Libertarianism Is Open Borders Globalism

Don’t take my word for it.

FEE.org spells out the monstrous implications of libertarian principles in their own words:

“Liberty has nothing to do with national interests. It is about the individual. It concerns the liberty to live your own life, to pursue your own livelihood, and to come and go as you please to anywhere that’s open to you or anywhere you’re invited to go.

The implications for immigration policy are obvious: Everyone–not just Americans, not just “citizens,” not just people with government permission slips, but everyone–has rights. They have the right to own or lease property, to take jobs, to make their own living, wherever they want, and to peacefully come and go whenever, wherever, and however they please as long as they don’t infringe on any other individual’s equal liberty. That means nothing short of free immigration, open borders, and immediate and unconditional amnesty for all currently undocumented immigrants. …

Nations are toxic hellholes of false identity and purveyors of monstrous political violence. … For anyone committed to individual liberty, a nations’ “interests” deserve no notice at all except to trample them underfoot.”

In other words, the nation is incompatible with libertarianism. The state, of course, is the great enemy of libertarianism. I suppose you could add cultures, ethnic groups, religious traditions and families. According to this absurd worldview, all “collectives” are the enemy of the “individual.” The only identities in life that are meaningful under libertarian dogma are “the individual” and “the consumer.”

Why is that the case? The answer is because our Jewish gurus have come up with abstract theories that have told us so! Certainly, this bizarre worldview isn’t based on anything resembling empirical observation. In the real world, there are any number of identities which human beings find meaningful: religious identity, cultural identity, family identity, national identity, ethnic identity, racial identity, class identity, these days some people even prize their sexual and gender identity.

I’ve been assigned the identities “the individual” and “the consumer” by libertarian theorists. I was never consulted about my opinion of their pet abstractions. Instead, I was cast in the role that they want me to play in their narrative. In reality, I don’t find much value in being a “consumer.” I find that much less meaningful than the racial identity, ethnic identity, cultural identity and religious identity which are the building blocks that make up my national identity. As an individual, I have a range of loyalties that are central to my sense of identity, which is more than my personal identity.

I didn’t even get to choose my personal identity. I was born into a family without my consent. I was given a name by my parents. I didn’t get to choose my parents or ancestors. I didn’t get to choose my race, sex, culture or where I was born. On the contrary, I was passively immersed in a language as an infant and toddler, which gave me the concepts that continue to structure how I think about the world. I passively absorbed the culture that I was exposed to as a child and as an adolescent.

My life is already a web of rich meaningful roles and identities which have been bequeathed to me through my organic tradition: Husband. Father. Son. (Family) Protestant Christian. (Religion) British. (Ethnicity) Southerner. (Culture) Alabamian. (State) White man (Race and Sex). Why would I throw away all of that in order to try to find a meaningful identity in the beef at Taco Bell, in the McDonald’s McDouble or in a six-pack of Budweiser on sale at a multicultural Wal-Mart?

As a worldview, it sounds like a prole version of Patrick Bateman in American Psycho whose vacuous, materialistic identity is based on consumption of high-end brands:

“Some kind of existential chasm opens before me while I’m browsing in Bloomingdale’s and causes me to first locate a phone and check my messages, then, near tears, after taking three Halcion (since my body has mutated and adapted to the drug it no longer causes sleep-it just seems to ward off total madness), I head toward the Clinique counter where with my platinum American Express card I buy six tubes of shaving cream while flirting nervously with the girls who work there and I decide this emptiness has, at least in part, some connection with the way I treated Evelyn at Barcadia the other night, though there is always the possibility it could just as easily have something to do with the tracking device on my VCR, and while I make a mental note to put in an appearance at Evelyn’s Christmas’ party-I’m even tempted to ask one of the Clinique girls to escort me-I also remind myself to look through my VCR handbook and deal with the tracking device problem. …”

I think I will pass on being a “liberated” individual. I don’t need drugs, frivolous sexual relationships or consumerism to fill a great void at the center of my life. The only identity that libertarianism has to offer me is an ideological one vastly inferior to the one I have now.

As for the liberal tradition, Jeffrey Tucker can’t even honestly lay claim to that:

“Trump is obviously not a student of history or political philosophy, but he does embody a strain of thinking with a history that traces back in time. I discussed this in some detail here, here, and here, among many other places. The tradition of thought he inhabits stands in radical opposition to the liberal tradition. It always has. We just remain rather ignorant of this fact because the fascist tradition of thought has been dormant for many decades, and so is strangely unfamiliar to this generation of political observers.

