Lost Hoppe

Libertarianism comes in for a reasonable amount of criticism on this side of the great divide, mostly for its tendency to side with the Left on cultural issues. Libertarianism, at its best, is low-tax liberalism. The common and well-supported form of libertarianism is the version that functions as lipstick on the pig of corporate excess. The people who claim to champion individual rights always seem to be defending those rights being trampled by massive global companies answerable to no one.

There are some exceptions within the libertarian fever swamp. Ron Paul is still remembered fondly by many on this side of the great divide. He was their guide into the world of political realism. He was always careful to avoid taboo subjects, but there were plenty of paleocons in the baggage train to help guide those swept up in the Ron Paul moment toward sensible politics. The Ron Paul moment turned out to be a waystation for what is now the dissident right.

Another exception is the libertarian theorist Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Greg Hood and Chris Roberts from American Renaissance have posted a new podcast on Hoppe and his most popular work, Democracy: The God that Failed. It is a good discussion of Hoppe, his brand of libertarianism and the arguments in his book. This podcast is part of a series on various writers relevant to dissident politics. The show on Wilmot Robertson is especially good, as few remember him.

One thing that was missed in the review of Hoppe’s book is that he was one of the first people to notice a peculiar feature of democracy. That is, as soon as the idea of democracy is planted in a society, the franchise expands rapidly. Societies can reject the core idea of democracy, but still have limited participation through elections, which was the case in early America. Once the society accepts the idea of democracy, all limits on the franchise quickly give way to democratic zeal.

Hoppe observed this in his book, but he offered no explanation for it. He just accepts it as a force of nature, noting how the franchise expanded in every Western country as soon as democracy was introduced. We saw this in America. In the 20th centur,y as the country transformed from a republic into a social democracy, the franchise quickly started to expand to include all men, then women, then blacks. Now we are extending the vote to criminals, foreigners, and the imaginary.

One reason for this is the very nature of democracy. In a world of fifty percent plus one there will always be a large minority unhappy with the result. In order to avoid conflict, the natural elites form parties, which allows them to form a consensus around a set of compromises on the important issues. This is something that was the norm in the 20th century, whether it was in multi-party parliamentary systems or the two-party bicameral system in America. Liberal democracy was about consensus.

While that greatly reduces the number of people who feel left out of the result, it creates a new problem. Reformers now need to break the consensus in order to get the changes they think are required. That is difficult, so they instead look to increase the number of those outside the consensus. Put another way, the reformer looks for new voters, rather than trying to challenge old voters. Get enough new voters and the outsiders can challenge the prevailing consensus.

In America, expansion of the franchise parallels reform efforts. The social reformers of the late 19th and early 20th century were also the driving force behind expanding the franchise to women. Extending the franchise to blacks came with social reforms like the elimination of free association. Today, the people chanting about democracy are also demanding the vote be given to foreigners. Open borders are a way to create a permanent revolution against the prevailing consensus.

Again, this is not something Hoppe addressed, but it does suggest that the primary reason libertarians favor open borders is they share the same reformist impulse that exists on the Left. They instinctively seek to break the consensus, which in their case is their idea of statism. The fact that libertarians never try to think through the ramifications of open borders suggests they are not acting on practical considerations, but rather on an instinctive sense that it is good for them.

Of course, there is a natural limit to democracy’s expansive tendency. Once every human on earth can vote for the next American president, there are no more worlds to conquer for the democrats. Long before that, however, democracy becomes too unstable to maintain a consensus of any sort for any duration. That seems to be happening now, when half the country in unhappy with every election result and the consensus that is implied in the result. America is shaking itself to pieces.

Hoppe is a good reminder that even the most ridiculous ideas can be useful in the right hands, if only as a warning. In the case of libertarianism, its utility was always in its use as a critique of liberal excess. Libertarian economics was an excellent antidote to central planning. Natural rights are useful in challenging authoritarianism. In the case of Hoppe, his economic defense of monarchism is useful in understanding the inherent dangers and defects of liberal democracy.

The crackdown by the oligarchs on dissidents has had the happy result of a proliferation of new ways to support your favorite creator. If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!

Promotions: We have a new addition to the list. Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start. If you use this link you get 15% off of your purchase.

The good folks at Alaska Chaga are offering a ten percent discount to readers of this site. You just click on the this link and they take care of the rest. About a year ago they sent me some of their stuff. Up until that point, I had never heard of chaga, but I gave a try and it is very good. It is a tea, but it has a mild flavor. It’s autumn here in Lagos, so it is my daily beverage now.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link.   If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb.  Just email them directly to book at sales@minterandrichterdesigns.com.

184 thoughts on “Lost Hoppe

  1. I don’t know much about Jackie Kennedy. But the way she talks is creepy. It was common for society women back then to speak in a self-consciously sophisticated, lady-like manner. Much influenced by early Hollywood. But her speaking manner is beyond that. It’s like mental ward stuff. Am I the only one hearing this? There’s a lack of affect there. Like an overly feminine catatonic schizophrenic. Maybe this is another reason why John started popping pills. I don’t know how she spoke without cameras around. Maybe she reverted to normal mode. I don’t know man. Either way, I’m telling you, she was weird.

    • She married a very unattractive Greek shipping tycoon for his money. Jackie Kennedy was a perfectly normal upper-class, shit-lib White woman.

  2. What we’re witnessing is another ‘phase-transition’ in the process known as Anacyclosis. As the process runs its cycles – from monarchy/dictatorship, to aristocracy/junta, to “democracy” and back again to monarchy/dictatorship, the thing to notice is how (political) power becomes ever more diluted as the cycles run their course over time. But this dilution leads inevitably to (political) paralysis, exactly as described above. The Divided States is one existential crisis away from the phase-change that will usher in a dictator. What form this crisis takes and who reacts to it most effectively will determine the nature of this dictatorship.

    • OK, more esoterica and high-minded discourse.

      Yes, this pattern of human affairs in the modern civilized era (e.g the past few millennia) has been repetitive because it is driven by our human nature (read proclivities written into our DNA by a few hundred thousand years of evolution). What’s new however, is the advent and widespread implementation of artificial selection by a sentient species for the first time in the history of life on Earth. How does this change the anacyclosis dynamic? We are now at risk of morphing into a herd, hive-like, or flocking species as a result of artificial selection pressures being guided by a small “elitist” cohort of the population. The neologism “sheeple” is an apt descriptor of this potential end-state. And all of this has been modeled extensively and much insight has been gained into potential future consequences. The problem is not trivial.

      • Your analysis seems correct as far as it goes. But I ask: What system will support the sheeple, the eaters, whatever you’d like to call the ever-rising share of total population that are, in evolution’s terms, excess baggage? Or put another way, there is an ever-increasing share of the population that is non-productive that must be supported by the productive. At some point, a limit is reached. Or worse, the system collapses, slowly or rapidly. Imagine Sub-Saharan Africa today. Now imagine it with even less outside support.

        Artificial selection works, but only as long as exists an artificial system (civilization) to support the individuals. An imperfect analogy perhaps: The hundreds (thousands) of breeds of domestic dog are the result of artificial selection going back tens of thousands of years. If returned to a wild environment, of course most of these would quickly die. The survivors would be feral. But they wouldn’t turn back into Grey Wolves. But their behavior would be remarkably similar.

        • Dysgenics, devolution, radical egalitarianism, socialism, are a reaction to the feeling that life is not fair, as In fact, it isn’t.

          Some tribes are “superior” in some significant way, thus causing unequal outcomes, feelings of jealously and envy – “It’s not fair!” “Math, SATs, and testing is racist!”

          If we can’t improve the inferior tribe, then we’ll handicap the superior tribe. In Kurt Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron, attractive people must wear a mask, light footed ballerinas are weighted down, and smart people wear noise making radios to distract them. Mediocrity is rewarded while excellence is penalized.

        • The models suggest that an authoritarian entity (likely a national government or dictator) will continue redistributive policies as long as feasible, followed by rationing, followed by euthanasia of the elderly & seriously infirm, followed by population-wide birth control, followed by societal collapse at the extremis limit.

  3. Individual rights + selfless attitude = happy society.

    Individual rights + selfish attitude = America 2021.

    Collective rights + selfless attitude = utopia.

    Collective rights + selfish attitude = South Africa

    Friday night kindergarten thinking…

  4. “ Today, the people chanting about democracy are also demanding the vote be given to foreigners”

    And taking it by fraud from whites.

  5. My path to this side of the divide was quick and direct and happened in 2001. Pat Buchanan to Peter Brimelow/VDARE.

    Btw I found a copy of Wilmot Robertson’s book in of all places a Catholic thrift store years ago.

