Please consider purchasing a copy of White, Right, and Libertarian
Whether it’s ancient Ireland (See also For A New Liberty pages 286-290), Medieval Iceland, the Middle Ages in Europe (See also From Aristocracy, to Monarchy, to Democracy), the so called “Wild” West in 19th Century America, or the modern day principality of Liechtenstein it is no coincidence that history’s closest approximations to a genuinely libertarian social order have all manifested in super-majority (~90% or more) White nations.
Of course, exploring the relationship between the “Whiteness” of a population and its predisposition to libertarian or laissez-faire capitalist values/principles is considered utterly taboo in this present era of “social justice” (i.e. in the Cultural Marxist sense of the phrase). In spite of this, however, an investigation of this type is more critical now than ever due to the artificial and deliberate demographic decline and displacement of Whites in their own countries coupled with the mass influx of 3rd world immigrants to the West. This demographic overhaul threatens not only the foundations of Western civilization, but the very distinctiveness and survival of Whites as a people. The thesis set forth is simple, the more White a society is, then (ceteris paribus) the more amenable it will be to establishing a proper libertarian social order. Conversely, if Whites are extinguished (whether by miscegenation, below replacement birth rates, displacement, and/or mass murder), then any viable chance of establishing, let alone sustaining, a libertarian social order will die along with them.
Lastly, it is important to note that the thesis of this essay in no way implies that achieving a libertarian social order is more important than restoring White homelands. The restoration of White homelands has many salutary effects beyond enabling the creation of a libertarian legal system, however the exploration of these additional merits falls outside the scope of the current work.
Is Race a Valid Scientific Category to Begin With?
The very first question that comes to mind when considering this topic is whether human “races” are valid scientific categories in the first place. After all, it is in vogue to deny the existence of race altogether. The popular narrative is that the idea of separate distinct races/sub-species within the human population is simply a chauvinistic, outdated, and pseudo-scientific anachronism. Of course, race skeptics tend to reserve their incredulity for whenever Whites claim a positive distinctiveness as a people, yet they are conspicuously silent when non-whites make the same such claims regarding their people. This aside, however, it is worth investigating whether there is a valid scientific basis and practical utility for categorizing different people groups into different races or sub-species. This is especially true when one is considering macro-policy decisions and societal evaluations. When such strategic decisions or evaluations are being made, inferences which may be drawn from a multitude of demographics, including race, become indispensable. This is particularly true when it comes to immigration policy. It would be foolish to make such macro policy decisions or evaluations on the basis of individual outliers, as opposed to general demographic trends. For the purposes of briefly demonstrating the validity of race as a category, I will defer to the superior analysis of the writers from The Alternative Hypothesis:
So, firstly, how do members of different races differ, if at all? Well, obviously, the races do not differ in the sense that every member of one race has some trait, or gene, that no member of another race has. However, they do differ in terms of what the average person from each race is like. For one, as we all know, the races differ in mean skin color and various other “superficial” traits such as hair color and hair type, the length and density of various bones, muscle composition, etc., (Garn 1951; Pollitzer and Anderson 1989; Connor 2012; Araujo 2010). Perhaps less well known is that these differences do not stop at the outside of the skull. Dozens of studies going back over a hundred years have shown that races differ in mean brain size and modern technology has recently revealed that races also differ in brain shape (Fann et al. 2015). Racial groups also differ in their frequency of various gene variants and the rate at which they possess various diseases (including genetic diseases) (Piffer 2015; Ebert et al. 2014; Mega 2015; Piel et al. 2014) .
As we’ve already discussed, differences allow for prediction. Researchers can predict someone’s self-identified race with more than 95% accuracy using measures of their skull, and over 99% accuracy by looking at their genome (Sesardic 2010; Rosenberg et al. 2002; Tang et al. 2005; Rosenberg et al. 2005; Bamshad et al. 2003; Guo 2015)…..
They then move on to address the claim that “because humans share such a large percentage of DNA, the creation of racial subcategories is unimportant and useless”:
Following the human genome project, many people heard that we share 99.9% of our DNA, and so there just isn’t enough genetic variation among humans to cause significant differences.
First, we don’t share 99.9% of our DNA. The human genome project researchers that made that claim have since retracted it (Levy et al. 2007) . But we do probably share around 99% of our DNA. That said, we also share 95-98% of our DNA with Chimps and, yet, there are some pretty big differences between us and chimps (Varki and Altheide 2009).
The reason that a small percentage difference in DNA can lead to big differences is simple: a small percentage of a huge number can still be big, and genomes are huge. The human genome is made up of 3 billion nucleotide base pairs. If you compare two people’s genomes, these base pairs won’t match up roughly 0.5% of the time (Levy et al. 2007). 0.5% of 3 billion is 15 million base pairs. To put that in perspective, the difference between someone with and without the disease sickle cell anemia is a single base pair (SNPedia).