So let us be clear: this manner of thinking that celebrates the nation-state, believes in great collectives on the move, panics about the demographic genocide of a race, rails against the “other” invading our shores, puts all hope in a powerful executive, and otherwise believes not in freedom but rather in compliance, loyalty, and hero worship – this manner of thinking has always and everywhere included liberals (or libertarians) as part of the enemy to be destroyed. …”

Thomas Jefferson was a well-known Anglo-Saxonist. He was a racialist. The Founding Fathers didn’t create a system resembling anything like what Jeffrey Tucker is advocating. They had very different ideas about a national bank, internal improvements, free-trade, race, the family, dual sovereignty, etc.

Jeffrey Tucker’s version of “liberty” was plainly rejected in both Britain and the United States. Neither Britain or America ever dissolved itself into an anarchic sea of individuals. These were relatively individualistic societies which valued “liberty,” but not in the extreme sense of libertarian discourse which condemns “collectivism” and “the state” and “war” per se.

As always, the historicist in me consults history to find the meaning and evolution of ideas:

In Exclusionary Empire: English Liberty Overseas, 1600-1900, we find a clue as to how the discourse of “liberty” has evolved over time:

“It was not the specificity of the meaning of liberty but its plural and plastic meanings that allowed ideas and applications of liberty to become abstracted from their commercial, political, and religious contexts, so that Britons throughout the world could espouse loyalty to the empire based on the shared sense that the expansion of liberty was central to the empire’s meaning and distinguished it from other empires, both European and Asian. Indeed, the abstracting, and for some the ostensible naturalizing, of liberty contributed to the emergence of another iteration in the mid-eighteenth century, one employed against the institution of slavery so that every person’s natural right to a free body became a fifth powerful meaning attached to liberty.”

I find this very interesting.

According to Jeffrey Tucker and FEE.org, this fifth sense of liberty is the only meaning of “liberty.” It is natural liberty in that the argument for it is based outside of society. It is abstract and universal in that it applies to all human beings. It is not English liberty in the sense of being a product of the English tradition or British constitution and something that inhered in the bodies of all English subjects.

Eventually, this strand of “liberty” became cancerous and destructive of all social bonds. It became abstract and lost its reference point. This is not the “liberty” that Jefferson was talking about in the Declaration of Independence when he damned King George III for being “deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.” The colonists were making an argument over Parliament’s sovereignty over the American colonies, not against the concept of sovereignty itself which republicans invest in the people.

These anarchists are discrediting the concept of a “free society.” By associating “liberty” with licentiousness and extreme ideas like the dissolution of borders, they are bringing the tradition of liberty into disrepute. As I read more about the history of American liberty, I have began to realize that these ideas are a foreign import.

45 Comments

  1. Reading about the history of “liberty,” and the Founders’ ideas of it (and of the American nation itself), has been very useful for me in engaging my libertarian associates. It is far easier to corner them in discussions when you can point to a document and say “Actually, Jefferson meant *this*…”

    Use history as your weapon.

  2. From the Budweiser link: “So I cracked it (the Bud) open and poured it into a glass.”

    Gay. So gay.

  3. The only thing I despise more about Jeff Tucker than his politics is that he and all the other CuckCon intellectuals give bow ties a bad name. I do love my bow ties. I know, guys, I know. I like to LARP as an old Southern aristocrat. Shoot me.

  4. The people who advocate radical individualism are the same people who act collectively against society rendered atomised by radical individualism.

  5. I am familiar with this article. It was reposted at C4SS last week (it was originally from 2013). When FEE reposted it they left out the last two sentences which read as follows:

    “National borders are a bloody stain on the face of the earth. Burn all nations to the ground.”

    As you can see I tried to inquire about this in the comments section but something went wrong
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2adf46419cc33140e9ad5ca487f9b47e8165853c089ae6f3da72b8af19ece1ce.png

    Maybe one of you fine people can ask them why they left those two sentences out.

  6. “National borders are a bloody stain on the face of the earth. Burn all nations to the ground.”

    All of them except Israel, of course.

  7. No nations means world government, and I have yet to see how that world government would be run on libertarian principles.

  8. This is another chapter in a tale of two libertarianisms. Meanwhile at mises.org: https://mises.org/blog/mises-nationalism-right-self-determination-and-problem-immigration#comment-3232145312

    A good article. I am skeptical about the prospect of liberal nationalism, but hey I can work with this.

    They also haven’t banned me for talking about jews.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/896b03940be24e0d3eb2de10a075e28517a39db68a47ec70ba500206fc441bf9.png

  9. What they claim is not even 100 percent true in business. Some buyers are turned away no matter how much money they have. If a seller or businessman for some reason doesn’t like a person or business entity, they frequently will pass that person or entity by in favor of a more preferable buyer or consumer. On the mundane, down on the common level, it happens all the time everyday. We don’t sell or do business with a person we don’t like. The very same thing happens in the big leagues. For example, they would not sell Rush Limbaugh that football team. Certain people have been elbowed out of the running when trying to buy into the media, etc., etc. Because of politics. Other cases have been when one businessman just doesn’t want another businessman to have control of something.

