The Immoral “Morality” of Libertarianism
by Saxon Day
LIBERTARIANISM IS a soul-sickening ideology that will be the death of the White world. The “great heroine” of libertarians is a crass Jew who called herself “Ayn Rand,” and who said that racialism was “collectivism,” which was “immoral.”
She also went around wearing a gold brooch in the shape of a dollar sign.
Libertarians have an august-sounding slogan which they swear by called the “non-aggression principle,” which is sort of “do no harm” for nerds. Ironically these libertarians are all for unlimited immigration; either they’re not keeping up with the news of the day, or think that murder, rape, and trashing a country are not “acts of aggression.” They also swear that all things can be measured by GDP — so that just might have something to do with it.
Former Congressman Justin Amash is, he claims, a libertarian’s libertarian. He is also considers himself an Arab so I’m not totally sure why he is allowed in the country, let alone why he was allowed to have a say in making our laws. He decided not to run for re-election last year, and many believe he has larger political aspirations. The “conservative” and “free market” (read: open borders) big-capital think tanks will probably give him support and funding.
Amash is the Will Rogers of immigration: He never met an invader he didn’t like. And showed his true colors (not White, of course, even though he looks like he might well have quite a bit of Crusader or Marcus Aurelius blood) by coming up with a truly demented proposed law called “The Protect Asylum Seekers and Practical Alternatives to Detention Act.”
I can think of many practical alternatives to detention — sending them packing forthwith being by far the mildest and most moderate of them.
In promoting this nation-wrecking piece of trash, he wrote:
Unnecessarily subjecting immigrants to detention and criminally prosecuting asylum seekers who have caused no harm undermines our values and doesn’t serve our nation’s interests. We need broad immigration reform, but until that becomes a reality, these targeted changes can limit some harms in the current system.
First off, it is necessary, and second they have caused harm (see murder, etc, above). And it is natural, I suppose, that his ilk worry so much about the alleged harms suffered by non-White invaders when not allowed to invade at will, and not at all about the harm to White America they cause. No matter how gracile his features, he will never think of himself as one of us. Add to that his attachment to raceless libertarianism, and he is dangerous to our continued existence.
Robert Frost, it’s said, once quipped that a liberal is someone who won’t take his own side in an argument. Well, libertarians are people who won’t take their own side, ever. Better to perish than to defend yourself. Better to perish than to cause pain to an invader. Better to pretend, in this world of warring races and ethnies, that your group doesn’t exist — that there are “only individuals.” This is nothing less than suicidal ideation on a grand scale all dressed up in the cloak of “morality.” And it doesn’t matter if non-Whites attracted to libertarianism are sincere or not, cloaking their hatred of our people in babble about individualism and “non-aggression” or not. Either way, they’re making war on us.
Watch for ambitious Amash. Whatever he does, you can be sure it won’t be good.
At the end of the day the border of a country is like the front door of a man’s home under the castle doctrine. We are inside; they are outside. And defending that boundary with extreme prejudice, and at all costs, is an inalienable right.
Government’s great function, above all other things it does, is to protect us from invasion. But libertarians say government should basically do nothing, and certainly should not protect its own people. The very concept of “its own people” is racist and collectivist and wrong, they tell us. And if we let them have their way, they’re going to be the death of us all.
* * *
Source: Author
For further reading:
A Jew once said with relief and satisfaction: “Today, in the end, all are Jews: rootles wanderers, interested only in money.” So there must be a plan behind it, to turn them into soulless zombies. With one difference: Only those of all new “Jews”, who still possess an identity, will dominate all others and functionalize them as their servants. Humanoids differ in race, language, culture and religion. They all shape their mentality. Within Africa, different peoples’ “cultures” and languages can be distinguished. At least for the negroes themselves. Should they migrate into the realm of Uncle Sam, this local distinction will be lost, and one will identify (and also be perceived) only as “oppressed”. That which has no characteristic and no direction inevitably ceases to exist. A “something” must be… Read more »
Judging by the Ayn Rand picture, Libertarians also embrace trannies.
Ayn Rand’s books are just plain weird, with twists in the characters that go against human nature.
“The Fountainhead” is good if one reads it as if it were a comic book.
“Atlas Shrugged”—-bizarre, and Ayn, in the one-hundred-page speech of John Galt, just keeps hitting you over the head with her “philosophy” so that you just want her to shut up, already.
A good libertarian website is Lewrockwell.com. They are no friends of illegal immigration, or even of too much legal immigration.
