White Nationalists

White Supremacy Is Alien to Liberal and Libertarian Ideals

People are important as individuals, not as extensions of some faceless mass.

|

Amidst a grab-bag of authoritarian ideas, including xenophobia, anti-capitalism, and radical environmentalism, the El Paso mass murderer was primarily motivated by a bigoted hatred for immigrants from south of the border. His manifesto is full of denunciations of "race mixers," "Hispanic invasion," and "cultural and ethnic replacement"—buzz phrases for racists and white supremacists who elevate an illusory collective racial and cultural heritage over respect for people as individuals.

He couldn't have more thoroughly distanced himself from the liberal/libertarian ideas of the pro-liberty movement if he'd gone through a checklist of shitty notions.

The liberal tradition that libertarianism inherits and extends doesn't treat people as members of some sort of Borg collective or as any other representation of a group identity. While we're all humans and sometimes fail to live up to our aspirations, libertarians at least aspire to treat with people on their own merits—or lack thereof, as in the case of people who mouth the sort of nonsense espoused by Patrick Wood Crusius in El Paso.

"Racism is a particularly pernicious form of collectivism," wrote John Hospers, the late professor of philosophy and the first presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, in 1972. "Persons who cast racial slurs on others are not considering the individual merits or demerits of the person slurred; they may not know the individual at all, except that he is a member of some racial group (Jews, blacks, Italians, etc.). Though the person's individual qualities may be quite different from many other members of the group, all this is ignored: all they know or care is that he is a member of that group."

The recognition of the superiority of individualism over the evils of group identity was a long time coming. But it was also a logical evolution of basic liberal ideals that nudged advocates in the right direction, however hesitatingly and—let's admit it—sometimes unwillingly when it proved inconvenient. Once you accepted that people were more than possessions of the church or the king, and had inherent value, the path led in one direction.

"The abolitionist movement grew logically out of the Lockean libertarianism of the American Revolution," notes David Boaz in his 2015 book, The Libertarian Mind. "How could Americans proclaim that 'all men are created equal … endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,' without noticing that they themselves were holding other men and women in bondage?"

Of course, some people did notice that—and ran the other way. They developed moral rationalizations and pseudoscientific theories to justify slavery and post-Civil War racist laws, and explicitly rejected libertarian, individualistic views that required equal treatment of all people. These bogus intellectualized justifications for racism later seeped into the Progressive movement in updated form, creating the basis for differential treatment and even forced sterilization.

Remainders of this garbage still pollute the discourse, fueling alt-right fears of "race mixing" and other nonsense that drives modern bigots.

It would be delightful to be able to report that the libertarian movement has remained entirely unpolluted by bigotry and the collectivist abuse of people who should be treated as individuals, but that's too much to hope of our fellow humans. Too many "libertarians" and former libertarians have embraced bigotry, trying to reconcile contempt toward and ill-treatment of out-groups with some degree of advocacy of personal freedom.

(In)famously, racist material appeared in newsletters published in former Rep. Ron Paul's newsletters during the 1990s. For what it's worth, Paul himself denies any knowledge of the inflammatory material published under his name. But the writers and editors of that material certainly identified with the libertarian movement and thought they could get away with mixing up a toxic stew of libertarianism and bigotry.

Prof. Hans Herman Hoppe, associated with the "paleolibertarian" movement that purports to merge conservative cultural values with individualist ideals, has long flirted with nationalists and racists who embrace a collectivist vision for western civilization. He describes as naive the libertarian "belief in the empirical equality and hence, the interchangeability, substitutability and replace-ability  of all people and all groups of people."

Canadian rabble-rouser Stefan Molyneux, to his credit (if you want to call it that), renounced and denounced libertarianism for rejecting his white nationalist views.

But all of these "libertarians" and former libertarians deliberately set themselves apart from what they see as the politically correct, "cosmotarian," and mushy mainstream of libertarian thought that refuses to make a place for their white nationalism, racism, and collectivist treatment of people.

And good for us for making the bigots feel uncomfortable. They're free to go elsewhere if they want to trumpet tribalist nonsense to whatever cellar-dwellers will have them. But part of being a libertarian is calling out the enemies of freedom and denouncing their ideas and their actions.

"There is no 'pipeline' between libertarianism and the alt-right," Reason's Nick Gillespie wrote two years ago as the alt-right emerged as the latest embodiment of racist thought, such as it is. But "alt-righters need to be called out wherever we find them espousing their anti-modern, tribalistic, anti-individualistic, and anti-freedom agenda."

Yes, they do. Because calling out bigots and tribalists is part of advancing the unfinished business of extending freedom, tolerance, and respect to all-comers, and of treating people on the basis of their personal merits and not based on some group identity.

White supremacists, racists, and collectivists of all sorts are alien to libertarian thought and enemies of our values and aspirations. And we need to take them on whenever we encounter them.

Advertisement

NEXT: Democratic Socialists of America Voted To Establish an Anti-Fascist Working Group. It Was Controversial.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. libertarianism for rejecting his white nationalist views.

    J.D., the link you provided doesn’t show Molyneux as having White Nationalist Views. He’s merely calling out Facebook on their selective banning of groups based on perceived White Nationalism vs. Black Nationalism etc.

    Molyneux may very well be wrong here, but there’s nothing in his tweet that suggests he is himself a white nationalist. Unless we’re playing the dog-whistle game. I apologize, but I don’t hear those very well.

    The constant screeching about White Nationalism (of course it exists, to be sure) is to distract from the Racialist policies that the left have embraced. And white nationalism– as much as it really exists beyond the false accusations that the media is so rife with is a response TO the racialist policies of the increasingly radical left.

    But in this day and age, even complaining about Racialism gets you labeled a “white supremacist”.

    1. It is well known that Molyneux is a white nationalist and has been for years. Fuck that guy. Also, 2-chilli is hitting homeruns today. Nice article. But it goes deeper. Capitalism and the free markets are anathema to nationalism and insularism. This insight is not new. It was expressed by Voltaire when describing the markets of Amsterdam, where Catholics, Protestants, and Jews were co-mingling peacefully as they engaged in trade.

      1. “It is known” doesn’t cut it. I don’t follow Molyneux closely, I’ve seen a few of his videos and they seem like a mix of classical liberal stuff- with a dose of some strong social conservatism.

        A reason I don’t follow Molyneux too closely is because I don’t agree with him on some of his points so I lose interest. But I don’t recall hearing anything that made me say, “Whoa, racist much”

        Example: Libertymike here on this forum likes to use the term “Negress”. That’s offensive and racist to me.

        I just don’t buy “it is known”. The media is rife with out-of-context quotes and entire news articles done on snippets where someone is declared A Racist and often times, you dig into it and you don’t see the racism. Again, Toochilly linked to a specific tweet. For all of my faults, if I throw in a link when I declare something, the link is supposed to be a kind of citation.

        Seriously, link me to something Molyneux has said or tweeted that makes him a “White Nationalist” and I’ll be the first to concede the fact.

        1. Liberals fantasize about hunting deplorable in The Hunt movie.

          1. Yet they don’t know how to fight, or use guns. I can’t wait until they try this kind of shit in real life. White going to get very real for these commie faggots very fast. When it does, there should be no mercy for them.

      2. Case in point, listen to the first two minutes of this video. Another example of people flippantly calling something “Hate Speech” which clearly isn’t.

        Spoiler: Joe Rogan discussed a community guideline strike because someone listened to a podcast. Rogan asks a former high-ranking google and youtube employee why, and the employee flippantly said “it was hate speech” which even by the broadest of interpretation wasn’t close to true. So we have to do better than “it is known”.

      3. Molymeme isn’t a white nationalist. That’s just a slur against race realists. Yes, I realize that phrase itself is a buzzword. Feel free to call it cultural realism or just pragmatism if you prefer. He sincerely believes that IQ differences noted among races, regardless of why or how they came to be, affect everyday life. And he’s right in that regard. If America became 75% sub-Saharan African tomorrow, it’s not like life would go on as if nothing had happened.

        Does that mean don’t have Africans? Of course not. Does that mean stereotype people? Of course not. Does that really mean anything at all in terms of your own life? Not really. It’s just something to be mindful of when we start migrating random samples from populations.

        There are awful people who believe that IQ differences are because of someone’s “scientific race” (the term is mostly nonsense). Then there are the rest of us who don’t really care why the difference exists because there are morons of every denomination. We still have to work within the confines of gravity even if we hate that it exists. Likewise, if importing a bunch of Poles means getting an entrenched white nationalist strain in the US, then we shouldn’t be importing a bunch of Poles.

        It’s the same reasoning behind the Libertarian case for restrictive immigration; any Libertarian society that has both democratic elections and open borders will, eventually, be overrun by people with un-Libertarian values and the experiment will end. Not wanting people with terrible ideas in your country and stopping the bleeding by keeping your collective stupidity homegrown isn’t racist just because it sometimes intersects with race.

        1. “What I mean is that I am a fucking bigot”

          1. No, you mean you’re someone who lacks the ability to discuss this subject without resorting to silly, lazy, reductionist nonsense.

          2. “What I mean is I lack reading skills and reason”

          3. The current racism scare that the clerisy and the establishment are pushing, is a big fucking hoax used to silence anyone who disagrees.

            1. Because Obama IS a Kenyan!!!

              1. So said his publisher Acton & Dystel. It was up on their website until 2007.

        2. Does that mean don’t have Africans? Of course not. Does that mean stereotype people? Of course not. Does that really mean anything at all in terms of your own life? Not really. It’s just something to be mindful of when we start migrating random samples from populations.

          O rly? How do you suggest a person be “mindful” of racial differences in IQ *without* stereotyping?

          See, like right here:

          Likewise, if importing a bunch of Poles means getting an entrenched white nationalist strain in the US, then we shouldn’t be importing a bunch of Poles.

          I realize this is a hypothetical example, but in the example, wouldn’t this be an instance of stereotyping Poles?

          1. Are we pretending cultures don’t have prevailing ideologies?

            Because that would be stupid.

            The problem with stereotypes isn’t that they lack accuracy, it’s that they dehumanize people and make them into a caricature.

            That DOES NOT MEAN cultural tendencies don’t exist. And the idiot who says we should pretend otherwise is actually WORSE than the stereotyper, because they are asking us to ignore reality for their ideology.

            What you do is, you make a nuanced judgement based on all available information. Sometimes that means you give the cultural background more weight, other times not.

            And THEN you adjust as necessary.

            1. Are we pretending cultures don’t have prevailing ideologies?

              What is the “prevailing ideology” of American culture?

              1. Really? I’m curious what you’d say if you thought about it for awhile then took a guess.

                1. I’m honestly surprised he didn’t shit his pants about “prevailing ideologies” although I’m not ruling it out since he seems to be ramping up to something.

                2. I think we can all see he didn’t accept your challenge, and know why.

                  1. “Something something slavery or some shit”

                3. To be honest, I don’t think there is any single “prevailing ideology” across all of American culture.

                  There, that is your answer.

                  1. Read a history book not authored by a lefty about the world when this country was founded, then read some works by the founders (they wrote lots of stuff at the same time they wrote the declaration and constitution that explains a lot) It’s really amazing what happened here( the US) at that point in history. Then read “The Republic” by Plato. Then go fuck yourself cuz you won’t do any of this before you post a bunch of ignorant bs tomorrow.

                    1. I suppose then it boils down to what we really mean by “American culture”, particularly of today.

                      I think what you are describing is a version of “American culture” of the past, which may or may not still be relevant today.

                4. Four hours later and little jeffy would rather measure his penis (I gotta assume it’s small) against Tulpa instead of answer my question.

                  1. My mistake (see how that’s done little Jeffy?). Jeffy answered my question then I said he didn’t.

              2. Freedom.

                Self determination.

                Bettering yourself.

                1. These are vague buzzwords, not ideologies.

                  “Freedom”? What exactly do you mean by freedom? Freedom of speech? Freedom from hunger?

                  These are so vague as to be meaningless.

                  Try again.

                  1. Why don’t you define ideology since we disagree on what the word means.

                    IDEOLOGIES ARE THEMSELVES VAGUE you stupid whore. Your criticism is utterly meaningless.

                    1. “ideology
                      n. A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.”

                      Fits my post PRECISELY.

                      Chemleff “NU UHHHHHH only I get to decide what words mean”

                    2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

                      So, in your view, what are the “set of doctrines or beliefs” that are encapsulated by the word “freedom”?

                    3. Nope. You got your answer already, then pulled your typical shit.

                      You were wrong. Until you admit as much you can fuck off.

                    4. The word “freedom” is not an “ideology” according to your own definition, unless you can actually provide some specificity about what you actually mean by the word.

                      Well, as typical, you aren’t interested in a discussion, just flinging poo. Back to your typical nonsense.

                      I gave you a chance when you actually presented something like a coherent argument, and you were on the verge of expanding that into something functional and defensible, all you had to do is follow through. But you didn’t, proving once again all you want to do is troll and fling poo.

                      Back to ignore with you.

                    5. Lololo you’re crybaby ass spent the entire day whing about “semantical games” and that’s whee you end up today, doing exactly that.

                      You HAVE to pretend to ignore me because you’ve lost to me every single time and you’re afraid of me.

                    6. Actually Jeffyboy, it looks like Tulpa just isn’t interested in a discussion with you. To be honest, after watching you I can fully understand why he feels that way. You’re intolerable, did you really say you’re the “smartest guy in the room” because if that’s serious, you’re mentally ill. You can’t even understand a simple definition, and seem hell bent on making demands and then shitting everywhere. You aren’t particularly smart, and the evidence of that is all over this website every day.

                    7. I said I am “the smart guy” in the room, not that I am the smartest.

                      Evidently I misunderstood what Tulpa was presenting. I thought he was presenting three separate proposed “prevailing ideologies”. I suppose what he was actually proposing was one single “prevailing ideology” consisting of three parts. But woe be me to “suppose” anything about his 1-word or 2-word responses, because he will just use that as another opening to belittle me.

                      You should know that Tulpa likes to shit all over every thread. Just go to almost any thread from the past few days. You’ll find instances where Tulpa responded to every single thing that I posted, even one case where he responded *five times* to a single post of mine. That is the work of an obsessed individual.

                      Tulpa treats certain individuals like objects, not like people. I’m nothing more than an object of amusement for him. I’m supposed to play the role of his dancing monkey, and he continually responds with trollish remarks to virtually everything I post in order to bait me into playing the role of dancing monkey. *This time*, he presented something approaching a defensible argument, so I gave him a chance. As usual, it was a mistake. It was just a somewhat more sophisticated way of him once again trying to bait me into playing the role of dancing monkey.

                      Tulpa is a sick person who needs help. I don’t hate him, I have pity for him. I wish he would get some help, or at least get a constructive hobby. Not this trolling that he does day in and day out.

                    8. Little jeffy hates Tulpa so much that he only argues with him about semantics and insults when others (myself) try to argue with him. It’s almost like he can’t really defend his positions so only engages in arguments with people he can name call with.

                    9. insults when others (myself) try to argue with him

                      R Mac, genuine question, when have I insulted you?

                    10. “I said I am “the smart guy” in the room, not that I am the smartest.”

                      So who would be smarter? You don’t see that your statement precludes anyone else being smarter, since it makes you “the” smart guy, smart guy?

                      “Evidently I misunderstood what Tulpa was presenting”

                      He told you as much.

                      “Tulpa AKA “Tula”
                      August.7.2019 at 8:50 pm
                      Nope. You got your answer already, then pulled your typical shit.

                      You were wrong. Until you admit as much you can fuck off.”

                      While vulgar and childish, he was correct. You admit it now, but your response then was

                      “Well, as typical, you aren’t interested in a discussion, just flinging poo. Back to your typical nonsense.

                      I gave you a chance when you actually presented something like a coherent argument, and you were on the verge of expanding that into something functional and defensible, all you had to do is follow through. But you didn’t, proving once again all you want to do is troll and fling poo.

                      Back to ignore with you.”

                      So when you say about other Tulpa that

                      ” I’m nothing more than an object of amusement for him. I’m supposed to play the role of his dancing monkey, and he continually responds with trollish remarks to virtually everything ”

                      I read your reply to him, where he said you were wrong, and see you doing the exact same thing . I see you call him sick, and wonder why you have no insight into your own behavior. It would appear that you’re no more stable or well adjusted than he is.

                    11. “So when you say about other Tulpa that”

                      Sorry should read “So when you say about Tulpa”

                    12. Swale, seriously, go back and read the comments on the past several days’ worth of articles here. You will see Tulpa’s obsession with me.

                    13. I don’t care all that much Chemjeff. I see two trolls hammering each other, and one acting like he’s Lancelot. He doesn’t realize he’s coming off as no better and arguably worse than the other troll. His justifications aren’t of any real interest to me when he could just not be a troll and act like an adult.

                    14. My comment was that you would rather argue with and insult Tulpa than respond to my question, which you still haven’t done (cue little jeffy to argue semantics and my lack of use of a comma instead of answering my question)

                    15. He loves you more than me. You might consider a restraining order.

                  2. What the fuck do you think “self determination” means retard? Or Bettering yourself? God talking to your mendacious idiot ass is a giant fucking waste of time.

                    You get what you ask for, and then dand more because you don’t like it.

                    1. What the fuck do you think “self determination” means

                      As an ideology, according to your definition? I don’t know, you’ll have to provide more specificity. What are, in your opinion, the “set of doctrines or beliefs” encapsulated by the phrase “self determination”?

                    2. No actually I won’t have to provide more specificity, you WANT me to, but you’re a mendacious piece of shit and others don’t need it, so doing so is not something I HAVE to do at all.

                    3. Shorter Tulpa: “When asked to provide a ‘prevailing ideology’, I will provide 1-word and 2-word answers, which aren’t actual ideologies according to the definition that I myself provided, but I won’t let that stop me from throwing another temper tantrum”.

                    4. Shorter Jeff “I’m a mendacious lying piece of shit.”

                    5. “chemjeff radical individualist
                      August.7.2019 at 8:56 pm
                      Shorter Tulpa: “When asked to provide a ‘prevailing ideology’, I will provide 1-word and 2-word answers, which aren’t actual ideologies according to the definition that I myself provided”

                      Ahahahah how are you this fucking stupid?!!!? IT’S RIGHT THERE!!!

                      ““ideology
                      n. A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.””

                      Ahahah it’s exactly what I said!

                      Belief in freedom is a belief.

                      Belief in self determination is a belief.

                      Beleif in Bettering yourself is a belief

                      Quote the part that requires a paragraph, fuckboy.

                      You did EXACLTY what we all knew you would, you lied. Becaus you’re a mendacious pielce of shit and I was right to tell you to fuck off without wasting any more time on your weak bitch attempt at a gotcha.

                    6. “which aren’t actual ideologies”

                      Of course the PARTS of a ideology aren’t ideologies themselves, you fucking moron. And bricks aren’t a house.

                      Lolol YOU DIDNT EVEN UNDERSTAND THE DEFINTION AHAHAHHAAHAJA

                    7. Oh, I see now.

                      So your claim is that “freedom, self determination, bettering yourself’ constitutes a “set of … beliefs” which satisfies your definition of “ideology”. So that the set of all three of them together is one single “ideology”. Is that your claim?

                    8. And furthermore, presuming this is correct, it’s your claim that this single ideology, consisting of the set of “freedom, self determination, bettering yourself” is a “prevailing” ideology across all of American culture. Is that also correct?

