White Nationalism by any other name.

     As I promised this is an article about the implicit whiteness of anarcho-capitalism.  I will expand this subject a bit but hopefully I won’t stray too far.  This post was prompted by a post by Ex-Army which you can read here.  Every image but two is from his blog.

     I’ve heard the phrase “Libertarianism is suicidal” a lot in the past few years.  I’ve always thought to myself well maybe their libertarianism is suicidal but not mine, mine is special.  And it is special.  So what are basis of these accusations?   There are probably too many ways to count but the most important is that many libertarians are for open-borders.  This is the suicidal part of libertarians.  Lets say there is a local bar and you love beer particularly the experience of drinking beer in this bar.  It would be crazy then to import a bunch of fundamentalist Muslims, enough that they might make your county a dry county say.  If you advocated both drinking in a bar and a large influx of fundamentalist Muslims you would effectively be anti-alcohol.  Why?  Because the effect of your ideas, whatever your intent, is a dry county.  This means that you are not truly a beer enthusiast you are against beer.  You may wish you could have it both ways but one aspect trumps the other.  


      Libertarianism has a similar problem with open borders.  No one is a libertarian outside the U.S.  and the United States has a small libertarian population to begin with (there are exceptions but I’m speaking of large population groups of over say two million).  These libertarians are mostly only libertarian because of the libertarian aspects of the foundational myth of America (Constitution, Republic individual freedom).   More-over this subsection of the population is also biological predisposed to value individuality and freedom more-so than any other population (More than Europe and way more than non-Europeans).  If a libertarian supports open boarders he doesn’t support libertarianism he supports for the most part some combination of kleptocracy and socialism.  So now we’ve established that open-boarders is suicidal for libertarians.  As a matter of fact most western ideologies are suicidal.  Progressivism is a clear example for similar reasons.  You can’t have openness to new experiences, xenophillia, secular values and celebration of the outlier without westerners (you can have some of these without westerners secular values and maybe xenophillia).  If progressives had their way most western nations would cease to be progressive within a century.  

     I used to think that suicidal libertarianism was a flaw of weak minded liberals in need of social approval.  It is, but they are also what seems to be the future of the movement.  Again borrowing from ex-army.  Who partly borrowed this from vulture of critique.   Image  

Anyways I liked the image but here is the full post.  Ex-army describes himself as a combination libertarian conservative. See here. Again not my image.


I would probably be something similar though I don’t like the word conservative or libertarian to describe myself.  This is because I see the future of the conservative movement as neoconery if not wholly liberal and the future of the libertarian movement as flaky libertarians if not wholly liberal.  Cthulhu only swims left.  In addition I recognize that while I am psychologically libertarian, and a descriptive libertarian.  I would prescribe many other types of ideologies if the conditions were not right.  I would gladly accept monarchism if it meant closed boarders or socialism if it mean a homogeneous society.  I would accept a good number of permutations if the end result was stability and civilization.  This makes me a bad libertarian and I accept that.  I’m a libertarian who has figured out that democracy and equality are the enemies of liberty and that not all people can handle freedom.  

” Those of us with White, Christian backgrounds can be free people, others can’t. They don’t want to, and when confronted with American freedom (or French or British or Italian freedom, for that matter) they view it as license and an opportunity to feast at a trough that somebody else keeps filled.” – Ex-army


I see liberty as a luxury earned by civilization, the pre-conditions being many.  Below is a basic mock up of what sort of political systems are possible based on the level of trust.  It is not mean be complete obviously there are many philosophies that are left out it is merely mean as a low fidelity visual aid.  Also a high level of trust does not necessarily make a society a republic for example.  It is entirely possible and somewhat likely to have a high trust monarchy.  To put it bluntly not only do you need the pre-conditions for liberty to have liberty but society needs to understand and value liberty.  That can only be achieved an sustained through religion which could even be secular or civic.  



 I value liberty and see free markets as the height of efficiency, anarcho-capitalism being the most efficient combination.  Again I am pragmatic the pre-conditions for liberty are not only absent from the world but very unlikely to emerge any time soon.  So what should I call myself.  I could call myself a Hoppean but that is dependent on the other party understanding both the reactionary and libertarian nature of Hans Hoppe’s philosophy.  Even this doesn’t fully circumscribe my philosophy.  I would call myself a libertarian nationalist, but I am skeptical of democracy which is often associated with nationalism.  In addition while I value homogeneity and differences in culture, I am psychologically cosmopolitan and atomized.  I don’t have a culture or community to hold onto and I am very open to new experiences.  Back to the title.  

     So if libertarianism can’t be about open borders and it is only really wide spread in the west who are libertarians?  Gasp they are over 90% white.  Depending on the survey they might even be 95% white.  So not only are libertarians predominantly white but other races are diametrically opposed to libertarianism.  This would be a somewhat obvious conclusion if most libertarians were familiar with HBD but unfortunately they are not.  So what to do with these facts?  Libertarianism has two options accept that it is a white philosophy or commit suicide.  I am not particularly attached to it as a philosophy (note I have been a libertarian for years so this was a slow transition) this is mostly because I see that the economic traditions of libertarianism can be carried on even if the body dies.  I like the live and let live aspect but again that is a luxury for  a high-trust society.  Maybe one day hundreds of years from now group of influential people will re-discover libertarianism but I don’t have any hope for the current strains.  My point however useless can be summed up by this image.  Again I stole this from ex-army.  


3 thoughts on “White Nationalism by any other name.

  1. One important aspect of politics is the question – “Who should be armed?”

    The USA, in 1770, had men like Patrick Henry who claimed that the great objective was that every man be armed.

    Many USAns get into libertarianism because they want to keep their right to own guns.

    I don’t know of any word that emphasizes that every citizen ought to be armed. Perhaps one could call this a pan-hoplo-ferro-kracy – i.e. a government in which every citizen MUST carry arms.

  2. Pingback: Minarchy Wears A Cowboy Duster (or, the racial whiteness of panpherohoplocracy) | vulture of critique

  3. Pingback: Response to Vulture of Critique: Ghosts of Libertarians Part 1 of ? | One Irradiated Watson

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s