In fact, the human species has as much or more total genetic variation than many other species of animals:
Source: Woodley (2009)
(“Heterozygosity” is the probability that two individuals will have different gene variants for the same gene. This is different than the 99.5% number which refers to base pairs, which are the building blocks of genes.)”
For more information on the validity and existence of race please see “Human Races are Real: Race is a Valid Scientific Category“, “The Existence of Race“, “Taxonomic Approaches to Race“, “A Response To: ‘There is More Genetic Variation Within Than Between Races!“, and “Race is Both a Social Construct AND a Valid Biological Category.”
What is White?
Broadly speaking, White people are those of predominantly European genetic ancestry. Greg Johnson defines White people as “the aboriginal peoples of Europe and their unmixed descendants around the world.” (The White Nationalist Manifesto, pg. 68). In the same chapter, Johnson acknowledges the common objection that if we cannot provide an air tight and perfectly discernible definition of what it is to be “White” then the concept will lose all meaning. However, this objection loses credibility when one pauses to consider that virtually everyone has the ability to identify a White person, even if he is unable to articulate a technical and air tight definition of the category. Moreover, the same such standard is never applied to non-whites when they provide general descriptions of what it means to be “Black”, “Asian”, “Mestizo”, “Jewish”,…etc. Nor is it an issue for these same race critics to identify Whites when they want to indict them for acts of “oppression” (whether historical or present day), “racism”, “xenophobia”, “sexism”….etc.
Aside from this, when scientists run sets of DNA through a program to maximize the differences between groups, while minimizing differences within said groups, the results neatly match up with general conceptions of racial categories. This practice is referred to as “genetic cluster analysis” and it confirms the genetic distinctiveness of Whites (genetic Europeans) and other races. Thus, race may be a “social construct”, but it is based on real genetic distinctiveness which extends beyond mere skin color. The writers from The Alternative Hypothesis elaborate on this practice in the following:
“Genetic cluster analysis” is worth bringing up here. In a genetic cluster analysis, you give a computer program information on a ton of people’s DNA and you tell it to sort the data into X number of groups, called clusters, so that the genetic differences within each cluster are minimized while the genetic differences between clusters is maximized. When you do this and tell the computer to group human genetic variation into 4 – 6 “clusters”, the clusters end up mirroring the races such that researchers can predict someone’s race based on which cluster they are assigned to with a 99%+ level of accuracy (Rosenberg et al. 2002; Tang et al. 2005; Rosenberg et al. 2005).
Thus, races are groups of people who are more genetically similar than average. Consider next that behavioral geneticists have shown conclusively that the more genetically similar people are the more alike they will tend to be in terms of just about every trait imaginable, from body size, to intelligence, to personality (Polderman et al. 2015; Plomin et al. 2015). Studies utilizing adoption, and molecular genetic analysis of unrelated individuals, show that this is true even when the individuals in question grow up in different families and in different environments. What this implies about race, then, is that members of the same race will not only be more similar than average genetically, but will also tend to be more similar than average with respect to every trait that is heritable, which is all of them.”
They then move on to address the question of “how many races are there?”:
Some people will rhetorically ask “how many races are there?”. There is no one answer to this question, and some people think that this entails that races don’t exist, but it really does nothing of the sort.
Sometimes, given the level of information we have and what we are trying to do, it can be useful to break humans into as few as 3 races or as many as dozens. Sometimes we want to talk about “whites”, sometimes “northern Europeans”, and sometimes “Celts”. This isn’t contradictory or hard to understand. It just reflects the fact that we need varying levels of specificity in different contexts.
Finally, Sean Last created the following brief video to address the objection to White Nationalism on the basis that the definition for White is insufficiently specific:
I recommend reading Greg Johnson’s chapter on “Whiteness” in his book The White Nationalist Manifesto as well as Ryan Faulk’s essay addressing the other common contention that “Human Genetic Variation is Continuous and so not Racial.” What race skeptics mean by this is that human races exist on a gradient scale, thus establishing boundaries between each race is arbitrary. However, Faulk argues that not only is this claim of racial gradience largely incorrect, but that even if it were true it would not invalidate the breaking up of peoples into different racial categories from a scientific perspective. The examples he appeals to include the demarcation of high, normal, and low blood pressure, the demarcation between rich, middle class, and poor,…etc.
Nation vs. State
Prior to defining “White Nationalism” it is important to note the distinction between the “nation” and the “State”, especially since the topic at hand involves the advocation of a White Nationalist strategy to achieve a libertarian end. For this task I will refer to my previous notes on the subject:
Black’s law dictionary defines the “Nation” as:
“A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty [State].”
This should make clear that a nation does not necessarily entail a State, yet it usually entails commonality in at least one, but more often a combination, of the following: language, custom, religion, race…etc. Nationalism, on the other hand, simply involves placing a premium on the interests of a particular nation defined as such.
Source: “For A Libertarian Alt-Right“
What is White Nationalism?
