviathan of the state would not stand idly by while you erect a behemoth in front of it to fight it. Libertarians admit that the threat must be removed but choose to ignore that it will never go willingly and will fight to the death to fulfill its purpose and nature. Force is the one and only solution. But to do so is foul, disgusting, altogether too barbaric, downright fascist, and, worst of all, that most wicked of libertarian sins–authoritarian. So the libertarian will never do so. He will plead the Fifth on the matter even as they are lowering him into his own grave.
	Additionally, even if they had fought for my right to free speech, that means next to nothing. Am I to overlook a man stabbing me in the back with a knife because he once passed me the salt or held open a door for me? The forces arrayed against us will use the rights we value to kill us and everything we hold dear. You have seen it already in the Chicago riots. Under the guise of “freedoms” like the right to assembly and the right to free speech, the actual rights of free speech and freedom to assemble will be unmade through naked terrorism disguised as the will of the people.
	The only positions libertarians may ever take are to either stand completely aside and permit those who are willing to do what must be done, to join us and fight back, or to stand by their principles as hypocritically as they do now, but show them towards us instead. These are the only viable positions for them to take. The libertarian masses choose none of these. Thus, they are part of the problem, not the solution. And these are just the issues with libertarianism that appear when confronted with the issue of cultural marxism. They go far deeper than this. Libertarianism is the promotion of the individual over all other concerns, and as such libertarianism is the suicide of culture and nation both. Libertarianism will not enforce the changes that are necessary to fix this country, or indeed any country, because any such concentration of power would be condemned for its own sake merely for existing. They promote free trade, which breaks the back of any economy that utilizes it–and always will–for free trade is only viable if all trade partners engage in it, and they never will. Thus, it is a policy of being taken advantage of and will always ultimately lead to jobs and labor being outsourced to foreign bidders and wealth flowing out of the nation and into the pockets of international corporate interests.
	They claim that progressiveness is only a problem when it is pushed on people by their government. What they fail to realize is that the government will always be biased towards a political ideology, and not only that, it should be. McCarthy’s bias for American traditionalism and against communism is what protected America from it, and but for the Grace of God that he could have gotten all of them instead of merely most, we would not have many of the problems that we do today.
	The government will always force upon the people the ideals of those who hold office. Thus, the government will always be vulnerable to subversion by intrusive and malicious alien elements. It is not a self-correcting system. It must be corrected. Socialism did not form in a vacuum. Just like how women have been granted equal rights many times before in the history of human civilization, it is a symptom of a greater scourge of the entropy of civilization and the decay of society. Sexual liberation, female rights, and socialist policies will always be the harbingers of the end for a society. To try and embrace the poison like libertarians do–to insist that the volatile and poisonous progressive culture can be preserved and is even somehow inherently good–betrays their naked ignorance and naïveté on the subject. It is progressive culture that is causing these problems. It is liberalism that has brought us to this point, it is egalitarianism that has allowed this to come to pass, and it is individualism that permitted this to foment. To preserve modern culture but insist on conservative law and fiscal policy is to replace a rotten fruit with a fresh one, but scoop out the festering heart of the rotten and transplant it into the healthy. It is painting over rust instead of scrubbing it out. The culture dictates everything, because it controls the wills and wants of the people. This is why cultural marxism has been so effective. A nation is held aloft from the very bottommost rung, and that bottom rung is the family–the smallest microcosm of civilization. A family is a group of related people who share space, genetics, and ideas. A group of families is a locality, a group of localities is a city or region, a group of cities or regions is a state, and a state either stands on its own. or itself comprises a group of states that form a nation. Thus, all of civilization is supported by the family.
	This is why the single most successful communist psyop ever played was the feminist one–i.e. the one that attacked the family unit itself. This is no accident. This was by design. This was a poison dart crafted specifically to bring the Western world to its knees and ultimately destroy it, and it is a poison that has outlived the assassins that cast it and will be the death of us yet if we cannot stop it. To refuse to take a stand against the degeneration of society and culture–to try to “stay above it”–is to be complicit with its blatant and overt destruction. The man who stands by and watches as the gates are lifted and the barbarians are let loose upon the city is complicit in the act of the gateraiser.
	Libertarians would stuff their ears with cotton and gibber of cycles of left and right, completely ignoring that even the right wing of today would be viewed as buffoons, imbeciles, and utter madmen by the conservatives of as little as a hundred years ago. A libertarian is someone who sees the spinning wheel of the left vs. right dichotomy and says, “This is a natural cycle of the rotation of ideas,” blind to the cart to which the wheel is attached which is rolling down a hill and off of a cliff. They say to a man who would halt the spinning wheel, “You have no right to do that; the spinning of the wheel is natural,” and to a man who would dare to reverse it, they would hurl their most dire insults, of “authoritarian” and “fascist,” never minding that the progressive ideology is the most authoritarian of all. They cite the Founding Fathers of America as their inspiration. The Founding Fathers were unashamedly fascist. They were fascist before such a term even existed. They were, it could be argued, the original pioneers of the concept in modern times, as they espoused the erasing of prior identity to be subsumed into the newly created joint effort and identity of all. The ideals they represented were the ideals Classical Rome, which they had long studied and admired. They opposed only the coronation of an Emperor out of the whole of Roman works, and only then on principle alone. Much like Thomas Aquinas, not one of them considered Africans “human” when they spoke of “universal human rights.” They never imagined that Europeans and Anglo-Saxons would ever become a minority in their own country. They never believed Christendom would be dismantled with the very rules they put in place to protect it. They fled Britain precisely to escape the tyranny of a centralized private bank, and they felt that such a thing as a love of ones own people and a desire to protect and further the cause of your nation and your blood was so absurdly obvious and so deeply fundamental that it did not even deserve a comment. When they spoke of the brotherhood of man, it was of embracing a man from a city over as a friend, not inviting into your home a swarthy savage from an alien continent.
	And if they did ever suspect that such things might take place, they counted on the intelligence and perception of the Americans alive in such times to strike back against it. Libertarians refuse to do so. They fail the Founding Fathers in ways that even an out-and-out, dyed in the wool Nazi does not. At least the Nazi would stand for America, the nation, first, and themselves second. At least they would be willing to fight back. At least they would be intelligent enough to understand that one should not be bound by any law meant for civilized society when uncivil men subvert such rules into daggers and razors to be brandished with malicious intent.
	To hide behind feigned neutrality to avoid having to make a stand as any real patriot–as any real man–should, makes you more detestable than the most blatant traitor. You are worse than a traitor. You are a shamer of the righteous, finger wagging the resistance, tut tutting those with the heart to fight back, and talking down as though to a fool the assemblage of patriots who refuse to see a nation subverted and degenerated before their eyes. Naked treachery is preferable to the smug and lukewarm condescension of the just. Even Satan himself stood for something in the face of the Almighty God. Libertarians cannot even manage that.