    • I first heard of Wilmot in the early 90’s while following the Buckley vs. Sobran conflict. I think it was Midge Dector (now there’s a soft ‘n sexy name) who told everyone that Sobran reads something called Instauration, “a publication for racists and antisemites.” I was thrilled to find out there was something true Right out there. I tried like crazy to find it and figure out how to get a subscription but failed. Practically speaking, this was pre-internet, and I didn’t live in a major city like NY or San Francisco where I could ask some kooky bookstore owner how to get my hands on the good stuff. Lonely times for young men seeking something that published real talk about all the elephants in the room.

      • Can you imagine how insufferable Buckley would be if he was alive today? All the hand wringing over orange man, etc. Invited on CNN with dandruff laden suit jacket…

    • I wish I could say mine was so swift and that is even granting that I’ve been race-aware for as long as I can remember. It took me quite a long time.

    • My journey to this camp came about during Bush I reign and the ensuing mess at the end of Gulf War I. I was on active duty then and recall most of the senior officers chatting about this at various times, usually during chow and they – to a person – were voting for Perot due to the fact that Bush had disappointed them greatly with the whole Tienanmen Square incident.
      I can still recall our XO saying how furious he was was over the fact that Bush had publicly said that “Stability is the name of the game” when pressed over weather or not the US was going to aid the protesters. They went on to lament how a “friend” of theirs was on the ground in country while all of this was going on and relayed that the government was on the ropes and that it wouldn’t take much for it to fall, only to be told by DC to observe and report only. I recall them being furious about this and my colonel saying, “Say what you want about Ronnie, but he would have green-lighted whatever it would take to bring them down.”
      Then his son got elected and one of the first things he does is try to grant an amnesty and I remember thinking to myself, “What the hell is going on? I expect this from the left! That’s when I began looking for other options.

  6. Don’t be a bigot, everyone has a right to come to America and vote for the CPUSA.
    You have the right to work and pay for it all, comrade.
    Train your replacement with a happy face or no soup for you deplorable untermenschen scum.
    Ummm…the democracy Kool-Aid is delicious and now in Jonestown flavor.
    Utopia is gonna work this time because muh faculty lounge.
    Forward! Yes we can.

      • To be effective in achieving a goal, you must first visualize it. This helps to focus the mind and enables subconscious problem-solving skills to swing into action with respect to difficult or intractable dilemma.

  7. Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Lost Hoppe

  8. “The Ron Paul moment turned out to be a waystation for what is now the dissident right.”

    I can’t help but wonder about Rand Paul. He seems to be one of the few rational players in the federal government, but nobody gets into the Senate without being eminently blackmailable. I can’t help feel he is just a stalking horse, though I haven’t seen many episodes of his career that would indicate this. Any thoughts?

    • Rand Paul’s 2016 Presidential campaign, where he spent time sucking up to Al Sharpton and calling himself a “Detroit Republican” was insanity. He spent a significant chunk of campaign time on this, parroting all the idiotic black outreach slogans Conservatism, Inc. makes and creating some new ones of his own. Shockingly, this did not translate into campaign donations or votes among rural, white Iowans and he dropped out after getting 5th in the Iowa Caucuses.

      If Rand has wised up since then is hard to know, but I am going to with probably not much. I wouldn’t consider him any more valuable than Tom Cotton, decent on some issues, terrible on others. Would he follow through if he was in a position to help us, very unlikely.

      • Libertarianism, just like so many other things became crystalized in the 1970s culture. Forever soul searching in this post MLK white guilt. It’s a generational thing, not just a political thing. It’s maddening. A whole generation will just have to shuffle on to their graves before this changes. Even if I accepted the perceived racial injustice of blacks. I just don’t care. Never did. Never will. My response has always been “I’m sorry you’re not white. There’s nothing I can do about that.”

      • His black out reach wasn’t to win the black vote, it was to try and win some normie white votes, from the type of tards who say stuff like the democrats are the real racists

        Retards vote too

    • He lives in Kentucky for a reason. While there is certainly some amount of political corruption, the state isn’t big potatoes for party bigwigs, and most people are religious and scrupulous, even the left-wingers. As such, irregularities at the state and local levels are (relatively) more honest and reflective of voters. Voters are also more pragmatic and less principled, caring more for party affiliation than ideology. In all, it means that ideologues can get past party gatekeepers without getting (too) dirty, while being fairly easy to sideline at the federal level. Since I live in Kentucky and freelance in it’s two biggest cities, I can say with confidence that the scene is like this here, but I’m not sure if any other states or regions are similar. FWIW, party bosses aren’t omnipotent, more can they ignore the voters and coalitions whenever it suits them, so it’s not a stretch to think that many, maybe most, federal office holders aren’t corrupt or blackmailable.

    • Rand Paul operates squarely within the system of electoral politics. He is, therefore, irrelevant to the essential problems that beset us. Our solutions and our leaders will be extra-political.

    • Rand Paul is sponsoring a bill currently that will increase immigration and
      chain migration. see “temporary-family-visitation-act”

      >S. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced the
      Temporary Family Visitation Act that would establish a new B-3 nonimmigrant
      category allowing U.S. citizens and permanent residents to petition for their
      family members for temporary visits. [from rand paul’s senate website]

    • Not our guy and not our enemy. He’d be the median American politician if our elections weren’t fake.

      • I saw someone write that Paul’s channel was basically the PBS gun show, if PBS would ever have a gun show. Since then, I’ve enjoyed imagining Harrell’s show running after reruns of Bob Ross.

        • Buffman’s channel is great for ammo tests.
          Ray Sanchez (tbacray) and suppressornation are great for suppressor tests.

          Infected Outdoors is good for thermal optics and hog eradication education.

          Mrgunsngear and garandthumb are also very good general channels.

  9. Mises’ version of Austrian economics, spelled out in “Human Action,” is founded on the concept of praexology: the autonomy of the individual participant who acts to satisfy “their” wants and needs. Remove that participant and the model doesn’t work. Still, Mises proposed that socialism fails because there’s no way adequately to price anything. Yet if socialism is the means by which a ruling party rules, it may not matter that resources fail to be allocated to their most efficient use. It may be the constants of human nature that ultimately account for socialism’s failure, something that needs to be experienced ever and again by each succeeding generation.

    • Is “socialism” actually a failure if it succeeds in lavishly rewarding the ruling oligarchs and suppressing resistance? Sure, the proles don’t get what they were promised, and maybe it’s not economically “efficient” but what of that?

      • If you think of socialism as all the goodies in the hands of the ruling elite and all dissent leading to gulag it is a resounding success.

    • the trouble with socialism is that there is no incentive to work harder than the absolute minimum to hold your job. almost every job is tied to political reliability, and not ability. so everything is done shittily, if its done at all. everything is inverted, teachers earn more than doctors. no one will do a shitty job willingly, since it doesn’t may more than a non-shitty job. everything has to be coerced out of the population so the society is slow and unresponsive. all the upper middle class people playing at revolution are going to be shocked as fuck when they end up lined up against a wall (or worse)…

      • I hear that socialist Scandinavia was a pretty sweet place before the immigrant invasions.

        White people can do socialism just fine, so long as they keep their country white. Race > Economic System.

        One could argue that an attraction to socialism necessarily entails an attraction to open borders. Perhaps, but Jack London is a strong counterexample.

        • I’m nobody’s socialist. However, when I look at the destruction and mayhem created by AINO’s capitalist system, the gap between it and socialism narrows appreciably.

        • scandinavia is not socialist. norway has tons of oil money, too. being ethnically homogenous was the key. and now that sweden has brought in muslims, it’s turning to shit.

      • I’m no fan of socialism, communism or its fellow travelers. Yet why did (or do) such manifestly dysfunctional political systems endure for so long? An often overlooked reason is the black market, underground economy, call it what you will. It almost always exists to one degree or another.

        In dire times and places, whether the old Soviet Union or warn-torn Europe, it is often the only way that real goods and services are exchanged. Yes, often at high prices, payable in other goods and services, real money or heck, maybe even the local paper money perhaps at high discount. Yes, it is “selfish” and doesn’t help “the poor,” but neither did those high-sounding promises of the ruling government in those places. To some extent, these dysfunctional regimes only remain standing because they allow — or cannot extirpate — black markets. Of course, officials frequently benefit in some way from the local black market too.

        Even here in rich countries, there is “traditionally” a black market, primarily for drugs, illicit sex, etc. It must be conceded that these are illegal and subject to penalty, some slight, some severe. But those markets remain despite the best efforts of the rulers.

        • Ben (or whomever is interested), do you believe that there should be any social safety net? Imagine that local charities are nonexistent in an area or overwhelmed. Do you want poor, old people or children to die?

          If not, doesn’t that make you some kind of socialist? I’m not playing semantic games. I’m sincere.