Greg Johnson defines White Nationalism as “ethnonationalism for all specific white peoples. White Nationalists wish to preserve, restore, or create sovereign racially and ethnically homogeneous homelands for all white peoples who aspire to self-determination.” (The White Nationalist Manifesto, Pg. 58) From this, one should be able to conclude that White Nationalism in no way conflicts with genuinely libertarian principles (that is, libertarianism of the Hoppean or Anarcho-Capitalist variety). For more on this subject, read “There is Nothing Unlibertarian About White Nationalism.”
A good place to start when attempting to demonstrate the comparatively greater amenability Whites, as a whole, have towards libertarian principles is polling data. The first chart displays the results of a Pew Research poll demonstrating to what degree Whites, Blacks, Asians, Other/Mixed, and Latinos prefer smaller government in general. The results could not be any more clear. Nearly 3/4 of Whites prefer smaller government, whereas 90% or more of Latinos, Blacks, Other/Mixed, and Asians do not. This is compelling information, however it may help to review racial differences regarding specific policy positions as well.
Source: Pew Research Center, “Nothing in Paritculars who would rather have smaller government; fewer services” Pew Research Center
On the matter of Gun Control, Whites are the only people who, as a whole, favor protecting gun rights over governmental gun control. Conversely, approximately 3/4 of Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics favor gun control over protecting gun rights.
According to a 2017 Cato Institute survey, 2/3 of Whites oppose government restrictions of “hate speech”, whereas nearly 60% of Blacks and Hispanics support restrictions on “hate speech.” Clearly, Whites are by far the most ardent advocates of free speech.
Finally, an October 2013 survey conducted by PRRI revealed that nearly 30% of Whites are or lean libertarian, whereas only about 10% of Hispanics lean libertarians (only about 1% actually were libertarian) and only 6% of Blacks leaned libertarian (with virtually no blacks identifying as libertarian). Even more striking was the fact that nearly 95% of American libertarians are White (it’s likewise important to note that those surveyed were categorized as libertarian or otherwise based on their answers to a myriad of policy position questions, as opposed to being categorized on the flimsy basis of self identification). Conversely, nearly 40% of Hispanics and Blacks either leaned or were “communalist” (a.k.a communist), whereas less than 20% of Whites leaned or were communalist.
Source: “In Search of Libertarians in America“
In light of these numbers, it should be very apparent how the prospect of establishing a libertarian society will be affected as America and other Western countries become progressively less White.
The Current Distribution of Social and Economic Liberty
This brings us to the question of “which countries are the most free?” Answering this question helps establish whether the personal policy positions of Whites (as indicated by the above polls) actually translate to freer societies and smaller States. The heat map displayed below indicates the overall degree of freedom enjoyed by different countries in the world. It was produced by The Frasier Institute. As you may be able to tell, the freest countries and regions are almost always predominantly White.
Displayed below is a table created from the same study which ranks the countries according to their relative degrees of freedom. It’s worth noting that of the top 20 freest countries, 18 of them are predominantly White. Hong Kong is an outlier and a special case because, until the mid 1990’s, it was a British colony and thus benefits from a history of Western rule and influence. To their credit, East Asians have relatively high IQ’s and low time preferences which assists them in sustaining libertarian leaning political systems (more on the relationship between IQ/time preference and the practical ability to establish and sustain a libertarian society later). Moreover, Hong Kong is racially and ethnically homogeneous. The same is true of Taiwan, the only other non-White country in the top 20 list.
Source: The Human Freedom Index 2018
The most fundamental basis of libertarianism is private property. Thus, it behooves one to consider which of the World’s countries have the greatest respect for property rights. According to The Heritage Foundation‘s 2018 Economic Freedom Index, they are also in nearly all cases predominantly White countries.
Source: The Heritage Foundation, 2018 Economic Freedom Index
Generally speaking, the more individualist a people, then the more amenable they will be to libertarian principles. The more collectivist a people, then the more amenable they will be to communist principles. Gordonichenko and Ronald define what they mean by each of these terms in the following:
Individualism is a cultural trait that emphasizes personal freedom and achievement. Individualist culture therefore awards social status to personal accomplishments such as important discoveries, innovations, great artistic or humanitarian achievements and all actions that make an individual stand out. In contrast, collectivism emphasizes embeddedness of individuals in a larger group. It encourages conformity to a group, loyalty and respect to one’s superiors, and discourages individuals from dissenting and standing out. (Culture, Institutions, and the Wealth of Nations, Pg. 1-2)
Gordonichenko and Ronald created a heat map based on the results of their studies revealing to what degree various countries were individualist or collectivist. The results were unmistakable, predominantly White countries are distinctly more individualist than non-White countries. In fact, individualism is a trait that is unique to Western (a.k.a White) Civilization as a whole.
