Libertarianism Is Open Borders Globalism

Don’t take my word for it. 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, 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.

Hunter Wallace
the authorHunter Wallace
Hunter Wallace is the founder and editor of


  • Libertarian heaven…
    “An atomized, individualized deracinated class of mestizo-hybrids endlessly clicking on sponsored content.”
    -M. Enoch

  • An uneducated bigot is something that at least can be understood. You guys, on the other hand, are pusillanimous in your delusion. Between the alt-right and fundamentalist Islam we are sure to go back to the Dark Ages within this century. Enjoy the ride.

  • Today’s libertarianism is basically a religion; an ironic offshoot of the religion of marxism that’s the other side of the coin from the other offshoot of the religion of marxism – modern “liberalism”.

  • Sometime around the ’80s or ’90s FEE was taken over by the open borders libertarians. Prior to that there was Leonard Read and his inner circle of old-right libertarians in the tradition of Albert J. Nock. Immigration and multiculturalism were barely issues then, so I don’t know whether they would have approved of where their organization has landed, but can’t help but think they’d be more sensible. Perhaps commenter Samuel_Nock could add something to this. Meanwhile, a Tweet I first saw this morning, touting an article that appeared in the Febuary 2017 issue of Reason:

    Nationalism and Socialism are very bad ideas.
    But liberalism is a good one.

    There is, of course, no intrinsic connection between nationalism and socialism, but immediately I wondered: if nationalism is bad, what else other than bad could a NATION be? To their credit (I think), the liberalism of which they speak is the classical liberalism of Hayek and others, not that of the Democrat Party. Finally, just to add icing to the cake, the author of the article is none other than Deirdre McCloskey, the transsexual economics professor formerly known as Donald. And with that, I think I’ve had enough libertarianism for this evening.

  • Liberatsrians DO NOT believe in global communism and open borders, no matter what you read from a handful of stupid cocksuckers professing to speak for millions.

    • Those cocksuckers are Libertarians and there are millions of them. That’s Libertarianism. It’s a deracinated religion of autistic White cuckfags flooding White countries with the Turd World and Muslims.

      • Uh huh. Thats why most libertarians vote R when they cant vote other.
        You are just blinded by hate, thats why the vocal extremes.on this side are so easily outwitted and marginalized.

        With guys like you as the example, no wonder the ranks dwindle.
        Stupid fuck.

  • In order to have a free society you need a homogenous group that comes together naturally. Libertarians should read about Tatu Vanhanen’s research into social cohesion and diversity. He found that democracy and freedom do nothing to reduce ethnic conflict and that economic development has only a minor effect. He did however find that authoritarian regimes are able to effectively suppress and manage ethnic conflict. Look at the draconian hate speech laws coming into place across Greater Europe and you can see quite clearly that this is the direction we are heading in. Helmut Schmidt (the former Social Democratic Chancellor of Germany) has said much the same thing.

    Liberty requires social cohesion to work. Open borders and mass migration destroy social cohesion. Even Marx’s ideas were far better thought out than Jeffrey Tucker’s.

    • Yes, I remember someone doing either a podcast or article on something similar and related it to the notion of “civility”. True liberty comes civility and civility comes from a general consensus among the people to follow the “law of the land” (customs of law, traditions, customs, and culture, etc.) but those laws stem from their natural character and values so they don’t need to be enforced per se; it’s natural for this ethnicity (specifically Whites) to live in this way and they generally live in peace. I believe his example was rural Britain in the many decades before the mass immigration crisis. And now a wild card (immigrants–legal/illegal) are challenging that civility because it is foreign to them. It doesn’t come naturally from themselves which is why Britain (and much of Europe for that matter) will most likely become a militarized police state: 1) to suppress the incompatible immigrants and physically enforce laws upon them and 2) to suppress the ethnic Brits from violence against the immigrants and government.