                    9. “Oh, I see now.”

                      Well, that’s as close to “I made a stupid assumption” as I’ll ever get.

                      Those are PARTS of the prevailing American ideology.

                      Might makes right is another, less desirable one.

                      America is always moral is, again, another less desirable one.

                      “it’s your claim that this single ideology,”

                      I never said nor implied “single” ideology. Stop making stupid assumptions, it’s how you got this wrong in the fist place.

                      ” is a “prevailing” ideology across all of American culture. Is that also correct?”

                      Nope not even sligjlty close. You’re fucking dumb.

                      It’s COMMON enough that it can, in places where information is otherwise sparse, be used as a component when a person needs to make decisions.

                      Now, I’m done with you. You’re an idiot and this is over.

                    10. Oh, but Tulpa, this is where it’s getting interesting.

                      Because we could now discuss what this component of “freedom” in the ideology that you posited, really means. And if it really is “prevailing” or not. And what other components of the ideology might be present.

                      And here is where a person who was interested in a genuine discussion would relish the chance to discuss these things.

                      But not you, oh no, your response to me was only an opening to get me to play the role of dancing monkey. That was the only reason in the first place.

                      Because you don’t give a shit about any ideology at all. Making people like me cry is the only thing that you care about.

                      Well forget it.

                    11. Why do you find it necessary to show your ass Chemjeff instead of just walking away?

                      You talk about obsession and insults and boorish behavior, and you do all of it in spades. You get something wrong then attack a person until the time when you realize it then expect them to forget it and act as though you’ve been reasonable the whole time.

                      That the kind of thing abusers do to their spouses and children. Your father was a drunk wasn’t he? And you inherited his abusive personality.

                    12. You were wrong Jeff. You admit it. I tell you the discussion goes no further until you apologize for the insults and lies you posted as a result of being wrong.

                      You fail to apologize, or even say you were wrong and spoke harshly. And then you blame me because I don’t want to talk to you.

                    13. “You get something wrong then attack a person until the time when you realize it then expect them to forget it and act as though you’ve been reasonable the whole time.”

                      This is it in a nutshell. He is a mendacious piece of shit, and expects people to ignore it while he insults them.

                      No Jeff, you don’t get a civil conversation when you can’t even hold yourself accountable.

                    14. I don’t know about that, but that kind of rhetoric isn’t constructive. However, I can say that Chemjeff appears to believe that your behavior is an acceptable reason to behave poorly. If Chemjeff were actually interested in the discussion he claims to be interested in, he wouldn’t follow you around giving you reasons to tell him off.

                    15. “ I don’t know”

                      Yep

                    16. It’s such a difficult thing for some people to admit yaknow? I freely admit it. I don’t know the full background. And I don’t care. I mean, does Chemjeff really expect me to sift old threads so I can see why he behaves poorly? Unless Tulpa raped and murdered his family in an old thread, it won’t make an iota of differentce to me.

                    17. I mean, does Chemjeff really expect me to sift old threads so I can see why he behaves poorly?

                      You really think *I* was the one behaving poorly? You are kidding, right? In this conversation I was as polite as I could possibly be.

                      There is a backstory to this drama. Tulpa has been trolling me for months now. He is an aggressive pest whose self-admitted only reason to be here is to troll and get people upset.

                    18. he wouldn’t follow you around

                      Okay, this has got to be a sock account.

                      Tulpa is the one who stalks me through thread after thread.

                    19. Still arguing and insulting Tulpa instead of responding to my post. Certain things don’t compute in ped…little jeffy’s World.

                    20. I tell you the discussion goes no further until you apologize for the insults and lies you posted as a result of being wrong.

                      You only want to see me grovel before you like the dancing monkey you presume me to be. I will engage in a discussion with you. I will not grovel before you, and I will not be your dancing monkey.

                      I said what I am going to say on the matter. If that is not good enough, then that’s that.

                    21. “You really think *I* was the one behaving poorly? You are kidding, right? In this conversation I was as polite as I could possibly be.
                      There is a backstory to this drama. Tulpa has been trolling me for months now. He is an aggressive pest whose self-admitted only reason to be here is to troll and get people upset.”

                      Dude
                      You constantly get called out for your behavior, dozens of times by a dozen different people in some threads, and all you do is deny deny deny.
                      There’s a word for that: denial.
                      There’s a concept behind that word.
                      Maybe look into it.

                      If you don’t think people are having honest discussions with you, think about why that is.
                      I’ve seen many, many times people try, but you – yes YOU – are incapable of doing so yourself.
                      After months of this, more and more of us have stopped bothering, because it’s really not worth it, and just call you out instead.
                      And you’ve just gotten worse.
                      You know why I call you psychotic?
                      It’s your pathological denial and projection.
                      But go ahead and continue believing everybody else is wrong and they’re the crazy ones.
                      Sure is productive

                    22. “I said what I am going to say on the matter. If that is not good enough, then that’s that.”

                      It’s not good enough

                    23. If you don’t think people are having honest discussions with you, think about why that is

                      Because quite a few people come here with rigid assumptions and they cannot handle being pushed back on them even a little bit. Challenging someone’s assumption is regarded as “not arguing in good faith”.

                      So instead, you come up with creative armchair pseudo-psychological analyses to explain why you cannot handle having your assumptions questioned. “I am obviously right, the reason why chemjeff doesn’t agree with me is because he’s mentally ill!” That is the sign of weakness in your own arguments. Maybe your arguments aren’t as strong as you think they are.

                      Maybe you should actually read, and accept what I write at face value, instead of trying to put as impossible of a spin on them as you can.

                      And YOU have no leg to stand on, you who, like your fellow squad member Shithead, advocate for violence to be used against people you don’t like.

                    24. Because quite a few people come here with rigid assumptions and they cannot handle being pushed back on them even a little bit. Challenging someone’s assumption is regarded as “not arguing in good faith”.

                      Yet they can easily disagree and argue with others–as well as EACH other, for they do not always agree.

                      Why is that, Jeff?

                      Why do they all cite your disingenuousness? Your opportunistic pedantry? Your complete unwillingness to even entertain the notion that you are wrong?

                      When everyone’s telling you you’re an asshole, perhaps a bit of self reflection is in order.

                    25. Nardz
                      “You really think *I* was the one behaving poorly?

                      You always are among the worst. And always bullshit a denial. The militant self-righteous.

              3. “What is the “prevailing ideology” of American culture?”

                Fuck you. I do what I want.

              4. “What is the “prevailing ideology” of American culture?”

                Since you’re Canadian you don’t need to worry about it Pedo Jeffy.

            2. No stereotypes, no social science, no effective medicine, courtship, no human survival.
              The problem is, as with most people who think they’re libertarians, you’re pc.

          2. You really are simple. Let me try another example? I would not want to break down driving through a bad neighborhood in south Chicago. If I meet a black guy from south Chicago, I should treat him like anyone else until and unless he gives me a reason not to.

            1. Well, okay. That sounds fine with me. But that doesn’t seem to be what awildseaking is saying. He seems to be saying that we should be “mindful” of supposed “racial differences in IQ” but without resorting to stereotyping…. how exactly?

              1. “But that doesn’t seem to be what awildseaking is saying”

                It has been explained to you many times that you’re bad at discerning that, so instead of making an ass of yourself with assumptions, you should ask.

                For some reason you don’t get it.

                1. He really doesn’t seem to want to understand what others opinions are. He wants use circular reasoning and other bs to prove he’s the smart guy in the room. If he would realize he’s nowhere near that, he might be a positive contributor here.

                  1. Pretty accurate. He asks me a question, then decides independently that my answers are inscrutable to him, so they are “vague.”

                    Except they weren’t. He’s just a moron.

                  2. Well, I *am* the smart guy in the room. I’m also stubborn, so you’re going to have to really persuade me if you want me to change my mind.

                    I do want to try to understand people’s opinions, I really do. But I am going to call out BS masquerades when I see them.

                    1. “Well, I *am* the smart guy in the room.”

                      You thought the Oxford learners dictionary is the same as the OED “smart guy”

                    2. Well that certainly shut you up smart guy.

                    3. Well, I *am* the smart guy in the room.

                      You’re really not. Maybe in the room you’re standing in, or the room where you talk with a bunch of morons who agree with you. But in this room, you’re awfully simplistic in your thoughts.

                    4. chemjeff radical individualist
                      August.7.2019 at 8:42 pm

                      “Well, I *am* the smart guy in the room.”
                      -You really aren’t

                      “I’m also stubborn,”
                      -It’s called ‘denial’
                      ” so you’re going to have to really persuade me if you want me to change my mind.”
                      -Only you can change your mind, and you’re insanely resistant to doing so

                      “I do want to try to understand people’s opinions, I really do.”
                      -You really don’t.

                      “But I am going to call out BS masquerades when I see them”
                      -Try it in the mirror. It’s a long road, but that would be your first step toward recovery

                    5. “Well, I *am* the smart guy in the room”

                      No, you’re not even the guy in the room with average intelligence. You’re just some Canadian twat college kid making sophist semantical arguments and thinking its clever.

                      Also, stay away from our kids. And no, we don’t need your ‘free babysitting services’.

              2. Ok now imagine me not wanting a new development on my street that will be filled with people from south Chicago all at once.

                1. Ok now imagine me not wanting a new development on my street that will be filled with people from south Chicago all at once.

                  But what happened to “treat him like anyone else until and unless he gives me a reason not to” when it comes to the residents of South Chicago?

                  1. No one said that.

                    You’re just REALLY STUPID so you misread what was actually said.

                  2. Fuck you’re stupid. I’m pretty close to just calling you pedo jeffy instead of trying to engage you. For someone with “individualist” as part of there name you’re bad at understanding what it means.

                    1. So what am I missing?

                      You write:
                      “I would not want to break down driving through a bad neighborhood in south Chicago. If I meet a black guy from south Chicago, I should treat him like anyone else until and unless he gives me a reason not to.”

                      I interpreted this to mean that you would not prejudge a black guy in South Chicago as being a “bad guy” unless he gave you a reason to believe he was a “bad guy”. Was that an incorrect assumption?

                      So then when you wrote

                      “Ok now imagine me not wanting a new development on my street that will be filled with people from south Chicago all at once.”

                      based on my interpretation, I found the two statements to be contradictory. If they are not contradictory, how are they not?

                    2. Fuck you’re stupid.

                    3. Seriously, take a break. Do some yoga or something.

                    4. I really don’t know why I bother, but, “I interpreted this to mean that you would not prejudge a black guy in South Chicago”

                      when I’m broken down IN South Chicago I’m prejudging everyone, because I understand reality. If I meat someone FROM south Chicago while I’m not broke down in south Chicago, I’m not judging them.

                    5. when I’m broken down IN South Chicago I’m prejudging everyone, because I understand reality.

                      Okay then. So if broken down in South Chicago, you will prejudge black people there as potential threats against you. That is what you are saying?

                    6. You really try hard not to understand what people are saying.

                    7. Okay, so this has nothing to do with the “black guy” bit from above.

                      So if you are broken down in South Chicago, you will prejudge everyone from South Chicago, black and white, as potential threats against you.

                      But if you are not broken down, and you meet someone from South Chicago, black or white, you will not prejudge them.

                      Is this correct?

                    8. Well, I tried. I really did.

                    9. I know you did buddy. Bless your heart for it too.

                    10. I genuinely don’t understand what is the connection between “prejudging people while broken down in South Chicago” and “not wanting South Chicago residents moving into a new development on my street”. Perhaps you could lay it out for me in explicit terms.

                2. PROUD TO BE A BIGOT!!!

                  R Mac
                  Ok now imagine me not wanting a new development on my street that will be filled with people from south Chicago all at once.

                  Are all niggers potential NBA all-stars?
                  What about those damn faggots?
                  /sarc

                  1. Racist Hihn is racist like we always knew.

                    1. Racist Hihn is also (and maybe foremost) a neo-nazi.

              3. I suppose what I would have to ask is if you think there is any sort of group-level policy that can be made without stereotyping. Because I can understand our disagreement if you think that’s impossible because I consider stereotyping to be something done to individuals, not a collective. People have prejudices about collectives and then apply them to individuals by stereotyping them.

                Also, do you think that group-level facts are stereotypes if they are only applied to the group and not to individuals? For instance, while we’ll never know exactly for sure, somewhere between 33-50% of Pakistani Brits are inbred (married a first cousin).

                Stereotype: if I assume a Paki I meet is inbred because of this fact
                Group-level Fact: if I state this information and use it as basis not to take many immigrants from Pakistan

                And even if I did assume that of an individual, it’s not like I made an assumption based on a prejudice. It’s based on a scientifically observed phenomena.

                1. I suppose what I would have to ask is if you think there is any sort of group-level policy that can be made without stereotyping.

                  To be honest I’m having a hard time coming up with an example, because any group-level policy will by definition apply to every member of the group, even if an individual member does not conform to the traits of the group that the policy was intended to address.

          3. Stereotyping and acknowledging group risk are two different things.

            For instance, suppose we were accepting German refugees in the immediate aftermath of WWII. There’s a statistically reasonable chance that you’ll get some Nazi sympathizers if you took a random sample of the population. We’re not going to assume any individual German is a Nazi, but if we’re looking to accept a certain number of immigrants from across the world and to allocate resources, perhaps our efforts would be better suited elsewhere. It’s not like stereotypes are completely unfounded; they’re generally inapplicable and they’re dehumanizing, which is why I don’t apply them on an individual basis. But what do you figure we should do about immigration when it’s impossible to get honest answers from immigrants about their personal beliefs and we know that Somalia is a higher risk than South Korea?

            1. But what do you figure we should do about immigration when it’s impossible to get honest answers from immigrants about their personal beliefs and we know that Somalia is a higher risk than South Korea?

              My response would be, why should the immigration framework be structured in any way OTHER than evaluating each potential immigrant on his/her own individual merits?

              For instance, sure I’m willing to accept at least on a conceptual level a statistical likelihood that there are statistically more terrorists likely to be emigrating from Somalia than from South Korea.

              What that suggests to me, anyway, is that potential immigrants should all be screened for possible terrorist connections (as best we can anyway) on an INDIVIDUAL BASIS, and if that means that fewer Somalis than South Koreans are selected, then that is just how the statistics shake out.

              What we SHOULDN’T do, is engage in some sort of national quota scheme and tell Somalis that only very few of you will even have the chance to immigrate here, because, by setting the quota on Somali immigrants so low, we think that you are predisposed to being terrorists just judging by your place of birth and without even assessing whether or not you are a terrorist.

              The first scheme respects each individual immigrant, while the second scheme places national origin above the individual’s own merits as what’s primarily important for understanding the immigrant’s identity.

              Both schemes would likely lead to fewer Somalis immigrating here compared to South Koreans, but one was accomplished in a more libertarian manner than the other, IMO.

              1. I like the sentiment of merit based immigration, but the problem is who decides the merits once the system is in place; it’s bureaucrats, not the people of this country via the President. We’ll inevitably have political battles over criteria, like bringing a high skilled Indian doctor who is a net economic benefit for society, but might want to repeal 2A or make his culture dominant. That’s where things get iffy because there really isn’t a nice way to remove people like that if their numbers grow too much.

                I would compare my sentiments to Ashin Wirathu. I want a Constitution respecting, small government society with a more Libertarian bend than we have right now. If I invite people who are an existential threat to that system, then what? I would say the danger to our country in completely blocking off Somalis is a lot less than the danger of taking a chance on some of them via politically defined merit. What I consider meritorious is not what others do and that’s why we even have a Koch/GOP/Trump split on immigration. Some of us look at the economics of it, others the taco trucks and virtue signals, and in the last case, the murders and DUIs and rapes that, while infrequent, were technically preventable if the law, as written, had merely been enforced.

              2. “What we SHOULDN’T do………”

                Who the fuck is WE? You’re not even American. Just some Canadian busybody interfering with the sovereign borders of my country.

                You really are trash Pedo Jeffy.

        3. White nationalists can’t be pounded into submission by their betters fast enough.

          It will happen. It always does in America.

          Carry on, clingers. Until you are replaced.

          1. KIRKLAND IMPLODING!!!

            Don’t you have some people to dox or old ladies to bike lock over the head?

          2. They already have been bigot. Unless constant bigotry like yours creates more of them.

            1. That was a bigoted comment, Sluggo.
              Another one.

              1. Hihnfaggot, I think maybe it’s time to contact the authorities in your area and have you involuntarily committed to an insane asylum. Your comments here plus your website are probably sufficient justification.

                The best thing for you is a straight jacket, a padded cell, and a massive maintenance dose of Thorazine.

        4. I found one! Race realist indeed! Cultural differences? Your rant simply sounds like an excuse for being racist.

          Is there a single unifying American culture? I strongly suspect I’m likely to have less in common with a white nationalist branding a torch than most people who might wander across our borders. I’d happily trade a random immigrant for a white nationalist if given the chance. Cultural differences, opinions, beliefs–none of these are homogenous within a single culture or even religion. Other countries don’t hold any patents on “terrible ideas”. We Americans have plenty of our own.

          Further, the ability or propensity for an individual to have an open mind is variable–as you have just demonstrated. So what an individual may have been exposed to in one culture may have more or less impact on how they behave once immersed in another. My father defected from Cuba. My mother and her family have been in the US since Texas was Tejas–so maybe I don’t “get it” due to my low IQ of 143 (no, not an Internet IQ test). You don’t know everyone’s story, and your generalizations are just that. You either treat people as individuals or you don’t. You either give people the benefit of the doubt or you don’t. But, if you don’t, please go find another party. This one’s full.

          1. The question you should be asking is not whether there currently is a unifying American culture (especially since what we once had has been eroded since WWII), but whether or not there should be. And if you’re even remotely Libertarian or even just a fan of the Constitution, the answer is yes. If we don’t have an amendment proof majority on any of the things we value, then there’s no point in being here. Would you seriously stay in America if 1A or 2A was repealed? I certainly wouldn’t. If the country became that messed up, then all the doom and gloomers saying we’re experiencing the fall of Rome would be correct. It would get a lot worse before it ever gets better again.

            We have so many home-grown problems that the last thing we need is to take a chance on foreigners who are, for the most part, of like mind to said problem populations.

      4. “It is well known that Molyneux is a white nationalist and has been for years.”

        I, personally, anxiously await this evidence.

        1. And wait, and wait.

        2. He definitely is a white nationalist though. We’re talking about the guy who said:

          “the sum total of human history is endless warfare between competing groups: two [human] subspecies don’t inhabit the same geographical area for long, one will always displace the other…there’s not examples of long-term coöperation between groups…when the state has the power to control demographics though the welfare state, though immigration policy, and so on, then each group is going to try to control the state’s capacity to enhance and grow their own group. Anybody who thinks otherwise is naïve…”

          -Stephan “race nationalism is inevitable” Molyneux

          1. Cite? With the umlaut or whatever is above “cooperation”

          2. What, exactly, is racist about any of that?

            1. You don’t have the brains to understand.
              For any others.

              when the state has the power to control demographics though the welfare state, though immigration policy, and so on, then each group is going to try to control the state’s capacity to enhance and grow their own group. Anybody who thinks otherwise is naïve…”

              That’s an “everybody does it” excuse for his own white nationalism. And apparently your own.

              And we KNOW why YOU missed it!