Source: Culture, Institutions, and the Wealth of Nations, Gordonichenko and Ronald (2012)
Unfortunately, the concepts of individualism and collectivism in the present era have been greatly confused and perverted. One’s individualist disposition (as defined above), does not preclude him from harboring a racial identity. In fact, until the mid 20th century Whites were keenly aware of their racial distinctiveness as a people and were very concerned with maintaining their super majority status in their homelands. This is in spite of their comparatively individualist dispositions.
However, (((cultural Marxists))) exploited and perverted the natural individualist disposition of Whites to convince them to relinquish their own racial identity/consciousness and to oppose other Whites who retain theirs. They accomplished this through their “long march through the institutions” which include academia, hollywood, Journalistic Media, the Central Bank, the Military, Social Media, and public schools. It is important to note that the preceding institutions are either wholly creations of the State or largely supported by it. Conversely, cultural Marxists encourage and promote the racial awareness of non-Whites while simultaneously imbuing them with a hostile anti-White mentality.
This does not indicate a weakness of individualism, but should instead alert us to the dangers of (((those))) who would infiltrate and subvert our precious Western institutions and culture in an attempt to use them against us. Thus, instead of forgoing those distinctly Western values which helped make Western civilization the most accomplished and prosperous civilization the world has ever known, Whites should raise their awareness of subversive threats and acquire a more precise understanding of their traditional customs and norms. This will help safeguard them from being so easily manipulated and used against Whites in the future.
Moreover, libertarianism in no way precludes White racial consciousness/identity or any other such collective consciousness. It is only necessarily individualist in a strictly legal sense. That is to say, libertarianism is only individualist insofar as it recognizes only the owner(s) of a particular scarce good has the legal right to employ it as he/she sees fit, regardless of the will of the State. This, however, does not preclude the formation of contractual covenant communities and the like as a means of establishing rules for a community or nation..etc.
For more on the topic of Individualism read: “Population Differences in Individualism,” “Saving the West and Libertarianism From Cultural Marxism,” and “Libertarianism is Not Opposed to All Forms of Collectivism”
For information relating to the (((Jewish Question))) (JQ) see: “The Jewish Origins of Communism,” “Exposing Zionist Control Over Aggressive U.S. Foreign Policy,” “Central Banking – The Leviathan Behind the Globalist Agenda,” “The Jewish Question: An Empirical Examination,” “Reply to Jordan Peterson on the Jewish Question,” and Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements.
A common question raised by those confronted with this topic is whether a libertarian social order could still be established if we include non-Whites who have been handpicked as having a relatively high-IQ, low time preference, libertarian disposition….etc. Such individuals would generally have a greater willingness and ability to assimilate in a libertarian society than non-Whites who were not selected on these grounds. However, this would nevertheless be sub-optimal due to the negative impact a racially/ethnically heterogeneous population has on social trust. Biologically, humans are inclined to be more willing to extend trust and “altruistic” acts to those who are more genetically similar to themselves than to those who are more genetically different. One can imagine the ordinal preferences regarding such acts being ranked in the following manner: children > immediate family > extended family > ethnicity > race > species. People of one’s own race are more genetically proximate to him than people of other races. Eli Harman elaborates in the following:
Trust is one form of altruism. Trust can be abused. This means there is always a risk and a cost to extending trust, and no guarantee that trust will be reciprocated either with trustworthiness or trust in return. But the likelihood of trust being honored and reciprocated increases with kinship, just as the likelihood of any altruism being reciprocated increases with kinship, because kinship makes altruism and reciprocity more evolutionarily stable and self-enforcing.
The lesser the degree of kinship, on the other hand, then the fewer natural downsides to parasitism, defection, or untrustworthiness, and the more proactive measures must be undertaken to ensure reciprocity thus making for higher transaction costs. One can deliberately undertake such measures, but he must understand when and why they are necessary, and he must pay higher costs (in monitoring, accounting, and enforcement) to enact and maintain them.
In a nutshell that’s why race is important, because race is a close proxy for kinship and trust is always higher and transaction costs lower with people who are more akin, along any number of dimensions, but especially genetic. Thus racial and ethnic criteria are sound, rational, and adaptive criteria for ingroup/outgroup identification.
This is why ethnocentric cooperation evolved a.k.a in-group preference. This always evolves under a wide variety of conditions and assumptions provide only that reproduction is local (offspring are not randomly distributed geographically but emerge in proximity to parents) and traits are at least somewhat heritable.  (Harman, “The Relationship Between Race, Culture, and a Libetarian Social Order“)
Richard Storey elaborates further still:
Biology draws a line where we humans are prepared to stretch our altruism. Ordinarily, we only really care about our immediate family; what sort of parent wouldn’t put their child’s interests before those of another? But, Frank Salter, in On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration, argues that groups who share a greater percentage of their genes form ‘ethnies’ — biological populations that will act for the welfare of the group in times of need. Thus, when endangered, ethnic groups extend their protective impulses to ethnic kinship, as a natural extension of family kinship.
