“Whereas much of American libertarianism may have been grounded in implicit whiteness, and movement is still implicitly white, it is gradually growing more explicitly anti-white than even the kind of conservatism advocated by The Weekly Standard.” ~ Gregory Hood
While there are some sound libertarians (e.g. Peter Brimelow, Hans-Herman Hoppe, and Murray Rothbard), libertarians seem to have high incidences of championing very dumb ideas, from school vouchers to open borders. In other words, while libertarianism might possess useful insights and even some useful curbs on governmental power, its natural gravity seems to center around HBD denial, extreme individualism and deracinated cosmopolitanism. Indeed, libertarianism today is becoming a self-parody from Cathy Reisenwitz’s war against “racism and patriarchal oppression” to Rand Paul‘s wanting to “win Detroit” and flood the USA with the Third World.
Is there any salvation for libertarianism? Although libertarianism might benefit small, cohesive cosmopolitan in-groups, will libertarianism always be detrimental to the larger, ethno-core of a host country? In general, is libertarianism a doomed, suicidal philosophy?
Related:
“Laws of the Cathedral: Obey or Perish”
“School Vouchers: A Trojan Horse to Destroy Private Schools”
“What is pathological altruism?”
Updates:
This poll has turned into quite the conversation on Twitter, from Cathy Reisenwitz denouncing the Dark Enlightenment for being “racist” to Justin Raimondo calling it a “Nazi revival”.
Occam's Razor 
Libers tend to be childish hedonists or dogmatic theorists.
Libertarianism, like any political philosophy, only makes sense in societies with the right conditions. It isn’t some magical panacea that will cure every government in the world.
Is libertarianism suicidal? The better question is “is libertarianism suicidal where I live?”
Exactly. Any political philosophy can work as long as it’s with like-minded folks. As whole though, Libertarianism in it’s must purest form is highly suicidal,from a moral and cultural point of view.
Agreed; this is why I voted ‘no’. If a society is homogeneous enough to have fairly congruent dispositions, then it can maintain structure and cohesion without needing to limit liberties in ways that are perceived as restrictive. Restrictions on behavior that nobody is inclined to engage in anyway are not really meaningful curtailments of liberty, and the more homogeneous the society, the fewer people will be inconvenienced by those restrictions that are considered necessary.
So: yes, the more heterogeneous the society, the more problematic libertarianism becomes.
The better question is this… “Has libertarianism lead to an Evolutionary Stable State (ESS), ever?” That question was wisely asked by Dr. Paul Rubin in his book “DARWINIAN POLITICS: The Evolutionary Origin of Freedom”. Check it out sometime.
I had hope for libertarians until I realized that people like Hans Hoppe are in the minority and the majority are decapitated by progressive thought. There are a great things to learn from libertarians but one has to be selective. Sadly it didn’t have to be this way. Trying to be a big tent movement has destroyed it.
I disagree with you. Libertarianism is strong because it doesn’t participate in thought policing. If you can absorb idea from the far right, far left, and inbetween, your ideology is stronger for it. Now, if the social left had too much power and kicked libertarians like Hoppe out of the group, that is a different issue and it’s a real threat. Political correctness is a cancer.
I have the utmost respect for people like Hoppe, Sean Gabb, Rothbard, even Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul etc. But in this current state of affairs the ugly truth is that libertarianism = path to left singularity through free market. Libertarians that I know are either naive idealists or the most corrupt and rotten power hungry leftists who just like iPhones and cheap air travel (something like Nick Gilespie). The former are floating to the left, the latter are swimming to the left.
The healthiest way to deal with libertarianism is to admit that it’s dead. If it has a healthy pair of kidneys and a fine liver, let’s butcher it and take what we need. Throw the rest of the carcass away.
Pingback: Sometimes sending flakiness flying with a wild sha-lalu-la! Minimize the size! … in space! | vulture of critique
As you describe it, of course it’s suicidal. I try to reserve the name, but modify it as “Libertarian Nationalist,” to eliminate just those suicidal elements you mention. I’ve reblogged this and commented on it here:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2014/04/flaky-libertarians-again.html
If you quote “Counter Currents,” you shouldn’t be surprised when someone calls you a Nazi.