              1. I can explain HOW Hitler used the collapse of the parliamentary system in Weimar Germany, and how the system was set to collapse extremely early on…yet I’m not a Nazi.

                Weird. Some folks can explain a situation or a result and not actually say “Man, what a GREAT idea”.

                Do environmental whackjobs think polar ice caps melting are GOOD?

          3. If that quote was attributed to, say a black man, would that make him a “black nationalist”?

      5. It is known that anyone who is not fully on board with Intersectionality SJW nonsense gets labeled a White Nationalist, including Jews like Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin, Asians like Michelle Malkin, and even blacks like Candace Owens

        1. “Candace Owens”

          Would

          1. Libertarians For “Race Realism.”

            Libertarians For Tariffs.

            Libertarians For Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics.

            Libertarians For Torture.

            Libertarians For Cruel, Bigoted, Authoritarian Immigration Practices.

            Libertarians For The Death Penalty.

            Libertarians For Statist Womb Management.

            Libertarians For Trump. Libertarians For Cruz.

            Why does reason.com attract so many disaffected, downscale, bigoted right-wingers?

            1. I like OBL more than you.

              1. I like knowing that you will be replaced. By your betters.

                Winning the culture war is good.

                1. People who are actually winning don’t really ever feel the need to screech it at every opportunity.

                  It’s just evident.

                  You strike us all like the kinda guy that cheats at Solitaire and brags about it, Artie.

                  1. SAILED OVER YOUR HEAD TOO!!!

        2. There was little more ridiculous then suggesting that liking the opinions of a practicing Orthodox Jew was the gateway to Neo Nazism.

      6. I am not sure how to map Molyneux’s ideology. He seems to believe in the nonsense racial IQ theories about certain races being inferior, but he’s also against the government treating people differently based either on their race or because they’re low IQ.

        I would say though, if some super racist / super rich guy bought a bunch of land and made it into an all white (or balck) town, as long as the people there did it voluntarily, he would be cool with there being no government to tell them no.

        So I guess he is a white suppremist (for believing in nonsense racial theroies), but also not a white nationalist (because he doesn’t believe in nations). Go figure.

        1. IQ differences among different populations isn’t nonsense, it’s a glaring statistical fact. That doesn’t, however, imply inferiority, you dunce.

      7. No, he’s not, and you sound like an idiot…probably because you are. Fuck idiots and fuck you.

      8. “It is well known that Molyneux is a white nationalist and has been for years.”

        It is well known libelous assholes call people they don’t like “White nationalists” as a vague insult meant to make the person being called a name seem scary. The irony is assholes like you categorically refuse to actually define “White nationalism”, explain why it’s scary, much less provide evidence the person name calling fits the definition you’ve given.

    2. Unless we’re playing the dog-whistle game. I apologize, but I don’t hear those very well.
      If you can hear the dog whistle, you may be a dog.

      1. As evidence, we can offer eunuch, chemjeff, and nyarlarrythotep (who?) immediately barking in response

    3. “Race/ethno nationalism is only bad when Whitey does it.”

      1. The entire tread preceding is about the longest pissing match I’ve ever encountered.

    4. I respect your caution here. We’re in a climate where just about anybody, including a liberal African American, can be tarred as a white supremacist these days.

      But, as someone who has watched a few Molyneux videos, JD’s classification is not far off. While I’ve never heard Molyneux call for an explicitly white ethno-state, he spends a lot of time talking about race and IQ, and specifically cautions about immigration from areas with populations that he perceives to be of lesser intelligence, as he believes it will have a socially, economically, and politically destabilizing effect. While it’s not an ethno-state per se, it’s damn close. This is the chief reason I no longer listen to him. It’s not only morally repugnant, but illogical.

      Anyway, hope that’s informative.

      1. It’s also correct. The average IQ in a nation directly corresponds to positive… Everything. South Korea became 1st world in a generation of adopting only SOME western ideals… Latin America has been drowning in western ideas for half a millennia… IQ is the reason for the difference in outcomes.

        I’m part Hispanic myself, but reality is reality, whether or not you like it.

  2. “”White Supremacy Is Alien to Liberal and Libertarians Ideals””

    Classic liberal, yeah. But today’s liberals not actually qualifying if someone really is guilty. They are using guilt by association which is also alien to classic liberal, libertarian ideals, critical thinking, and truth.

    We had white supremacy ignored to the point of irrelevance. It the left that have been using it as a weapon against Trump that has brought it back into popularity.

    1. I can’t believe I defended Tuccille earlier today, here is the Reason comments, and then he turns around and writes this headline. If he meant classical liberal, he could have just said “liberal” or “libertarian.” Goddamnit.

  3. “the El Paso mass murderer was primarily motivated”

    Tucille is Chemleff?

  4. There are no such things as “Liberals” in the USA anymore. Progressives hijacked the term and the term didnt mean pro-Liberty from that point.

    Even Classic Liberals actually owned slaves.

    rac·ism
    /ˈrāˌsizəm/
    noun: racism
    prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.

    Some White people consider their race to be superior. Its sometimes called White Supremacy.

    Evidently there is no term for other races when they consider their race superior to other races. “Black Supremacy”. Made harder by massive mixing of races and disagreement of what major races there are.

    1. >>>massive mixing of races

      belies the whole idea of people-races.

      1. >>>massive mixing of races

        belies the whole idea of people-races.

        How?

        1. Barrack Obama had one white parent and one black parent.

          But he’s generally considered to be “black”, not “half-black”, “white”, “half-white”. Very occasionally he’ll be considered “bi-racial”.

          It makes it obvious that the label doesn’t actually depend on genetics, and is a social definition, not a “scientific” definition.

          1. Excuse me, but if i read correctly, Barak Obama Sr’s birth certificate states that he is 25% sub-saharan black and 75% Arabic, making Barak Jr 12.5% black. He is black because he self-identifies as black, and we’ve chosen to accept that.

  5. White supremacists, racists, and collectivists of all sorts are alien to libertarian thought and enemies of our values and aspirations. And we need to take them on whenever we encounter them.

    We try, and the moment you do, you get labeled as alt-right, demonetized on youtube or banned from Facebook.

    1. or gunned down @wal-mart

  6. I do ask what race Americans are, since this article is another attempt to fuel some Lefty desire for identity politics.

    Just remember: The Democrat Party advocated for slavery, seceded from the Union (partly over slavery), and fought to preserve slavery.

    The Republican Party has never done that.

    The Libertarians and the LP have never done that.

      1. Haha. The Lefties are separating “Union Democrats” with “Southern Democrats” to try to mitigate the facts that Democrats are the party of slavery, racism, and anti-civil rights.

        Lefties cannot name more than 5 Dixiecrats who left the Democrat Party after the Civil Rights Act (I will give you 5 to be generous).

        The “Civil Rights Act” traded government suppressing of certain civil rights (Right of association, freedom of speech…) for certain new protections “I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years. ” (LBJ said that).

        1. I thought there were two–Thurmond and Helms (both of whom turned out to have some non-white ancestry)

          The devoted racists, like Byrd, Gore, and Fullbright stayed Democrat.

          1. Perhaps the followers of those devoted racists would be considered racist. But people who are screaming racism at Trump wanted one of Byrd’s followers in the Whitehouse.

      2. Yes, the Dems were trying to throw out their 83 racist Congresscritters, but they just wouldn’t go.

        Said no one ever.

        1. The number of non-white Republicans in the House (hurry, clingers, and count Will Hurd to avoid pitching a racist shutout), the Senate, and other elected offices demonstrates the clingers’ lack of bigotry.

          Carry on, clingers. So far as ignorance, stale thinking, bigotry, and superstition could carry anyone in modern, liberal-libertarian America, that is.

            1. Open wider, clinger.

              1. Is that what you say to the children you molest in your windowless panel van? That fits pretty well, as there is no way a twisted creature like you could ever have a healthy relationship with an adult female, or even a man.

                The good news is that your end will come soon enough as you are too stupid to know when to stop pushing.

    1. Americans are mutts

  7. We all know nearly all right axial bigotry in the US stems from progressives. Period.

    1. While identity politics on the left seem more mainstream, there is clearly a white identity in the United States and you’d be warned not to deny it.

      1. Yes, and there is nothing wrong with being white. And fuck anyone who thinks otherwise. Most of the white identity people are
        Progressives, who constantly obsess about it.

        That said, we need to stamp out progtard bigotry. Preferably by excising our progtards.

      2. And yet millions of non-whites come here every year, sometimes risking life and limb. Seems weird to me, almost like there’s something special going on and yet the left wants nothing more than to eliminate that

  8. “Racism is a particularly pernicious form of collectivism,” wrote John Hospers, the late professor of philosophy and the first presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, in 1972. “Persons who cast racial slurs on others are not considering the individual merits or demerits of the person slurred; they may not know the individual at all, except that he is a member of some racial group (Jews, blacks, Italians, etc.). Though the person’s individual qualities may be quite different from many other members of the group, all this is ignored: all they know or care is that he is a member of that group.”

    So racism is only a negative view of other races – when Ayanna Pressley was saying that thing about “we don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice, we don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice, we don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice, we don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice” that wasn’t racist because, while she was collectivizing individuals, she wasn’t doing it in a negative way. So what’s wrong with white supremacy as long as you merely assert that white people are better than every other race and not that other races are inferior to whites?

    I would suggest that “racism” isn’t merely negatively stereotyping individuals based on their race but that any sort of assumptions that somebody must think or act or believe in a certain manner based solely on their race is racist. And believing there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t support other women is some next-level sexism, especially so when the woman in question is Hillary Clinton.

    1. I disagree, Pressley was being racist– or perhaps the proper more nuanced term: Racialist.

    2. Racism = assuming one’s “race”/color/ethnicity is their determinative trait, the primary facet of their identity; also, assuming “race” as the primary cause/variable of any event

      Basically, prioritizing, or obsessing over, “race”

    3. I tend to define “racism” as expecting an individual to believe or behave a certain way based on their race. Everyone is racist to some degree and in some way. It doesn’t matter whether you approve or disapprove of the behavior/belief. It’s still racism. Perhaps my definition is too broad, but I have yet to encounter anything to change my mind.

  9. Unfortunately, many self-proclaimed libertarians instead embrace other forms of authoritarianism, namely the forced egalitarianism, racism, and globalism of the radical left.

    And regardless of what motivates such “libertarians”, in the end, they are willing to push nonsensical and self-destructive policies like open borders, unilateral elimination of tariffs, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and a continuation of Keynesian overstimulation of the economy.

    1. Link me to these supposed or made-up Libertarians, will you?

      1. Welcome to reason.com, the site you’re on!

    2. unilateral elimination of tariffs
      This doesn’t deserve to be with others in your list.

  10. Replacement isn’t code for anything. It means what it literally means. If you bring in a group of people who outbreed another group of people, you will replace them. That means their values, their culture, and their vision of society will triumph. That’s how any democratically elected government works; the majority dictates policy.

    If you took every white nationalist from the world and helped them immigrate to the US, whites would be replacing non-whites. It has NOTHING to do with the group in question and everything to do with reproduction.

    1. The day of your replacement — by one of your betters — will be a glorious day for America.

      1. I seriously hope that whatever the demographic makeup of America becomes, they will always reject your genocidal desire to eliminate people you don’t like.

        Do you have any Germanic ancestry? It’s just a hunch, but I find most Germanic people to be highly autistic with a penchant for intolerance and ethnic cleansing.

        1. Artie like sot think of himself as one of those “betters”.
          He is obviously the worst.

  11. “White supremacists, racists, and collectivists of all sorts are alien to libertarian thought and enemies of our values and aspirations. And we need to take them on whenever we encounter them”

    Fuck you. I’m tired of people like you trying to draft me into your ideological army.

    I’ll take care of my family and mind my business. If you want war with those people, that’s your cross to bear dick head.

    1. “White supremacists, racists, and collectivists of all sorts are alien to libertarian thought and enemies of our values and aspirations. And we need to take them on whenever we encounter them“

      I’m your huckleberry.

      1. That’s your prerogative. Stop trying to make it my problem.

        1. No, no, no Tulpa – you must cheer him!
          Just letting him do him without joining in in some way is inherently collectivist or something

          1. Consider me appropriately chastised.

        2. When did I do that?

    2. “White supremacists, racists, and collectivists of all sorts are alien to libertarian thought and enemies of our values and aspirations. And we need to take them on whenever we encounter them”

      That’s a collectivist statement.

      Also, we were told by Gillespie that libertarians (who are totally not collectivist) “need to ally with globalists of all parties” then mentioned Jacobins (socialists) specifically.
      Interesting stuff.

      1. This is such weird strain of libertarianism, as you say, that it’s impossible sometimes not look at the people calling themselves libertarians and wonder if they aren’t trying to Co-opt the name like “liberals” was co-opted.

        Is libertarianism really just a skin suit being worn by leftists?

  12. This is such a retarded trope. There are like 5 white supremacists in this country and maybe 1 of them has a job. They are gross. They’re more pathetic than any kind of real threat. Is there anyone in a position of even marginal power in this country that thinks people of lighter skin have a genetic superiority and should rule as a result? Who? We’re now really scared of a bunch of powerless retards?

    Labelling some fucked up kid a white supremacist is punting on analyzing the real reason(s) he decided to commit suicide by cop and take 30 people with him. His belief system may have formed part of the rationalization, but only damaged people with no ability to cope act that way. He didn’t want to live. People who feel that way are mentally ill.

    How to fairly identify those people, typically minors when they show signs, and treat them without turning this into a police state is the real issue. As is how to change gun laws, without amending the Constitution, to allow a deprivation of rights pending treatment, without it being used as a tool to violate rights writ-large, too.

    But continue with your bullshit, by all means.

    1. The reason to be concerned when the numbers of members are small is because hateful ideology spreads much wider than actual activists.

      It starts with small things, the Nuremberg laws, then kristallnacht, and we know how that ended up. It took a long time and many steps along the way. Most people were just indifferent as it happened and turned the other way. They did not feel any particular hatred.

      1. “Its too late to stop the SJWs, so you should just join in” seems to be your conclusion

      2. The Nuremberg laws and the Kristallnacht were not small things. Those were pretty transformative events. Now, if you wanna dig into the Kristallnacht, then antifa in Portland might be a reasonable analogue. A group of self-described vigilantes rooting out those with unclean opinions or views, while the sympathetic constabulary looks on passively while windows are smashed and people are accosted.

        1. Yes as it turns out they were but many dismissed the gradual buildup which excluded Jews from German society. The first Nuremberg law just defined who is a Jew which was by descent. This set the stage for other laws such as excluding Jews from certain occupations, outlawing intermarriage and so on.

          By the time it got to kristallnacht there were still those who dismissed it as the actions of thugs, not official government campaign.

          I see your point about Portland, there are some similarities there.

          1. Now do Goigle, Facebook, Twitter, etc

            It would suck if there was a buildup of defining and excluding certain groups of people.
            …But only the alt-right/white nationalists would do that, right?

            1. And would anybody here care to argue that Nazis and KKK weren’t social justice warriors?
              Go ahead, I’ll give anybody a chance.

      3. Seems white supremacy’s peak is long past and isn’t likely to spread far. Then again if anti-white rhetoric continues to grow as whites become a smaller percentage of the population, it probably will.

        So ignore my first sentence while I go buy more bullets.

        1. For self defense. Obviously.

        2. Most people are unfamiliar with Newton’s Third Law.

      4. Wut? Anti jewish thought in germany or in most parts of early 20th c. Europe was hardly a rare opinion. The french kings had been exproptiating jewish property for centuries. Whenever you show an actual david duke style or worse idiot it pushes people in the opposite direction. I’m Jewish and have zero concern about anti jew rednecks. I do have non trivial concern about anti Jewish muslims. Particularly when I visit France where me family is from. There is actually a mechanism for that to spread. The jokers in Charlottesville? Lol. Those guys are pathetic jokes.

        1. I have EXCEEDINGLY non-trivial concerns about BDS supporting leftists politicians constantly insisting that all the anti-Semitism they’re spouting is actually only anti-Israeli, so it’s okay.

  13. ” “Persons who cast racial slurs on others are not considering the individual merits or demerits of the person slurred;”

    You mean like “White Supremacist?”

    1. You’re lost. Hope you find your way back.

      1. No, he’s spot on. The race baiters are the problem. Organized racism is 100% a product of progressives in this country.

        1. No, white nationalism/supremacy are not a symptom of leftist identity politics. Any understanding of history will inform you of this fact.

          1. That’s not what he said fuckhole.

            1. Blaming progressives for modern white nationalism is deception and emotionally motivated. It’s all bad.

              1. It’s interesting how you’re dishonest in your reply, then get slapped, and expect that straightening up will make us forget you were just a dishonest shithead.

              2. Progressives only have a century of history continuously promoting white supremacy, but they totally stopped because they talk about not being white supremacist, right?

                1. Progressives only have a century of history continuously promoting white supremacy

                  Only a mind-fucked bigot would claim all Democrats have always been progressive …. to “justify” HIS blatant racism today!

                  And Trump’s

                  They all repeat this crazy logic. And they BREED! (vomit)

                  1. They all repeat this crazy logic. And they BREED! (vomit)

                    Now do sneer. And tell him to bend over.

                    Also, needz moar boldface.

              3. Only one side is active trying to convince minorities to self segregate.

                1. And becoming increasingly aggressive in this attempt.

                2. JesseAz, a consummate right-wing hate-monger, PROUDLY reveals his STUPIDITY on SELF-segregation vs FORCED segregation … his self-righteous rejection of … FREE CHOICE … cuz we must ALL conform and submit to … HIS diktats.

                  Probably stands with the Christian Taliban on abortion.

                  1. Guess they fixed the Internet at the rest home, huh? Or are you back from an involuntary confinement?

                    1. Since we know who he is and where he lives, we should have him committed again.

              4. “You didn’t build that”

                Place is a clown show today

          2. No, white nationalism/supremacy are not a symptom of leftist identity politics.

            White nationalism and supremacy ARE identity politics.

          3. KKK and Nazi fuckwads were so marginalized and such a laughing stock that Jerry Springer routinely did shows letting everyone know how backwards and idiotic they were.

            Instead of giving them legitimacy, normal people should still be laughing at them.

            1. KKK and Nazi fuckwads were so marginalized and such a laughing stock that Jerry Springer routinely did shows letting everyone know how backwards and idiotic they were.

              When will he dio a show on how President Fuckstick DEFENDS them … with BLATANT lies and bullshit?
              https://youtube.com/watch?v=xgOfyqy1r2o

              normal people should still be laughing at them.

              We’ll laugh at Trump when the terror subsides.
              For now, we can laugh at you … as I’ve done here!

              1. Trump: “Does the Alt-Left have any guilt?” Hey dumbshit, how *exactly* does that equate with defending anyone?

                You’ve devolved into an irrational nutcase.

                1. No, he’s always been that.
                  No matter which sockpuppet he uses.

          4. No, white nationalism/supremacy are not a symptom of leftist identity politics. Any understanding of history will inform you of this fact.

            Are you insane?

            Every single instance of white nationalism/supremacy in this country can be laid at the feet of the left.

            The klan, the eugenicists, the social darwinists, the neo-fascist movements, the anti-semites. All of it.

            1. Please tell me you are kidding with this.

          5. When you constantly push identity politics, you should not be surprised when people start behaving as part of an identity group.

