7 February, 2007

Libertarian = Coward

Posted by alex in cowardice, Lew Rockwell, Lewpus, LewRockwell.com, libertarians at 5:55 pm | Permanent Link

Came across this on a search, a blast from the past. Bob Wallace writing his own personal “Up from Libertarianism,” in which the former LRC writer documents the cowardice of his libertarian buddies-until-it-gets-real.

White nationalists do right and fear no man. Libertarians do drugs and fear everyone.


Out, Damned Spot! Out!

by Bob Wallace
“Truth comes by conflict.” ~ Hillaire Belloc
“Without contraries, there is no progression.” ~ William Blake

I used to write for a libertarian site (well, sort of libertarian) called LewRockwell.com. But no more. My archives have been erased, and on top of that, they have been erased from the Google cache, which can only happen if the owner of the site where the articles were posted requests it (I�ve already saved all of them, so not to worry). Now who could it be who did this, I wonder?

By the way, over 200 articles were destroyed. 217, I think. All dropped down the libertarian version of Orwell’s Memory Hole.

I’m not the only one who has been banned. Jimmy Cantrell, who has a Ph.D. in English, was banned, as was Carole Ward. And all for the same reason I was: pointing out what are the real problems.

Here�s what happened: I occasionally post outrageous comments at various sites, wondering what kind of response I�ll get. Call it bait. I have found, unfortunately, you have to push the envelope to get a truthful response from people. So I pushed it.

This particular time, I made some very crude remarks about race and ethnic groups. What I said was essentially the truth, but I said it in a rather brutal way. The reason? Perception travels through the emotional brain first, to the rational brain last. Then includes you, me, and everyone else, including those who considers themselves the most egghead of intellectuals. Many of whom, in my opinion, believe some of the dumbest ideas on earth. Not only that, they’re gullible and naive.

What I did, I did on purpose, to bypass the rational brain. I had made similar comments before, without a peep from anyone � except for those who agreed with me.

This time, finally, I got a response, and woo hoo was it one! One person in particular, a leftwing PC narcissistic homosexual named Tom Palmer (who styles himself a libertarian, but is really a pro-war chickenhawk fascist), took my comments and sent them all over the Internet to God knows who. He even made nine comments (all of them the same) on The Sudden Curve blog I write for. This is mental illness. I’m going to repeat that — this is mental illness. Narcissistic, exhibitionistic, megalomanical mental illness. More succinctly, the behavior of a typical homosexual.

In some ways I feel sorry for him, because he’s fighting battles he’s already lost. Anyone who thinks the public acceptance of homosexuality, which Palmer advocates, will lead to the acceptance of gay marriage and not buggering young boys, doesn’t understand much about homosexuals, or much of anything, probably.

Such are the wages of narcissistic self-deception, even if you do work for the (now degraded) Cato Institute, as Palmer unfortunately does.

Another site, the utterly insignificant No Treason (they�re the exact opposite, what with supporting totally open borders), also posted my comments and wrote extensively about them. This is a site run by fools, knaves and cowards who make obscene sexual comments about women, including one I know. Apparently they think they’re funny. They’re the only ones.

By the way, they’ve also run cartoons approving of bestiality, in the context of harassing the woman I know.

No Treason is an anti-American, left-wing site that reminds me of what Jean Raspail wrote in The Camp of the Saints: they are �righteous in their loathing of anything and everything that smacked of present-day Western society, and boundless in their love of whatever might destroy it.�

All of them were so dumb they didn�t realize what I was doing. I�m not surprised at anything self-styled intellectuals do.

They proved what I’m been saying for years: there are leftwing libertarians and rightwing ones. The leftwing ones tend toward anarchism and confused thought. Like I said, they’re gullible, and will fall for…well, a lot (anyone who thinks anything of value can be salvaged from leftism know little, if anything, about leftism).

Some of the critics claimed they weren’t leftists. Anyone who criticises using words such as “racism” or “homophobia” or “sexism” or “bigot” — words that mean nothing because they can mean anything — and truly believes in these words, is a leftist, whether he knows it or not.

The comments at various sites fell into two categories: the more rightwing ones who supported free speech, and the PC leftists, who believe in Thoughtcrime. The leftists, being more narcissistic (as all leftists are) were writing about me as if I was a bad person. Not one of the leftists realized I had tricked them.

