The Alt-Right: A Libertarian ReappraisalThe Children of the Anti-Left

For the past seven to eight years, younger people have had an extensive buffet of political options in front of them, and I am among those who have been exposed to this. We have seen that through the propagation of political opinions via the expansion of the internet that many people have been exposed to previously suppressed beliefs. This has brought forward quite a few positives, the alt-right and libertarians both have had their ideas and their thinkers revived. We see the revival of Sam Francis, Murray Rothbard, J. Philippe Rushton, Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, Ludwig von Mises through the viewership of their lectures of the reading of their works. We have seen the re-introduction of Jared Taylor, Richard Lynn, Charles Murray, Hans Hermann Hoppe, Lew Rockwell, Peter Brimelow, Pat Buchanan, and the introduction of Nicholas J. Fuentes, and our views of race, our views on culture, our views on egalitarianism reintroduced, and we have seen the revival of libertarianism and Austrian economics. This, of course, is sincerely hated by the former-Trotskyist neo-conservatives and the neo-liberals. Although we both are part of the dissident right, and have bigger fish to fry than ourselves, for example the idiotic new Marxist internationalist left, we often fight with each other, and of course we do have our disagreements. That being said the Libertarian disgust for the alt-right is an idiotic and childish reaction to the infantile rejection of social norms, or biological reality, of hierarchy, racial preference and an attempt to be accepted by the status quo, and the leftists. And while I, an anarcho-capitalist libertarian do have critiques for the alt-right I view the libertarians as the main cause of the division between us.

Those who call themselves libertarians will often add a layer of unnecessary and uncomplimentary social progressivism. This conflation of libertarianism with libertinism, is one of the reasons for the aforementioned dislike that the alt-right has felt to libertarians. We are often viewed as a these overly progressive free marketeers who are willing to destroy the common white principle of private property for small economic growth, disregarding the impossibility of racial integration, especially of blacks and whites, but also hispanics with limited European admixture, or the tide of muslims that is forced upon us. These people have not contributed to any kind of principles that a libertarian should uphold, that being the principle of private property. Those who have contributed are white property owning men of good character, but the Australian aboriginal has not helped with the advancement of these principles, and the acceptance of these people will do nothing but allow for bums and vagrants to occupy the public streets. The existence of these parasitic people is contrary to any libertarian principle of private property. If the nation's public roads or libraries are owned by those of the taxpayer, and if the state must exist, then the state should act as close as it possibly can to what a private citizen would do. Of course in a private covenant community, such as the ones proposed by Professor Hans Herman Hoppe, who we have seen share many of my interests in a possible allegiance with the other side of the anti-egalitarian dissident right, the alt-right, acceptance of a low IQ person who has limited capital to invest and who is not able to successfully conform to the cultural

norms of the community, for example speaking English fluently, or being a sociable person would have trouble entering the covenant. These basic rules, that of an IQ test for entry, English language proficiency, or being a good neighbor would allow for effective libertarian borders, not open borders, but borders who would heavily favor white-Europeans. The bums, the dullards, the parasites will not be accepted and can apply for entry elsewhere, and distant trade can be had with them when needed. We have enough of a dysgenic population in the United States, specifically considering that the growth of racial minorities is rapidly expanding and the intelligence of these minorities, specifically the black minority is considerably low.

The inability for these racial minorities to have any real effect in changing their IQ has been documented. IQ is the current best measurement we have for g that being the general intelligence factor. IQ is very clearly due to genetic differences between racial groups. For example the brain size of the Australian aborginal is quite small when compared to that of a caucasoid or of the oriental. Of course we hereditarians differ from the environmentalists as we understand that people and groups aren’t equal. Inability to accept this fact, which was essentially proven by Dr. Rushton, Dr. Lynn, Dr. Jensen, Dr. Levin and Dr. Herrnstein, is again an infantile rejection of hierarchy often put forward by libertarians. These people of course fail to understand that property as a concept implies hierarchy. General intelligence is very difficult to raise, and is somewhere between 50 to 80 percent hereditary. The acceptance of this fact can allow for us to adequately explain to those skeptical of hierarchy, especially that created in a capitalist system, why racial groups will never be economically equal. This can also allow for the racial separation sought by many in the alt-right. We must of course understand that mixing a low IQ, and because of their abbreviated life span, high time preference (seeking short term gratification) populace with a higher IQ and a lower time preference populace will result in crime. Lower IQ’s of course correlate with having minimal capital, intelligence shaping the low minority socioeconomic status the egalitarians often complain of, and high intelligence does the opposite. This means we have a high capital, intelligent, and non-impulsive racial group and a low capital, low intelligence and impulsive racial group. Crime will certainly rise and opportunity for it will be found because of the capital concentration within those of higher intelligence, something that the low intelligence group will have trouble resisting. The crime will also only be a one way thing. The low IQ blacks are not the victims of high IQ whites or orientals. If again a libertarian wants to propagate private property, racial integration is not the answer.

It truly is saddening to see that the CATO institute libertarian, who is a proponent of immigration, the Civil Rights Act, the supporter of feminism or homosexuality, the racial egalitarian is being put forward as the true libertarian. These people despise any reasonable libertarian, who accepts racial differences, and accepts that the socially progressive movement will never accept an egalitarian social policy, without dismantling the anti-egalitarian property rights structure. Luckily we do not have to ally ourselves with them. Instead we can re-envision the Paleo Strategy that Murray Rothbard proposed. We must understand that we as

anti-egalitarians have more in common than any of the status quo groups. We must fight this revolt for egalitarianism, this push away from reality and human nature.