    • I think social cohesion is the best argument for the alt-right to make, because it is backed up by science, and we see it function in the real world. A lack of social cohesion results in less trust between citizens, and less economic growth . The left believe they can solve this problem by eradicating racism. The real world experience is that white people flee other races whenever they can. Even in diverse cities like New York, white people form their own enclaves. Social justice warriors are always looking for ways to break up white communities, because they believe that doing so will bring economic benefits to blacks and browns. When white people do mix with blacks, we whites tend to suffer criminal victimization.

      The science showing that blacks and browns have lower IQ’s than whites is probably valid, but the social justice warriors have long practice in obfuscating these facts. The SJW’s just argue that IQ is mostly depended on nurture, not nature.

  • Back in the very late 90’s, when I knew that the Liberalism I had always assumed to be true and good was composed largely of lying and fraud, and requiring to go along with it, I took a stab at Libertarianism for a year or two. My visceral aversion to The Right was too strong for me to seriously consider that The Enemy had had more going for it all those years.

    Being of a somewhat philosophical frame of mind, I was intrigued and impressed. For a while. Then I found out that part of the platform of the Libertarian Party was Open Borders.

    That was the end of that.

    Libertarianism has no concept of culture and therefore of people or ethnos. As such, it is fundamentally wrong about human nature.

  • American Libertarianism = Tribalist Jewish bankers and bureaucrats controlling a wasteland of isolated individuals.

  • well done, Hunter. As a former card-carrying member of the Libertarian party, I can say you’ve hammered on the inherent weakness of the party’s cultural philosophy in general. Libertarian policies typically require man to live in a vacuum, devoid of culture and – as Hunter demonstrates – devoid of any identity outside strict individual/consumer.

  • The problem is the complete utopish thinking that humans can live as pure individuals without needing anyone else. This stupid thinking is ignoring the fundamental truth that not every human beeing is a super nice peace loving beeing and a libertarian, in this sence they portraiing it, that dont care about anything but himself and dont want anybody harm. Its ignoring human nature.

    The truth is that every human beeing was and will be confonted with aggressors that are up to no good. It starts with the guy that trys to scam you in a deal and ends with a group of people that is killing others for their world views or property like iSIS or the Mafia. Life will force you sooner or later to join forces with others, with YOUR People.

    True Libertarism actually ends in real anarchy which is something that identitarians can support but it has nothing to do with this idiotic utopia this guy is talking about.

    True Libertarism will end up in Gangs and Clans that fight each other or make peace with each other for noumerous reasons like in the mid-age, but it will NEVER result in an individual Utopia where everobody doesnt care about the next one like this leftwing liberatarien is hoping for.
    Personally i could live very good with this kind of Clan-Anarchy-Libertarianism. If my people an me protect themself and their homeland as a clan/gang, or a government doesnt make no difference to me cause it comes down to the point of my people an me. To think that if you leave everybody alone, everybody will do you the same favor is highly degenarte and foolish and it is fading aut the reality of human nature.

    • Which is utter bullshit, but it has a nice ring to it if you don’t want to think too deeply.

      • They were referring to Ayn Randian Libertarians as more Jewish poison to destroy the goyim cattle. It’s easier to sell their poison wrapped in the cloak of liberty in the USA. Sure it is more complicated. I read Road to Serdom in college and others, but you grow from there.

      • There is enormous similarity between Libertarianism and Bolshevism, and the Libertarian arguments that have the most traction are those which emerged out of the anarchists of Der Freien.

  • Good piece.
    I like Thatcher’s “Ordered Liberty”, or Hayek’s “Free People” concept, which seem to fit well within the Anglo-Saxon political tradition. You could call us National Libertarians or Libertarian Nationalists – we want a lot more liberty of speech and thought than there currently is in our cultural Marxist-dominated societies, but obviously we don’t plunge into Left-Libertarian insanity. And our focus is on liberty at home, not Universal Rights idiocy.

  • “panics about the demographic genocide of a race,”

    Nothing to panic over, of course. Hey Tucklypuff, I guess you won’t be needing all these jews around then, right? You’re getting a little red in the face, Tucklypuff. Just calm down, man, it’s no big deal.