    2. Calling a bigot a bigot is not bigotry. It is refusal to wallow in political correctness, and it is patriotic.

      Carry on, clingers.

      1. Whatever you say bigot. One day you will be replaced by your betters.

        Carry on clinger.

        1. Whatever you say bigot.

          WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH
          That was satire!
          Ridiculing YOU … for reasons you just proved!!

          1. “””WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH””

  14. I’m calling it. Fake News!

    I thought the US was a melting pot.

    Apparently now if you want immigrants to embrace American culture you’re a white supremacist.

    I know many of the former but none of the latter. It doesn’t seem like a problem to me.

    1. Melting pots are racist.
      The only non-racist society is a multicultural one – meaning one that vigorously maintains distinct ethnic identities as the fundamental and primary value

      1. Multiculturalism doesn’t work because religion is a large part of culture.

        Conflicting mutually exclusive beliefs don’t get along.

      2. Have you ever been to Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It’s multicultural. I’ve been there.

        In tourist areas it seems pretty good. Everyone seems to check their culture at the door.

        In residential areas, the story is quite different. Ethnic writing on storefronts, no English. Inside the stores they won’t speak English either. Oh there are still a few white people swimming around eyes wide but for the most part have been displaced out of a town they no longer recognize. Is that what you want?

        Go there and see multiculturalism for yourself.

    2. Apparently now if you want immigrants to embrace American culture you’re a white supremacist.

      America’s culture includes TOLERANCE…. you clueless asshole.

      Today’s immigrants assimilate by the 3rd generation … JUST AS THEY HAVE FOR OVER A CENTURY

      Then there’s YOUR generation, babbling a whole new level of brainwashed ignorance!

      1. Today’s immigrants assimilate by the 3rd generation

        Were you able to verify that assertion by using your refrigerator box time machine?

  15. Mass shooters are mental. They suffer from antisocial personality disorder. Ideology has nothing do with it. Nor do video games or death metal. If he or his Dayton counterpart weren’t shooting up the streets, they would be mutilating and strangling hookers. The vast majority of people don’t behave that way. That includes America’s White Supremists which could all probably comfortably fit in an Applebee’s.

    1. There are probably more Applebees than white supremacist, which is interesting because I didn’t know Applebees was still in business

      1. Applebees has $1 Mai Tais for the month of August. How much are the Klan charging?

        1. Really? Hmm….

          1. I know right. I’m all about $1 Mai Tai’s

    2. AlmightyJB … pull your right-wing head out of your sorry ass.
      HOW MANY HOOKLERS DID THEY STRANGLE AND MUTILATE THIS YEAR?

      I’m not sure which is worse, your irrational bigotry or your irrational bullshitory

      Trump defends the assholes, too, with even bigger lies.

      1. Trump defends the assholes, too, with even bigger lies.

        Cite please. And try to do better than that bullshit youtube video you linked above.

  16. Persons who cast racial slurs on others are not considering the individual merits or demerits of the person slurred; they may not know the individual at all, except that he is a member of some racial group”

    describes the left to a “T”

    1. Trump is on the left. Who knew?

  17. Bravo. This is equal to the very best from JD’s father.

    But … Paul’s denial of that raeniola uals

    1. Shut up sheek. Garbage

    2. “raeniola uals”

      English Hihn, you’re incoherent enough as it is.

        1. Fuck off and literally die, hihn

          1. By the way: it occurs to me that chemjeff is probably a pretty damn good example of what “young hihn” would’ve been like…

            1. Young Hihn was a democratically-elected dumbfuck and thus was way more accomplished than pedo-importer Jeffy could ever hope to be.

              1. Seriously though, young Hihn wrote thoughtful articles defending libertarian principles, was involved with the Libertarian party and held elected office. I dunno if the lunatic Hihn (aka Reason’s own Ted Kaczynski) is the same person, but the younger version was way more accomplished than the pedo-defender.

  18. And good for us for making the bigots feel uncomfortable. They’re free to go elsewhere

    too late Tucille. They’ve settled into the comments section and turned it into their toilet.

      1. Is, not looks.

    1. Which bigots would be those again?

  19. Am I wrong in thinking that the worry about White Nationalism is a distraction from the main stream acceptance of racialism as a policy norm in the West? Am I also wrong in believing that White Nationalism (where it really does exist, not where it’s often attributed) is a response to the racialist policies that are just flippantly considered “proper policy”?

    1. No you not.

    2. Yes, you are wrong. And perhaps suffering denial. Like screaming “Fake News” when reality is in-con-veeen-yent. Or hinting that its overstated, because Trump so shamelessly supports it (his bullshit about Charlottesville). Or claiming that Hitler was a leftist!!!
      .

      1. The tenets of the Nazi party are most definitely leftist.

        13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).

        14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.

        15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.

        16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.

        17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.

        18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard to religion or race.

        https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/platform-of-the-national-socialist-german-workers-rsquo-party

        1. The entire document at your link is pure Trumpian.
          And shame on you for claiming your tiny excerpt … only 6 of 25 points is even remotely honest.

          Did you bother to notice that the Nazi Party platform was dated … 1920 …. boldface in the title, and at the bottom … long before they had any actual power.

          By Hitler’s time. they (and he) were right-wing corporatist, the exact opposite of your claim.

          The left-wing “worker” emphasis continued under Mussolini.
          Which is why there was both left-wing and right-wing fascism at the time. Meaning WHO the state favored with its interventionism.

          1. Mussolini was first. He invented fascism. Open a history book occassionally so you won’t look so ignorant.

            1. (boldface in defense of ANOTHER wacky aggression).

              DenverJ , THIS is almost as crazy as your assault on the PROVEN FACTS of Trump’s Charlottesville LIES.

              WTF are you babbling about NOW … NONE of which applies to ANYTHING I wrote?????.

              Do you have any more MASSIVE blunders here?

              1. The proven facts of Trump’s comments on Charlottesville is that his “fine people on both sides” was a reference to the Confederate statue issue, and not to the violence during the protests! You know this, yet continue to use a lie to defame the man’s reputation. So, go ahead and fuck off.

                1. (Boldface in defense of MORE wacko aggression, by a TRIPLE-PROVEN fool.)

                  DenverJ goes TOTALLY off the rails!!!

                  The proven facts of Trump’s comments on Charlottesville is that his “fine people on both sides” was a reference to the Confederate statue issue, and not to the violence during the protests!

                  (SNEER)
                  REPEATS the SAME fuckup! Has NOTHING to do with what I said .. as detailed HERE..

                  https://reason.com/2019/08/07/white-supremacy-is-alien-to-liberal-and-libertarians-ideals/#comment-7885498

                  You know this, yet continue to use a lie to defame the man’s reputation.

                  That would be YOU!!!
                  As PROVEN at that link ….

                  Meanwhile you FAIL to prove your WACKY lie about what he said.
                  I link to original sources …while you shake your fist at the sky and bellow nonsense and bullshit.

                  1. Is this a chortle or poop comment?

                    1. He’s all poop comments.

                    2. It looks like he ridiculed a total dumbass liar, after proving it.

                    3. Again with your poop comments.

            2. More specifically, Mussolini was a member of the Socialist part in Italy. Inspired by his experience in WW 1 and no longer content to wait, he came up with “fascism” as a kind of revolutionary socialism Fascism is about power and getting things done via centralized government and top-down mandates.

      2. “his bullshit about Charlottesville”
        Which bullshit is that, oh lying one? Lemme guess, you’re going to claim that he called nazis “fine people”, when that lie has been repeatedly debunked. But hey, liars gonna lie, I guess. Right, liar?

        1. (boldface in defense of aggression by a raging fool)

          A MASSIVE screwup by DenverJ.

          “his bullshit about Charlottesville”

          Which bullshit is that, oh lying one?

          Bend over. This will JAM up you butt with less pain.

          Lemme guess, you’re going to claim that he called nazis “fine people”, when that lie has been repeatedly debunked

          STUPID guess, and YOU LIE. He said there were “fine people” on BOTH sides … nazis were one of the sides!!

          But hey, liars gonna lie, I guess. Right, liar?

          (smirk)

          Trump’s PSYCHO lie was that. the “alt-left” attacked his beloved nazs and racists, with clubs. See and hear him say that here. while he SNEERS and rages about fake news! (OMFG).
          https://youtube.com/watch?v=xgOfyqy1r2o

          Next, video proof he’s fucking INSANE — and that you’re a FOOL.

          1. Part 2 , MOAR proof.

            Now Trump’s totally shameless lie about Charlottesville Bad enough that he said both sides were to blame. But he also went bat-shit crazy, saying the counter-protesters charged the nazis, swinging clubs. UNDENIABLE proof

            The initial assault, Charlottesville– Nazis and white supremacists attacking peaceful protesters with clubs
            “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
            Alt-Right Fascists/Racists crash into them en masse, swinging clubs.
            Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. The motherfuckers CAME for violence.

            Shame on Trump and ANYONE who defends lies, hatred and bigotry.

            These are Racists and Jew-Haters.
            Ivanka and Jerod are Jewish.
            Trump threw his own daughter under a bus. SHAMEFUL.

            Left – Right = Zero
            Libertarians have said that for 50 years. A growing majority of Americans now agree.
            As the “traditional” left and right shrink toward extinction, roaring like dinosaurs, chirping like dodo birds.

            1. You’re a lying piece of shit. Do you really think that there were no fine people who wanted the statues of their ancestors to be kept? Even if they were wrong (my view), it certainly doesn’t mean that they are horrible nazis.

              1. (boldface in defense of ANOTHER assault by now a FOUR-TIME proven liar.)

                You’re a lying piece of shit.

                STILL has nothing to do with what I said. …. LIES about what I DID say … and DENIES undeniable video PROOF.

                Do you really think that there were no fine people who wanted the statues of their ancestors to be kept? Even if they were wrong (my view),

                I’m sure there were SOME, a few.
                (laughing hysterically)

                <blockquote<it certainly doesn’t mean that they are horrible nazis. (snortr) Yeah, the NICE ones weren’t nazis (yawn).
                But the vast majority of protesters were either Nazis or racists.

                WAS IT NICE ONES WHO LAUNCHED AN ALL-OUT VICIOUS ASSAULT ON UNARMED PEOPLE , STANDING PEACEFULLY?
                .
                Would nice ones LIE about what I said ,… FOUR FREAKING TIMES?
                And deny video PROOF they were nazi`s?

                Would ANY decent person deny there wete neo-nazies there … thereby DEFENDING Nazis as shamefully as Trump did?

                Would anyone with a SHRED of integrity REFUSE to accept ABSOLUTE VIDEO PROOF of what I DID say… that TRUMP LIED … blatantly … about who started the violence.

                Does your health insurance cover the Ego Transplant you need?

                1. Correcting typo

                  It certainly doesn’t mean that they are horrible nazis.

                  Yeah, the few NICE ones weren’t nazis (yawn).

                  1. I hate the fact that Muslims blew up Buddhist statues. I’m not buddhihst so I must be a white supremicist.

                    1. I hate that black churches were burned down. I’m not black, so I must be a white supremacist too

                    2. I hate the fact that Muslims blew up Buddhist statues. I’m not buddhihst so I must be a white supremicist.

                      Not sure, but you PROVED how TOTALLY stupid you people are.

                      BLOWING UP STATUES IS AN ACTION … NOT A RACE OR RELIGION
                      OR …ARE YOU OKAY WITH ANYONE ELSE BLOWING UP STATUES??

                      BLESS you, LibertyTruth Teller … for defending both liberty and the truth from these crazy scum psychos,

          2. Bend over. This will JAM up you butt with less pain.
            Whelp, that didn’t take long — he’s back to the ass-rape threats. Is that why he got banned, or was it the enemies list?

            1. I can’t figure out which one is Hihn; TheFOURTHReich or TheLibertyTruthTeller, though they both could be.

    3. is a response to the racialist policies

      I’d like to amend that. “Response to” could be characterized as something positive, and I don’t want to be called a “White Supremacist”. Perhaps, “predictable reaction to” or “negative consequence of” might better serve my point.

      1. “and I don’t want to be called a “White Supremacist”.”

        Which is why the progressives have taken it up as their slur of choice, as they’ve quite beaten the term “racism” into meaninglessness

        1. Trump’s racism was blatantly and totally evident after Charlottesville, by his shameful LIE hat the violence was launched by the “alt-left” attacking with clubs his racist and neo-nazi supporters.

          It was the alt-right who attacked with clubs, beating totally unarmed counter-protesters. The far-right terrorists had both clubs and police-like riot shields. They CAME to inflict violence. And they initiated a vicious assault.

          Why would a NON-racist intentionally lie to defend violent assault by … racists?

          1. Ahahahah. YOUR STUPID OLD ASS THINK I GIVE A FUCK ABOUT RON PAUL AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HOW ARE YOU THAT STUPID AHAHAHAHAHAAH

            1. Nothing there about Ron Paul. (sneer)
              And PROOF of what I DID say … about Trump’s INSANE bullshit is on this page.
              https://reason.com/2019/08/07/white-supremacy-is-alien-to-liberal-and-libertarians-ideals/#comment-7885498

              Anything else you care to screw up?

              1. Fuck off, hihn.

                By the way – I don’t read your posts. I just see that you’ve posted, and either scroll past or tell you to fuck off.
                I’ll say it again, hihn: I don’t read your posts.
                They contain no value, and you’re irrelevant.
                Have fun knowing that

                1. HOW STUPID ARE THEY

                  ’ll say it again, hihn: I don’t read your posts.
                  They contain no value

                  Which one is it?

                  I’ve never heard of you, but I know you’re a convicted child rapist.

                  Who’s hihn?

                  1. Who’s hihn?

                    Really? Are you going to be that childish?

                    1. He doesn’t even slightly change his retarded, very distinct writing style then pulls that crap. Like,it isn’t incredibly obvious.

      2. You need to care about the accuser’s opinion to have a problem with being insulted.

  20. People are important as individuals, not as extensions of some faceless mass.

    +eleventybillion

    This cannot be repeated often enough.

    1. And it is vitally important to note that at this moment in history, both the left (“government is the word for the things that we do together”) and now the modern right (“we stand against libertarianism”) are now fully anti-individual and pro-collectivists, on their own terms.

      1. Shut the fuck up racist, no one gives a shit what your rapist importing ass thinks.

        1. He’s not even an American. Just a meddling Canadian college. The pederast formerly known as Cytotoxic.

      2. Repeating the mantra “individualist” doesn’t make you an individualist.
        You have to be capable of an individual perspective.
        And you, Jeff, are particularly incapable of doing so, as you continually demonstrate that your perspective is entirely collectivist.
        You might ask yourself why you pretend to values you don’t fundamentally have.

        1. Jeff virtue signals here, but the mask slips regularly

        2. as you continually demonstrate that your perspective is entirely collectivist.

          It is? Please, why don’t you inform us all how I am supposedly a collectivist. Include examples as I’m sure you will understand if I don’t take you at your word.

          Let me head one off at the pass:

          “You favor one-world borderless government run by a coercive supranational state!” Because I’ve heard that one before. No I don’t, actually. I favor completely decentralized government. Imagine if you could choose your government in the same way you choose your cell phone company. That is the type of government that I favor.

          1. “Please, why don’t you inform us all how I am supposedly a collectivist”

            Why doesn’t he? Because it’s been done to death and you never listen or internalize it.

            Of course, you will attempt to mischaracterize our lack of desire to keep teaching to an inability to do so because that’s how you roll.

          2. “Please, why don’t you inform us all how I am supposedly a collectivist.”
            -the evidence is profuse. I’ll let others decide for themselves whether or not my characterization is correct. I will say that I’m rather confident in it.

            “Include examples as I’m sure you will understand if I don’t take you at your word.”
            -nope, and I really don’t care

            1. Right, so you throw out idle accusations, rely on mass repetition to spread them, and then trust in the verdict of the mob. Is that what constitutes proof in your mind?

              “It doesn’t have to be true, it just has to go viral”

              1. You misspelled “accurate observations”

          3. It is? Please, why don’t you inform us all how I am supposedly a collectivist. Include examples as I’m sure you will understand if I don’t take you at your word.

            Why?

            We’ve all done this over and over again. And all it does is make you not respond and find some other thread to spew the exact same mountain of shit onto.

            ‘black and brown blablabla’ here, ‘censorship is fine’ there, ‘it’s not collectivist because reasons’ over there–and the ever popular ‘I’m an individualist’ whenever your collectivism is to vomit inducingly obvious to hide.

            Case in point–

            Let me head one off at the pass:

            “You favor one-world borderless government run by a coercive supranational state!” Because I’ve heard that one before. No I don’t, actually. I favor completely decentralized government. Imagine if you could choose your government in the same way you choose your cell phone company. That is the type of government that I favor.

            An EXACT expression of the above.

          4. Imagine if you could choose your government in the same way you choose your cell phone company. That is the type of government that I favor.

            So, on a month-to-month basis or a defined-length contractual one?
            A whole bunch of “governments” from which to pick and choose as your fancy dictates?
            Maybe if you understood the real world, you might see how impossible that would be.

            1. It’s pretty obvious he’s not talking about how things are. Hence, the beginning of his sentence: “Imagine if . . .” It would not be necessary to “imagine” if it was already reality.

          5. Pedo Jeffy, there is no point engaging you. You are a disingenuous pederast Canadian. You engage in sophist semantical arguments and are also a race baiting pile of offal.

            You are not worthy of an adult discussion in any way. Nor are you worthy of respect.

            You really should stop posting entirely. The banning of Buttplug proves Reason doesn’t want your kind here.

        3. The truth is, you listen more to people in your tribe that you trust, than you listen to my own words and what I’m writing.

          Jesse and Shithead and John and Tulpa and others call me a “left wing progressive collectivist”, and that’s enough for you to conclude that I’m a left wing progressive collectivist, no matter what I actually say or do.

          Because you’re ultimately a tribalist, and therefore those in the tribe have unearned trust, and those outside the tribe have unearned scorn.

          So I’m anxiously waiting for you to see if you can find actual statements of mine where I have supposedly advocated for some left wing progressive collectivist point of view. Because I resolutely have not. You THINK I have, because that is your tribalism. But that’s all.

          1. “Jesse and Shithead and John and Tulpa and others call me a “left wing progressive collectivist”, and that’s enough for you to conclude that I’m a left wing progressive collectivist”

            Actually, he just reads your posts.

            Like how you pretend to read his mind. It’s so incredibly mendacious and tiresome.

          2. I’ve never called you a collectivist. I’ve just called you dishonest and retarded, you retarded halfwit.

            You have no depth to your beliefs. You’ve never thought if anything in depth.

            1. And by “not thinking in depth”, what Jesse really means is “not accepting the same right-wing premises that Jesse has”.

              Why do you presume everyone reads the same right-wing news sources that you read every day?

              1. No, he means crying about semantical games while playing them, and demanding the sole right to arbitrate the meanings of words.

                You’re a fucking troll, and everyone can see it. Your ideology is remarkable because of how incoherent it is.

              2. “chemjeff radical individualist
                August.7.2019 at 8:15 pm
                And by “not thinking in depth”, what Jesse really means is “not accepting the same right-wing premises that Jesse has”.
                Why do you presume everyone reads the same right-wing news sources that you read every day?”

                Here you go again: collectivist.

