Libertarianism Needs Nationalism

Why it Pays to Have a National Identity.

This article was originally published on

On the anniversary of 9/11, President Obama called for the US to embrace diversity.

The reason multiculturalism makes my blood boil is, whilst I am a libertarian, I am also strongly nationalistic.  Many libertarians confuse nationalism with collectivism, statism, and racism; the implication being, if you’re an alt-righter and share nationalistic sentiments, you’re no libertarian.  They assume we are delusionally taking personal pride in the historical achievements of long-dead, successful European people.  That is, we forget our individualistic selves and imagine a racial collective which can take credit for the achievements of others who share certain genes.  But, that’s not why I’m nationalistic at all.

dontrustlemeOf course, I am proud of Western civilization for developing modern capitalism and an overwhelming number of other great innovations, just as I am proud of the association I have with my beautiful, bright daughter or the successes of a close friend.  These things are a social benefit, however remote, to me and so I feel a natural desire to celebrate them.  However, my nationalism is based purely on my subjective values, derived from simple, socio-biological facts; not some superficial notion of ‘white pride’ – you know, Aristotle and John Locke were white etc.

First, nationality does not necessarily refer to the legal citizenship of a nation-state.

Eminent libertarian scholar, Murray Rothbard, noted, ‘Contemporary libertarians often assume, mistakenly, that individuals are bound to each other only by the nexus of market exchange.’  Therefore, any talk of groupings, such as nations, is considered as collectivist as statism.  ‘They forget that everyone is necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture. Every person is born into one or several overlapping communities, usually including an ethnic group, with specific values, cultures, religious beliefs, and traditions.’  This is the original meaning of nation – effectively, the extended tribe.

So, why do I favour homogeneity among European-origin groups?  Simply, there probably wouldn’t be a libertarianism without it.  In a previous article, I identified four socio-biological characteristics which gave rise to libertarianism in the West; one of which is earnestness, that is, a high-trust society.  Studies show that the societies with the highest levels of trust are characterized  primarily by ethnic homogeneity, such as Japan, but especially the Nordic countries.  Entire empires have fallen because of the tribalistic desire to look after one’s own.  The Ottomans stole millions of European children from our shores for centuries in order to indoctrinate them and create Janissaries – an administrative class with no biological ties to any group, only the state.  For the same reason, the Romans posted their infantry to far-flung parts of the Empire, removing all regional ties.

libertariansAs Nima Sanandaji explains in his book, Scandinavian Unexceptionalism, pre-existing cultural norms are responsible for the low levels of poverty among Scandinavians both within and without Nordic countries, before and during the harmful socialistic policies adopted since the 60’s and 70’s.  Of course, a higher average IQ, a propensity to hard work and a cultural respect for private property rights are important, but you need trustworthiness for healthy, regular trade.  Without a high trust society, you won’t have a significant capitalist class developing and, without that, you can kiss the manifestation of libertarian institutions good-bye.  In short, if you love freedom, you’ve got to love homogeneity.

What makes this talk of national groups individualistic?

Just because Westerners organise into societies with distinct cultures, doesn’t mean those cultures are collectivist, such as the Chinese and Japanese.  I subjectively value libertarian society, for myself and for my loved ones.  The more libertarian – the freer the people – the better.  I, therefore, value those groups which most manifest libertarian cultures and principles, and Western civilization alone has done so.  The incentive, then, for my white nationalistic streak is the libertarianism of largely homogeneous European societies, most notably, those of the Anglosphere.  Simply put, if libertarianism is to become more than an intellectual theory of law, if it is to manifest and grow in the future, it must become nationalistic.

Rik Storey
the authorRik Storey
One Englishman promoting the great libertarian values and sociobiological qualities of the West. Visit my page, That Libertarian Chap.


  • Good points but good luck with that. The modern Libertarian party is essentially Dems who like Guns, Gays, Drugs and Lower Taxes

  • The black race shall overcome the bigotry and hate. Equality for all, healthcare for all, fuck Trump. Bernie Sanders is god, Trump has a tiny dick, Obama’s is far larger (I have personally seen it). Factually the country is in a better position than it was 8 years ago and those are not #alternativefacts.

  • It’s an interesting argument, but fails in my view by confusing preference with necessity.