Those who would find such a grouping too vague of a definition should recognize that, for example, half of Europeans are descended from a single Indo-European king and should study further the fact that our nations have been largely homogeneous through most of history. The Japanese, as one of many other examples, do not have such a problem identifying their own.
As a strongly libertarian lover of Western civilization, to which such individualism is unique, it is important to me that the natural, socio-biological order of the European civilizations is maintained. (Storey, The Benefits of Ethno-nationalism)\
The notion that ethnic and racial heterogeneity negatively impacts social trust has also been confirmed empirically via the meta-analysis conducted by Dinesen and Sonderskov. Their findings are summarized in the following:
Exercising great caution, we do believe it is fair to say that the main finding from the literature is a negative—albeit not always significant—relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust.
…The negative relationship seems to be more prevalent in the United States than in other contexts, although this may also be due to greater statistical power in studies from the former setting. Similarly, a stronger negative relationship seems to emerge in smaller contextual units that presumably better capture individuals’ everyday experiences and thus more validly tests a frequently articulated mechanism linking contextual diversity and trust. (Dinesen and Sonderskov, Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust)
Another curious finding of the above study is that social trust between even members of the same ethnicity is lower in an ethnically heterogeneous society.
Moreover, complex simulations conducted by The Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation regarding “The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation” concluded the following:
Recent agent-based computer simulations suggest that ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. From a random start, ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies (selfish, traitorous, and humanitarian) based on cooperation or non cooperation with in-group and out-group agents. Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. (Hartshorn, Kaznatcheev, and Shultz, The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation)
It is important to understand that racial in-group preference is a biological phenomenon, not merely a cultural or normative one, and that it is both practical and pragmatic. Presently, only Whites are criticized, ostracized, fined, and even jailed for expressing their biological in-group preferences whereas non-Whites are largely given the exact opposite treatment for the same such expression. This double standard in treatment is calculated to dispossess, displace, and ultimately eradicate Whites.
History and Culture
In his voluminous and insightful book, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, Ricardo Duchesne goes through painstaking effort to document the history and uniqueness of (White) western man. Duchesne has this to say in regards to the relationship between libertarianism and the West:
…the roots of the West’s “restless” creativity and libertarian spirit should be traced back to the aristocratic warlike culture of Indo-European speakers. The Indo-Europeans were a distinctively pastoral, horse-riding, mobile, and war-oriented culture governed by a spirit of aristocratic egalitarianism. As this book will demonstrate, the primordial basis for Western uniqueness lay in the ethos of individualism and strife. For Indo-Europeans, the highest ideal of life was the attainment of honorable prestige through the performance of heroic deeds. (Duchesne, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization Pg. x)
…“the core values” of Western culture – rationalism, citizen armies, private property, and separation between religious and political authorities – “originated in ancient Greece during the polis period…roughly between 700 and 300 BC.” (Duchesne, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization Pg. 343)
Another distinctly Western institution is that of the Nuclear Family. As such, it has served as one of the primary sources of derision for cultural marxists/feminists. The iconic libertarian theorist and Austrian economist, Hans Hermann-Hoppe, has this to say on the matter:
Hence, as the result of the trans-valuation of all values promoted by the ruling elites, the world has been turned upside down. The institution of a family household with father, mother and their children that has formed the basis of Western civilization, as the freest, most industrious, ingenious and all-around accomplished civilization known to mankind, i.e., the very institution and people that has done most good in human history, has been officially stigmatized and vilified as the source of all social ills and made the most heavily disadvantaged, even persecuted group by the enemy elites’ relentless policy of divide et impera. (Hoppe, “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right”)
Moreover, Hoppe echoes the claims of Duchesne that libertarianism is a distinctly White intellectual system in the following:
…libertarianism, as an intellectual system, was first developed and furthest elaborated in the Western world, by white males, in white male dominated societies. That it is in white, heterosexual male dominated societies, where adherence to libertarian principles is the greatest and the deviations from them the least severe (as indicated by comparatively less evil and extortionist State policies). That it is white heterosexual men, who have demonstrated the greatest ingenuity, industry, and economic prowess. And that it is societies dominated by white heterosexual males, and in particular by the most successful among them, which have produced and accumulated the greatest amount of capital goods and achieved the highest average living standards. (Hoppe, “Realistic Libertarianism As Right Libertarianism”)
Finally, Hoppe then affirms what should by now be an obvious strategic insight regarding the spread of libertarian values:
…any promising libertarian strategy must, very much as the Alt-Right has recognized, first and foremost be tailored and addressed to this group of the most severely victimized people. White married Christian couples with children, in particular if they belong also to the class of tax-payers (rather than tax-consumers) (Hoppe, “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right“)
However, due to the incessant and pervasive anti-White/pro-“diversity” propaganda that permeates the West, even a tame, reasonable, and undeniable strategic insight such as this is sure to be met with insatiable jeers and accusations of “racism” and the like. It cannot be denied that libertarianism and the institution of private property have a distinctly White origin and appeal, and, as such, they ought to receive credit for their contribution to the glowing success of Western Civilization. Those on the dissident Right should take care to remember this before derisively and arrogantly dismissing libertarianism as “naive” or “autistic.”