            2. And tell your fellow tribalist Nardz here that I’m not a collectivist, because he won’t hear it from me, he will only hear it from his fellow tribalists.

              1. He can read your posts bitch, no one needs to tell him anything.

              2. “chemjeff radical individualist
                August.7.2019 at 8:16 pm
                And tell your fellow tribalist Nardz here that I’m not a collectivist, because he won’t hear it from me, he will only hear it from his fellow tribalists.”

                Again: collectivist perspective.
                This is both hilarious and sad

          3. “chemjeff radical individualist
            August.7.2019 at 8:00 pm”

            The whole post – and you wonder why I call you psychotic.
            And I’m feeling charitable here, so I’ll go ahead and note that this would be an example of your collectivist perspective.

            1. So your standard of “collectivist perspective” is because I occasionally use plural nouns? That is stupidly pedantic.

              I do not advocate for collectivist forms of government or policy. Period.

              You yourself admit that you cannot find instances where I do.

              So STFU on the matter.

              1. No.
                Instead, I’ll remind you of your collectivist perspective, such as lumping distinct individuals together and assuming they must all be the same (ignoring the differences in their comments), whenever the fuck I want to.
                Collectivism, projection, stereotyping, hypocrisy, self-blindness, denial, etc – the signs of psychosis abound.

                I conclude that you’re a leftist progressive internationalist, and psychotic, because of your posts and nobody else’s.

          4. Oh Pedo Jeffy, you are your own worst enemy. They’re not taking my word for it, they’re just reading your posts and discovering what a dishonest weasel you are when they respond to you.

            Which is far more persuasive then any of my statements.

      3. Unless they are Chinese individuals. Then it’s cool if you can buy cheap shit.

        1. Edit: Their enslavement is cool.

      4. Still no reply. Little jeffy really hates Chinese people. But only if Chinese government enslaves them.

    2. I can’t wait for your dismissal of the black caucus. Please Jeff, denounce them as racist

  21. Race is a myth. It is a social construct with no basis in the scientific understanding of genetic diversity.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

    1. Who tells Trump and his sycophants?

        1. And who tells Tulpa?

          1. And why doesn’t Hihn die already or at least fuck off?

            1. I can’t speak for Hihn. But I LOVE triggering your raging hatred.
              It’s SO easy.

              1. Hihn! Don’t change buddy.

                1. I’m gonna start calling chemjeff “young hihn”
                  It’s just so fitting

                  1. Or maybe ‘Pedo Hihn’. Gotta keep the ‘Pedo’ in there so no one forgets he wants to being child predators to America to rape our children. Which is even worse when you consider that he’s a Canadian.

    2. Well, except for those inconvenient Neanderthal and Denisovian genes. Of course, if you hold those up as a competitive advantage, then the answer would be to try and maximize their spread, not limit it.

    3. I>Race is a myth. It is a social construct with no basis in the scientific understanding of genetic diversity.

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

      Amazing how they socially constructed those skeletons. Who’d have thought that social opinions could alter people’s bone structure.

    4. Ah, the effort to follow the modern “scientific method” – build a consensus.

    5. I don’t recall who said it, but it sounds right. I probably don’t have the quote exact. “Race is just a very large interbred family.”

  22. Bravo. This is equal to the very best from JD’s father.

    But … Ron Paul’s denial of that early racism is belied by his more recent and more blatant bigotry.

    What he tries to pass off as federalism is actually KKK-style States Rights, invented to justify the denial of constitutional protections for “negroes” and more recently, Ron’s even worse authoritarian assaults on homosexuals. Crazy enough to say “rogue judges” overturned DOMA — a shameful denial of the judiciary’s role and purpose as a co-equal branch, and his contempt for checks and balances. But even that moral atrocity is not nearly as bad as his original assault on marriage equality.

    He BRAGS of sponsoring a bill that would have forbidden SCOTUS from even considering any challenges to DOMA. Gays would be the first group denied the defense of constitutional rights since … slavery. Shameful, and co-sponsored by the very worst moral dregs in Congress.

    He also SOUNDS libertarian when he says the state should not be involved in marriage at all, but he means the state should not change the oppression he loves so much.

    Courts don’t “invent” rights, but it has been their function to RECOGNIZE rights for over 500 years. High school history.

    NO right now exists, which was not first recognized by a court or tribunal. Marriage was not even a religious sacrament until 1500 years after the death of Christ. And it takes quite a fool to believe that sex is only for procreation, which is obviously true for only the lower animals — who must be in heat! — which is how God created humans, able to experience joy from sex, even when procreation is impossible!

    On so many issues, Ron Paul is the intellectual godfather of the alt-right.

      1. Tulpa proves my point about Ron Paul’s cult.
        It’s Tula’s compulsion for authoritarianism, censorship, and punishing anyone who dares to differ from his perverted values.

        1. And Hihn proves my point that he should fuck off.

        2. “Tulpa proves my point about Ron Paul’s cult”

          Wha?

          I DONT GICE A FUCK ABOUT THAT DODDERING OLD NOBODY YOU SAD FUCK!!

          AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

          Hihn thinks I CARE ABOUT RON PAUL OR HIS BRILLO HEADED SON!!! AHAHAHAHAHHA HAHAHA

          HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU Hihn?

          ????????????????????????????????????????????????Ron Paul!!!! Who gives a fuckabout your old grudge with him you sad loser fuck ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

          1. Hihn thinks I CARE ABOUT RON PAUL OR HIS BRILLO HEADED SON!!! AHAHAHAHAHHA HAHAHA

            YOU ATTACKED HIM IN DEFENSE OF RON PAUL!

            HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA

        3. I’ve never voted for any Paul. But I’m joining the cult! Wohoo! I’m joining Tulpa in his quest of censorship!

          1. I’m joining Tulpa in his quest of censorship!

            Your type as always been proud to censor others.
            Your type includes Hitler, Stalin and the Christian Taliban.

  23. I’m old enough to remember when libertarians used to laugh at bogus Moral Panics.

    1. You could be 10 and that would be true.

      1. Shh, I didn’t want to attract Jeffy’s attention.

  24. So now that the Confederate Flag burning has eradicated all Confederate flags, the DToM flag is the new symbol of white supremacy? Now we launch the crusade against it?

    Seriously, this country’s elites hate white southerners and midwesterners. Bigoted much?

    1. What’s hysterical is how blatantly you reveal your own massive bigotry. Bigotry is, by definition, negative stereotypes about any entire group or groups — refusing to see everyone as an individual, and/or being incapable of doing so.

      1. Ahahahaahaah

        HIHN YOUR STUPID ASS THINKS I GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR PATHETIC GRUDGE WITH THAT NOBODY RON PAUL AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        OMFG RON PAUL AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAJ

        1. HIHN YOUR STUPID ASS THINKS I GIVE A FUCk …

          YOU STUPID ASS THINKS I GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU “THINK” .

          1. OF COURSE YOU DO YOU FUCKING YOU IGNORANT SLUT!!

            YOU WROTE A GOD DAMNED SCREED CRYING ABOUT IT!!

            Lololololl YOU’RE JUST SALTY BECAUSE YOUR DUMB OLD ASS FUCKED UP AND THOUGHT I GIVE A FUCK ABOUT RON PAUL HAHAHAHAHAJA

            CRY MORE BITCH!!!

          2. You do Hihn. You’re obsessed with him. I’ll bet you Jack it to his posts, and your own soiled diapers.

      2. “Bigotry is, by definition, negative stereotypes about any entire group or groups”

        AHAHAHAHAAH no it isnt you fucking ignoramus Ahahahahahahah you’re so fucking stupid Hihn RON PAUL HE SAYS AHAHAHAHAHA

        1. “Bigotry is, by definition, negative stereotypes about any entire group or groups”

          AHAHAHAHAAH no it isnt you fucking ignoramus

          https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
          Definition of bigot : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

          1. Ahahah YOU ADMIT YOU GOT IT WRONG

            YOUR DEFINTION WAS ““Bigotry is, by definition, negative stereotypes about any entire group or groups””

            Ahahahah you were wrong and YOUR OWN POST PROVES IT AHAHAHAHAHA I WIN AHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHA

            RON PAUL HIS IDIOT ASS SAYS AAHAHAHHAAHAHA

            1. WTF????

              1. You’re an arrogant verbal shit spewing idiot. That’s WTF.

                I’m not sure why you even post here. You are not an agent of influence. You have zero credibility. You demean people in most of your posts. You truly seem like you would be a horrible guy in person.

                1. You demean people in most of your posts. You truly seem like you would be a horrible guy in personAnyone else notice he made so big a fool of himself?

                  “You’re an asshole because … you call people names.”

                  The self-righteous winger

                2. I noticed you didn’t take issue with the not being an agent of influence and your zero credibility.

                  1. You ere called out as a LIAR … with PROOF of the HYSTERICAL HYPOCRISY in what you said .. which is visible (to anyone with integrity)

  25. “Everyone who disagrees with me is a White Supremacist!”

  26. His manifesto is full of denunciations of “race mixers,”

    A manifesto denouncing “race mixing” from…

    Jezebel.

    I know, I know: isn’t it progress to see Asian men get the girl for once, instead of stand-in as a prop, token or joke? Sure, it’s great that Hollywood is putting its money behind narratives with brown men at the helm, as in The Big Sick and Master of None. But both also center white women as the love interest—a concept which, in the complex hierarchy of power and race in America, pays lip-service to the one notion that has shaped the history of South Asian and American culture alike: Whiteness as the ultimate desire, the highest goal in defining oneself as an American.

    The above is exactly what I’m talking about. One form of racialism is enlightened, skeptical of Cultural Appropriation and protecting those to whom we punch down, the other waves a Don’t Tread on Me flag or something.

    1. In choosing an Asian man, these white women also symbolically reject all the white men who have oppressed Asian men for centuries. And by earning white love, the Asian man gains acceptance in a society that has thwarted them from the very beginning. When an Asian is loved as a white man, he is taken on a road to realization (as Frantz Fanon puts it in Black Skin White Masks, one “marries white culture, white beauty, white whiteness”). It is at once an act of love, and of revenge.

      This shit is a half step away from Stormfront. Say what you will about Stormfront, they’re honest about their intentions.

      1. Say what you will about Stormfront, they’re honest about their intentions.

        So were Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Donald Trump.

        So, you cited two wacko web sites, to “prove” …. what?
        After a distorted quote.

        …His manifesto is full of denunciations of “race mixers,” “Hispanic invasion,” and “cultural and ethnic replacement”—buzz phrases for racists and white supremacists who elevate an illusory collective racial and cultural heritage over respect for people as individuals

        Not even close to what you implied.

        1. So were Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Donald Trump.

          Constantinople, Moscow, New York, North Platte.

          1. Correcting Diane’s NEW dishonesty …

            Say what you will about Stormfront, they’re honest about their intentions.

            So were Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Donald Trump.

            Constantinople, Moscow, New York, North Platte.

            That was pathetic, even for you, based on your DISHONEST cite.

        2. AHAHAHAHAHA HE STUPIDLY THINKS I GIVE A FUCK ABOUT RON PAUL AHAHAHAHA AND HE’S SALTY ABOUT ME MAKING FUN OF HIM FOR IT AND BEING WRONG ABOUT BIGOTRY AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. I TOTALLY OWNED HIHN AHAHAHAHAHAH

          1. Umm, you attacked him, in defense of Ron Paul.
            Now you attack him for your own blunder … and repaste it all down the page, laughing at …. yourself?

            1. You mean attacks you. Your sock puppets are obvious. You have no ability to stay in character.

    2. Well, yes and no. Is this person denouncing race mixing in general, or is this person denouncing this particular type of interracial fornication in the context of a movie trope? Does it matter?

      I can see a case for advocating that movies not reuse tired racial tropes, while having no opinion for what members of any racial group decide to do in real life.

      Maybe this person really is opposed to interracial mixing and is just using movies as an excuse to vent, I don’t know.

      1. Well, yes and no. Is this person denouncing race mixing in general

        Not that I can tell.

        or is this person denouncing this particular type of interracial fornication in the context of a movie trope? Does it matter?

        Yes. Or I should say, it does to me.

        Maybe this person really is opposed to interracial mixing and is just using movies as an excuse to vent, I don’t know.

        Given the article- it appears to be someone who’s finely tuned to dog whistles and seems to be convinced that it’s part of a larger narrative about the historical oppression of Asians by white men. The author is clearly dismissive of white people or ‘white culture’. Again, it seems that if you treat these subjects with the proper modicum of intellectual navel-gazing and ‘punching up’ attitude, it’s ok.

        I don’t think it’s ok– ie, ‘not ok’ as the young kids say, and I think it merely serves to continue stirring and seasoning the racialist pot. Conclusion: when you continually season the racialist pot, it signals to the real ugly people that seasoning the pot is a legitimate tactic and we shouldn’t be surprised when the pot becomes too spicy.

        1. Well, re-reading that article is honestly a little painful, but she does seem to go a little bit far on racialist tropes.

          It would probably be an interesting challenge to try to write an argumentation paper on the topic of “why movies should get rid of the trope of the brown man falling in love with the white woman” that doesn’t piss off anyone. It probably isn’t possible anymore.

          1. The only way to make that article less offensive would be to write it more in the form of a long-form question. But alas, it came off as, “It is known”.

            Look, I get it. There are two statements, side by side, which essentially say the same thing, but carry a very different cultural weight.

            1. Whiteness and white people are toxic.
            2. I hate niggers.

            In the modern culture, one is acceptable, the other clearly is not.

            Funnily enough, the second one is seen as crude, one dimensional and often attributed to under-educated people who are dismissed out of hand– as they should be.

            The first one is given nods of quiet approval and acceptance– and is often attributed to the college educated and culturally aware. It’s also rigorously debated, whereas the second is not.

            why.

            1. Good observation

      2. Well, yes and no. Is this person denouncing race mixing in general, or is this person denouncing this particular type of interracial fornication…

        FULL STOP — the mask slipped you racist piece of shit.

        Individualist MY ASS!

  27. Mostly OT:

    Check this shit out.

    On the plus side, apparently even paranoid schizophrenics can work at NBC. It’s nice of them to give people like that jobs, but does it have to be on-air?

    Note: I’m not familiar with this guy’s youtube channel, I would have just posted a video of the idiotic “journalist” spouting batshit crazy bullshit without the added commentary, but couldn’t find it. Oh well, I think the additional commentary sums it up nicely though.

    1. Okayyy, so the Establishment media is now employing numerology in regards to Trump’s secret 4d chess messaging to the Neo Nazi secret volcanic lair in the south Pacific?

      1. Huh. I thought the secret volcano lair was in Iceland. Because Iceland was settled by Norsemen who were, of course, Aryans and therefore O.G. Nazis.

      2. Yeah I think the whole 8/8 thing is retarded. I seriously doubt Trump chose that date as some type of code.

        1. I guess 8/8 will now be a national holiday for everyone to take off work because we can’t do anything on that day for fear it will be interpreted as support for White Nationalists.

    2. Ok, this is so insane, I’m now wondering if it’s a deep fake.

      1. Perhaps, that might be why I haven’t been able to find an upload of the original video, but at this point nothing would surprise me. It wouldn’t surprise me if it’s real, or if it’s a deep fake.

        Apparently it came from a twitter thread, so maybe it’s an elaborate troll.

    3. Ok, so wait the fuck a minute– I got called out the other day for pointing to a news story where FBI agents were sleeping with CNN anchors and news people on the premise that it shouldn’t matter.

      Tell me this shit doesn’t matter.

      https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/msnbc-national-security-contributor-decodes-hitler-reference-in-trump-lowering-flags-for-shooting-victims/

      1. I guess that means it’s real then. This guy should see a shrink, he’s clearly suffering from schizophrenia with paranoid delusions.

        1. And he’s got a fucking blue checkmark.

      2. One YUGE thing for Trump is that these Lefty lunatics are exposing themselves in droves to signal their TDS.

        They might have hidden for years and done more damage. At least now we know who they are and can ignore them.

      3. The Beijing Olympics were started on 8-8-88, so double Hitlers.

          1. You know what else starts with an H?
            Holocaust.
            Damn! I didn’t realize the Chinese were such enthusiastic antisemites

      4. Ok, so wait the fuck a minute– I got called out the other day for pointing to a news story where FBI agents were sleeping with CNN anchors and news people on the premise that it shouldn’t matter.Shame on you.
        I called you out for using a right-wing wacko web site as a credible sources.

        THIS time, your source explicitly dismisses a denial/clarification of intent by the person cited.

        Why not look for facts and truth, instead of confirmation bias?

        1. Ahahahah I MADE HIHN CRY BECAUSE HE FUCKING RETARDEDLY THINKS I CARE ABOUT SOME DUSTY OLD NOBODY LIKE RON PAUL AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HE’S SO UPSET THAT HE MADE A FOOL OF HIMSELF HAHAAHAHAHA

    4. “I’m not going to imply that (Trump) did this deliberately”

      Sorry to destroy your hysteria with the facts.

      Proof again that : Left – Right = Zero
      Both manipulated by, and/or fomenting, lies and HYSTERIA.

      Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers.”
      -Eric Hoffer, “The True Believers” (1951)

      Throughout human history, the worst moral atrocities have been committed by those manipulated to BELIEVE they are defending some “greater good” — the Collective, the State, the Master Race, the Party or a God. Zealots and fanatics. The militant self-righteous.
      -Author unknown (1994)

      1. I’m not going to say that Hihn is a complete fucking retarded imbecile but…

        See how that works, imbecile?

    5. And he actually goes with “I am not implying it is Nazis…but it is Nazis”.

      1. Probably based on the Moon.

    6. CNN: Hosts Richard Spencer.

      NBC: Hosts former FBI Agent Frank Figliuzzi who uses Nazi phrase on live television.

      I think we all know who’s trying to spread the white nationalism…

      1. I’m not sure you know what year it is.

  28. “What’s hysterical is how blatantly you reveal your own massive bigotry.”

    Well aren’t you just a snotty bitch?

    1. It’s what passes for witty in those circles.

  29. “cultural and ethnic replacement”—buzz phrases for racists and white supremacists ‘

    “buzz words for bad people”

    Reason are good little leftists. They don’t make arguments. They just smear you as evil.

    The Dalai Lama uses buzzwords like “cultural genocide”. Is he a white supremacist too?

    1. Umm… Libertarians have been FISCALLY conservative … and SOCIALLY liberal … for over 50 years.

      This EXPLODES the “brains” of so many on the Authoritarian Right, who are INCAPABLE of grasping that ANYONE could be like that … when over 60% of Americans self-identify with the same values.

      1. Libertarians have been FISCALLY libertarian … and SOCIALLY libertarian … for over 50 years.

        Leftists infiltrating libertarianism have been FISCALLY conservative … and SOCIALLY liberal … for over 50 years. Just like Michael Hihn.

        1. How fucking stupid are you conservatives?

          We asked half the sample, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?” We asked the other half of the respondents, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian?”

          David Boaz, Cato InstituteUmm, Cato Institute is THE largest LIBERTARIAN think tank. (RFLMAO)

          Now google, and learn, the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, known to tens of millions Americans.

          Any other ways you can self-humiliate today?

          1. I love when you get all self righteous while proving your opponents right about you, Michael.

  30. What the left characterizes as “white nationalists” or “alt right” are simply people like you and me. They’ll label someone like Ben Shapiro as a white nationalist. When I argue against open borders online any number o leftists assume I’m white. “Are you scared of America becoming less white?”