After thinking about this for years, I’ve decided the leftwing ones (or ancaps, meaning anarcho-capitalists) have a lot of similarities with Marxists. Marx thought all the god-like qualities of humanity would blossom like hot-house flowers once the State “withered away.” That’s exactly what leftist-libertarians think. And if they think that, they have another think coming. What I wrote is what would really happen.

These people are left-wing haters who want to destroy. They want chaos. As Dostoevsky said, the man who loves chaos does not simply hate himself — he hates everything.

I didn�t bother to defend or explain myself. I was curious as to how the whole thing would play out. And that�s how my archives were erased, including the Google cache.

So, you ask, what did I write? I pointed out, in exactly one paragraph, that blacks have an mean average IQ that is genetically much lower than whites, which is why they�re on the bottom in every country of the world, including Africa. These are the facts, folks, and everyone knows it. To ignore these things is to condemn many, many Africans to poverty and death.

Of course, this is something leftists will tolerate, as long as it doesn’t intrude on their groovy little fantasy world.

What I wrote doesn�t mean I hate blacks, which of course is what leftists will always say. It just means we need the free market so people, no matter what their IQ, can find a high-paying job and support themselves so the government won�t destroy neighborhoods, families and people�s individual lives with welfare. And I know perfectly well there will always be smart ones who will rise to the top.

I also wrote that Jews have been expelled from some 80 countries � sometimes more than once, sometimes for hundreds of years � because of their attempts to destroy every culture that admits them. And under a completely free market, without government interference, many Jews will be ostracized. Everyone who is honest about it, knows this is true, too. This is a shame, because the innocent get hurt along with the guilty. But then, that, too, is part of depraved human nature.

I also pointed out that the Chinese and Asian Indians have a problem with ancient, ossified cultures that have destroyed much of their creativity. After all, most everything in the world has been created by those of European ancestry, along with the free market.

Speaking of Asian culture, one of my best friends is a Filipina, with whom I have discussed these problems extensively. For some odd reason, she’s never banned me from talking about them, even though she says I annoy her all the time.

I once pointed out to her that almost all white women don’t find Asian men attractive because they don’t consider them masculine. She told me Asian men already know that, but what really surprised me is that a lot of Asian women prefer effeminate Asian men. Some of the men go so far as to paint their fingernails. The biggest exception to this rule, she told me, are Filipinas, many of whom prefer white men because they like “mixing blood” and creating exotic-looking babies.

Now try to discuss that on any “libertarian” site and see how many rational responses you get.

There were a few things I didn�t say, such as the fact that homosexuals, who make up less than two percent of the population, are responsible for at least one-third of child sex crimes (like murder, rape and molestation) and two-thirds of all AIDS cases. So, please, don�t tell me there are no differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. There are.

Those Catholic priests molesting kids? They�re not pedophiles. They�re pederasts, which is what many homosexuals are � they like boys in their early teens. And what percentage of those priests are committing these molestations? Two percent. . .just as two percent of the population is homosexual. Interesting tidbit, isn�t it?

Let’s put it this way: stereotypes wouldn’t exist unless there was truth to them. Or: all stereotypes are true.

What didn�t I write? How about that most lesbians are man-haters? And that Islam is the worst thing that ever happened to the world, and destroyed the ancient and advanced civilizations of Iraq and Iran? And that I consider the Koran or the Talmud no more holy books than I do Mein Kampf?

Let�s see�what else? Blacks, Jews, homosexuals, Asians, Mexicans. and Indians. Is there anyone I didn’t offend? How about those crackpot, blasphemous faux-Christian Evangelicals who think they can bring Jesus back by supporting the murder of Palestinians and the theft of their land? Oh — I forgot � I can say that without any problem.

In a very rough, general way, this is what you would get under a completely free market: whites and Asians at the top, Mexicans in the middle, blacks at the bottom, except for sports and music. Of course, this does not count for every individual. I’m speaking in generalities. And, to repeat, this doesn’t apply to every individual; exceptional ones, of any race and ethnic group, can make his or her way to the top. And to repeat again: I’m for the free market so all people can make lots of money and support themselves and their families without the government interfering and destroying everything.