    The point is even the libertarian idea of everything in terms of only “buyers” and “sellers” and a neutral “market” is pure mythology.

  10. however they please as long as they don’t infringe on any other individual’s equal liberty. Did the alien cultures consent to that?

    Aarrgh!

    Coming from a cultural monoculture where everyone just believes in “liberty” because they first belive and in their deepest souls understand liberty without having to express anything is different than theorizing that other races and cultures think and act similarly.

    The governments in Chicago and Detroit aren’t producing liberty for all their ineffectiveness. They don’t understand “If you don’t like the state, why not move to Somalia?”.

    THE WHOLE FREAKING POINT IS THAT 7 BILLION PEOPLE ON THIS EARTH DON’T UNDERSTAND LIBERTY ENOUGH NOT TO INFRINGE, AND EVEN IF THEY DID WOULD REJECT LIBERTY AND INFRINGE ANYWAY.

  11. A second problem is if there is really liberty, it has to be to associate with those who hold similar views, or are of the same race, or whatever arbitrary category applies. Monoculture in the community. You don’t get to come in even if you won’t violate the deep abstract NAP if the existing community doesn’t want you for some reason because they need to be free to do that.

    Christianity is a creed and faith, and anyone who believes in Jesus is saved, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t discrete. There is one body of Christ, but that body isn’t a blob of protoplasm, it has differing members.

    “Unconditonal Amnesty”? When they consume taxpayer subsidized services? Will they pay it back first?

    A very stupid strain in libertarianism will seek unilateral repeals of laws when the original is a balance. How about ending the welfare state and taxation first THEN worry about the borders? No! we must open the borders into the welfare state to criminals which we aren’t going to catch or prosecute when they rape your daughters, but that is still “liberty”.

    It is a reason I abandoned libertarianism and found the alt-Right to be the sane alternative.

  12. Individuals acting randomly vs a cohesive group. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see who would win that war.

  13. It is impossible to believe the Jeffrey Tucker is serious. He’s the libertine version of the lowest of the low brow preacher.

  14. “low brow preacher”

    His disingenuous and over-the-top demeanor bears an uncanny resemblance to Jonas Nightengale, the “evangelical” charlatan played by Steve Martin in the film “Leap of Faith” :

  15. How does FEE imagine the borderless world will work?

    Supposing in 2020 the USA abolishes its borders and allows unrestricted immigration. Will FEE members be able to freely migrate to, say, Congo and have their rights as individuals respected? How do they plan to get their contracts enforced where there are no impartial courts or honest cops?

    Or let us say they are on a jaunt in Guatemala and decide to cross over into Mexico; think the Mexican border police will respect their right of free movement?

    Effectively, FEE’s borderless state would mean the dissolution of any country which attempted it. Meantime, other countries which kept their borders would gain the upper hand and eventually subjugate FEE-istan.

    Consider the Islamic State. If the borders of Europe and North America are to be opened, will the jihadis who set foot on the magic soil be transformed into individualists respecting all natural rights? Or will they act as they do in Mosul, Syria and Paris banilieus by setting up Sharia zones and lopping off the heads of dissenters? Given that most people in the world do not buy into doctrines such as natural rights, or the supremacy of the individual, FEE would get a very rude awakening and too late to do any good.

    FEE’s premises are delusional. It may be due to an extreme version of libertarian ideology. Or it just may be that they have been paid off by the globalists.

  16. With the exception of Hans-Hermann Hoppe and a small handful of others,libertarians seem incapable of grasping the destructive consequences of their open borders fanaticism.In that regard,they are very much like young children whose brains haven’t fully developed yet.

  17. He is rather flamboyant,isn’t he? Of course,”men” who share his apparent “inclinations” usually are.

  18. If by “old Westerns” you mean B westerns, then I think you’ll like The Old Corral website,which is an exhaustive source of information about the genre:

    http://b-westerns.com

    I’m partial to Roy Rogers,Tim Holt and,of course,John Wayne films myself.

  19. I watch Starz Encore Westerns. And INSP Channel. They’re devoid of men who speak with a woman’s voice and little girls training hard so they can grow up to be big, strong men and serve in the infantry.

  20. The only thing that can stand up to organized power is a cohesive group which is why they push libertarianism on us. It makes us easier to fleece. We either hang together or we will all hang separately.

  21. While not realizing that their hyper-individualized rootless mass status is subsidized by a state intent on easily controlling deracinated “individuals” with no allegiance but themselves

  22. It’s even worse.

    Her “children” such as Nathaniel Branded spread degenerate ideas that a lack of self-esteem is a problem, as if something like self-esteem should be autotelic instead of based on something real like one’s contribution to his volk.