    There are some crackpot right wing ideology that focuses on illuminati conspiracy, gold standard, opposition to the military industrial complex, border hawkism, etc. Their anti authoritarianism overlaps with libertarianism and someone like Ron Paul appeals to their style. For the most part, they’re harmless.

    Sadly some form of real white nationalism is starting to color the alt right. I see some comments at Breitbart bemoaning “white genocide” and expressing fear over declining white birth rate. But fringe sentiments are a bipartisan affair.

    Most people are nationalists. The Mexicans who wave Mexican flags in American soccer stadiums are nationalists. Ghandi was a staunch nationalist. Most people in the world typically privilege and identify with their own culture. If a white person became a Japanese citizen and spoke perfect Japanese, that society will consider him as a foreigner. America (among few others) is unique in that they make an effort integrate outsiders into their national identity.

    Americans who oppose open borders, rampant welfare state and race based admission policy aren’t dogmatic nationalists. The left’s primary agenda is empowerment of disparate people, not individual liberty. So any limitations on government that cuts down on things that apparently benefit is already “racist” for them.

    1. I think this is the thing that concerns me. The overton window has shifted so far to the left, that merely expressing concerns about second order economic effects in regards to migration policy (even if you’re wrong about those effects) gets you labeled a “white supremacist”. Douglas Murray discusses this phenomenon in detail where there’s something going on in the culture when you’re not even allowed to discuss a subject, no matter what your specific opinion on it is.

      There’s an argument to be made for having a cautious approach to immigration in service of protecting brown people from economic stagnation and depression. Those arguments might be wrong on their merits, but the idea that it makes you a White Supremacist to suggest it incredibly frustrating to say the least.

      1. Don Lemon gets paid to call you a racist.

        1. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair

          1. He was white so what does he know about Don’s pain?

        2. I’m sure Don Lemon was calling Whitey racist long before he was paid to do so.

    2. Those Mexicans doing that in American stadiums better be Mexican as in still live in Mexico.

      But if they’re AMERICAN and doing that?

      smh.

        1. I loathe that phrase ‘what’s the big deal?’

        2. ESPN is woke trash.

          1. +100

    3. Most people are nationalists.

      Most people are PATRIOTS. Patriotism is not the same as nationalism.

      Patriotism is the love of one’s country.

      Nationalism is the weaponization of that love in order to push a particular ideology.

      1. “Most people are PATRIOTS. Patriotism is not the same as nationalism”

        And here Jeff goes full hypocrite AGAIN, because others get cried at by him for playing semantical games, while he does the same, without the slightest bit of self awareness.

        1. And assumkng the definition. Why is Jeff always crying about pinning down defintions? Because he dands the sole right to arbitrate what words mean.

          In other words, he’s a dishonest piece of shit.

      2. Come on, Jeff. You’re not Daniel Webster. You can’t just declare definitions in order to win.

        1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism

          loyalty and devotion to a nation
          especially : a sense of national consciousness (see CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

        2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriotism

          love for or devotion to one’s country

          1. Oh hey look Jeff is demanding his definition is the one true definition again, and appealing to the dictionary AGAIN, after spending the day whing at me for trying to pin down defintionsall day yesterday.

            If you weren’t lying or being a hypocrite Jeff, you’d never post anything.

            1. How confused can one person be?

              Oh hey look Jeff is demanding his definition is the one true definition again, and appealing to the dictionary AGAIN

              (lol)

        3. So nationalism, is patriotism + ideology. That was my rough summary of it.

          1. No one fucking cares clown, you lie constantly.

          2. So nationalism, is patriotism + ideology. That was my rough summary of it.

            And, based on the definitions provided by you, you’re wrong.

            Nationalism– “loyalty and devotion to a nation”

            Patriotism– “love for or devotion to one’s country”

            Nothing about ideology except in the example of a TYPE of nationalism.

    4. What the left characterizes as “white nationalists” or “alt right” are simply people like you and me.

      It’s not just “the left” … and you’ve publicly confessed to being one or more of the far-right, white supremacist, white nationalist, white separatist, anti-immigration and sometimes antisemitic.

      Most people are nationalists

      As you show no idea of what THAT means either!
      As PROVEN next!

      Most people in the world typically privilege and identify with their own culture.

    5. A lot of opposition to open borders is support for the law. Except possibly in a few very extreme scenarios, has there every been any place or time in history where a decline in respect for the law led to a better, more peaceful, and more prosperous society?

  31. It’s right there in the title. Supremacy = authority and control. Libertarianism rejects this control. The fact that these jackasses like to masquerade as libertarians sucks. Nick’s article nails it. Just because libertarians don’t think white supremacists should be subject to adverse actions by the government based on their views doesn’t mean they approve of the ideas. White supremacists are tribalistic, authoritarian buffoons who go out and get in street fights with other people over political disagreements. Exercise your bodily autonomy and take a long walk off of the short libertarian pier.

    1. Who allowed another libertarian into this rat-infested jungle?

      1. Hihn is the rat.

        1. On a libertarian web site, you say only rats support liberty and .libertarians …. Because your ilk are all saints … and phonies. I got this in my inbox the other day ….,

          Behold the Self-Righteous Hypocrisy of loveconstitution1789 …. slurping at the gummint teat! … Why? …. HE’S ENTITLED

          Proof

          My retired father loves politics and we often discuss the nature of things.

          I cannot get him to openly discuss social security and medicare reform with cuts. He is just hoping to check out before our debt crushes the USA. Its selfish as shit.

          TROLL insults HIS OWN FATHER, “selfish as shit” … DEFENDS his own teat-sucking

          WHINES that a multi-trillion debt increase is “giving my own money back ” … FROM WHERE, GOOBER??? .

          What kind of fiscal conservative DENIES that federal debt steals from our future … from their own children? … WITHOUT THEIR VOTE!

          Brainwashed Republican goobers … as DANGEROUS as … brainwashed Bernie goobers

          HE’D CUT HIS FATHER’S BENEFITS .. AND STEAL FROM HIS OWN KIDS … TO INCREASE HIS OWN CASH, BECAUSE … HE’S “ENTITLED.” …. a self-righteous MOOCH

          Left – Right = Zero

          How very shameful

          1. Fuck off, Hihn!

  32. OT: I keep hearing good things about the Joe Rogan podcast and that he has libertarian leanings so I’ve started listening to a few episodes. In yesterday’s he interviewed Bernie Sanders, and I have to say I was super unimpressed both with Sanders and with Rogan’s questions. I wasn’t expecting him to savage Sanders but he basically accepted everything Sanders said at face value, including things that anyone with even slight libertarian leanings or knowledge of basic capitalism should have at least pressed on a little bit.

    Why is Rogan so popular?

    1. 1) I don’t know why he’s popular.
      2) He’s not libertarian. He’s just ‘meh’.

      But he gets all the guests so maybe that’s why he has, what, 6 million subs?

      1. He was great in News Radio

        1. Joe!

          Newsradio was WKRP of the 90s.

          It was simply outstanding.

    2. I also listened to a few Sam Harris episodes and so far I’m not terribly impressed with those either. I think it’s partly that evolutionary *ologists seem to always overplay their hand, and partly that in the half dozen episodes I listened to so far he pretty much always brings it back to how much he hates Twitter. It’s not that he’s wrong, it’s that there are more interesting things to talk about some times.

      Ricky Gervais actually seemed more interesting than Harris in their interview.

      1. The Jack Dorsey one was a debacle. And the second one marginally better.

        I don’t know why it’s so hard to challenge a punk like Dorsey?

        He oozes misplaced smug arrogance. If someone is lying to my face, I go for it.

    3. The running joke is that Joe agrees with whoever is sitting in front of him. It’s just his style. He doesn’t invite people into his show just to be a dick to them.

      1. Hence the hilarious Joe ‘I (whatever)’ Rogan jokes.

      2. You don’t have to be a dick about it and you don’t have to reserve challenging questions for people you disagree with. Russ Roberts is always respectful and yet regularly challenges his guests to defend their arguments and consider opposing views, even when Roberts agrees with the guest.

        Everyone just needs to be more like EconTalk

    4. He used to be better re: libertarian-like sensibilities, but he’s been on this “UBI seems like a good idea” kick lately because he hasn’t had anyone smart + eloquent enough explain to him he’s an idiot about it. Broadly though, libertarians often like him because he’s willing to keep an open mind, has a tolerant attitude, and has interesting guests.

    5. He lets people come on and express their opinion for his watchers to judge for themselves. And his guests are from a pretty wide range of opinions. Seems simple but it’s become so rare.

    6. Joe Rogan is not libertarian. Rogan is pro-guest and is good at connecting with any given guest’s world views. He also doesn’t shy away from fringe people. Because of this, he is very easy to Rorschach.

  33. As I understand it, the Founding Fathers were aware of the contradiction. However, their main objective was to forge a nation. They rationally concluded they could not solve the slavery question and trusted future Americans to deal with it and hoped they’d opt to end it. Which they did. With a lot of violence and blood.

    1. The anti-slavery members of the Framers of the Constitution did what they were capable of getting at the time to put slavery on a track to an end. Things such as putting a date on ending the importation of new slaves, but it was not something that could be done all at once under a democratic republican form of government or it would not have been a controversy at the time. Even so, in the end, it was imposed on the slave states by force of arms but that could not have been done that way in the 1790’s when Virginia was the largest state in the union.

      1. It is interesting many of Virginia’s leading Patriots were slave owners who despised slavery. Patrick Henry routinely blasted the English crown for endorsing slavery, and fought hard to allow slave owners to legally free the slaves (the crown had .add it illegal). Many felt slavery would die a natural death once importation was ended. If Eli Whitney hadn’t perfected the cotton gin it probably would have.

    2. The uneducated seem totally unaware that slavery was the norm for thousands of years, all of human history.

      But we ended it in fewer than 80 years, which is NOTHING to be ashamed of. (We we not the first. England was 33 years earlier. Mexico a few years before that, which is why Texas shamefully seceded)

      1. Oh by contrast and relative to world history? Absolutely American slavery was more ‘benign’. It’s inexcusable to act and pretend slavery began with America. Slavery not only was a natural human activity it remains so to this day.

        What more, America fought a vicious war shedding blood ending it.

        The idea modern day race shysters and grifters keep this legacy alive despite it having ended relatively quickly, is unhelpful if not despicable. I can see why the DNC is seen as a modern day plantation because their policies pretty much kept African-Americans on a metaphorical one: Slaves to the DNC.

        It’s pushed to the point of the preposterous idea of reparations.

        Two developments emanating from the left-wing ranks that I find distasteful. One, is reparations. How is this fair to people who had nothing to do with slavery? Will a poor white person be forced to cut a check to a millionaire African-American? Two, is free health and education to illegal aliens. How in the world is this fair to tax payers on any level? There was an incident in Idaho where Boise St. was giving preferential treatment to illegals before their own damn citizens!

        SMH

        1. +10

          1. +10

            Yoiu were suckered AGAIN!!
            Proof just below. Answer its questions directed to you.

        2. What more, America fought a vicious war shedding blood ending it

          Nobody else need a war to end slavery … and several countries did it well before we did, as he said. Educate yourself!

          There was an incident in Idaho where Boise St. was giving preferential treatment to illegals before their own damn citizens!

          I live in Idaho … and you’re full of shit THERE too. … like your harmful defense of Trump’s blatant racism.

          ANYONE WITH AN IQ GREATER THAN A TURD, KNOWS THAT IDAHO IS ONE OF THE MOST REPUBLICAN STATES IN AMERICA

          Pay attention. (and LC1789) . We fought a fucking revolution over “taxation without representation,” — which you also fucked up. Illegals pay the SAME taxes you pay .. but are denied most of the benefits YOU get … so your LIFE mooches on illegals … and on legal non-citizens vote in EVERY other major democracy.

          When I worked in Canada, as a legal resident, I voted in all local elections and direct taxes.

          How DARE your ilk REJECT our founding principle of “No taxation without representation …. DEMANDING TO BE SUBSIDIZED BY ILLEGAL MEXICAN WETBACKS, DRUG DEALERS AND RAPISTS? (Question also addressed to LC1789, an even greater mooch)

          And stop worshipping Infowars, Stormfront, 8CHAN and all the rest.

          1. So go back to Canada and stop shitposting here. You were banned. Show some respect for Reason’s property rights you commie piece of shit.

  34. White identity politics is bad. OK, agreed. That is fine, but it seems to be th he only type of identity politics th hat is gone after with this type of vehemence. Here is the thing. If you tell whites that white identity politics is evil, but all other racial and other group identity based politics are at least understandable, then eventually white people, especially the marginalized white people, will stop buying into the idea that white identity politics is a unique evil. This appears to be where we are right now. If anything, the Left is going all in encouraging non-white identity politics and receiving very little criticism for it except for people considered unfashionably right wing.

    I do not like where this is going.

    1. Same here. There’s a misguided attack on Western history and values that is completely inappropriate.

      It’s to the point where I merely correct people on the facts on the Crusades (I have a history degree) and I run the risk of being labelled ethno-centrist.

      It’s not racist to defend the history of the West where it’s being wrongly accused.

      1. It’s to the point where I merely correct people on the facts on the Crusades (I have a history degree)

        Then you know about the Rhineland Massacres — aka the First Holocaust — committed by the Crusaders (against the “Christ killers), slaughtering Jews in mostly Germany, but also France,

        That Israel obtained its land by committing the only mass genocide of an entire culture, the Canaanites … ruled it for fewer than 300 years, over 2000 years ago … losing it on their fault, after a civil war, when one Jewish nation refused to defend the other Jewish nation from invasion and destruction.

        That also Jews were expelled from the Holy Land (or killed) by the Crusaders, and allowed back only by … MUSLIMS … which is WHY Muslims resent their land having been stolen for Israel … and Israel trying to expel them from the same Jerusalem that Muslims allowed Jews back to.

        That’s what caused 9/11, and will continue fueling ISIS and Al Qaeda, who recruit by citing “the Judeo-Christian war on Islam.”
        None of which is known to 95% of Americans, who have no clue WHY the “terrorism” (actually self-defense) continues.

        The pattern is … scary. We stuck our nose into a war that was none of our business, between China and Japan. The Flying Tigers were shooting down Japanese war planes over China. And we suffered Pearl Harbor. (FDR had moved much of the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl, which caused Japan to assume a pending attack).

        Then we stuck our nose into a 2,000 year war, which was also one of our business, and suffered 9/11.

        That’s why libertarians are so rabidly anti-interventionist. We’re informed. .

    2. Tribalism is instinctual. There was likely a time where it served a purpose where “other” tribes posed a legitimate existential threat to your life and the lives of your tribe. To the extent this instinct remains beneficial, it is when a minority group is facing an abnormally strong crisis such as gay men and the aids epidemic or blacks fighting Jim Crow. Where survival of the whole is more important than the individual of one. The hard part is allowing yourself to let go because of the very serious downside of tribalism, nazi Germany, communism, crusades, jihad,

      I’m of the opinion that most racial tribalism is well past the point of being beneficial with white identity politics being the furthest and most obvious. By bigger concern than any of these individually is the tribalism of the political parties themselves. It’s scary how little room there is for public dissent within the Republican and Democratic parties.

      1. It’s scary how little room there is for public dissent within the Republican and Democratic parties.

        That’s why a growing majority of Americans reject both … leavin the worst extremes of both left and right.

        In 2020, we could see a near-socialist versus a near-fascist for President.

    3. This

  35. “I think it goes to a point where people become cynical about any claims made about anyone. And the likelihood is that if 99 times you’ve heard Sam Harris, Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan…whoever… called ‘hate speech’, then the 100th time that somebody uses the term hate speech, might be on somebody who is engaging in hate speech… and all your defenses are going to be down. You’re [very unlikely] to become skeptical.” –Douglas Murray.

  36. This might be the worst article I’ve ever read on Reason. The fact that they paired an image of Gadsden flag with it has guaranteed that I will never, under any circumstances, subscribe to the magazine again.

    The editorial staff should be ashamed, and whoever decided to use that image should sacked.

    1. Yeah I’m pretty embarrassed for Tucille, he’s usually not so dumb.

      1. The crazy thing is, if he just:
        1. Changed the asinine title
        2. Changed the image
        3. Removed the middle part in which he smears good libertarians because it’s just so hard to understand a libertarian can exist outside his social/cultural tribe

        He’d have a good, albeit short, piece.

        1. 1. Changed the asinine title

          So white supremacy *is not necessarily* alien to libertarian ideals?

          1. Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit A.

          2. Every fucking time.

            1. Title of the current article:

              “White Supremacy Is Alien to Liberal and Libertarian Ideals”

              BLPoG:

              “Changed the asinine title”

              If you’re not going to be specific about how you think the ‘asinine title’ ought to be changed, you leave space for others to fill in the blanks.

              Perhaps BLPoG would like to clarify about what he/she does not like about the current title.

              1. “you leave space for others to fill in the blanks.”

                Shorter Jeff “it’s everyone else’s fault I make bitchy mendacious assumptions!!!”

              2. If you’re not going to be specific about how you think the ‘asinine title’ ought to be changed, you leave space for others idiots to fill in the blanks.

                FTFY. Good point.

                Perhaps BLPoG would like to clarify about what he/she does not like about the current title.

                So for the target demographic, I’ll repeat the gist of the second comment, among many others.

                Phrasings that make sense:
                (1) White Supremacy Is Alien to Libertarian Ideals
                Simple enough, although kind of dumb all the same to use in Reason, since it’s somewhat less newsworthy than “Dog Bites Man.”
                (2) White Supremacy Is Alien to Classical Liberal Ideals
                idem
                (3) White Supremacy Is Alien to Liberal Ideals
                Fine for Reason, where the readership understands it to mean classical liberal, and since it would presumably be followed by an article confirming that reading.

                Phrasings that don’t make sense:
                (1) White Supremacy Is Alien to Liberal and Libertarian Ideals
                Redundant if liberal means classical liberal; false if not, and unnecessarily imputing racism on conservatives besides.
                (2) White Supremacy Is Alien to [Progressive] Liberal Ideals
                For historical reasons at a minimum, and for some subtler reasons in the modern American political landscape, that is false.

                1. Well thank you for clarifying your comment. We can’t all read your mind after all.

                  1. Well, actually, we didn’t have to read his mind.

                    We just had to read what had been posted.

                    Only you needed this explained.

                    Probably because you’re the ‘smart’ guy in the room.

          3. Well, Jeff, lets take a look. If white people want to immigrate to anywhere else and change the culture, it’s called colonialism. If any non-white people, like Japan, wants to keep their nation the same, i.e. Japanese, its great. Hell, it’s even great if white Frenchmen want to keep France french.
            But, OMG, Americans want to keep American culture American, then oh my god it’s the rebirth of Hitler.
            People don’t necessarily mind doing the hard, but right, thing. They do, however, get pretty pissed when they realize it’s all a con, and only white conservatives are expected to follow the rules. Hypocrisy makes people mad.

            1. This. Making people feel ashamed or calling them racists, to boot, makes them angry.

              The people who do this are faux-righteous fools.

          4. So white supremacy *is not necessarily* alien to libertarian ideals?

            No, why would it be? Libertarianism is about small government and individual liberty, not about beating incorrect world views out of people.

            What did you think libertarianism was about?