Race and IQ
Now that the cultural, historical, and actual libertarian predisposition of Whites have been established, it is time to explore the biological factors which contribute thereto.
In Rushton and Jensen’s ground breaking study, “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability,” they conclude that IQ is largely (though not completely) genetic. The following is a table summarizing the results of their painstaking study.Source: Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability
Thus it was confirmed that East Asians have the relatively highest IQ as a race at 106, Whites have an average IQ which is slightly lower at 102, whilst American Blacks have an average IQ that is significantly lower at 85. However, the study did not end with measuring IQ. It also measured levels of aggressiveness and impulsivity. Regarding these attributes, Blacks scored the highest. This helps explain the significantly greater incidence of crime perpetrated by Blacks as well as their comparatively high time preference behavior (each of which bode poorly for their ability, as a people, to establish and sustain a libertarian social order). Interestingly enough, it also demonstrates the relationship between brain size and IQ. They appear to be positively correlated. If you recall earlier, racial differences are more than skin deep. Brain size and even brain shape likewise differ between the races.
A separate study contained in Race, Evolution, and Behaviour likewise produced strikingly similar results with regards to Race and IQ.
It is important to note that the reason US Blacks have a higher average IQ than African Blacks has much less to do with environmental differences, and much more to do with the fact that US Blacks are generally comprised of a significant genetic admixture with Whites. The offspring of racial hybrids tend to have IQ’s somewhere between the IQ averages of the races of their respective parents. This is discussed further in “Race and IQ: Mixed Populations.” Many contend, however, that such differences in average IQ are affected by socio-economic status, household enviroments, cultural bias in the testing etc. However, all these objections have been tested and come up short. If you are interested in verifying the the erroneous nature of these common objections see “Race and IQ: The Case For Genes.” IQ also has significant predictive power. The Alternative Hypothesis affirms this in the following:
The most popular IQ tests include items which test mathematical ability, pattern recognition, short-term memory, verbal comprehension, and vocabulary. They are not perfect measures of intelligence, but they predict how smart a person’s peers say they are as well as how well people do in school and on the job (Denissen et al., 2011; Palhusand and Morgan, 1997; Bailey and Hatch, 1979; Bailey and Mattetal, 1977). In fact, IQ is a better predictor of income and educational attainment than parental socio-economic status is (Strenze, 2006).
….If you control for IQ, many social inequalities between the races disappear. For instance, if you hold IQ constant, Blacks are more likely than Whites to get a college degree and get paid the same for the same work.
….Controlling for IQ also eliminates most of the Black-White Incarceration gap.
Thus, these differences have social importance aside from the fact that human differences are inherently interesting.
(The Alternative Hypothesis, “Race and IQ: The Case For Genes“)
Ryan Faulk also produces similar IQ results for the races in his “IQs of Races in the United States“:
The differences in IQ’s between the races is illustrated in the following bell curve graph:
At this point, many will simply suggest if we establish a relatively high IQ entry requirement for prospective non-White immigrants, then this will avert the issues that arise from low IQ immigration. However, what this fails to recognize is the fact that the offspring of higher (or lower) than average IQ parents tend to regress to the mean IQ of their racial group. Ryan Faulk explains this phenomenon extensively in his essay on “Regression to the Mean.”
Another important factor to examine is the average level of “self control” exhibited by different races. Higher self-control indicates lower-time preferences and lower self-control indicates higher time preferences. A high self-control/low time preference entails a greater willingness to forego present consumption for the sake of larger future gains, whereas lower self-control/high time preferences entail the opposite. One’s level of self-control has a significant impact on his financial success, educational attainment, propensity for teen pregnancy and single-motherhood, and criminal inclination. Ryan Faulk has this to say:
Higher childhood self-control was found to predict better health, more wealth, less criminality, and a lower chance of being a single parent, in adulthood even while IQ and parental SES [social economic status] were controlled for.”
….Now, let’s look at the causes of individual differences in self-control.
…These environmental stimuli also lose some of their power with age. As is the case for many traits, the heritability of self-control [as well as IQ] rises with age.
…Finally, it is worth mentioning that there is a genetic correlation between IQ and self-control (Polderman et al. 2009). This means that many of the alleles (gene variants) which cause individual variation in IQ also cause variation in self-control. This factor explains part of why intelligent individuals also tend to have higher than average self-control. (Faulk, “Racial Differences in Self Control“)
From Faulk’s studies, we are able to conclude that Whites tend to have higher self control (lower time preferences) than blacks and about the same or perhaps a little less self-control than East Asians. (Faulk, “Racial Differences in Self Control“).