  23. These creatures are not advocates for “liberty” – they are merely LiberTINES. Mind bogglingly selfish degenerates. They are wanton greedy children. they are the Heart of the JEW. They want what they want with no thought to the monstrous consequences of their repugnant behavior, and bitterly resent and HATE any-one that attempts to protect themselves, and others, from their Nation Wrecking, flesh eating acts.

  24. No nation or state has ever dissolved itself into an anarchic sea of individuals, least of all the state of Israel. Libertarianism is an anti-White scam.

  25. Very good Mr. Wallace. I especially loved your line “The only identity that libertarianism has to offer me is an ideological one vastly inferior to the one I have now.” I used to read libertarian sites several years ago, and I think that the only reason that these culture and race destroying libertarian ideas appeal to some white men is that they live in an area that is still under white majority control. If we were a minority in this land, the libertarian dreams of many of our white brothers would never have been born or gained traction. Last year I put up a piece mocking a Jacob Hornberger article, in order to wake up my few libertarian leaning friends. https://putnamlibertynotes.wordpress.com/2016/05/31/hornberger/and/open/borders/

  26. “Bumper” Hornberger once went up to some illegal aliens doing construction work and thank them in Spanish for coming to America to work. I bet those illegals laughed their asses off at this stupid and clueless gringo when he went on his merry way. Left libertarians combine greed with infantilism.

  27. I will keep them coming my man. I investigate libcuckery as a public service to the white race.

  28. Libertarianism will never be realized because its as utopian as Communism whereby the state withers away and society is run simple formula of each according to his abilities to each according to their needs.

  29. We can already clearly see that attempting to get rid of one’s tribalism and sense of identity is equivalent to flinging away one’s weapons and armor in an arena full of exceptionally nasty gladiators. The libertarians apparently want to paint targets all over their naked body at the most vital points, too.

  30. “Open Borders”, multi-culturalism, and globalism is anti-nation and anti-white. Globalism favors the elite not the monolithic identity of Europeans. UNITY! NOT DIVERSITY!

  31. ” As I read more about the history of American liberty, I have began to realize that these ideas are a foreign import.”

    Of course they are! You mentioned earlier in the column “Jewish forces,” and, knowing that Marxism is basically Judaism without any religious or mystical component, you have your answer right there!

    The reason why Christianity transformed Europe is because it was incarnational-the belief that God, in his mercy and love, incarnated himself with the very Ethnos of “his people.” [Matthew 1:21]

    This is what Athanasius and the other Church Fathers said when they realized (dumbfounded), that “God became man, so that man (White man, European man, Christendom man) could become God.” Not in a pantheistic sort of way, but in a direct, Incarnational, (capital ‘I’) predestination-saturated sort of way. [Eph. 1:4]

    This is why Europe-with all of her chivalry, and nobility, and even a somewhat Egalitarian democratic point of view, could exist – because everyone within Christendom partook of this “divine nature” …as long as they stayed true to the religion, that formed their culture! It is only as we have foolishly believed that “all men-meaning all hominids on the planet-are equal “that we began to (literally) dis-incarnate ourselves- as white man, as Christendom man, and as the God man we were meant to be. When we really need to think of how the Incas in the Mayans saw the Conquistadors, to realize this is not some bizzarre cultic concept, but the underlying reality on the entire world’a history.

    And it is also the reason why, Randolph could say “I love liberty, I hate equality.” Even he, (as a mixed race Indian/Anglo) ‘got it’ more than our moderns ( who, following the “religion of multiculturalism,” are preaching what Saint Paul calls, “another Gospel. “) do.

    And this is also the reason why nonwhite, non-European, non-Christian cultures, can never be our equals. Because they did not have a God incarnate into their Ethnicity!

    It is, to our credit, and for the gnawing teeth and envy of the non-elect, the most potent acknowledgment of ‘white supremacy,’ ever penned. And the reason why the Jews (the ultimate Christ deniers), have worked so tirelessly to deny it of us! It’s all so obvious.

  32. “For anyone committed to individual liberty, a nations’ “interests” deserve no notice at all except to trample them underfoot.”

    This is genuinely shocking he just breezily throws out such a fringe idea as if this view is widely shared. I encourage this guy to keep talking! That level of extreme honesty ought to prevent a helluva lot of people from falling for the con that is that particular strain of “libertarianism!”

  33. I woke up from Libertarianism a LONG LONG LONG time ago when I realized that it wasnt compatible with Nationalism. Pat Buchanan and others did that for me

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. The Barbados Slave Act of 1661 – Occidental Dissent

Comments are closed.