            1. Open borders and importing rapists.

              1. That’s Reason-style “libertarianism”, not actual libertarianism.

                1. +100

            2. To me, libertarianism is all about primacy of the individual. The liberty of the individual to fulfill his/her dreams as unfettered as possible from the state. If individuals wish to associate freely into unlibertarian arrangements, such as a socialist commune, libertarians shouldn’t prevent them from doing so, but libertarians shouldn’t kid themselves that the communism that they practice is exemplifying some type of libertarianism.

              1. Good thing Libertarians consider Libertarianism more than what you want it to be.

              2. How do libertarians practice communism?

                Note. Communism as it came to be understood in political terms. None of this ‘hippy esoteric’ bull shit definitions.

                1. I think that libertarian communism can only be the “hippy esoteric” bullshit type – literal abolition of the state and collective ownership of everything, and the libertarian component would be that this collective ownership would be only through explicit informed consent, not coercive nor involuntary.

                  I would not advocate for such a thing myself, because I kinda like private property myself, but I can see how it might be done.

                  1. So communists who voluntarily reject the concept of private property can be libertarian, but racists who believe everyone should mind their own business can’t be libertarian?

          5. You can simultaneously be a racist, supremacist, and a libertarian. As long as you don’t violate the natural rights of the people you perceive to be lesser than you, it’s all good; that is to say “keep it in your head.”
            Of course, whether one is actually a racist or supremacist is another matter entirely.

            1. You can simultaneously be a racist, supremacist, and a libertarian.

              No, you really can’t. Racism and racial supremacism denies the primacy of the individual. That to me is fundamental to libertarian ideals.

              Let’s not confuse tolerating unlibertarian groups wanting to form socialist communes, or white supremacist communities, in the context of a broader libertarian order, with a belief that those groups are exemplifying libertarian ideals themselves.

              1. Racism and racial supremacism denies the primacy of the individual.

                Libertarianism is about state power; it demands that people be treated as individuals by the state and that the state protect everybody’s negative rights equally.

                Do racists or racial supremacists have any problem with that? Why would they? They believe that differences in outcome between groups are adequately explained by racial differences. They may be right or they may be wrong in this, but it is certainly not a position that is incompatible in any way with libertarianism.

                The people who have a problem with treating people as individuals are progressives and anti-racists, who erroneously conclude that group differences in outcomes must be due to discrimination and require government intervention to correct.

                1. Libertarianism is about state power

                  Not entirely. Libertarianism is about respecting the inherent rights of every single individual, with the understanding that state power is the biggest threat to those rights.

                  In my mind anyway, if one does not believe that every individual has the same natural rights as every other individual, that person has no business calling themselves a libertarian.

                  This is not some left wing “woke” nonsense. This is Locke, Hume, Paine, DoI.

                  Racists, who want to *act* upon that racism, can’t be libertarians by this standard because racists by their nature deny that people of other races have the same natural rights as they themselves possess.

                  Libertarians should tolerate racists among their midst, but libertarians should not pretend that racism per se is compatible with libertarianism as an ideology.

                  1. Racists, who want to *act* upon that racism, can’t be libertarians by this standard because racists by their nature deny that people of other races have the same natural rights as they themselves possess.

                    There are identifiable groups of people I dislike; as much as legally and practically possible, I choose not to hire them, not to conduct business with them, not to befriend them, and generally let them know that they are not welcome. So, I discriminate in my private life against entire groups of people. In your terminology, am I denying them “the same natural rights as I possess”? According to you, is that incompatible with libertarianism? What specific rights am I denying them? How am I violating the NAP?

                    For me, these identifiable groups include (for different reasons) pedophiles, sex addicts, drug addicts, fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist Christians, progressives, neo-Nazis, post-modernists, socialists/communists, neo-Marxists, and morbidly obese people. Does my choice of groups make a difference to whether you believe I violated anybody’s “natural rights”?

                    If not, why is it any different from a libertarian point of view whether I discriminate private against a fat person or someone else discriminates against green-hued Elbonians?

                    1. Sounds interesting JW.

                      How do you exclude from both employment and customers “pedophiles, sex addicts, drug addicts, fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist Christians, progressives, neo-Nazis, post-modernists, socialists/communists, neo-Marxists, and morbidly obese people.”

                      So it is disingenuous.

                      The point is that it is begging the question with Jeff. He said “tolerate racism in our midst” I think that is meant as a civil libertarian point. We do, odious as it may be.

                      Toleration is not the same as acceptance. The argument you put out seems similar and is not the same.

                    2. Racism is not merely about a choice of with whom to associate. Racism includes a deeper belief about the inferiority of other people based on race.

                      “I don’t want to hang out with black people because they talk funny” is one thing – stereotypical perhaps, but not necessarily racist.

                      “I don’t want to hang out with black people because they’re a bunch of monkeys” – that’s getting closer to racist.

                      In my mind, you can’t be a libertarian unless you believe in the universality of natural rights.

                    3. How do you exclude from both employment and customers So it is disingenuous.

                      I didn’t say “exclude from both employment and customers”. I said “as much as legally possible … not hire / not conduct business”. How do I do that? I talk to them, I look at any public activism, and if I don’t like what I see I go somewhere else.

                      The point is that it is begging the question with Jeff. He said “tolerate racism in our midst” I think that is meant as a civil libertarian point.

                      Chemjeff says a lot of things and keeps shifting goalposts. But what I was responding to was his claim that the belief system of “racism” was incompatible with the belief system of “libertarianism”, and that is fundamentally wrong.

                      Toleration is not the same as acceptance.

                      There is no “our midst”; adopting libertarian beliefs does not make you part of a group capable of having a midst. Personally, I choose not to associate with people who are both libertarian and racist, just like I choose not to associate with people who are both libertarian and drug addicts. Other libertarians may well make other choices.

                    4. Racism is not merely about a choice of with whom to associate. Racism includes a deeper belief about the inferiority of other people based on race.

                      And how is holding a belief about the relative merits of groups of people incompatible with libertarianism?

                      “I don’t want to hang out with black people because they’re a bunch of monkeys” – that’s getting closer to racist. In my mind, you can’t be a libertarian unless you believe in the universality of natural rights.

                      So you think that there is a “universal natural right” for people to have me hang out with them?

                      Freedom of association, like freedom of speech, is only meaningful if people are free to exercise it for reasons that others disapprove of or consider immoral.

                      You are an anti-liberal collectivist, Chemjeff.

                    5. Racism includes a deeper belief about thE inferiority of other people based on race.

                      FINE WITH LIBERTARIANS … UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY THREATEN THEM IN SOME WAY. See the Non-Aggression Principle.

              2. You can simultaneously be a racist, supremacist, and a libertarian. As long as you don’t violate the natural rights of the people you perceive to be lesser than you,

                No, you really can’t. Racism and racial supremacism denies the primacy of the individual. That to me is fundamental to libertarian ideal.

                You fucked up HUGELY. Starting with your LIE about what he said.

                Libertarians defend ABSOLUTELY anything .. if it’s “in your head” (AS HE ALSO SAID) and you don’t seek to impose that belief on others.

                Example: Reagan was a very devout and public Christian … wore his religion on his sleeve … but ATTACKED as “all talk” by the Christo-fascists (Robertson, Falwell et all)

                Indeed, just before launching his winning 1980 campaign, he (and Goldwater) were already among the GREATEST defenders of homosexuals. Reagan’s LOUD opposition to a CA ban on gay school teachers was the first loss for the nationwide, anti-gay Anita Bryant Crusade … which then collapsed, brought down by Reagan … which PROVES how totally shameful Trumpfuck is.
                .
                YES EVEN A SOCIALIST. Today’s dumbass right never heard of the hundreds of VOLUNTARY communes … like the Oneida community here, and the Israeli kibbutzim. There are hundreds of small-businesses today, operating (and living) communally

                1. Hihnfaggot, you ever consider dousing yourself with gasoline and setting yourself on fire? You should.

    2. I just commented that it looks like Reason is all in on promoting the “Gadsden Flag == White Supremacy” BS. Reason is just shameful, anymore. I only come here to see what the latest insanity these so-called libertarians are pushing.

      1. I come for my daily Two Minutes Hate against Progressitarians.

      2. +100

      3. BULLSHIT, (including LC1789)

        EDUCATED Americans, of all political stripes, know how the alt-right has appropriated many such patriotic symbols.

        Why does your pathetic victimhood ASSume the flag was not an appeal to OPPOSE the racists … as all good patriots would, correct?

        1. Poor hihn.

    3. Dude. Haven’t you heard? They want to appeal to a broader audience. And that means to half-assed wishy washy faux-libertarian types. That means ‘compromising’ to get more readers.

      Nick basically said so himself on ‘Unregistered’.

      This is a mag for semi-statists or quasi-libertarians now.

      Still better that most crap out there but they clearly have taken to leaning left. They also have French and NRO as their ‘go to’ mainstream conservatives.

      And that’s that.

      Reason opened my eyes and for that I remain forever grateful. But they’re getting soft and that they have Dalmia on the roster just perplexes me.

      1. “This is a mag for semi-statists or quasi-libertarians now.”

        Which is why Jeff feels so comfortable.

      2. It’s actually marking me feel sad. And I’m not much for feelings. Reason was one of the top media I consumed when I was about 20 (whatever happened to Neal Bortz?) and discovered I was a libertarian. I even emailed The Fonze when I was about 30 on some issue that I don’t remember for info for a debate I was having with an open-minded lib I knew at the time and he responded. She didn’t have a good response the next day. I was a subscriber of the magazine for over a decade.

        Then one day, Shikha’s bio was part of the intro of the mag, and while I really don’t remember what about her writings initially made me scratch my head, I remember it. It was a year or two after that I didn’t renew my subscription. If the current Reason was the Reason I first started reading 20 years ago I’m not sure I’d be a libertarian.

        1. What, specifically, do you think Reason should be doing differently?

          1. Try to understand other people’s comments instead of arguing for points and you’d know.

            1. Well, here I am trying to understand your opinion on the matter.

              What do you think Reason should do differently?

              1. Ban pedophiles like you permanently.

          2. They tolerate and ignore leftist racism because they’re afraid of their peers.

            1. I’d say they go so far as to promote leftist racism through support of leftist racist paradigms

          3. They ignore the reality that their semi-statism (thanks Rufus) is not compatible with open borders

            1. +1000

          4. They flip flop on wanting western values

            1. +100

          5. They write entire articles about how they can read the presidents mind as racist but ignore the actual calls to violence by dozens of leftists

            1. +100

          6. They cover for companies that are blatantly attempting to swing elections, even as the employees of said companies are caught saying so on camera

            1. First, you are referring to the Project Veritas video? That video was a bit shady, to say the least.

              Second, as I understand it, Reason is standing up for the PRINCIPLE of private property rights DESPITE Google’s alleged bad behavior.

              It would be even worse, IMO, if the editors at Reason were to say “well we normally support private property rights, but because Google is really big, this time we’ll make an exception”. It just screams unprincipled.

              1. First, you are referring to the Project Veritas video? That video was a bit shady, to say the least.

                a BIT shady! Only the Christian Taliban swallowed the BLATANT bullshit.
                In three key places, the words along the side were NOT the words we could also hear.

                Some people BEG to be enslaved and manipulated.

              2. I have yet to see any articles about manipulating algorithms that is a blatant violations of their terms of service. If this shit were happening to Gary Johnson they’d be all over it.

                1. And when the only thing you can do after the fact is sue, and the election meddling has already happened, what’s anyone at Reason going to say? Oops? That’s how the cookie crumbles, sorry a company thwarted democracy for their own gain…

                  People with a backbone stand up and defend liberty before evil strikes.

            2. Nonetheless, thank you for your comments. You’ve been kinder to me here than many, and I appreciate your thoughtful responses.

              1. Chemjeff

                Been around the internets. Not my first rodeo.

                I often do not follow my own advice and always regret it.

                Disagree and stand up for your opinions and give others space to do the same.

                If people do not treat you with decent respect there is no reason to reply. To respond is just to feed the attention seeking troll.

                So for what it is worth. Always seek the higher ground.

                Random music link. I post these doubt anyone links to them. Many people have heard it anyway but Prince just smokes on this. Swear I can see sparks on the fretboard.

                https://tinyurl.com/Princegettinginsane

            3. +100 Ryan (formally HFTO)

      3. That’s not solely my problem. The problem is that he is fine with semi- statism for convenience, then equates the right and the left as equal opposition to the semi-statism in place. If you think that the left, who pushes for multi-trillion dollar spending on free shit for everyone, and open borders, is looking out for Americans, you’ve got a screw loose. They openly shame anyone who believes in western values that allow a semi-state.

        Semi-statism is not what the left wants, and the mental gymnastics to get there are absurd. If you want anarchy, say so. The left will get you there through the collapse of currency. But if you want semi-statism you can’t have Americans funding the welfare of the globe.

        1. Semi-statism is not what the left wants,

          Nor the right.

          and the mental gymnastics to get there are absurd.

          Also the right.

          Not much has changed, since libertarians began pointing out, over 50 years ago:
          Liberals want government out of your bedroom and into your wallet. Conservatives want government out of your wallet and into your bedroom.

          Hence, fiscally conservative AND socially liberal .. which opposes government in BOTH personal and fiscal issues … values now shared by over 60% of Americans (who are currently voiceless) .

          Okay. conservatives now fail at BOTH, under Trump, but it began under Bush2 who assumed trillions of debt to buy middle-class votes, but then lost the White House and both Houses of Congress. Might they repeat that in 2020, with Trump’s GOP already adding more new debt than Obama’s full 8 years? (per CBO’s 2024 debt forecast)

          1. “Conservatives want government out of your wallet and into your bedroom.”

            This is a lie and has been for as long as I’ve been alive. No one gives a shit about gay people, it’s over. You can not like something and call it a sin without throwing the government at it. Get the fuck over it like 99 percent of conservatives already have.

          2. Trump’s foreign policy is more anti- war than any president in any of our lifetimes. And conservatives love it. So you can shove that too

      4. I agree with Rufus for once!

        Reason has not been libertarian for many years. They are now shameless cheerleaders for the authoritarian right, in most cases, but not here.

    4. Then you’ve been totally clueless about libertarianism and our values for over 50 years now. So you will not be missed.

      It’s the phonies and bigots who discredit the Gadsden flag, by appropriating it — to falsely legitimize their ANTI-American treading on everyone else.

  37. But, how can we say, in one broad stroke, that racism is always wrong, or that racists are always bad?

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

    1. It’s called having moral values. Try it.

      (And your two are identical)

  38. An unusually good article, thanks.

    1. -1000

      1. It’s Hank. What do you expect?

  39. Gadsden Flag for this article? Fuck you Reason. Seriously, go fuck yourselves. I’m just as likely to donate to the socialist party as I am to you.

    1. Are you not aware that the alt-right has STOLEN the Gadsden flag, to “justify” their own treading on everyone else?

      Ironic? Or an example of extreme moral hypocrisy?.

      1. Poor hihn.

        The lies flow from him like him wetting his pants.

        1. Behold the Self-Righteous Hypocrisy of loveconstitution1789 …. slurping at the gummint teat! … Why? …. HE’S ENTITLED!!!

          <a href="https://reason.com/2018/02/18/a-cure-for-mass-shootings-doesnt-exist/#comment-7141520

          hateconstituion1789
          My retired father loves politics and we often discuss the nature of things.

          I cannot get him to openly discuss social security and medicare reform with cuts. He is just hoping to check out before our debt crushes the USA. Its selfish as shit.

          TROLL says more crushing debt is okay .. if it lines HIS pocket!
          Insults HIS OWN FATHER, “selfish as shit” … DEFENDS his own teat-sucking (OMG)

          WHINES that a multi-trillion debt increase is “giving my own money back ” … FROM WHERE, GOOBER???

          BY STEALING FROM HIS OWN CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN .

          What kind of fiscal conservative DENIES that federal debt steals from our future … from their own children? … WITHOUT THEIR VOTE!

          Brainwashed Republican goobers … as DANGEROUS as … brainwashed Bernie goobers

          HE’D CUT HIS FATHER’S BENEFITS .. AND STEAL FROM HIS OWN KIDS … TO INCREASE HIS CASH, BECAUSE … HE’S “ENTITLED.” …. a self-righteous MOOCH

          The left borrows trillions for free stuff
          The right borrows trillions for free tax cuts
          Two sides of the same statist coin.

          Left – Right = Zero

    2. Did you notice the lack of apostrophe in ‘dont?’ Since it’s a snake talking, I guess we can overlook that. And what kind of snake can coil itself up in the air like that anyway?

      1. “And what kind of snake can coil itself up in the air like that anyway?”

        Some of ‘em but it takes years of practice.

      2. That’s why I’ve taken to displaying the “No Step on Snek” flag. It seems more on-level with snake grammar.

  40. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.

    CLICK HERE►► Read More

  41. I am making 10,000 Dollar at home own laptop .Just do work online 4 to 6 hour proparly . so i make my family happy and u can do

    …….. Read More

  42. White supremacists, racists, and collectivists of all sorts are alien to libertarian thought and enemies of our values and aspirations. And we need to take them on whenever we encounter them.

    Ok, Hot Dog, when are you actually going to have the balls to “take them on” face to face instead of sniping at them from a distance? When am I going to see one of you bozos on a debate stage with someone like Richard Spencer? I notice he’s not running away from you, you’re running away from him. Get back to us when you’re finally willing to put your money where your mouth is.

    1. How large is your Klavern?

    2. In what state is your Klavern?

      1. Poor hihn. He will never admit that Democrats started the KKK and fought for slavery.

        1. Hihnfaggot is pretty old. Maybe he founded the KKK.

  43. Using the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”) as a symbol for an article attacking “White Supremacy” is a dumb start. (Probably not a choice by the author, but there it is at the head of the article.) As far as I am concerned, the Gadsden Flag as as libertarian as all get out. It is a popular license tag option for lotsa people who are not white supremacists.

    Beats the heck out of the theme song played over loudspeakers by the FBI HRT at Waco: “These Boots Are Gonna Walk All Over You”.

    1. Don’t you remember? Some second assist deputy fire chief from CT [I think] , who is African American, determined it was a racist symbol a couple of years ago. That “settled” the matter.

    2. The nazis and klansmen marched with the Gadsden Flag in Charlottesville, They THINK they’re patriots.

  44. So I guess black supremacy is? If that is not the implication of this article, why does it single out white supremacy instead of racial supremacy in general?

    As usual with the wokeltarians at reason, it is different when brown people do it. Good luck with that

    1. read the article, he doesn’t give any racists a free pass. it’s pretty good.

      1. John is the biggest troll here … and what he defends proves what he is.

  45. White Supremacy Is Alien to Liberal and Libertarian Ideals

    It is indeed.

    White Supremacy is collectivist and is, and always has been an ideology of the left.

    It has nothing to do with classical liberalism and libertarianism, ideologies that promote individualism–ideologies of the right.

    1. +100

    2. As a libertarian, I can choose to be part of any collective or group I want to and make a commitment to remaining a lifelong member. Libertarianism is about the NAP and limiting state power, not whether someone prefers an individualistic or collectivist lifestyle.

      You’re right that many libertarians promote individualism, which is one of the problems with libertarianism as a movement.

      1. If you think

        You’re right that many libertarians promote individualism, which is one of the problems with libertarianism as a movement.