          For what it’s worth, I could probably tolerate living in a society where poor people die, if I thought it was restraining the growth of government, but I am part of a small minority, even among white men. Most people want some kind of social safety net, which makes them socialists, at least a little. Very few people really want libertarian small government.

    • Praxeology is a pseudo-science like Freudianism (is it the right-wing equivalent?), it is retarded to think economics can be deducted from a priori principles of human actions, totally independent from observed reality. When these deductions don’t match reality its hand-waved away, since it reveals the pseudo-science it is.

      Why do people trust century old Austrian-Jewish pseudo-sciences, I do not understand.

    • $Price is just one data point to begin pricing risk on the way to allocating scarce capital. The central achievement of chaotic capital allocation, the opposite of centralized allocation, is that individuals don’t want to lose and try to make decisions about capital allocation that are consistent with the goals of wealth preservation, first, and growth second.

      Socialism collapses because the capital allocators no longer care on a spiritual level about losses or bad decisions ions because there is virtually no personal negative feedback loop.

      Profit is excess risk margin that should be conserved for the decisions that don’t work out. As long as double entry accounting is used and debits = credits and 1 + -1 = 0, the financial system is still zero sum. The idea that it is not zero sum is rooted in the doctrine of infinite debt expansion.

      The reason socialism can never be eliminated is because people will become wealthy and either the wealthy, children or their managers will invest in politicians to protect their wealth, inevitably.

      Soros, Koch, Bezos, Rockefeller, Gates, Thiel, Mercer, etc. can buy whole politicians for fractions of a penny relative to the wealth under their control. Politicians can be a great investment on a risk:reward basis for some people.

  10. Wanting to open borders to change consensus works wonderfully for the left, but for libertarianism it has the opposite effect on the consensus they want. Libertarians are as brainwashed in blank slate or magic dirt theory as the most Bushite conservatard. Had they looked at the demographics of the counties that supported Ron Paul, they would find the whitest northern counties in America, many of them clustered near the Canadian border. Places nearly uniformly white, but also with low religiosity. Religiosity level was important because rates of bible study went hand in hand with supporting Romney or Santorum. Perhaps, given this fact, ancient Catholicism was right after all and rubes can’t handle the bible without direction, just like they can’t handle democracy. Ron Paul’s core support came from young white males who smoke weed after snow shoeing. A critical thinking libertarian (like an imaginary number) would have said “Oh shit!!!, close the borders now! These immigrants think we’re a joke. We’re committing suicide.”

    • Yeah i was volunteering in latin america trying to think why the locals hated capitalism so much. Eventually i realized it was a cognitive deficiency. High IQ populations become very prosperous with free markets. Unfortunately everybody else wants in, and when they get in, they ruin it.

      • Never understood why do gooders still feel the need to go build some houses for indios/africans while the men stand around as usual.

        Pretty sure they can figure out how to stack cinderblocks one on top of the other. They’re just lazy and don’t really care.

        I’d say there is more to it than just high IQ though. Brahmins are petty high IQ but ultimately turn everything to crap because of their shitty and selfish culture. No country with those elites will ever prosper.

        • We (HBD’ers) pretty much understand that there is an inherent set of behaviors that also vary among the races. Unfortunately we all too often use the “shortcut” of ascribing all racial differences to IQ. So much so, that I tend to ignore those statements, least I sound like a broken record. But you are correct, it is always a situation of IQ + Behavior.

        • The Brahmins are the assholes that they are because of the structure of their religions.
          Through the correct conduct of the sacrifices and rituals the Gods can be appeased and directed.
          The Brahmins conduct the rituals therefore the Brahmins are more powerful than the Gods.

          They shouldn’t have to clean up their own shit (quite literally).

        • It’s called a virtue signaling vacation.

          I don’t tell people where and how I like to relax because I don’t want more people in my space so I can continue relaxing.

      • The locals probably hate free market capitalism for the same reason pre-revolutionary french peasants hated it: implementation has costs that they don’t want to pay. It’s all well and good to day there’s a general benefit to everyone in the long run, but that doesn’t make the short term transition any less painful or costly. That’s not to say that increased trade should be avoided, just that opposition isn’t irrational.

        • Stupid, lazy people intuitively know that they will get the short straw under capitalism. A parasite knows a blood supply when it sees one.

          • That was definitely not the case in France in the 18th century. The biggest issue was that grain farmers would stand to make more money by exporting while their neighbors would have to pay more to buy in that market. In times of global surplus, that wouldn’t have been an issue, but they tried switching to a free market basis the year that an extremely long continental winter reduced output considerably, leading to an extremely huge jump in prices. The bread riots nearly set off the revolution early. The lesson is that even a subpar system may be preferred to a better system simply because it’s stable and predictable. Stability and familiarity can be just as valuable as optimality, and should not be ignored casually.

      • I think you have something there. Based upon my admittedly skewed and limited knowledge of world history, in fact:

        Republics or democracy in the Western sense and/or high-productivity economic systems that are “free”, at least in a relative sense, seem to be the exclusive property of Caucasian nations; honorable mention is given to Japan, China and smaller Asian nations, but those have (at best) a few generations’ experience with what was in all honesty, ideas imposed and/or imported directly from the West.

        Even in the West, individual freedom has been relatively infrequent, historically speaking. And much less so among our Yellow kin.

        There may be present or past examples of non-White nations that achieved success comparable to us, but I’ve never heard of them.

  11. Any social system larger than a small tribe is an example of a utopia. Of course, some attempted utopias last longer than others and acquire legitimacy simply through endurance.

    Proponents of niche thought, like libertarians and anarchists, if they’re relatively sane, realize that their ideas will never come to fruition in any comprehensive way. But they do serve a useful purpose in challenging conventional thinking and scrambling the perceptions of the status quo.

  12. To be clear, H-H Hoppe was against open borders and free immigration and he was certainly in favor of freedom of association. There are plenty of libertarians who don’t consider him a libertarian, FWIW. I think Chet Rollins is correct that Hoppe never could resolve the role of the state power or sovereign within his “covenant communities”.

    There are two issues here regarding government: efficiency and legitimacy. Zman addresses the inefficiencies of broad franchise democracy without grappling with the crucial legitimacy issue. Hoppe’s view on monarchy versus democracy is a reductive argument. Superior stability, while appealing to the Divine Right of Kings for legitimacy, doesn’t automatically confer greater legitimacy or guarantee efficiency.

    So to defeat the franchise expansion argument, I think you have to explain why expanded franchise isn’t more legitimate than narrow franchise. Are we limiting franchise to tax payers? Using Heinlein’s “Starship Trooper” criteria? Education?

    It’s also impossible to have this discussion without agreeing on what the proper role for the State actually is. If the government only provides “the minimal state” (some security and dispute resolution) – like Hoppe’s mentor Rothbard wanted – I don’t think broad franchise would be a big problem. The DR has a problem with expanded franchise mainly I think because government is too fricking big and intrusive.

    • It seems to me that human nature being what it is, the expansion of the franchise is inevitably the precursor to expanded and intrusive government. As those with less to lose and more to gain get to vote they will vote for things that
      benefit themselves regardless of how it effects others.
      The new wrinkle today is that now big money (corporate) has been enfranchised. While the “golden rule” has always been a big influence, today it is a whole other reality.

      • Yes, excellent point. Presumably, this is what a Constitution is for. Of course, to your point, expanded franchise leads to electing leaders who wipe their butts with the Constitution. It’s a big problem and I don’t have an answer for you.

        • What the constitution WAS for, before it became irrelevant by 1935. It only took one generation after the 17th Amendment to demolish that document. Today’s supreme court rulings are a mix of public sentiment and power politics.

      • You don’t think and of the East Indian colonial concerns had a vote in their day? What about John Law with the ostensibly French Mississippi Company?

        It’s quaint for both factions to believe there is a magic bullet, but the fact is, there is no magical bullet. The reason we get a dictator after this is because the opposition can’t really afford even one prominent dissident at a time.

        Even when the dictator prevails, the society immediately transitions back to an administrative architecture of some form and colloquial description.

        It is what it is.

        I do think the DR should describe our present government form an “Illegitamacy”. It is not a republic, monarch or democracy now, officially.

    • “It’s also impossible to have this discussion without agreeing on what the proper role for the State actually is.”

      Now that is a good place to start. I suppose the problem is we’d also need to know who would make up such a State – whites, blacks, aliens? The role of the current State in my book should be heavily withdrawn as it is most perniciously anti-white. Perhaps that is how far we’ve fallen, I’d settle for the role of the State not being anti-white. Furthermore, such a state ought to have a culture and be comprised of those supportive of the culture and advance it in a positive way all the time. Simply, such a State would just work in the favour of Heritage American Whites, or Native English Whites or whatever you fancy.