~:~

	There is a hair’s breadth of difference between libertarians and liberals. Both are fame-hungry halo-polishers who operate in a highly-restrictive, media-sponsored bubble of decadence and immediacy, wherein they get to make platitudinous denunciations of others to seal-like applause from their retarded followers.
	Both are entirely dependent on a society of plenty to patronize their mental flatulence. Not a single sacred cow of either liberalism or libertarianism could survive a day in a society that was not a product of the success of European collectivism. Libertarians get to play the guys sitting on the fence vacantly scorning the insanity of the left while deliberately stifling genuine opposition to it. So they can laugh at the concept of “white privilege”, but conveniently (for their own egos) ignore the principles and instincts that have manifested the notion.
	They are moment-dwellers, raking in the shekels and praise, risking nothing, changing nothing–simply framing a response to leftism in a way that is kosher. They exist to render the right as inertia-riddled and spineless as the libertarians themselves are. Truly, libertarianism is just another part of their plan. Yet more denialism of reality, serving selective middle-class ”morality.”

~:~

So you deny that speech can be harmful, hence denying the concept of speech acts which inform the legal basis of imminence? You are arguing the losing side of a dialectic which was completed over 100 years ago. Speech can cause harm. The reason I described the Libertarian's definitions of harm as arbitrary, rather than subjective, is because they work backwards from their conclusions about freedom to whatever bizarre axioms they need, whereas I am working forwards from biology and its ecological implications. We can observe patently false beliefs and notions being spread to and replicated by people. It is effective to craft messages which translate into action. You can measure it and control it. It is the very basis of memetics.
	The reason the left censors our “hate speech” is because it causes negative effects on the metrics they’ve dreamed up to stamp out fascistic tendencies in Europeans to avoid a repeat of their imagined historic catastrophes, and this involves forced multiculturalism, etc. They have been extremely transparent about this since WWII. You can watch recordings of them, read their books, and do both again with work from our perspective examining theirs. Refer to the Macy Group/Boasian Anthropologists for starters. Their entire body of research is dedicated to reshaping people with lies, and they have compelling results. Our issue with their work is that it is used against us, not the fact that it does actually work. Not every single person here is mentally capable of defending against certain mental viruses, such as defeatism or apathy. Once again. those that are capable of recognizing cancer have a duty to guard others against it.
	You need to realize that your ideals about freedom were crafted and intended as a tool of destabilizing the existing order because it appeals to retards’ inability to form a hierarchical view of the world and morality to push X, Y, or Z actual policy or action which conforms to an exterior deal of limited domain, and who can only operate on universal ideals. If you have internalized them, you are probably one of those retards. or just have not actually rigorously thought about it.