What did I learn from this little escapade? That even libertarians, who pride themselves on their (non-existent) intellectual and moral superiority, are a primitive tribe, just like everyone else. They have taboos, ones that if you transgress will lead to expulsion. That�s what happened to me.

Small “l” libertarianism as a philosophy is sound (it’s the original philosophy of this country, what it was based upon). As for Libertarianism (big L), it is idealistic, leftist Utopian, and utterly foolish. Most of the people who fall for it are homosexuals, leftists who are too deluded to even know they’re leftists, and potheads, and all of them are completely confused about the difference between Right and Left. Big L would no more work in society than Socialism. Facts are stubborn things, and many of your leftist libertarians don’t like them at all. That’s why they ignore them. Reality is malleable, you know, if you just act like the Cowardly Lion, squeeze your eyes shut, and keep repeating, “I wish, I wish.”

I have never called myself a pure “libertarian.” I’ve always qualified with with “right-wing” or “conservative.” One friend calls himself a “constitutional libertarian.” No one I know, other than the crackpots, calls himself simply “a libertarian.” The term unfortunately carries too much baggage, because of the people who have degraded the term.

By the way (and this is a sad, sad thing), Lew backed down from two sites run by depraved sexual perverts. It’s a shame one of his nicknames on the Internet is “Lewpus.” I think you can figure out what it means.

The more I thought about it the funnier it got: I was banned after attacks by a pathologically lying homosexual and a couple of guys who sexually harass women while hiding behind their website. I am reminded of a comment by John Milton: �None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license.�

There’s nothing like a little controversy to get people to expose their true selves. I even caught one of the pedophiles at Anti.State.com using my name to make slanderous posts. Such admirable people, eh?

What am I supposed to think about a “movement” with so many marginal, indeed disputable, people in it? One of my friends took the link to LewRockwell.com off of his site, telling me some of the writers were “fucking loons.” Another no longer calls himself a libertarian, after finding out “they weren’t what I thought they were.” He wasn’t talking about the philosophy; he was talking about the people.

I have unfortunately decided that libertarianism as it stands now is completely hopeless, mostly because of the anarchism, which I will repeat, is leftist and therefore terribly destructive.

Sad to say, but the only truly stupid, truly ignorant comments I got were exclusively from libertarians. All of them either didn’t understand or distorted everything I had written.

I’m not saying your shouldn’t read the site, or not support it. It’s a needed corrective to the leftist- libertarian/anarchist/pederast brigade. But don’t delude yourself that Lew Rockwell is something he is not — a man unafraid of the truth.

You want to know something? If I had to do it all over again, I�d do it exactly the same way. It was much too enlightening to want to give up what I discovered. I finally got the truth about libertarians. It wasn’t very pretty, either. A lot of them are losers living in their little fantasy world, a never-to-exist world in which a nation of one-third Wahabi Muslims, one-third Orthodox Jews, and one-third fundamentalist Christians would live in peace-and-universal-brotherhood because the free market would unite them in their material lust for SUVs and DVD players.

They remind me, more than anything else, of unpleasant and very immature children.

All the emails I got supported me, although as I said, some of the posts I read at various forums didn’t, and clearly exposed the leftist PC in way too many libertarians.

Everyone of those who supported me described themselves as “right” in varying degrees. Everyone of those who opposed me described themselves as “left” or “beyond right or left.” The latter viewpoint is nonsense: no one is beyond Right or Light, no more than anyone can be beyond male or female. But, again, the hate and viciousness was exclusively from those on the Left.

Look at it this way, folks: the human race has advanced technology, but otherwise is still stuck in One Million Years B.C. Only there�s no Raquel Welch in a two-piece fur bikini in sight.

“All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.” ~ Enoch Powell
“Live not by lies.” ~ Alexander Solzhenitsyn


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 08/28/07 Russo Redux (Sort Of) 16% similar
  3. 09/19/08 Book: The Mystery of Banking 14% similar
  4. 06/10/11 Libertarianism: Another Mind-Trap for the Goyim 13% similar
  5. 10/27/15 How To Stamp Out Cultural Marxism In A Single Generation 13% similar
  6. 09/05/17 An Anti-Fascist Statement 11% similar
  7. 6 Responses to “Libertarian = Coward”

    1. lawrence dennis Says:

      Genuine libertarianism does indeed have a distinguished history in America. For example,

      Benjamin Ricketson Tucker (April 17, 1854 – June 22, 1939) was the leading proponent of American individualist anarchism in the 19th century.