        …you’re not a libertarian.

        1. You made an ass of yourself. Again.

          One need not promote individualism to defend liberty.
          It’s assholes like you who deny people the right to form VOLUNTARY communes. Which even Ayn Rand defended.

          Liberty defends ANY and ALL voluntary choices that threaten nobody else. Your thuggish rejection of that is authoritarian … the exact opposite. Full stop.

          1. Oh, Michael, your idiocy knows no bounds.

            Nowhere did I say that one must promote individualism to defend liberty.

            One might even make the individual choice to join a commune.

            But if one, such as yourself and JW, views individualism as a problem, then one is not a libertarian.

            Why, you ask?

            Let me quote Libertarian visionary, Michael Hihn.

            Liberty defends ANY and ALL voluntary choices that threaten nobody else.

            And by seeing the voluntary choice of supporting individualism as a problem, one puts oneself outside the bounds of libertarianism. According to Michael Hihn.

  46. Late to the party here, but I am genuinely curious so will pose my question.

    White nationalists, supremacists, whatever. What are they, who are they, where are they, and how many are there? It seems a rather vague and overly broad slur that is casts at anyone with a degree of wrong think. Like “fascist.” We must all recognize and fight “the rise of white supremacy” nowadays….

    If you were to rely on headlines and sound bytes [sadly, far far too many do] you would think the Nazi Party itself was alive and well in the USA.

    1. The Socialists always use vague terms that stir support from the Useful Idiot masses.

      The National Socialists used these kinds of term to demonize Jews and other “undesirables”.

      The Commies tried to use the term “Capitalists” with some adjective to demonize America.

      1. Any White people that think their race is superior to other races are few and live where their racist views dont keep them from surviving.

        I still have not gotten an answer from Lefties about what race Americans are. You cannot be a racist if you dont even know which race is inferior and which race is superior.

        1. American is a nationality. NOT A RACE.

          I still have not gotten an answer from Lefties about what race Americans are.

          THEY’RE PROBABLY LAUGHING AT YOUR AUTHORITARIAN-RIGHT WACKINESS. AMERICANS CAN BE ANY OR ALL RACES, AND I KNOW WHY YOU REJECT THAT PRINCIPLE.

  47. White Supremacy is the Bigfoot of American politics: a lot of people are convinced it exists, and there are a lot of sightings, but there is not much real evidence it exists other than what is produced by persons or groups who have a financial interest in making it exist.

    Oh, and great job smearing the Gadsden flag, Tuccille. Who knew that a symbol of freedom and resistance to oppression was really a nazi symbol?

    Next on Reason: “The White Supremacist origins of the Bill of Rights”.

    1. That last one will be easy, they can just copypasta from Vox, or Buzzfeed, or Splinter, or Jezebel, or CNN, or MSNBC…they all
      have probably done at least ONE piece on it. They all already claim that the 2A was SPECIFICALLY written so that ONLY white people can shoot ONLY black people, because that’s what it says in the ammendment and that’s why Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine passed the BoR…

  48. “But part of being a libertarian is calling out the enemies of freedom and denouncing their ideas and their actions.”

    I’m sure most libertarians believe that — in the same sense that most Frenchmen believed they were part of La Resistance in WW II — but in reality most libertarians are rather squishy when it comes to confronting enemies of freedom who aren’t members of the local constabulary.

    During the Cold War libertarians had a blind spot when it came to confronting the Soviet Union. Oh sure, they were aghast at the stories of the Gulags and certainly disapproved of all that socialism stuff, but when push came to shove they were more outraged by US military spending than Soviet expansionism.

    You see the same dynamic in Reason today: “yeah, ISIS is bad and genocide is not okay, but Dear God did you read Trump’s latest tweet about illegals?!?!?”

    1. Someone on a different site this morning offered the quote from Goebbels: “If the Jews [insert your target group] didn’t exist, we’d have to invent them.”

      Racism is far to valuable a cudgel to give it up so easily. Very handy to use against your enemies, or just anyone who does not agree with your platform. Remember the chatter about living in a “post racial society” when Obama was elected in 2008? That could not be allowed to happen. Instead the sociologists term “white privilege” came into common use; now it seems we have a bigger “racial” problem than ever before, and as a number of politicians [Pelosi comes to mind] have actually said, “You’d better vote Democrat if you don’t want the end of civilization!” or “I cannot imagine why any Black American would not vote straight Democrat ticket [MIchelle Obama].”

    2. Sorry, preceding reply should have gone one post above.

      What I would reply to you is, “Better red than dead, right, comrade?”
      I thought that was the most feckless remark of the entire 20th Century.

  49. Interesting that so many people saw the Gadsden flag as representing the white supremacists (and I admit it could be), but when I first saw it I thought more of it representing the libertarians.

    1. The interpretation is borne of the title of the article. American “liberals” hate individualism and the Gadsden flag, and as has been pointed out, saying classical liberal and libertarian would be redundant, so the natural inference is that Tuccille meant progressive liberalism and that the flag should be associated with the white supremacist outgroup. Had the title and article content been different, especially if he focused on methodological individualism, the flag might have been appropriate.

      1. The violent rioters in Charlottesville marched under the Gadsden flag. They claim to be patriots, defending America from niggers and kikes. Where do YOU stand, BLPoG?

        1. They also wore shoes, I hear.

          It’s interesting how you and similar clowns showed up late in the game to try to shift the composition of the comments here toward ugliness. I hope you’re getting paid for it and not doing this on your own time. It’s a pretty sorry way to live.

    2. yeah, me too. don’t tread on us with your racist BS.

  50. I struggle to think of a single population of brown people who invited white people to come mingle with them in the first place, so I really don’t know what white racists are bitching about.

    1. Shorter Tony, Segregation Now Segregation Forever!!

      I guess you are getting in touch with your Dem roots.

      1. I wish I could say I expect better from you than this endlessly parroted historical revisionist semantic horseshit, but you really are a lame parrot of lame bullshit. It’s the primary occupational hazard of being a right-wing idiot. You aren’t allowed to form your own thoughts.

        1. Shorter Tony: “All the racists joined the Republican party after the civil rights movement.”

          Funny, Reason’s model NPC jokes about someone else not forming their own thoughts.

          1. And the subject is successfully changed to what some long-dead Democrats did a century ago. Congratulations.

            1. Ummm…what? The subject *you* raised was historical revisionism, in response to which I simply pointed out your ongoing, absurd hypocrisy.

              1. I’m not the one butchering history for cheap partisan points scoring in my own mind, like John.

                1. But you do. Every time you repeat that bullshit mantra of yours.

                  1. The mantra that the Southern Strategy existed and that fomenting bigotry against blacks and Mexicans (and Muslims and gays) has been the primary political strategy of Republicans for literally my entire life?

                    1. The so-called “southern strategy” was some freeze-dried bullshit cooked up by a single political hack working for Richard Nixon, himself likely the least Republican Republican president ever (at least until GW Bush took the crown). Try again.

                      Or do you consider supporting states rights to be “formenting bigotry”.

                    2. Or do you consider supporting states rights to be “formenting bigotry”.

                      YES, YOU DUMBFUCK BIGOT

                      1) States don;t have rights, only people do.

                      2) When Orval Faubus activated his state militia … armed force to stop nine black kids from registering at Little Rock’s Central High — then caved when Eisenhower sent federal troops, authorized to use force of needed, to defend the rights of nine kids … was a MAJOR victory in civil rights. Faubus said he was defending … YOUR states rights bullshit.

                      2) States rights was invented by the KKK (and adopted by Ron Paul) as an excuse to DEFY the constitutional duty of SCOTUS to defend Constitutional rights … originally for niggers, later for faggots. (/sarc) Fucking Ron Paul BRAGS of sponsoring a bill that would have BANNED SCOTUS from even considering any challenges to DOMA — faggots would have been the first group denied Constitutional protection since .. niggers. (/sarc)

                      3) The psychos — and their willing pawns — LIE that they are defending Constitutional federalism …. by REJECTING separation of powers, three co-equal branches, and the needed Checks and Balances,

                      So … are you a psycho, or a willing pawn?
                      Will you retract your obscene question?

    2. I struggle to thin of a single population of brown people who invited white people to come mingle with them

      “Brown people” are Frenchmen after a summer vacation in Spain; I assume they have no problem mingling with their French neighbors when they return.

      If you want to peddle your racist crap, Tony, at least have the decency to say what you mean. What category of people is “brown people” in Tony’s racial categorization?

      1. Native Americans, Africans, Indians, other Asians… none of whom that I’m aware of welcomed Europeans into their geographical or genital regions.

        1. Native Americans, Africans, Indians, other Asians… none of whom that I’m aware of welcomed Europeans into their geographical or genital regions.

          So just clarifying: AOC (Hispanic) and Rashida Tlaib (Arab) are not “brown people”?

          And why do you lump together all “white people”? What to Russians, Germans, the Irish, the Swedes, and the Spanish have in common other than their skin color? Did the Irish agree to being enslaved by the British? Did the Germans invite the Swedes to decimate them? Did the Italians invite the Arabs to enslave them? Did the Balkans invite the Ottomans to suppress and rape them?

          Only neo-Nazis and White Supremacists view the world as divided into “white” and “non-white”. I think, Tony, your true beliefs are shining through.

          1. Tony, like his Lefty friends never explain what race Americans are.

    3. Funny story!

      So you probably know about the Donner Party, right? Pioneers go out west, end up running out of food, eating each other, and so-on, right?

      Well, new evidence is being circulated that alleges local Indians actually tried to help the pioneers, but after their gifts of food were refused, and the Indians noticed the pioneers resorting to cannabalism, they kept their distance.

      So, uh, there’s one.

      And I guess the whole story of Thanksgiving is another. Oh hey, how about the Central American Indians who welcomed Cortez and joined the Conquistadors fight the Aztecs?

      And I can’t think of his name, but there’s one particularly famous conquistador who “went native”, leaving the Spaniards and joining one of the native tribes, marrying-in, fathering children, and such.

      For that matter, remember Roanoke Colony? There are quite a few theories that they didn’t all die out, they just integrated with the Indians.

      And that’s all just American history!

      1. Well those are just stories of hospitality.

      2. That word ‘evidence’ does not mean what you think it means.

        There were no ‘local’ Indians in those mountains at that time of the year. The terrain was simply inhospitable. The settlers did eventually murder and eat the two Indian guides they had brought along. One settler tried to warn them, and they fled, but even they could not get far enough away and were subsequently killed.

  51. Being an old-fashioned classical liberal, I greatly prefer cultures–and people–who value liberty, reason and individualism (which I’m told are “white patriarchy” values) over collectivism, magical thinking and collectivism. Even so, and even if my preference translated to fear and loathing over people from Third World countries, I’d still be less of a menace to society than statists. Statism kills. (Look up “Democide” and the body-count statistics.)

  52. I don’t think I exaggerate when I point out that 90% of the posts on Reason over the past several years have been by racist nationalists. I applaud the article, but Reason needs to do some self-reflection, figure out how it became a site frequented by anti-libertarians, and decide what to do about it.

    1. Reason fucked up by having the only un-moderated political site.
      Plus, whoever does police the comments is a rabid supporter of the alt-right. They say it has to do withy free speech … as they shit all over the Non-Aggression Principle. The ONLY people censored by Reason are those who defend libertarian values against the mob.

      So, it’s like any other market. As the cyber-terrorists are thrown off other sites, they accumulate here. Just as all the legal whore houses are in Nevada!.

      And they really, really, really believe that Ron/Rand Paul are libertarians! Reason is now a major THREAT to liberty, since over 60% of Americans would self-describe as fiscally conservative and socially liberal … but 91% of THEM reject the libertarian label! (A Cato survey, conducted by a TOP pollster in both politics and marketing)

      In marketing terms. the libertarian brand is called “toxic” — a literal threat to its products or services (here being liberty).

      In moral and political terms, the libertarian ideology has NO remaining ties to libertarian values.. None at all. It has become just another corrupt political elite … also with NO credible policy solutions to ANY major issue…. anti-government has replaced pro-liberty They are NOT the same, and are now often polar opposites.

      1. Reason is now a major THREAT to liberty

        Snort!

      2. Reason is now a major THREAT to liberty […]

        Reason isn’t a threat, major or otherwise, to anything. It’s just as impotent and powerless as libertarianism as a whole is.

      3. The ONLY people censored by Reason are those who defend libertarian values against the mob.

        Persecution complex much, Hihn?

        1. Hihn is the guy at the bar ho harasses you for two hours straight, then cries foul when you have had enough and stand up to put a stop to his egregious bullshit.

      4. And they really, really, really believe that Ron/Rand Paul are libertarians!

        Show us on the doll where the bad crypto-libertarian man touched you.

        Better yet, post a *single* comment from these forums labeling Ron Paul a libertarian. (As far as I can tell, the only Ron Paul posts are yours.)

    2. I don’t think I exaggerate when I point out that 90% of the posts on Reason over the past several years have been by racist nationalists.

      Wow, that’s amazing. I guess I’m just stupid, because I’m not seeing that. Can you please help me by re-posting, say, 10 comments that have racist content? Pick any article, I don’t care, go through the entire site if you want. Should be a piece of cake finding 10.

      (No fair, though, posting only Tony or that lunatic anti-Semite from a couple of years back. With 90% racism on this site you should be able to get some variety.)

    3. I don’t think I exaggerate when I point out that 90% of the posts on Reason over the past several years have been by racist nationalists. I applaud the article, but Reason needs to do some self-reflection, figure out how it became a site frequented by anti-libertarians, and decide what to do about it.

      And you are…who? Some drive by who saw this linked? A sock? Yet another attempt by Hihn?

      1. Yet another attempt by Hihn?

        Needz moar bold-face assrape threats, incoherent fake libertarian railing, and paranoiac Ron Paul fixation.

  53. Those ideals only exist because of White Supremacy. They only developed in White nations and other than a few token nonwhites are only supported by White people.

  54. Captain Obvious article.

  55. This thing is super-bad. I guess it’s what passes for glibertarianism today.
    The writer is trying to intimidate readers out of using their minds.
    First off, he speaks of “white supremacism.” What does that even mean?
    It has two possible meanings. Anyone: 1. “winning an argument with a liberal,” or 2. Who opposes white genocide.
    He quotes three phrases from a manifesto he refuses to excerpt or link to, and which he vilifies as “white supremacist”: “Race mixers,” “Hispanic invasion,” and “cultural and ethnic replacement.”
    If you agree with any of the aforementioned phrases, he threatens to call you a “white supremacist.” But of course a “Hispanic invasion” and “cultural and ethnic replacement” are ongoing. Only a liar or a child would deny them. Hispanics have bragged about this for a generation. And communists brag about ethnic (read racial) replacement, except when they’re Nazi-baiting anti-communists for mentioning it.
    I used to use the phrase “white supremacist,” but eventually realized that it is vacuous. Today, it is used by the pc to signal to other pc types, and to try and intimidate and harm those who refuse to submit to them.
    (By the way, the owner of 8chan denies that the manifesto someone posted on his since violated Web site, was by the El Paso suspect.)
    Clearly, the author supports the invasion from Mexico.
    I don’t.
    If the author carries the day, America will soon be a communist dictatorship run by genocidal mestizos with an average IQ of 89.
    He also misrepresents history. Thomas Jefferson didn’t believe that blacks and whites were equal, any more than John Locke did. Jefferson was talking about equality before the law among whites.
    As the United Negro College Fund’s motto says, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

    1. This thing is super-bad. I guess it’s what passes for glibertarianism today.

      For over 50 years, Sport. Long before you humiliated yourself publicly here..

      The writer is trying to intimidate readers out of using their minds.

      Which is NOT you, as your TOTAL ignorance is immediately proven, followed by outing YOURSELF as
      white supremacist.

      First off, he speaks of “white supremacism.” What does that even mean?

      Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, the same thing it has always meant to the KKK and your ilk. SUPREMACY OF THE WHITE RACE … REJECTION OF EQUAL RIGHTS.

      It has two possible meanings. Anyone: 1. “winning an argument with a liberal,” or 2. Who opposes white genocide.

      Are you REALLY that STUPID? THAT big a racist? CRAZY enough to believe White Genocide even exists?.

      THIS outs yourself as a white supremacist:

      Jefferson was talking about equality before the law among whites.

      1. The truth is not “white supremacist.”
        So, you lie about Thomas Jefferson, about race, and about white genocide (which you support), obsessively abuse your caps, italics, and bold keys, and even stretch out words ridiculously.
        But I’m the “STUPID” racist?!

  56. Racism and White supremacy go back much farther than Hoppe, Paul (I do not believe his claims not to know) and some other contemporary libertarians. While certainly alien to libertarian principles as I understand them, racist ideologies have been prominent in a subset of libertarians for a long time. I think for interesting reasons.

    Many years ago, in the 1960s, I was a student studying at the Institute for Humane Studies when it was in Menlo Park. One of their major figures was convinced of White racial superiority. We had many discussions about the issue. I have been out of touch with him, he seems not to be very visible now, and may not even be alive so he’ll remain anonymous. but he was a long time presence at IHS in its earlier years.

    Late I found many other libertarians with similar views. Shockley was very popular in some circles as I remember.

    I think the reason is ideological.

    IF the market is color blind and IF people’s culture and upbringing are relatively unimportant, as many kinds of individualism claim, some other explanation has to account for why certain ethnic and cultural groups do better in this society than others. The easy way out is to blame genetic and racial differences, and many did and apparently still do.

    As I became a Hayekian rather than a Rothbardian/Misesian, my understanding of society became for more subtle and able to deal better with complexity, but for the more hard core ideologues racism for some was an easy way out of a seeming dilemma of why in a supposedly free society some groups seemed to do better than others.

    1. Late I found many other libertarians with similar views

      Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian He’s a PROVEN bigot. What you may have found is worshippers in his cult

      1. Literally everything Ron Paul says is 100% libertarian. He is more libertarian than the clowns here at reason who sometimes forget that they are supposed to be presenting themselves as libertarians.

  57. No, people are not important at all. They are the same as any other living thing, although more destructive than almost all.

  58. The first Presidential speech since Obama was President.

  59. They stole the word “liberal” a century ago, now they own “racist” too — and individualism is racist. Don’t ask for a reason; questioning their dogma is racist!

  60. Libertarians who consider the pre civil war period of US history to be close to the libertarian ideal (as Murray Rothbard wrote in For a New Liberty) are likely white supremacists.

    1. So what period of US history would you say is closest to the libertarian ideal? Just wondering.

      1. With the NAP as the central tenet – applied to all people – no period, and not getting closer with a global empire and endless war.

  61. Reality is what it is. For some reason some ethnic groups consistently score higher on all forms of intelligence testing. These same groups are the most successful the world over.

    Libertarian thinking doesn’t deny accepting scientific facts. One can accept individuals for what they are while accepting group averages differ. That is reality. Deal with it.

  62. Libertarianism is a philosophy of respect for individual rights, circumscribed govt, and rule of law guided by the non-aggression principle. Libertarianism has no relevance whatsoever to voluntary racism, sexism, or discrimination, nor can it if individual rights mean one can think freely, associate with others of one’s choosing, and treat others as nicely or meanly as one wishes while refraining from aggression.
    Tuccille is advocating for a bastard child of libertarianism+social justice and would best be called Libertarianism+. With luck, it will enjoy the same quick demise as Atheism+.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.