Wednesday, April 5, 2017


Murray Rothbard, writing at the time of the collapse of communist Eastern Europe, addresses the issue of the suppressed nationalities:

…it is a chance in Europe at long last, to begin to reverse the monstrous twin injustices of Sarajevo and Versailles

One wonders why Sarajevo and Versailles would need to be addressed if nationality was irrelevant to humans.  After all, one border is just as good as the next; no one really cares with whom they make political bond.  Isn’t that right?

There are several groups hostile to this idea of “nation.”  I will touch on a few of these:

The Marxists-Leninists

…Leninism, while giving lip-service to the right of national self-determination (enshrined on paper in the Soviet Constitution but always ignored in practice), was a centralizing universalist creed transcending nationalities.

Communists like to ignore “nation.”

…deracinated intellectuals (often colonials educated by Marxist-Leninist professors in the imperial centers of London, Paris, and Lisbon), who were generally ignorant of, and contemptuous or hostile toward, ethnicity, religion, and culture.

Intellectuals like to ignore “nation”; they are even contemptuous of the idea.

The Global Democrats

The concerns and demands of nationalities are dismissed as narrow, selfish, parochial, and even dangerously hostile per se and aggressive toward other nationalities.

Rothbard forgot xenophobic.

The Libertarians

Libertarians are, by and large, as fiercely opposed to ethnic nationalism as the global democrats, but for very different reasons.  Libertarians are generally what might be called simplistic and "vulgar" individualists.

Out of politeness, I would have said simplistic or vulgar individualists.  I am not a big fan of piling on.

…we must not fall into a nihilist trap.  While only individuals exist, individuals do not exist as isolated and hermetically sealed atoms. …all individuals grow up in a common culture and language.

It is almost embarrassingly banal to emphasize that point.

While the State is a pernicious and coercive collectivist concept, the "nation" may be and generally is voluntary. The nation properly refers, not to the State, but to the entire web of culture, values, traditions, religion, and language in which the individuals of a society are raised.  It is almost embarrassingly banal to emphasize that point, but apparently many libertarians aggressively overlook the obvious.

Yes, they do.  Like the obvious point that humans are…human.

…one may be a  true patriot of one's nation or country while – and even for that very reason – opposing the State that rules over it.

Do you mean just because a libertarian supports something other than “open borders” that are destructive of the nation, he need not at the same time support the state? 

…nationalism has its disadvantages for liberty, but also has its strengths, and libertarians should try to help tip it in the latter direction.

What?  Nationalism isn’t a simple either / or, the way every issue is portrayed by most libertarians?

The more common the culture the less demand for “government.”  Why do you think western governments work so hard to destroy culture?


When so many libertarians are philosophically aligned with Antonio Gramsci, one might wonder what is really going on.


  1. Excellent post.

    Rothbard's admiration for H.L Mencken's style really shows with gems like "aggressively overlook the obvious,"- I am going to have to steal that.

    Speaking of the obvious.

    Obvious questions for libertarians:

    "Why does the democratic party want more immigrants?"

    "Why is the push for open borders only in white countries?"

    "Why are southerners flooding into Europe?"

    "Why does the jewish media lie about the age, nationality, and asylum status of migrants?"

    "Why are migrants who commit crimes, many of which are against minors, treated with such leniency while political dissidents have the book thrown at them?"

    "Why do white gentile libertarians hate their own race?"

    The list goes on.....

    The problem with the liberal worldview and its insistence on individual freedom and the absence of "force" is that "people" of the cultural marxist bent will just redefine whatever they don't like as force. And force is bad mmmmk.

    There is a simple fact that gets brushed under the rug all too often in these debates. Regardless of what I believe *should* be the case, people *do* in fact prefer to be around their own kind. There are plenty of "muh studies" to demonstrate this but you folks don't need those. Just use your brain. Would the State need to prevent restrictive covenants or pass the Civil Rights Act if it didn't *require* force to break up ethnically homogeneous communities (again same principle for nations)?

    The world that Charles Johnson envisions requires a World State. I am not sure if he would be willing to come out and say that, but its the truth. What he will do is claim that nations are oppressive and anti-freedom so they need to be broken up.

    I don't know if any of you have ever debated an anarchist who opposes the use of money, but the debate is very similar.

    I ask: well what happens if people start using metals for indirect exchange in anarchyland

    him: that's a state

    me: the use of money is a state?

    him: yes

    me: so you will prevent this with force?

    him: yes

    me: like a state?

    When all is said and done every political ideology is predicated on violence. The question is about who is on the receiving end.

    1. UC

      Tucker recently wrote something on the history of the Alt-right; as an aside, not my issue to critique, but might be worth a look for you.

      Anyway, it gave me a thought about the left-libertarians... and you basically just wrote the post: a listing of all of the left-lib positions that also are either supported by the state and / or are supportive of the state.

      I may still write the post anyway... but you really popped my bubble with this comment.


  2. Lol.

    Do it anyways brah.

    We can't afford this horse a chance to stand up.

    Are you refering to this Tucker piece from March 8th?:

    Or something more recent?

    Tucker is really having a hard time. He has swastikas spinning in his head non-stop. After taking pathetic shots at intellectual titans like Spengler, Schmitt, and Carlyle, he completely ignores the advancements of racial science in the 20th century (, parrots anti-german atrocity propaganda, and goes on to warn his readers away from the "altright."

    [If you are feeling tempted toward the Alt-right, look at your progenitors: do you like what you see?]


    He is literally doing the argumentum ad holocaustum. The dates he gives in his "history" end in 1944, because as we know history ended in 1944 (well actually 45'). Basically you go from Carlyle to Spengler to jews being gassed in fake shower rooms and turned into soap (which to be clear never happened).

    Lazy and SAD!

    The whole thing is just "history has ended and liberalism has won, avert your delicate eyes from the heretics."

    However, this begs the question: why are you writing this article Jeff? Are you mad brah? You seem mad.

    1. Yes, that was the piece. I guess I only found it recently.

      We will see about writing it. I have another idea, different subject. If I do it, it isn't a small project.

      So many keystrokes, so little time....