      Tucker’s contribution to American individualist anarchism was as much through his publishing as his own writing. In editing and publishing the anarchist periodical Liberty, Tucker both filtered and integrated the theories of such European thinkers as Herbert Spencer and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon with the thinking of American individualist activists, Lysander Spooner, William B. Greene and Josiah Warren, as well as the ideas of the free thought and free love movements in order to produce a rigorous system of philosophical- or individualist anarchism that he called Anarchistic-Socialism. However, the meaning of the term “socialism” has changed over time, and his philosophy “cannot be considered collectivist in any politically meaningful sense.” He did not define “socialism” as social ownership or control over the means of production but as the claim that “labor should be put in possession of its own.” Victor Yarros writees:

      “ He [Tucker] opposed savagely any and all reform movements that had paternalistic aims and looked to the state for aid and fulfillment…For the same reason, consistent, unrelenting opposition to compulsion, he combatted “populism,” “greenbackism,” the single-tax movement, and all forms of socialism and communism. He denounced and exposed Johann Most, the editor of Freiheit, the anarchist-communist organ. The end, he declared, could never justify the means, if the means were intrinsically immoral—and force, by whomsoever used, was immoral except as a means of preventing or punishing aggression.”

      Tucker shared with the advocates of free love and free thought a disdain for prohibitions on non-invasive behavior and religiously-based legislation, but he saw the poor condition of American workers as a result of four monopolies based in authority:

      1. the money monopoly,
      2. the land monopoly,
      3. tariffs, and
      4. patents.

      His focus for several decades became the state’s economic control of how trade could take place, and what currency counted as legitimate. He saw interest and profit as a form of exploitation, claiming that while not directly examples of coercion[citation needed] (or “invasion” as Tucker preferred to say), they were nevertheless made possible by banking monopoly, which was in turn maintained through coercion and invasion, usually at the hands of the state. Any such interest and profit, Tucker called “usury” and he saw it as the basis for the oppression of the workers.

      He asserted that anarchism is meaningless “unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market—that is, private property.” But, he made an exception “in the case of land, or of any other material the supply of which is so limited that all cannot hold it in unlimited quantities.” Tucker opposed title to land that was not in use, arguing that an individual would have to use land continually in order to retain exclusive right to it. If this practice is not followed, he believed it results in a “land monopoly.”

      Tucker also opposed state protection of the banking monopoly, the requirement that one must obtain a charter to engage in the business of banking. He hoped to raise wages by deregulating the banking industry, reasoning that competition in banking would drive down interest rates and stimulate entrepreneurship. Tucker believed this would decrease the proportion of individuals seeking employment and therefore wages would be driven up by competing employers. “Thus, the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up.” He did not oppose individuals being employment by others, but due to his intepretation of the labor theory of value, he believed that in the present economy individuals do not receive a wage that fully compensates them for their labor. He that if the four “monopolies” were ended, “it will make no difference whether men work for themselves, or are employed, or employ others. In any case they can get nothing but that wages for their labor which free competition determines.”

      Tucker opposed protectionism, believing that tariffs cause high prices by preventing national producers from having to compete with foreign competitors. He believed that free trade would help keep prices low and therefore would assist laborers in receiving their “natural wage.” Tucker did not believe in a right to intellectual property in the form of patents. This was a source of conflict with the philosophy of fellow individualist Lysander Spooner who saw ideas as the product of labor.

      He also “opposed savagely” all movements thats “had paternalistic aims and looked to the state for aid and fulfillment.” Tucker rejected the legislative programs of labor unions, laws imposing a short day, minimum wage laws, forcing businesses to provide insurance to employes, and compulsory pension systems.

      Like many individualists, Tucker did not have a utopian vision of anarchy where individuals would not coerce others.[3] He advocated that liberty and property be defended by private institutions. Opposing the monopoly of the state in providing security, he advocated a free market of competing defense providers, saying “defense is a service like any other service; … it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand.” He said that anarchism “does not exclude prisons, officials, military, or other symbols of force. It merely demands that non-invasive men shall not be made the victims of such force. Anarchism is not the reign of love, but the reign of justice. It does not signify the abolition of force-symbols but the application of force to real invaders.”

      more here:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker

    2. Shabbos Shabazz Says:

      THE ABOLITION OF EXPLOITATION
      Summary:

      Can leftists and libertarians find common ground in opposition to exploitation?