    This guy has to be a globalist shill. Nobody but jews and conscious globalist/communist operatives have the gall to spew such double-talk. If you even murmured a suggestion of reducing the numbers of any race or ethnicity other than Whites, Tucklypuff would pounce on you as a “Nazi”. Express concern about White demographic genocide and it’s a TINFOILWINGNUTCONSPIRACYPANICTHEORY.

    These wordsmiths and cunning linguists want to keep us talking and “debating” them until it’s too late for us. Use your time wisely, and be careful what you devote your attention to.

  • Ludwig von Mises’s “career” in the United States looks fishy to me. Apparently after he washed up in New York as a refugee from Nazi Germany, he couldn’t get a real academic job, so an ad man named Lawrence Fertig bribed New York University to give Mises an office and pretend he worked there as a “visiting scholar,” or words to that effect. Fertig then paid Mises’s salary out of his own pocket.

    It looks as if Fertig hired Mises to teach and write the kinds of economic propaganda he wanted, where Mises wouldn’t have to bother with trying to defend his ideas to real economists in a quest for tenure.

    • In the Austrian school, Hayek was the superior thinker to Mises. Mises taught Hayek but clearly Hayek had the greater career, winning academic posts at prestigious universities and a Nobel Prize. Where is Mises’ classic like Road to Serfdom? Yet these Libertarian spergs name their Institutes after Mises, because many of them are Jews. Shocking that Jews prefer their own, I know.

      I’m over Austrianism but I remember Richard Spencer dabbling in Austrian Economics when he launched the first Alternative Right website in 2010. Most of the Alt Right has wisely moved on from Libertarianism.

      • Mises taught that if you produce goods in defiance of price signals, you misallocate resources and cause economic chaos. Yet the Mises Institute has digitized Mises’s writings, along with the writings of other Austrian-school economists, and it gives them away over the internet as “free” ebooks, even though you would have to pay market prices for these ebooks if you bought them from Amazon.

        Doesn’t this practice of producing and giving away “free” goods, while neglecting the price signals for doing so, misallocate resources?

        • Excellent point. And who wants to read a weighty economics tome on their phone, tablet, or pc? I still prefer a book I can mark up with my own small post it notes.

          Studies show that books aren’t going to die. People like to read books, and your book collection is a conversation piece that looks great in your home.

          • “your book collection is a conversation piece”

            Yes, it’s a form of status signaling. I know both liberals and conservatives that buy thick books and don’t read them. In once case I remember a broke liberal white woman spending nearly $50 on some weighty tome about Martin Luther King being advertised on NPR. She wasn’t buying the content of the book, which she didn’t read and never will. She was buying the thrill of moral superiority and a way to signal that she was a good “not racist” white person.

            In another case I know of a conservative who has invested in a book shelf full of writings by and about the American Founding Fathers, which he occasionally skims and posts out of context quotes on Facebook to pretend to have read and understood weighty books by the American Founding Fathers.

            Both just make themselves look like fools and seem clueless how obvious they are about it.

            I’ve done it myself, I once purchased a dense textbook on an obscure mathematical subject that while I was in fact interested in, I long ago admitted it was above my pay grade. But I still keep it on my shelf and pick it up occasionally to skim through, although I at least have the dignity to not pretend to have read it or understood it.

        • There are good thinkers associated with the Mises Institute, including Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Ron Paul, Hans Hermann Hoppe, and many others. Prior to the rise of the alt-right, they were the closest thing to a viable anti-establishment movement that we had. I believe that most of their membership has strong alt-right sympathies.

          • The electricity to run the internet requires tangible resources to generate and transmit to the end users.

          • Ever think about how many hours of your life you’re working just to pay for electricity, gas, car insurance, internet and phone, apps… How many moments of our lives are we losing just servicing all these machines that we somehow came to believe we need? Add in the actual purchase costs of your car, computer, refrigerator, dishwasher… Your time, energy, and attention/consciousness is your LIFE. These machines are literally sucking large portions of our lives away. And, as we become more reliant on machines, we lose the skills and abilities which were once “within” us. And clearly, the corporations and government take advantage of our “addiction” to gadgets by attaching licensing fees, mandatory insurance, monthly subscriptions (increasingly for software), and centralizing control of whatever they can (electricity grid). It is definitely high time we stop buying unnecessary mechanical and electronic devices.