    Libertarianism does not “need” nationalism, to be implemented. For it to take place in practice only one thing is needed, namely that nobody in society will work for government. It will then cease to exist, for government consists only of people willing to work for it.

    Since governments have carved up the world into nations that process is most likely to take place nation by nation, but when it’s over and the whole world is free, migration will be unrestricted but (and here I move to agreement with Mr Storey) not many will chose to move. We all do, indeed, prefer the culture in which we were born, and there is nothing wrong with that. Free people will tour and trade, and sometimes migrate, but most likely migrant rates will be low.

    Mass migrations happen now because of intense pressure; Muslims move to Europe because their homes have been made a war zone, Mexicans move North because their government is so backward as to trap them in permanent poverty, etc. None of those pressures will survive the change to libertarian societies.

  • It’s pretty obvious that Libertarianism is a majority WHITE group, despite the fact that they claim to “not be racists”.

    They obviously need a bit of forced diversity in there because Libertarianism is inherently racist because of those evil white men. /s

    Seriously, most of the groups I’ve seen that involved Libertarianism or a form of Anarcho-Capitalism it’s always at least 90% white.

  • Libertarians are going Tech and trying to replace the handshakes in a high trust culture with FICO scores and Yelp reviews. Category error.
    They assume education and tech can preserve civil morality (NAP) even if you bring in Mestisos or Sharia Islamists.
    Almost no libertarian talks about the 2nd amendment in practical way (I will shoot thieves and attackers, then dial 911 or whatever)

    • I see the 2A in exactly that practical way. . .

      Most people think of Pacifism as “Pussifism” – that is, pacifists will not resort to violence even in defense of their lives . . . but this is not true.
      True Pacifism is nothing more than an unwillingness to <iinitiate violence – the NAP.

  • Culture is not defined by heritage. Culture is created by the people who live together. If those people choose to live together in harmony owning their own sovereignty while allowing others to own theirs, then I see no reason to separate myself from any other human who shares my values of self-ownership, be you black, white, yellow, brown or other. If you will not aggress me, I will not aggress you and we can be friendly neighbors showing respect to the other that we expect in return. Libertarianinism isn’t a cultural revolution. It’s a human revolution. All humans are sovereign beings who own themselves. That supercedes all other identities including nationalism. Nationalism is Team Mentality. And as anyone who follows sports knows. As long as your team is winning, you care not what kind of asshole the quarterback is. You are correct – humans are indeed tribal animals. but we can’t extrapolate the tribal/team structure to a large scale population. It doesn’t equate. A nation of 350 million individuals simply cannot be governed by an movement that respects individual sovereignty and thus Nationalism, Libertarianism or any other ism are doomed to fail on a global scale. The only way for Liberty to truly exist is within your small community. 150 people or less. where that group has absolute sovereignty over themselves. Imagine a world broken up into sovereign tribes – quick math is there would be about 47 million different tribes. Not feesible. So my point is, that your ism is no more effective than their ism. So stop worrying about who is in charge of the “Nation” and focus on your own tribe

  • I don’t buy it; as a musician I frequent a wider set of sub-cultures than any of my family members. I perform with black, Indonesian, and white musicians, in various contexts, and teach at a historic school. All of these environments are high trust.

    Homogeneity is frankly pretty boring after high school. Led Zeppelin made some great stuff but I can never understand those old farts who think music ended with Bonham or the Beatles…

  • Libertarianism is American nationalism. The entire history of America and the history of the Anglo-Saxon people before coming to this land show that Liberty is the most prized and hard-fought ideal of the true West. Tacitus documented the libertarian nature of our ancient forebears in ‘Germania’ and ‘Agricola’. Libertarianism is essentially the promotion of English Common Law and general Anglo-Saxon sensibility. It is a mistake, however, to conclude that libertarian sentiment is broadly European or that all European origin peoples are amenable to libertarian principles. Many European ethnic groups favor more despotic forms and this proclivity is ascendant within the alt-right.

    The argument against libertarianism in alt-right discourse is painfully weak. We hear that libertarianism is jewish because Ayn Rand was a yenta. We hear that libertarianism condones immorality. We hear that libertarianism is anti-white. Of course, these claims are utterly frivolous.