      Such a state would ask, if comprised of our people, before all actions: ‘Is this good for our people’?

      In this case, a swathe of our problems would be removed. Coca-Cola and Lockheed Martin giving lectures on coming to terms with whiteness? Send some boys with guns around to make sure we don’t do that here. In fact, send a letter backed by the lads with guns as it is less conspicuous. BLM rioters and anti-white Antifa agitators in your neck of the woods? This time send men with guns, and maybe exile the ringleaders. At each stage the boys in charge simply ask ‘Is it good for my people?’ and the result follows.

      It would probably be necessarily authoritarian, which my freedom loving side doesn’t like, but compared to where unfettered individualism and debauchery is taking us, I think it a decent alternative.

      • Mr. Frog, I would respect the libertarians a lot more if they just said, “We’re going to have an authoritarian regime to force small government and the NAP on you. If you try to expand the role of the state then we will brutally crush you.”

        Even as a WN, I might be able to get behind that plan.

      • Congratulations on your visionary reorganization of political society; but it’s been done before. If your people are “Aryans,” then your boys are the Gestapo and your state is the Third Reich. Perhaps it would have succeeded if they’d remained focused on “internal” cultural matters instead of the quest for Lebensraum. May I suggest we skip the pit executions and proceed directly to labor camps with “adjacent facilities” in pursuit of the Endlosung that’s “good for our people?” /sarc

        • Maus, you say all that stuff like it’s a bad thing.

          There is no other option.

          • Sadly, I think that is the end game. The only undecided question is who is in the pit and who is behind the machine guns?

            While Mexico has always been a rather chaotic example of “democracy,” lately in the news is 80+ mayoral candidates are murdered. Journalists turn up dead often. Several years ago a large number of aspiring teachers (communists, socialists, leftists, just like in USA) at a university were murdered.

            In most of these cases, those targeted were anti-corruption, anti-drug-cartel, or (something we might more easily forgive), anti-leftist.

            Alas, Mexico probably offers a glimpse of what will become more common in the USA.

    • Franchise limiting is such an obvious necessity it no longer merits discussion.

      Like much else, the DR gets wrapped up in the weeds about the particulars instead of selling the primary arguments for why it’s absolutely necessary.

      I think Zman (?) proposed a useful framework long ago: one vote per married couple (invested in the long term), you only get to vote in the state you were born in/turn 18 in (prevents carpetbaggers distorting the uniqueness of states).

      Surely a basic literacy test, in English, would be a decent start. I’d also say basic math (algebra and an understanding of percentages/interest on loans, etc) wouldn’t be too much to expect.

      • At first blush, your proposal sounds reasonable. Of course, some otherwise excellent citizens would be excluded because they don’t want to marry. Indeed, that criterion opens a can of worms. Will no-fault divorce exist to permit “voting marriages” that can be put on and taken off like a pair of shoes? Will gay marriage be permitted (it potentially fails the “long term” test unless gay adoption or surrogate motherhood is also admitted)? If not (and I should hope not) then will homosexuals re-closet and contract sham marriages?
        The fact is that any system of limited franchise can be gamed; and will be gamed by those who shun virtue and the common good in favor of self-interest. The only proper check on election corruption is a moral people, as the Founder John Adams intimated. Trying to achieve moral consensus in a post-modern, multi-cultural society is a utopian fantasy. TINVOWOOT.

        • What Maus is saying, perhaps inadvertently, is that we aren’t going to vote our way out of this.

          • It’s a slippery slope fallacy.

            The fact is, there are very few queers even if the media and education complex tells you otherwise.

      • With today’s technology, we have the ability to weigh one’s vote. We could come up with a list of criteria, and the more of those you possess, the more your vote counts. Perhaps you start at 0.1 votes at the age of maturity. You get married? 0.2 Add kids (up to a limit)? 0.3 or higher. Own free and clear title on property? 0.4, etc. Similarly, one could lose part of their voting weight. Divorce might result in losing your marriage bonus and your child bonus. In this way, we could incentivize behaviors — whichever ones we deem vital to the perpetuation of our culture — and punish transgressions.

        Much like the tax code, the temptation would be there for pols to reward favored constituencies, so such a system would need to be ironclad.

        • What’s funny about KGB’s quite reasonable proposal is that it would be easier to win a revolution in this country than get his proposal made law under our current system.

          • I take Jim’s position which is fathers are the only class with voting privilege, but would add in a firearm ownership and marksmanship qualification. Those who vote are those who have something to fight for and can fight for it.

            The AARP class can advise sons much like women can advise husbands.

    • I have been gradually coming to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a legitimate government. Even if you had completely unanimous agreement from the people when you founded the government, which is of course impossible, you can’t legitimately bind future generations to the “social contract” agreed-to by the founding generation.

      My relationship to the US Constitution and social contract is necessarily coercive, even if I agree with much of it. I didn’t ask to be born here, and as we’ve seen what happens to those sovereign citizen freaks, you can’t simply say. “No, I opt our of your system. Leave me alone.” You have to uproot yourself, physically leave the country, often at great sacrifice, and accept some other existing social contract, since there are no more frontiers.

      That’s simply not tenable for most people, so most people are pretty much blackmailed into accepting the social contract of the nation into which they were born.

      So what? Life is unjust. Utopians are the most dangerous people on the planet.

      The answer to “the proper size and legitimacy of the state” is, in both cases, “whatever you can get to stick with the society on which you are imposing it.”

      Democracies tend to fall apart fast.

      We have examples of Republics and Monarchies existing for thousands of years, but that was in what might as well be a completely different world, a much more static world.

      As a rule of thumb, look for the types of systems that accept people as they are. Probably the key indicator of a dangerous, utopian system is that it assumes that a different type of person can be brought into existence and made the norm: a human with capacities for altruism, reason and justice that has never existed in large quantities in all of history.

      One of the reasons I am a Christian is due to the Bible’s astounding comprehension of human nature. From the Adam and Eve in the garden through the flood narrative, the Abrahamic and Mosaic stories, through Saul, David, Solomon, and even through the early Apostolic communities, the lesson taught over and over is really echos of the original story of the Garden:

      People are provided with a fantastic system — in the first case, a literal paradise. They are clearly informed of the rules of this paradise and the consequences of breaking those rules. And then they proceed to fuck it up.

      Human nature *is* a force of nature, and it has a destructive element at its core.

      The current US is the second oldest Constitutional government in the world, and the only one older is the tiny city-state of San Marino (ratified in 1600).

      Our governmental systems seem to be falling apart faster and faster. What does that mean? Will it continue to accelerate?

      Nobody knows, but it is completely in line with the depictions and warnings about human nature that the Bible has been trying to teach for thousands of years.

      • Excellent comment. But would you accept the premise that the apparent accelerated failures of governments you referenced are at least correlated with their size, scope and ambition?

      • One of the reasons I am a Christian is due to the Bible’s astounding comprehension of human nature. From the Adam and Eve in the garden through the flood narrative, the Abrahamic and Mosaic stories, through Saul, David, Solomon, and even through the early Apostolic communities, the lesson taught over and over is really echos of the original story of the Garden:

        We have a winner. What brought me back to Christianity from several years of atheism was finally grasping how instructional and universal is the story of Genesis. It’s all there and it’s been there from the beginning. The interests of men and women, and how those interests compete and interact, is perfectly distilled. When I finally saw the irrefutable logic in it all, I was able to let go of my intellectual resistance to spirituality.

        • “the irrefutable logic”, yes the perfect being created two creatures out of nothing, placed them in a garden, knowing they were too imperfectly made and too weak to resist temptation, and, unless his foreknowledge was wrong (impossible) knew they would FALL to temptation and be condemned, along with their innocent children, to eternal torture and damnation.

          “the irrefutable logic” of being not consistent with the findings of cosmology (earth is just a tiny blip), geology (earth much older), evolution (man not created at once) or archeology.

          “the irrefutable logic” of most of the major characters moses, abraham, isaac, joespeh, joshua, daniel, david, solomon, jesus having no archaelogical basis despite them having world reknown positions like vizier, ruler of a massive empire, massive exodus of millions, blackening of a whole city, formation of stars, massive massacres to stop them, massive conquests, beuracrats in the biggest empire in the world.

          The accuracy of its telling with apostles quoting the greek septuagint in Jersulem, of Romans not caring that a escaped convict (jesus), is giving them orders and they say is alive.

          • Someone has a chip on his shoulder.

            I find people like this usually have some really horrific thing in their background that makes the idea of God terrifying to them — you know, the possibility of judgment and all.

            That’s why they explode into rants like this when they encounter believers.