In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt is both the motormouth of the world and the man who stops the motor of the world. His speech is said to be around three hours long. Ayn Rand (Alicia Rosenbaum) was famously once asked if she could summarize her ideas while standing on one foot. She replied in nine words: “Metaphysics: objective reality. Epistemology: reason. Ethics: self-interest. Politics: capitalism.” Rand’s ideas can be summarized with even greater brevity and accuracy than this. In his book Ruined by Design, Mike Monteiro simultaneously expresses the vulgarity of Rand’s thinking and his own when he writes: “For those of you not familiar with Ayn Rand, she wrote crappy books about the power of individual achievement while she collected social security and started some pseudo-philosophy called ‘objectivism,’ which… Read more »
I think that Ayn really did hate the communism that her family experienced, which ruined their prosperity. I think that she really tried to come up with an antidote to it. But . . . she just came up with a slower engine of destruction of the Volk and the community that people of the same race feel for one another. Her fantasy heroes are slim, muscular, principled, determined, philosophical, sexy capitalists. Yes, really. Comic-book stuff. Her books are designed to appeal to a certain clientele–one that is not really overly bright, but disillusioned with religion and “being nice” and which feels the amorphous and unbridled hopes of youth. I consider myself pretty much a libertarian—I think that what a person does in his own backyard, provided he has a… Read more »
My brother once bought me a copy of “Atlas Shrugged”.
I will admit that I read it, once. Then I threw it away.
And you are quite right, subtlety was not her strong point. Nor was logic, apparently.
Somebody also bought me a copy of Mandela’s “autobiography”. I threw that away, too. Actually I did not even bother to read it.
Ayn married a gentile, and several years later she fell in love with one of her young students, Nathaniel Branden who was also married, and Jewish. Ayn called them all together and said that since she was attracted to the heroic posturing of Nathaniel, that she should have sex with him. She got her husband and Nathaniel’s Jewish wife to agree to this! They would all prearrange things and all get together; Nathaniel and Ayn went into the bedroom, and Ayn’s husband and Nathaniel’s wife, Barbara took walks around New York. They did not like what was going on, but according to Ayn’s philosophy, it must be allowed to happen!!!! And they had to accept it!!!! I would have given Nathaniel a left-hook and then horsewhipped Ayn, if I were… Read more »
I call them Legalizeitmanbertarians, because whenever I read or hear something from one of them, pot is THE central issue. They will pretend to believe in absolutely anything if it helps them get pro-marijuana bills passed.
I certainly ran into a lot of that when I was a libertarian. Where I drew the line and turned my back on the philosophy, however, was when one of them began advocating for “consensual” pedophilia. That was a wake-up call to me that I was dealing with a sick philosophy.
You’ve no idea how tempting it is to dox that scum. I’ll spare the editors having to write me a “you can’t post that, Art” email, however.
One may find an
interesting follow-
up on the life
and times of the
Jewess Alisa
Zinovievna
Rosenbaum here
on White Bio:
https://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1120&hilit=Ayn+Rand+and+government+assistance
The original name of this person clarifies everything. They always urge others to do what they themselves wouldn’t do. Libertarianism is yet one of tribal decoys to divert gullible gentiles into intellectual dead end.
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.” – John Rogers
You know…by the other side, Libertarians defend your right to be yourself and defend your own land if you want to. It’s too strange. Libertarians defend your right to defend your people and live by your philosophy. Why you want to make them your enemy? Just because they have an individualist nature while you are collectivist?
If you followed this link…
https://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1120&hilit=Ayn+Rand+and+government+assistance
…you may become aware that this little
tin god David Kennison was always walking
around with a chip on the shoulder and
daring someone to knock it off. Later on
in the thread, one of his many female
devotees says she would have done
((anything)) to have pleased The David.
“Government’s great function, above all other things it does, is to protect us from invasion.”
I am sorry, but I have to point out something here.
This is an utopic idea of what a government is suppose to do. Protect us from invasion? But from whom? From the very enemies that government has created?
Governments always need some sort of bogeyman in order to justify its existence. Thus, it is imperative for them to create some, and even bring them in.
Make no mistake, governments great function, in practice, is to accumulate more power and control over the population, by whatever means necessary.
If you want to promote libertarianism, please do it somewhere else. Up to this date, it has done nothing for the White race.
Thank you for that, Jim. The Soviet Jewess, Ms. Rosenbaum, said that racism is the worst form of dread collectivism — except for those in her tribe, that is. Tucker Carlson, the proud libertarian, closes out his show each night on “conservative” Fox TV, declaring himself the sworn enemy of group think — except for those in the group, that cohesive tribe that his bosses and sponsors belong to, that is. Does Tuck wince when that commercial plays during his show, with some kike begging his viewers to send money to the starving Holocaust survivors in Russia? Tucker isn’t stupid; he’s just another moral coward who gets lots of face time on the Electronic Jew for going along to get along. Most of us are naturally live and let live… Read more »
Oh I see the mistake here.
This is true for an irresponsible and careless government that effectively doesn’t care for your wellbeing.
A good, healthy government that’s actually connected to its people, will do everything in its power to keep it safe.
Now this might seem impossible to someone who underwent neglect by their government, like most of us have. But of course it’s possible in essence. In fact it’s happened more than once in history.