    Ayn Rand, while a crank and poor writer, did not invent libertarianism at all. Did Ayn Rand write the Magna Carta? Did Ayn Rand coin the motto of the State of New Hampshire, “Live Free or Die”? Did Ayn Rand persuade Patrick Henry to exclaim “Give me Liberty or give me death!” ? Certainly not. Rand was merely a pop guru of little significance and even less talent. The idea that libertarianism is jewish is utter nonsense given the clearly despotic Yiddish nature, Murray Rothbard notwithstanding.

    Libertarianism is the deadly enemy of immorality. When America was governed on a libertarian basis, immorality had very grave consequences indeed, including fatal consequences when merited. There’s nothing more libertarian than a lynching. Our forefathers believed that some malefactors were so odious that they had ought to be brought to justice at once! In those days, when a crime of true depravity was committed, the able bodied men assembled and dispatched the culprit forthwith. Degenerate criminals certainly have much to fear from a return to libertarian governance.

    As to the charge that libertarianism is anti-white, nothing could be further from the truth. Anglo-Saxon people are white and our legal and cultural principles are to be honored in the lands that our people have settled. When we were libertarian, Americans had a perfectly reasonable immigration policy, racial segregation and freedom of association.

    “Liberty and Independence forever!” – Davy Crockett

    • Did Ayn Rand write the Magna Carta? Did Ayn Rand coin the motto of the State of New Hampshire, “Live Free or Die”? Did Ayn Rand persuade Patrick Henry to exclaim “Give me Liberty or give me death!” ?

      Okay, Rand didn’t do those things. We have to look for some other libertarian time traveler.

  • Can anyone help elucidate the author’s claims of European/Western/White culture? Civilization in the continent of Europe started in the east of the Mediterranean region – agriculture, city-building, writing, law, architecture, mathematics, astrology, medicine, monotheism, trade and numerous technologies all came from Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Levant, etc, which were made of people who spoke Semitic and African languages, Indo-European languages and unrelated isolate languages (e.g. Sumerian). Civilization spread westward via the Mediterranean through the rest of Europe, along with peoples from Africa, Europe and Asia. How does the term European/Western/White fit into history according to the author’s claims? Are these terms interchangeable?

  • Will you Proudfags please change your name? You might have good ideas, but no one can stop snickering long enough over your name to hear them. Do you not see that the name “proudboys” was picked to MOCK you? I will never, ever support a group called “Proudboys”. gay.wav

  • It says a lot about the failure of American-style libertarianism that it derives from the writings of three sterile, damaged women in the last century who couldn’t form stable marriages, namely, Isabel Paterson, Rose Wilder Lane, and of course, (((Ayn Rand))).

    Rand, especially, promoted just about the whole agenda of feminist degeneracy short of homosexuality and transgenderism. Decades later her Kool-Aid drinkers can’t figure out why there movement has failed to thrive, and they have to engage in the creepy practice of trying to recruit teenagers from normal people’s families to replenish the cultists’ ranks as the older ones die off without offspring.

    Well, duh. They don’t want to admit that Rand screwed up. Women’s natural function of childbearing, but not the sex that causes it, apparently grossed Rand out, and she managed to convey this disgust to her nuttiest followers.

    I also find it interesting that Rand wanted to alienate her Anglo-American fans from their own literary tradition by, for example, disparaging Shakespeare, so that she could substitute a phony alternative tradition in which her novels looked better. That sounds like the sort of subversion other Ashkenazi Jews in the last century did to break down white societies.

  • Libertarians have a tendency of believing that capitalism can solve everything. This is untrue, as it is capitalism that led us to the neoliberal globalist complex we face today.

    A few tweaks to the capitalist system, namely market socialist intitiatives and a form of geolibertarianism and protectionism, and it might work.

      • Capitalism is corporatism. Unlike what ancap nutbars think, there has never been an instance where capitalist businesses have not tried to lobby government in some way.

        No, simply engaging in the “free exchange of goods” and doing things through “voluntary action” is not capitalism. Certain socialist systems are market-based. Anarcho-primitivists, who have no notion of property, also engaging in trade.

        • actually they are not the same – that’s why they have different definitions. Go ahead and use the Oxford Dictionary. Socialism and Communism are not the same thing either correct? but the two are often conflated. Also Communism and Fascism. Words have meanings and it’s important to use words correctly. Dictionaries are free online if you are unable to purchase one.

          • It is impossible to distinguish the ancap definition of corporatism from what actually happens in every capitalist society ever. So no, they are about the same thing.