          • Catholics are told that one cannot read the Bible literally. That it is and was the revealed word of God … but filtered through the language, customs, traditions, history, stories, and culture of people of the time, translated many times, and couched in parables. And written in imperfect human understanding.
            No one in Ancient Times could and would say things directly. Not even the Greeks, who were more forthright than most, and still resorted to Parables whenever they could as it would not have the King killing entire families. Consider the great Cloud that followed the Israelites out of Egypt in Exodus. Was it really a cloud? Or did it refer to some long-forgotten tradition and history as allegory to make a point about God’s will and obedience (or lack thereof). Or Lot’s Wife at Gomorrah turning into a pillar of salt as she looked back. Did she really turn into a pillar of salt? Or was that another parable like Jesus mentioning the lost penny and lost sheep and prodigal son? [There the meaning is clear — we are all sinners in need of forgivness, if not now later].
            I will say this — pretty much everyone in Western Literature, atheists and believers alike, agreed that the Bible is a very accurate and moving picture of the human condition in all its sin and glory, combined. Everyone quotes from it, all the time.

          • Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to be both tedious and illiterate. Now, I don’t need to wonder.

      • The US constitution was fucked by that great Champion of Liberty Jefferson with the Louisiana Purchase; Nowhere authorized but too good to pass up.
        Game over.

        • I didfer from that opinion, Bile.

          Jeffersonian republicanism is premised upon independent yeomanry as the backbone of the Republic. He acted in secrecy because he knew that the eastern Federalists would never consent to seeing the possibility that rhe ranks of the independent yeomanry might increase in numbers and power within the Republic (recall that the franchise went with that sort of economic status and being a taxpaying member of the community based upon ownership of property).

          By expanding opportunity for the rise of more independent yeoman, the yeoman could escape the Eastern Federalist ideal wherein the franchise would be sharply limited. As protoindustrialists, the Eastern Federalists needed landless, unfranchised serfs, in thrall to their “betters” grand schemes, and having no ability to say anything about it, either. They already resented the population boiling off from under their control and moving west beyond the Appalachians.

          But those migrants faced a new challenge; namely, that in order for their agricultural products to reach an outside market, a better means than land transit was needed, and that was provided via the Mississippi River, and its navigable tributaries. The mouth of the Mississippi was, however, under the control of a foreign power, at that time France, but imagine if that outlet fell under the control of a hostile foreign power, and worse yet, that foreign power claimed ownership of all land west of the Mississippi. The western parts of the Republic would be at best strangled, and at worst subject to invasion. Grabbing the chance to head off both of these problems only made sense, and given the likely reception of this bold expansion by the reactionary, self-interested, and likely Anglophile Federalists, who can doubt the need for secrecy. Additionally, the still hostile British Empire would not be favorably disposed to their desire to see the US contained and crippled, so more need for quick and discrete action.

          More Jeffersonia…

          He resisted the blackmail of the Barbary Pirates demands for tribute from US shippers, and their slaving of passengers and crews of US vessels. Hence the war against the pirates from the feisty Republic while the Europeans just paid the tribute.

          Jefferson was not an advocate for standing armies, forseeing the dangers that such could present to the Republic. But no fool he, he understood the need for the cultuvation of military science, particularly engineering, to provide a start point for intelligently raising and supporting an army in any future conflicts, and to that end he founded the US Military Academy at West Point.

    • The franchise expands i democracy because it’s the easiest path to victory for politicians. And it leads to an expanded government because those same politicians have to promise and pay off their new clients. The Whole thing becomes a vicious cycle.

      This dynamic was evident in the late stages of the Roman Republic, so it’s not just a function of American or even liberal democracy.

    • Hahaha, someone has read some libertarian things! You sound like you might actually believe this stuff! So, question for you Captain, how is all your logic and reason and rationality of governance going to stop us from getting genocided in the USA?

      We now know that government form doesn’t matter. The data is in, so you don’t need to theorize about governance anymore! We can be governed under democratic, socialist, capitalist, communist, autocratic, theocratic, monarchical, dictatorial systems and as long as the leaders represent the people (shared identity, ethnicity, culture) the leaders will try to protect the people and try not to genocide them.

      Personally, I like some kind of representational government. Not that voting has ever done anything for me personally. But if the price I have to pay to not be genocided is giving it up, so be it!

      • Hey Acetone – yeah, I’ve read all kinds of stuff – just enough to be dangerous probably, hopefully just to myself. I certainly believe in limited government. Not a libertarian though, but I do believe the NAP is a good foundation for a society.

        That said I understand all this stuff may just be mental masturbation, given the size and immediacy of the threat you’re justifiably worried about. If you’re right, I and others are gonna have to be pretty flexible about governance. I’m pretty confident well-meaning Whites can figure it out when the time comes.

  13. Big “L” libertarianism suffers the same defects as all political movements, and hence bitching about those defects is more an exercise in venting than it is a useful path to improvement in anything. And small “l” libertarianism is essentially about minding your own business but then some asshole comes along trying to impose his will upon you, and consequently you must resort to ridding yourself of this nuisance, which may include the permanent kind of riddance if circumstances warrant. This is an ancient evolutionary remedy and it helped propel our species to where we are today.

    I say this as a PSA to those who may wish to get in the face of a small “l” libertarian and harangue them about politics. You best be prepared for the consequences.

    • It is a fantasy to believe that we can have a “live and let live” world. Most people on the planet will not, and probably cannot, reciprocate that sentiment.

      Let that dream go. Accept that there is always going to be someone in charge and resolve to make it someone who serves the interests of your group.

      • You’re talking macro and I’m talking micro. But to your point; yes, “live and let live” does not (and cannot) exist in a civilized world where governments dominate human affairs. And no one should expect the thuggery of the State to leave them be. I cannot solve that problem, nor can you. But if just one tyrannical megalomaniac asshole leaves this Earth because he picked on the wrong person to try out his bullying BS, then that’s a good day regardless.

      • I think “Live and let live” is possible in some times and places. I think ultimately it’ll require physical separation by race, tribe, perhaps ideologies; boundaries and no-man’s-lands protected on pain of death, but that is just an implementation detail 🙂

  14. “Understanding the inherent dangers and defects of liberal democracy.” There’s a book in that. No, a library in fact.

    • Life has a 100% fatality rate, too.

      There is no magic bullet and you work with the cards you are dealt at the table you have a seat at.

  15. It is entirely self-defeating for libertarians to advocate for open borders. Virtually everyone who favors libertarianism is White. Very few nonwhites have any use for or even knowledge of it. Only in a largely homogenous White culture could libertarianism become the operative ideology — and even that’s would be a tremendous stretch. Most Whites are not libertarians. This is a phenomenon of losing the forest for the trees, or simply failing to adapt to the big picture. Libertarians take an anti-government stance on almost every issue. Since the government enforces the borders, we shouldn’t have borders. It’s no more complicated than that. It points to a problem with libertarians in general: they are blind to demographics. Though many of them reject the Left’s obsession with egalitarianism, they rarely know much about group differences. They might as well subscribe to blank slate theory. So they advocate letting into the country vast hordes of people who will inevitably vote for policies that are the antithesis of libertarianism. So much of this world’s stupidity arises from a lack of race realism.

    • “Virtually everyone who favors libertarianism is White.”

      Well, what kind of white are you talking about?

      Many of the most strident and harmful libertarians have non-white identities. Take Cato Institute’s Alex Nowrasteh for instance. His position as a libertarian is radical open borders. Parents (or perhaps grandparents) were Iranian immigrants. Unclear religious background but I have seen him comment places with parentheses ((())) around his user name. The policy positions he supports are harmful to the heritage american desire to not be displaced. Indeed, his writings indicate something that seems like hostility towards heritage americans, the origins of which I do not understand. Based on what I know of his biography, I suppose he doesn’t care about heritage america because he doesn’t have this identity. And perhaps the his hostility is due to his professional opposition to heritage american preference for immigration restriction. These are guesses on my part.

      Nowrasteh, while not an academic (no PhD), has a good enough understanding of academic literature in this space to be effective at representing the open borders libertarian philosophy. He has receptive audiences for his analysis in the media and political world. IMO, he is not blind to demographics or misunderstanding the effects of immigration. He is an expert in this field and understands demographics perfectly well. Rather he is intent on wielding immigration policy and demographic change as a weapon against core/heritage America in a US democracy.

      Back to your point. I think you are being to overly generous to libertarians when you say that they are only following their ideology and they they do not understand the effects of the policies they advocate. Many libertarians (especially the professionals) know their ends perfectly well (money and power for them, poverty and powerlessness for everyone else) and see libertarian ideology as the vehicle to get them to this destination.

    • Hi Wkathman, my comment is being moderated. I am giving you a short form response in case it doesn’t get through.