Differing average levels of testosterone between the races relates to differences in aggressive behavior. Ryan Faulk explains:
Testosterone activity has been linked many times to aggression and crime. Meta-analyses show that testosterone is correlated with aggression among humans and non human animals (Book, Starzyk, and Quinsey, 2001). Moreover, artificially increasing the amount of testosterone in a person’s blood has been shown to lead to increases in their level of aggression (Burnham 2007; Kouri et al. 1995). In fact, a study of Rhesus monkeys found that injecting female fetuses with testosterone caused them to behave just as aggressively as young males (Book, Starzyk, and Quinsey, 2001). Finally, people in prison have higher than average rates of testosterone (Dabbs et al., 2005). Thus, testosterone seems to cause both aggression and crime.
Richard et al. (2014) meta-analyzed data from 14 separate studies and found that Blacks had higher levels of free floating testosterone in their blood than Whites, suggesting that testosterone levels may predispose Blacks towards higher rates of crime. (Faulk, “Testosterone, Race, and Crime“)
Blacks tend to have the highest testosterone levels, East Asians are among the lowest, and Whites are somewhere in between.
Melanin (Skin Color)
The final biological trait we’ll consider is what effect, if any, melanin or skin color itself has on one’s criminal propensity. Faulk has this to say:
Finally, let’s look at the relationship between skin color and crime. Variation in the color of people’s skin is largely due to variation in the concentration of melanin in their skin. The more melanin a person has the darker their skin will tend to be. The amount of melanin a person produces is significantly controlled by their levels of a hormone called melanotropin (Emerson). There is some evidence that melanotropin causes aggression (Reviewed in Rushton and Templer 2012).
First, there are studies of skin color variation in humans. Studies which utilize estimates of the average skin color of over 100 countries find that darker skin predicts higher crime rates. A similar correlation has been found in non-human animals. In fact, Animal research has shown that dark skin predicts more aggression in over 200 species.
The evidence that melanotropin causes aggression is not limited to correlations, either. Experiments which breed animals to become less aggressive, from mice to fox, tend to end up with lighter skinned animals. Even more impressively, injecting animals with melanotropin has been shown to cause them to become more aggressive.
This data strongly suggests that there is some relationship between skin color and aggression. However, it does not tell us whether melanin itself or the hormone melanotropin is what causes aggression. Either is possible. Melanotropin is a complex hormone that could have unknown effects on many biological systems. Melanin also has surprising effects. For instance, dark skin is a leading cause of vitamin D deficiency, and recent evidence has linked vitamin D deficiencies to differences in cognition, suggesting that it could have many unknown effects on the mind. (Faulk, Race and Crime: The Causes of Black Crime Rates )
Why do these biological and racial differences matter? They reveal that disparities in income, incarceration rates, educational levels…etc. are not the result of “institutional racism” as the Left claims. They do not indicate a failure of policy or a lacking of tolerance, but are instead caused by racial differences in cognitive ability, impulse control, and aggressiveness. This conclusion robs the Left of its ability to blame all of the West’s ostensible “social injustices” on the alleged oppressive nature of the White man.
This insight may also help prevent us from pouring countless resources into public education in a futile attempt to bring about equal educational outcomes between the races. This well intentioned, yet tragically uninformed egalitarian agenda is incredibly costly and destructive. Worse yet, it stokes racial hostility.
For similar reasons, libertarians ought to relinquish the foolish notion that people of all races are equally amenable to libertarian and capitalist principles. Instead of attempting to make libertarianism more palatable and inclusive to non-Whites, libertarians ought to instead focus their energies on recruiting people from demographics who are most willing and able to adopt their principles. Finally, libertarians need to equate the decline of the White population as itself the primary threat to achieving a more libertarian society.
Below is a screenshot from Stefan Molyneux’s incredible presentation on “The Truth About Crime.” It is a chart that depicts the IQ bell curves for Whites, East Asians, Hispanics, and Blacks as well as highlights the “Sweet Spot of Criminality.” This refers to the IQ range that most criminals fall within (~70-90). Thus it is no surprise that Blacks and Hispanics commit significantly more crime than Asians and Whites.
Ryan Faulk further describes the nature of the relationship between crime and IQ in the following:
Ellis and Walsh (2003) meta-analyzed over 70 studies done on the relationship between individual IQ and crime, delinquency, and related variables, and the overwhelming majority of studies were found to support a link between crime and IQ.
Some might think that this is just because low IQ tends to go hand and hand with poverty and other home environment variables. This hypothesis was falsified by Frisell et al. (2012) who looked at the association between IQ and crime in a total male birth cohort sample from Sweden (n=700,514). IQ was negatively associated with crime and not only did this relationship persist after adjusting for differences in single motherhood and income, it was also true within families such that the lower IQ individuals within pairs of siblings were more likely to be a criminal. Given that this relationship exists within families, differences between families cannot possibly explain it.