    • As capitalism is the greatest force for good in the history of man. . . one would be money ahead betting on capitalism to solve everything.

      Without government protection, i.e., Corporatism – there could and would be no neoliberal globalist complex, because of the missing protection racket.

      • Corporatism will always exist to one degree or another. think of it this way. Corporations will bill their security costs to the average worker through state taxes. The state benefits corporations.

  • Excellent article !! This argument also summarized by Greg Johnson in a masterful critique you can find on YouTube really won me over. (Google Greg Johnson and Libertarian).

    The George Will cucks who believe nationhood is infinitely elastic know better as does most of the National Review. Jewish money and their unhinged views on immigration of course have completely corrupted the post Sobran “right”.

  • Everything possible in a homogeneous state. Any …isms. The main reason why Soviet Union was not fixable because it was a heterogeneous state. Nothing is going to work in the heterogeneous state. No …isms. The civic nationalism is utopia. Sooner or later, typically during a shake up, the dominant ethnic groups will separate in their mini ethnostates.

    Only Sadam Hussein could hold Iraq together and Communist Party – China. Liberalism will NOT work in the heterogeneous states. Tens of examples throughout history and across the world.

  • I think the author of this piece makes some good points about why libertarians, who are often white males, should not confuse white nationalism with statism.
    I came to White Nationalism via the America patriot movement. Simply put, study of those who were subverting my country brought me to the JQ, which then brought me to the larger issue of race itself. In my 20s I read a bit of libertarian material, until i realized that Lew Rockwell types valued wealth greater than the Founding Fathers -and would not speak about Jewish subversion. I think that there is hope that many libertarians will become full out White Nationalists if introduced to it properly.
    I also agree with the author that a society can be somewhat libertarian in it’s laws -as long as it is an ethnically cohesive society (hopefully with a common moral code derived from a common religion of religious book). I desire to stir my volk up to remember who we are via the Amerikaner identity concept. You can check out my essay on that on the link below:

    • You do realize that religious moral codes are most often not moral and not codes, yes?

      Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you’re told.
      Religion is doing what you’re told, regardless of what is right.

      So. . . hopefully, without a common religion.
      Hopefully, with common sense.

  • Libertarians have not achieved power in any state and will not for a simple reason: they lack the collectivist spirit that is needed to ascend to power. All this talk of individualism, free trade, night-watchman state etc is a road to nowhere at best and corporatism at worst. Faith, folk, family; that’s it!

    • The whole libertarian “anti-collectivist” thing makes no sense of any kind. All human activity requiring more than one person is “collectivist” in some way. Every business that has more than one employee is “collectivist.”

      The whole “anti-collectivist” thing appears to have been popularized by Ayn Rand, who as a Zionist supported “collectivism” for Israel – and she even called her inner circle … “the Collective.” Did people not get the joke/scam?

      An important part of liberty is the freedom of association – association means a “collective.” To have freedom of association you have to be able to invite and expel people from your “collective.”

      I don’t think these libertarians have really thought this through.

      • No, a voluntary association (such as a business enterprise) is not collectivist at all.

        Collectivism refers to forced association (for example, majority rule) regardless of the wishes of individuals. Clubs and businesses consist of people who have joined together by choice and by contract, to fulfill some objective.

        Libertarians have “thought this through” perfectly well; I’m not sure that anyone else has.

        • You’re free to leave a country just like you’re free to move out of a neighborhood with a restrictive covenant just like you’re free to sell the stock of a company when the management does something you disagree with.

          So there is no forced association.

          • “America, love it or leave it!”

            And there was I, supposing that all went out with the 1960s.

          • To own (and subsequently sell) a stock is voluntary. To be born in a country and to become subject to the gang of thugs running it is not.

            You’re right about me being libertarian. I believe in free choice by individuals; you evidently prefer control by whoever can grab the levers of power.

            However you seem to have confused Ayn Rand with Libertarianism. There is a good deal of common ground and we honor many of her her brilliant analyses; but she explicitly declined to be known as a libertarian and failed to follow her own logic in respect to defense and justice.

    • You may be right about why the LP has not “achieved power”. I think there is an extra reason; to achieve power is a contradiction of what libertarianism is all about. We do want power over our own lives, but not over anyone else’s. For that reason I favor a non-political way to abolish the state.

Leave a Reply