      Some people, particularly it seems white people, like libertarianism because it is an interesting and fun philosophy. Other people like libertarianism because of the ends it delivers. That is to say, they embrace the philosophy for bad faith reasons, seeing it as a tool to get certain people power and money (while taking it away from certain other people). IMO, in the US today libertarianism serves minoritarian interests and disenfranchises heritage americans (free trade, immigration, drugs, sexual freedoms, community destruction, etc). Thus, often libertarian interests are advanced by people that are not heritage americans. They advance the philosophy out of self interest.

  16. As I mentioned the other day, democracy relies on its citizens accepting the legitimacy of other citizens to decide their fate. The minute part of population no longer accepts the right of other groups to rule over them, even if that rule is based on free and open elections, the game is up.

    Democratic totalitarianism is still totalitarianism. The fact that 50% plus one voted to make me a slave doesn’t make my subjugation legitimate.

    Expanding the franchise to ever more groups might be the natural path of democracy, but it also dooms it to failure. I simply do not accept the right of Africans, Mestizos and Asians to rule over me, whether by gunpoint or vote. And a growing number of Whites are agreeing with me.

    Have a nice weekend.

    • Democratic totalitarianism is still totalitarianism, as you rightly point out, but I would add “Europeans” to complete your list of unacceptable tyrants. How many governors, judges, senators, etc have betrayed “their people” lately?

      “Democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” — James Madison

      • Just a question of whom you consider to be your people. We use Whites as our people, but, really, Whites are a huge collection of various ethnicities and cultures. The Irish don’t consider the English to be their people even though they’re pretty similar genetically.

        I’ve never been a White Nationalist. I’m an ethno-nationalist. However Whites wants want to divide themselves is fine with me.

        The key is to live among and be ruled by your people, however, you define that.

        • the irish may be related genetically to the original britains, but they are very different from the normans and anglo-saxons that displaced most of the Britains after Western Rome fell.

          • There is an Irish subset population of “Norman Irish” (I’m one) who are quite different in appearance from the Celts, although as to genetic makeup, I’m unsure if there are major differences.

          • Montefrio,

            Yeah, a lot of Irish surnames – or, at least, what people think are Irish surnames – are actually Norman/French, such as Fitzgerald.

            And I’m not even Irish. Just know a bit of history. And thing you learn from history is don’t invite the Normans to your country.

    • So is this a “scope” argument or a “principle” argument? If government were just a dog catcher and a fire department, would you accept a broad franchise?

    • Two things depend utterly on “confidence”. Representative government and fractional banking. We’ve seen plenty of examples of what happens in the latter case.

  17. I attended a fund raiser for a libertarian candidate for US Senator back in 2016. I asked a question about e-verify and why not run on using it? He acted baffled at my question and quickly said it would not work.
    I followed up with a statement that we citizens in all the states would end up like California.
    Again silence.
    Quickly went onto next question.
    I was a libertarian but once I saw that we are going to be quickly outnumbered by people who could care less about small government run by libertarians, I saw the light.
    Not so sure some of these people will ever get it?
    They will just have their meetings and pretend that they can attain power.

      • I read through the article.

        Lot of words, lot of assumptions, lot of theory. I get suspicious when I see these red flags (after all, unfortunately, we live in the real political world — not a theoretical political world). I don’t see much coherence with mainstream libertarian philosophy from HHH in this paper. If one of the main appeals of libertarianism is its philosophical coherence, its a bad sign that HHH (and other libertarians) can’t even construct agreements on these points. I also looked up HHH on google.scholar. His writings have few citations and he has basically no academic credibility in his field. If an academic can’t find minimal success in an academic field, this is a bad sign for their work product.

        While I am biased against libertarians, taken together, I would say that you shouldn’t waste your time reading or thinking about his writings. There are better things to do in your free time than spend effort understanding this philosophy.

          • Hi Hun, you’re upset so I revisit my comment.

            When I search “hans hermann hoppe” in google scholar I get results that show an h-index of around 30. Search Friday didn’t return the results I see now (no idea why). Today’s search shows a respectable publication record for an academic, especially considering HHH is first or solo author on his most important works. HHH can’t be dismissed outright due to poor academic work output. I eat crow.

            I make HHH criticism regarding coherency from article Jack Boniface posted. Lets look at this a essay more closely. Written in 1998, cited 47 times, this essay represents one of HHH’s more well cited publications.

            First problem, in section “The Case for Free Trade”, rejects Buchanan’s argument against free trade as post hoc fallacy. HHH ignores data point, makes argument against protectionism using only theory/logic. Dumb. 20 years later, we have the data and it shows Buchanan was right. Trade with Mexico gutted certain types of manufacturing in US. I have worked in this industry and know this first hand. Same thing happened with Korea (when we opened free trade agreement with them) and of course China. HHH’s logic was bad (imagine rejecting a real world data point based on post hoc fallacy! LMAO!), was wrong when he wrote it, and has been demonstrated to be decisively wrong in the last 20 years.

            Second problem, in section “Trade and Immigration”, the statement “the relationship between trade and migration is one of elastic substitutibility”. Again, where is the data? Unsupported statement, unverifiable. Next sentence, “other things being equal.” Other things are never equal (e.g., capital investment in manufacturing). Bad assumption. Last sentence in paragraph: free trade results in “capital exports from the U.S. to Mexico will be reduced” and in its absence “the attraction of moving production from the U.S. to Mexico is increased.” Wrong again, LOL. How can anyone find truth when the logic is built on a hill of sand and almost everything is wrong? HHH deceives himself and his readers that he has any claim to knowledge (he is not unique among economists in this regard). Overall effect of bad logic and assumptions while ignoring real data, are similar to reading/understanding Foucault.

            Comment on “Open Borders, Invasion, and Forced Integration” section. HHH correctly understand problems with immigration, lack of coherence between libertarian trade and immigration positions. Libertarianism (as I understand it) supposes a coherent philosophy based on individual freedoms though. HHH himself points out this lack of coherence undermines the philosophy. If HHH is correct regarding costs of immigration (he is IMO) he is a libertarian heretic and/or arguing for a distinct economic philosophy.

            Here is my coherent libertarian philosophical argument: if libertarians can be blamed for western free trade policy (exporting manufacturing to third world, impoverishment of the west, empowerment of ideological enemies, death of the working class), it would be morally justified to blame them (via NAP) for the destruction wrot by their philosophy. Thus helicopter rides for bad economists are justifiable!

  18. Off topic. But on your vacation spend some time considering the question Jay Chiat asked his team out loud when he started Chiat/Day/Mojo back in the early 80s. “How big can we get before we get bad?” You are going through a considerable expansion round right now. Quality is spectacular, but what is your limit?

  19. I suppose libertarianism might be feasible if the whole of society consisted of something near Dunbar’s number and everyone was a 115+ IQ white male and the cohort was thoroughly screened for sociopaths. Attended one local Libertarian gathering at the invitation of a friend, years ago. That’s what was there.

    • High-functioning sociopaths are always the problem. The Ayn Rand materialists are no better than the Karl Marx materialists on that score.

      “It is not infrequent to hear men declaim loudly upon liberty, who, if we may judge by the whole tenor of their actions, mean nothing else by it but their own liberty — to oppress without control, or the restraint of laws, all who are poorer and weaker than themselves… Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty.” — Samuel Adams

      • Yes, I’ve spent a lot of time on the nature of human nature. It is immutable.

      • Well, at least we all know the answer now.
        Q: will there be left to mankind an asylum on Earth for civil and religious liberty?
        A: No. Civil and religious liberty (contra freedom) are allowable only to those capable of exercising them responsibly. Same problem as the clownhorn people: only works with highly conscientous, well educated, >115 iq ppl with long time preference and high empathy. The faculty of Princeton in 1830 can be allowed those legally and socially constrained, well-delineated liberties, but no one at that institution today can be allowed such.

      • Any Rand was a misdirection author. Aynophiles think they can and should deliberately do nothing to win. Atlas Shrugged is the most pathetic form of escapism.

    • To be honest, you’ve basically described Mormonism in the 19th century when it was settling in Utah, at least the 115+ IQ, white, male and small scale part of it. It would be interesting to see what would have happened if their beliefs were libertarian instead of insane. OTOH, spergy white guy society is probably always going to be screwy regardless of the organizing principles.

      • Not Mormon, but I live in UT. Currently getting flooded with CA ass hats who on one hand look down their noses at LDS, and in the other are gorging on the high social capital and prosperity created by the LDS.

        LDS isn’t for me, but it clearly “worked” in terms of community, high social trust, excellent governance, replacement birth rates, low crime, etc.

        They’re succumbing to the liberal narrative, however. One or two generations from now and they’ll be like the Unitarians, and much poorer for it.

        • “Not Mormon, but I live in UT. Currently getting flooded with CA ass hats who on one hand look down their noses at LDS, and in the other are gorging on the high social capital and prosperity created by the LDS.”