And the Jew Hard Right shows up trying to police which sites are acceptable. If you try to label people by calling them nazi, then don’t be suprised when someone points out you are a jew.
In order to work, libertarianism requires the following: a more-or-less ethnically and culturally homogenous nation, high levels of trust between citizens, and a populace with an above average work ethic and above average intelligence. Those conditions have not existed since Grover Cleveland was president, maybe even longer ago than that.
Which is exactly why libertarianism is suicidal. It destroys all of the conditions necessary to it’s survival.
Rand Paul is not a libertarian. Neither is Cathy Reisenwitz.
And neither are you, so who cares how you feel about libertarianism to begin with?
Better to be a nazi than a pickle-smootcher.
These twitterers will find that much to their eventual sorrow, there is only a finite supply of dupes whose minds can be disengaged by ritualized invocations of “nazi!” and “racist!”
Apparently, everybody prior to the 60’s was a nazi. All my grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. were nazis.
“everyone prior to the 60’s was a nazi”
If you talking about Celtic and Germanic people prior to the 1960’s, then yes, jews consider those people as nazis.
At its most base level, we see libertarians every single day on the evening news. For the most part, the black population lives their lives as libertarians: Easy morality (re: drugs; out of wedlock births; prostitution; etc) and living life on their own terms. Socially and morally speaking, blacks are practical level libertarians with a dash of liberation theology (‘gimme my stuff, ya’ll owe us for what yo did to us back in the day!’)
At its most basic core, libertarianism can easily degenerate into anarchism. Anarchists after all started out as a more cynically extreme form of libertarianism (e.g. all government systems suck, therefore….’). But libertarianism is the actual TNT; the fuse was lit with a more extreme form of cynicism.
The other main group of libertarians tend to be upper scale white folks. They’re not particularly religious, they enjoy occasional recreational drugs and may frequent prostitutes. They’re basically semi-hedonist in private lives and don’t ever pass judgement regarding anything unless it interferes with their own pursuit of pleasure (e.g. immigration restriction, drug laws, etc) They may be fun to be around in social situations but can’t really be trusted with any real political power or influence. Since they live for themselves alone and pursuit of personal pleasure is their only constant, regarding ethics, morals, etc. they’re gutless. At least the liberals don’t hide their true intentions regarding what they want (total control of…everything in public realm of society).
In short, libertarianism is an elitist system that seems only to work for the top 1% who can afford to as well as the bottom dregs of society who simply don’t give a damn about whitey’s laws and will do whatever they want to, much like an underdeveloped six year old. It’s actually a very childish and immature philosophy. “I wanna do whatever I wanna do and leave me alone and let me do whatever I wanna do!”
Funny thing is that this type of philosophy doesn’t really work out all that well for the other 95% of society.
There’s always been two main thrusts to Libertarianism – the first was the dopers who just wanted legalized drugs, but that’s not much of a slogan so they recast it as a matter of freedom. Now that small amounts of drugs have been decriminalized they have faded into the background somewhat. The second was the Stockholm Syndrome desire to escape being called racist while somehow countering a growing tyranny that was fundamentally based on white-hating racism. It’s this dichotomy, trying to oppose what is fundamentally racism while accepting the enemies definition of racial correctness, that gives Libertarianism its odd flavor. It’s overwhelmingly white and male because most of the policies it opposes are about robbing white people of wealth and giving it to non-whites (or women) but it can’t bear to say that. Libertarians are hardly alone in caving into PC this way, however, most other large institutions and organizations have done the same – the military, conservatism, and the Baptist church to name a few.
And yes, even at its basic ideological levels Libertarianism is Utopian and suicidal.
Open Borders? Why are we even debating libertarianism when it adopts the single most anti-White policy? Libertarians are sperglords and YKWs who deserve nothing but contempt.