          • I doubt these impose any marginal cost on them though. Just as my blogs cost me nothing.

        • Not at all, those writings are in fact priced by the market at the amount they are worth to the consumer: $0.00.

          Like all propaganda, including TV commercials, the audience is the product, the advertiser is the seller, and the customer is the firm who’s product is being advertised. In the case of, the customers are the Fortune 500 corporate lobbyists and apparently especially McDonalds, Taco Bell, and Budweiser. Perhaps that is an attempt to shift those brands from being associated with the poor, broke, and classless and imbue them with some sort of “hipster capitalist chic.”

          The product being sold is headspace inside the mind of young white libertarians.

          Honestly people really make too much of libertarianism, both good and bad. Most young whites into libertarianism don’t care about economic liberty at all, it’s all about smoking pot and counter-signaling conservative religious people.

          No one takes the people seriously at all. Most people were into Ron Paul because he was against the war and had some vague and hazy anti-Wall Street sentiments.

      • Speaking of Hayek, humans spontaneously order themselves into extended families, tribes and nations, based on perceived kinship and common traditions; this comes about as a consequence of human action but not of human design. The Alt Right prefers this kind of social organization over the utopian nonsense pushed on us by libertarians, leftists and globalists, and it certainly looks more Hayekian.

      • Both Hayek and Mises offer valuable critiques of the economic calculation problem and the related problems with socialism. We in the alt-right should work towards a modern fascism, not socialism.

        Socialism is inextricably linked to deracination, feminism, and Jewish control of societal institutions. On the other hand, fascism emphasizes the power of traditionalism and of the volk when their common ethnic identity and purpose is allowed to flourish.

        Fascism is compatible with industrial capitalism and the high standard of living we enjoy in the west, whereas socialism leads to the financialized bank-centric international “capitalism” that the globalists have used to loot the West of her wealth and power.

        Whatever once might think of Mises and Hayek, their critiques of socialism are largely correct and should not be ignored.

        • Fascism certainly had unpleasant aspects, it did provide a nationalist alternative to socialism which we would do well to follow. Although, in my opinion, the most promising aspect of fascism was bit its economics but palingenetic (rebirth) nationalism. Modern Western poz culture is hopeless; we need to look to our ancestors for guidance. I (being an English ethnonationalist) prefer to look to the Anglo-Saxon and Germanic past, and every European nation has a rich history to draw from.

    • A jewish intellectual’s career looks “fishy” to you? But don’t all intellectual movements eventually metastasize into open-borders globalism?

  • Well, what would you expect from guys who let a deracinated, atomized, sterile, damaged woman with a bad marriage – namely, (((Ayn Rand))) – tell them what “liberty” means?

    • Ayn Rand wasn’t deracinated. She was just another subversive jew, doing what’s best for her tribe. There are clips of her vehemently defending Israel. Christ had it right; “there is no truth in them”. Every philosophy and concept that comes from the jewish mind is pure psychological and spiritual poison, designed to weaken and eventually destroy “the goyim”. Jewish “memes” are nothing but spiritual malware.

      • She apparently abandoned her family back in the Soviet Union, she ignored her relatives in the U.S. even though they helped her to get established here, she married an Irish-American failed actor to stay in the country legally, and she tried to become more “American” than real Americans. That sounds deracinated to me. If she tried to reconnect with other Jews and defended Israel, those things happened fairly late in her life.

        • Funny how all her “self-hating jew” behaviors, as you seem to assess them, culminate in her life’s work (her philosophies and writings), which have proven rather destructive to America and the West.

  • If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.

    If you are 30 and not a conservative, you have no brain.

    If you are 40 and still a libertarian, you have neither a heart nor a brain.

Leave a Reply