          I’m in Montana. It’s not just the Mormons they look down on. They do that in every prosperous area they move to. “Oh we really love the clean air and low prices, but it’s just sad there isn’t any culture and diversity here. Let’s change that.”

    • Sam, you’ve touched on one of my favorite taunts for libertarians who think that libertarianism has universal appeal: Libertarian gatherings are more white that AmRen conferences!

      And they persist in believing that the NAP has universal appeal! They are so deluded about basic facts of human and non-white nature.

  20. One of the less remarked-upon reasons the left imports helots is that they don’t just want obedience from stupid people. They want gratitude from stupid people. And like all the worst, most delusional tyrants, they want to not only rule through fear, but have the fearful reflect back to them that they rule through consent, and because they’ve been chosen. The people running the show could just come out and say, “Look, damn right we stole the election. Now do what we say or we’ll throw you in jail with those other deplorables and beat an eye or two out of your sockets,” and people would mostly go along with it. But they need to lie to themselves as much as to us, so the charade must go on.
    Native-born Americans, especially whites, expect for the state not just to meet its basic duties, but to respect at least some of the rights those normies know about from the little laminated foldout Constitutions they pick up at their rallies to protect Israel and celebrate black people. The people coming in from the South just want to eat three times a day and won’t ask any questions provided these needs are met. Their expectations may rise, but that will be material, not metaphysical (they have little Lady Guadalupe statues for that).

    • That’s an important observation, one that I’m really surprised to see getting almost no play on Our Side. Power-for-power’s-sake actually explains very little about the Left, as the briefest look at their actions will confirm. Trannies being the most obvious recent example — if they wanted “drag queen story hour” to be a thing, just march one in with a group of armed thugs behind it. Have the thugs level their rifles at the crowd, and there you go. But they don’t just want you to listen, they want you to applaud, and not at gunpoint — no, you must appear to be applauding voluntarily.

      I wish I could remember who said that Leftism is the lifelong attempt to make high school come out right. It’s true — every institution the Left controls (which these days of course is “all of them”) is specifically designed to let obviously dysfunctional people pretend they’re normal. That’s why I’m confident we’ll soon have Australia-style mandatory voting. It’s not enough for them to “win” every election. It’s not even enough for them to get 100% of the True Believer vote. It is necessary that we, the Irish Democrats who refuse to participate in the sham, also sing their praises. It doesn’t matter in the slightest how we vote — after all, they’re the ones doing the counting — but it’s crucial that we vote, to “preserve our democracy.”

  21. Based on your writings this week, are you concerned for what the Republicans may have to offer in the next election? While Trump seems keen on running again, I wonder if he will really have enough support from the main stream Republican party given how much they seemed to hate him.

    Do you know if the Republican Party, out of fear of Trump running again, is currently trying to groom someone else as “their” candidate?

    • I have no interest in voting in any more elections, so what either side of the uniparty offers up is not all that important to me, other than as material for commentary.

      • Same, but I expect an Australian-type compulsory voting law to pass Congress soon. Nothing terrifies totalitarians more than widespread dissent, and that’s what abstention from voting is when it results not from apathy but abhorrence.

        • Jack – I agree, but alter the ‘soon’ to by 2032. Before Kamala sashays outta de ho house.

        • Mandatory voting is not and can not be any sort of answer. Where it is mandatory, folks often pay a small fine for not showing up at the poll. But if you don’t want to pay that, then turn in a blank ballot. That, it seems to me, would be most chilling for the system—literally recording millions of “under votes”.

    • Trump had zero support from establishment Republicans when he ran in 2016. He won anyway, because enough Republican voters have come to understand that establishment Republicans hate them, lie to them, sell them out, etc. so the voters turned against them.

      The establishment probably wants to run Nikki Haley in 2024, who is no better than Romney or McCain. If Trump were to run, he’d crush her. If he doesn’t run, he’d have to bankroll DeSantis, else Haley or someone of her ilk will probably win the nomination.

      • I.M. – I had my name removed from the voter rolls 2 years ago – I just called today to double check and yes, it notes “removed upon voter’s request.” Yet my mail is still stuffed full of mind-numbingly stupid republican crap, today from Ted Cruz and Nikki Haley. It might be another decade of returning postage-paid envelopes stuffed with paper and a few pennies before they stop.

        • Dang, I’m getting the same garbage. Returning the envelope with a penny taped to heavy cardboard…that’s something I hadn’t thought of!

    • Karl, from what I can tell, the next Republican play is to give Puerto Rico statehood to own the libs and promote Rubio. God, I hate these people.

      Just like with amnesty, “If Republicans give them amnesty, then hispanics will vote for us!” they think, “If Republicans can grant Puerto Rico statehood then they will vote for us!” Didn’t Reagan disprove this line of thinking in 1986?


      • Line: I will never forgive Teddy Roosevelt. He saddled us with our own ‘colonialism’ and Mestizos, and got away relatively unscathed by historians.

        • Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Cuba, all on McKinley’s watch. Was Teddy gung-ho about them? Sure. Was their acquisition on his say-so? No.

  22. Hoppe’s Libertarianism falls apart for the same reason Popper’s open Society falls apart.

    Hoppe states that communists, socialists, and other people with authoritarian impulses need to be forcibly removed from society…. so to speak. Popper said something similar that the ‘intolerant’ can not be tolerated with his idea of the open society.

    If one follows through with the ramifications, we are talking about civic nationalism on steroids that, by it’s deracinated ideological nature, requires an authoritarian structure unless you want to allow mobs of people expel and suppress supposed unbelievers.

    • Maybe this is an apocryphal story. Read once that Hoppe used to pull out a toy helicopter when discussing the “removal principle”. Have to give him props for that one. Looked it up once (though tough to get good numbers) Pinochet’s total body count was estimated at a whopping 3k. Wouldn’t even qualify him for a scouting trip/draft to the Maoist/Leninist single A league. Yet, Chile was only stable country worth doing in business in and with a growing standard of living for decades in S. America. Pretty good bargain.

      • Back in the day, I took a class on South American history. When we got to Chile, the (bleeding heart liberal) professor started lamenting the horrors of Pinochet and the military junta.
        My take away was that Allende was one step away from creating Cambodia style killing fields before the generals removed him.

        • Yes, what gets glossed over is that Allende was elected with a mere plurality and used his ideological foot soldiers to stir up riots, murders, arsons and beatings all through the country. And the economy was in a shambles. Nothing I’ve been able to find suggests that Pinochet was particularly ideological–which fits with post coup approach once the hard core of commies was disposed of. The Cubans I grew up with always spoke admiringly of him.

        • Academics generally detested Franco as well. I lived in Spain during the final Franco years and while he was to no small degree out of the daily operations of the country, so to speak (it was his right-hand man Carrero Blanco whose car was blown onto a rooftop), the system was still in place and to my then young eyes it worked well. My now old eyes would see it no differently. Today’s Spain, by comparison…

    • Chet: Alter the principle of forcibly removal from one’s society not the ‘intolerant’ but rather the non-Whites and the White anti-Whites, and I can live with both the authoritarianism and its short-term ramifications. At least for a generation or so, until you have a nation of proud and self-confident White people uncorrupted by unnecessary self-doubt or self hatred.

    • I’ve noted that is one of the flaws, perhaps THE fatal flaw, of any relatively free democracy or republic: you can’t have extremists who might destroy the freedom. But of course, that would be restraining their freedom of expression or belief…

      It’s a paradox, not unlike to the old joke or lesson really, in logic or philosophy class: the irreconcilable implications of the statement “Everything I say is a lie.”

      Stated another way, no ethical, moral or legal system will remain functional for very long unless nearly everyone voluntarily adheres to those standards, and there must be predictable and reliable punishment for the rare rule-breaker.

  23. Good. See? That wasn’t so hard, was it? Now, Libertarians, say something nice about Z.

  24. In my experience, libertarians are just turd brained pot heads and marxist degenerates that break with the liberals on a very limited number of issues such as gun control.

    The rest are queers.

    • You experience mimics my own: all the people I have met and have claimed to be libertarians were highly irresponsible, immature, and loved their drugs. My Lord did they love their drugs. Much the same as the wokeists I have met.

      • Being as charitable as possible to Libertarians in general (and the Rand-roids in particular), I think books like Atlas Shrugged are like Romantic poetry — life-altering if you read them at juuuust the right moment in your late teens, incomprehensible and/or annoying if not. I read the Romantics when I was 17.2 years old, and have always loved them a little bit, despite their ludicrousness. I read Atlas Shrugged when I was 17.8 years old, and thought “Jeez, kids are going to be waving this around like it’s an all-purpose Asshole License.”

        (That’s why all teenagers should be sent down to the fields to reconnect with the laboring masses once every other semester until they graduate college, but that’s a rant for another day).