      This essay proposes that a model for such common ground is the 19th-century Individualist Anarchism of Benjamin Tucker.

      Individualist Anarchism sees the exploitation of certain groups or classes as the visible symptom of a deeper problem whose root cause is coercive monopoly. The individualist does not sanction the use of force to fight the symptom, but only to fight the coercive root cause itself. Non-coercive monopolies are to be opposed only through peaceful and cooperative means, such as innovation and education.

      http://www.blackcrayon.com/essays/exploitation/

    3. Sgt. Skull Says:

      That about summed up the nutty, irrational libertarians. Most of the writers on lewrockwell.com must be on drugs, crazy or both. Laissez faire economics cannot cure all ills, especially the smoldering racial tension and hatred we see in Amerikwa.

      When the lewpus writers do deal with race it’s in a politically correct fashion. Lewpus won’t post articles by Paul Craig Roberts when he slams zionism and israhell and you’ll notice lots of writers with jewish surnames listed on the site. Hence the gag rule on criticizing jews or israhell.

      Now that Amren has declared the jews our allies they rarely permit criticism of god’s chosen pets either.

    4. New America Says:

      Peter Shank was the first to make the very astute observation that ALL of the Patriotards organizations are little more than “false flags.” We can see, from Revilo Oliver’s experience with the Birchers, to all of the “911 ‘Truth'” organizations, that all manner of “false flags” are created to distract us from realizing the Truth, while our RACIAL enemies, the goddamned JEWS, simply go from strength to strength.

      The Libertarians, like the Patriotards, have accomplished exactly NOTHING for all of their efforts, EXCEPT to keep those who might potentially see the Truth about manners political to keep running down one false road after another, and never really going anywhere.

      You know, it’s almost like to was designed that way, wasn’t it?

      New America

      An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

    5. Sandor Says:

      Believe it or not, I happened on Lew while searching for info on the REAL Rockwell (George Lincoln). Lew’s name is probably Haim Slivovits or something, and uses the Rockwell name and his website to draw stupid rats like me into his maze for a few years to waste time. Lessee… Von Mises – Jew. Rothbard-New York Jew. Man, Economy, and the State – 10 pounds of paper and 30 hours’ worth of irretrievable reading and study time.
      Time is your only non-renewable resource, and part of their goal is to waste yours in their airy-fairy hocus-pocus maze.

      Libertarianism: Is it good for Whites?

    6. Blankout Says:

      It’s late so this will be short. I have recently written to Lew criticizing him for implying that the WTC was brought down by “19 Arab terrorists”. Anyone capable of independent thought, which I definitely judge Lew to be, who has studied the matter for more than 15 minutes knows that the WTC collapses were controlled demolitions. I wondered if his pc view of 911 was do to the “holocaust effect”, a term I just made up to describe when intelligent and knowlegeable people conform with bullshit on the theory that their more acceptable views will gain more credibility.

      That being said, I find Lew’s outlook and writing to be generally brilliant. Telling the truth about the market does not equal being so deluded as to think that the human race will ever become much less stupid, ignorant, superstitious and sheep-like than it ever was. What’s he supposed to say….. “This is how it could be if it weren’t for all you commie jews and stupid niggers”,? Part of intelligence includes tact and just plain good manners, rather than the kind of bigotry typical of anti-ZOG writers. Having spent the last seven summers living among old Jews in the Catskills I can safely say that these are some of the most brainwashed people on the face of the earth. I often wonder if any of them ever had an original thought. But they are victims of human nature the same as anyone else. I have a lot of very logical thoughts about what makes most Jews so damned robotic, but many of you apparently just want tidy labels for everything. “Evil” is also one of those words that means nothing because it can mean anything.

      Oh yeah, one more thing: I have been under the impression ever since I started calling myself “libertarian” 27 years ago that most libertarians are former Republicans and that libertarianism far more closely resembles true conservatism than leftwing utopian socialism. Give Lew a break. He and Ron Paul despite their (most likely very well calculated) pc tendancies have done more for the cause of freedom than all of you put together.