        • are you sure you weren’t reading “Catcher in the Rye”? re: all-purpose Asshole License

          • Is Catcher in the Rye the one with the kid who calls everyone and everything ‘phoney’? If he was close then, he’s bang on now.

          • That’s another one. One of my infallible rules of thumb is that anyone who liked The Catcher in the Rye in high school is a toothache, and anyone who calls xzhyrzelf “the Holden Caulfield of [group]” should be beaten mercilessly at every possible opportunity; they’ll know the reason why.

          • @OrangeFrog,

            yep, that’s the one. Also “crumby.” That and A Separate Peace were required reading in a lot of high schools in the USA (the real one, not AINO), I guess on the theory that it was important for us to learn how awful it is to be a spoiled rich kid at an exclusive New England prep school.

          • I hated that book. When I re-read it with my (((detector))) now activated, it was clearly just a weapon promoting generational hatred and division, as well as resentment towards your elders.

          • I remember loving The Good Earth, whatever the sociopolitical persuasions of the author.

        • Severian: Ah, so that’s where I failed. I arrived as a wide-eyed 17.8 year old freshman to find lots of soopersophisticated womyn waving around Rand, and I had never heard of her. Didn’t actually read Atlas Shrugged until about 5 years ago. And I dislike both romantic poetry and the romantic composers – give me Pope over Keats and Mozart over Beethoven any day. And yet . . . I still enjoy a well-written romantic novel. Rational or not, I am still female.

          • Yeah, a lot of stuff works that way, I’ve found. Occasionally I’ll feel the need to remind myself what my own opinions are worth, so I’ll re-read Shelley’s “The Masque of Anarchy” and remember how great I thought it was when I first read it back in high school. “In unconquerable number / like lions after slumber”… good god, I want to invent a time machine, just so I can go back to high school and shove my own head in a toilet.

            (I’d chalk that one up to “the follies of youth,” but like I say, that kind of thing sticks with you — I still like the Romantics, damn it, though not so much “The Masque of Anarchy.” I’m certainly missing a few, but: The Romantics, The Catcher in the Rye, Ayn Rand Nietzsche… at 17.1 they baffle you. By 22.5 you’re old enough to realize that, though they have some merit, they all should probably be burned, as a net benefit to civilization.

        • “Sent down to the fields” is a close approximation of what I remember as “Hsia Fang”, the Red Guards’ and Pol Pot’s plan for the intellectuals: “going down place”, as in stoop labor, etc. The truth is there are worse ideas.

          • Long ago in America, there was a perhaps better, capitalist version. This is only a second-hand story once told me, but very likely true. For a long time, no one was promoted to management in Sears & Roebuck unless they had worked a few years on the retail sales floor of one of the stores. Nowadays I assume most of our corporations are run, like our governments, by people “educated” in fluff, who have rarely had any contact with the day-to-day realities of who and what they propose to lord it over. I’ll give AOC some credit: at least she worked at a real job (waitress, barmaid) for a while before ascending to be among the Cloud People. I suspect that only a fraction of our betters can lay claim to having spent any time in the Dreaded Private Sector.

    • Mostly because gun control has racist roots, see? Noble black sharecropper defends himself against rando cracker losers in heroic stand with his shotty.

    • Likie liberalism, its cousin libertarianism appeals across the curve.

      Ive known many super smart libertarians who aren’t at all into weed and porn.

      They were, however, into the abdication of moral responsibility to their People as part of a self-constructed hierarchy of virtues.

      So much so they would deploy their swolle IQ’s toward researching and constructing intricate faraday cages to insulate from observable reality while protecting their particular fetishes from reproach.

      Each one uniquely adapted to recuse them from moral arguments toward that duty to their Brothers. Some delude with THC; others with muh IQ.

      These are similar to the stefan moly fanbois, i.e. “it violates the non-aggression principle bro”.

      In this, both L’s share the magical thinking that just happens to let them touch themselves without sin.

      At this point I think it is actually easier to convert a semi-retarded pothead liberal than a supersmart armchair philosopher because base hedonism, aka unbridled ‘needs’, are still a function of reality whereas libertarian intellectualism is a drug harvested from the cloud.

  25. The natural power hierarchy can almost endlessly be expanded downward. But hardly ever upward. There are always more powerless at the bottom.
    Hence a smart demagogue will appeal to the masses to swamp the powerful at the top of the hierarchy.

  26. one think that it is important to mention, is the concept of ‘scale’. now this requires a numerate mind, so many if not all progs & nogs are unfamiliar with this aspect of systems. the US is a system operating at a very high scale level (relative to available technology) and it has to be maintained and managed carefully or it will start degrading almost immediately. all modern countries are the same.

    so when the muds start tinkering around with with this large scale system, they break it, and their attempts to fix one problem creates three more. eventually the system will degrade down to a scale level the current operators can manage. i.e. these idiots cannot maintain the US society at its current level of technology, so the society will break into multiple pieces, each of which is more manageable by the current ops. some of those pieces will run near as well as peak US; these are the majority white areas.

    maybe the mania in the global elite is because their hold on the world is being broken and they are moving for more consolidated control in an effort to maintain their grip. but they are trying to hold back the tides, because the forces working to dismantle the current system are widespread and emergent. they do not depend on anyone person or event; these forces are as patient as water behind a dam; waiting waiting waiting for the cracks to appear. and now they have, and they are widening eery minute of every day.

    • To me it’s clear that demographics are extremely important. If western elites wanted to continue to have global dominance, their countries should have stayed white.

      They are doing the opposite; importing useless gutter trash from every random corner of the world. This ensures that they will never, ever, have global dominance again.

      So maybe there is something more at play here. They aren’t always logical. They just hate white people especially gentiles. Also- women ALWAYS double down on a failing strategy rather than assess why things are failing. We live in a gynocentric society and this may apply to the elites too (we just don’t have ENOUGH diversity!)

      • I agree that demographics are very important but they do not explain all. I can offer you just from the twentieth century three nations that did exceptional damage to themselves, no outside influence required. The Soviet Union or Argentina. Both, so far as I know, nearly 100% Caucasian. China, later Red China. Supposedly Chinese have slightly better IQ than Whites. In the case of the two communist nations, high raw IQ did not prevent millions of needless (?) deaths. Smart people can get into deep trouble too. 🙁

      • Breeder-brained (((elite))) visions

        Per Vizzini’s remarkably good comment re understanding Genesis, the childlike Biblical narrative satisfies one’s moral, emotive senses.

        It’s a people story, not a frontal cortex-style engine manual.

        (Thus, a set of blinders, confounding the unique White ability to answer the questions, “What happens next, and why?”)

    • Well, we’re evidently letting in every other worthless degenerate from every other worthless s***hole in the world, so why not gypsies? We obviously don’t have enough worthless minority ethnic groups to vote demoncrap. Is this a great (former) country or what?

      • Wait till you start getting more Punjabis lol.

        And you’ll be getting more and more as Canada fills up with “new Canadians” many of whom are eager to head south once the citizenship facilitates it.

        • I for one think the special visas from Canada are horrifically racist, terrible, and white supremacist, and should therefore be ended post haste. 😉

    • We used to have them all around Marble Arch in London. They were known for pick-pocketing. That said, I don’t really give a toss about London; most of the people complaining about them would be the first to vote to let more in because feelings. Because colonialism. Because ‘do the right thing’.

      At least they’ve got their solid little community, though. At least as a group they are untrusting of outsiders… looks like more whites could take this lesson to heart.

      • I’ve argued the same lessons could be taken from the Hasidic communities. They no what their interests are (agree or not) and work ruthlessly to advance them. And stick together. When the rebbe in Kiryas Joel says he’ll deliver 10k votes in return for “X” it happens. Meanwhile the secular and Reform factions are squealing in astonishment that their pets got off the leash and are now mauling them in broad daylight.

      • “Looks like more whites could take this lesson to heart.” Gonna need to.

    • What, are “tarot reading” and “curses” now jobs Americans won’t do?

      I kid, I kid, but seriously: I have never really understood the truth of the phrase “must laugh to keep from crying” until the Current Year. I for one really really hope that UFO stuff is real. Come on down, saucer people, you will be welcomed as liberators.

      • So, that means, being ruthlessly ethnic second-raters, misunderstanding all the science they come upon, only interested in advancing themselves in whatever low-cost niche they can…

        Why, if they were to steal written literacy, and begin a narrative of lost grandeur, fake but accurate political history, with hidden curses, secret spells, signs and portents- in a thousand years, they could have a Bible of their own.

        Alien. They are alien to our revolutionary way of thinking, constraining our understanding, but illuminating to study.
        Worthy enemy aliens in their own right, but their way blinds us.

Comments are closed.