Further still, IQ predicts crime from a very early age. Farrington (1989) found that IQ at age 8 was a significant predictor of being convicted of a violent crime as an adult. Stattin et al. (1993) found that future criminals scored lower than future non-criminals on measures of intelligence as early as age 3. (Faulk, Race and Crime: The Causes of Black Crime Rates)
Thus the adage that poverty creates crime seems to be backwards, or at-least off point. It appears instead, that low IQ is a more direct cause of crime and it is crime that creates poverty, not the other way around.
The charts below were crafted from 2016 FBI Crime data. They reveal the disparities in crime rates on the part of Whites, Hispanics, and Blacks with regards to different types of crime. The results are illustrative:
The table below shows what percentage of crime is perpetrated by Blacks, Whites, and Asians and compares this to their proportion of the general population. What is especially shocking is that despite comprising only 13% of the population, Blacks committed half of all murders between 1995-2014. In all areas of crime, Blacks are, with respect to their proportion of the population, vastly over represented whereas Whites are underrepresented in all areas and Asians underrepresented to an even larger degree than Whites.
It is common knowledge that most violent crime is intra-racial as opposed to inter-racial, however when inter-racial crime is perpetrated it is much more often committed by Blacks against Whites than vice versa as revealed in the chart below:
Finally, Ryan Faulk addresses the claim that the criminal numbers for Blacks and Hispanics are inflated because they are the victims of police bias:
So far, I’ve been relying on arrest statistics as a proxy for crime. Some argue that this is invalid because the police are biased and Blacks are more likely to be arrested than Whites. This argument can easily be refuted using data from The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS is a survey carried out yearly in which the Department of Justice asks Americans about their experience with crime over the last year. The DOJ first asks participants if they have been the victim of a violent crime and, if they have, they are asked to answer various questions about the crime and the perpetrator of said crime.
Using this data, the proportion of violent criminals who are Black, according to the victims of violent crimes, can be calculated. We can then compare these figures to the offender rates by race in the FBI’s arrest data. Doing so reveals that there is essentially no racial bias in arrest data. (Faulk, Race and Crime: The Causes of Black Crime Rates)
It should go without saying that the more crime-ridden a society is, the less it will be able to sustain a libertarian, or any other form, of social order.
Welfare Usage Among the Races
The next crucial area to consider is that of Welfare dependence with respect to race and immigration. Most people have a general understanding that non-Whites (excluding Asians) and immigrants tend to be more heavily welfare dependent than Whites. However, Molyneux charts out the actual numbers in the following:
Less than a quarter of native Asians and Whites are on welfare, whereas over half of native Blacks and Hispanics are. Welfare dependency increases further still with immigrant populations of all races. Shockingly, a whopping 70% of Hispanic immigrants are on welfare. This is especially alarming when one realizes Hispanics are the largest source of immigration both legal and illegal.
It should be clear to libertarians that those who are more dependent on the State for their survival will have a larger vested interested in the maintenance and expansion of State power. As the State shrinks, so too will its ability to distribute “gibs” to the citizenry. Thus, one can reasonably expect that Blacks and Hispanics (especially immigrants thereof), as a whole, will not be amenable to libertarian or capitalist principles. Thus, opening the borders, as many lolbertarians wish to do, will be counter productive to the aim of establishing a libertarian social order. Moreover, open state borders is not even a principled libertarian position. For more on this read “The Libertarian Case Against Open Borders.”
Finally, the IQ’s of the vast majority of the immigrants coming to America are well below the White average of 100. Since the effect a population’s average IQ ultimately has on the viability of a libertarian social order has been established, it should be easy to surmise how this will impact libertarian ends.
Scandinavian Socialism, Soviet Communism, and European Fascism
The following is a common objection that warrants attention:
“Whites may have produced some of the most approximately libertarian societies, but they are also some of the greatest purveyors of socialism and communism! Just look at the Fascist regimes of Italy and Germany, the Soviet Union, and today’s socialist paradises in Scandinavia!”
Once again, it falls outside the scope of this current work to deal with each of these points exhaustively, however the reader will be referred to essays and videos dedicated to this end.
As to the “fascist” claim, it may surprise the reader that the Fascist states were in many ways more libertarian and capitalist than the U.S. at the time. For more on this subject see my article “Fascism is a Step Towards Liberty“.
The rise of communism, on the other hand, is a largely Jewish phenomenon that was implemented at the mortal expense of tens of millions of Whites. For more on this see “The Jewish Origins of Communism.”
As to the socialist Scandinavian utopia argument, this claim fails in its premises. According to The Heritage Foundation‘s 2018 Economic Freedom Index all the Scandinavian countries as well as Germany, the United States, and the Netherlands are in fact much closer to the capitalist end of the economic spectrum than the socialist end. in fact, over half the Nordic countries are ranked more economically free than the US!
Source: The Heritage Foundation, 2018 Economic Freedom Index
For more on this topic I recommend watching the following presentation by Stefan Molyneux:
Why Not East Asians?
At this point, some may wonder why it is that East Asians could not be included in an optimally configured libertarian social order owing to their relatively high IQ’s and low time preferences. First, it must be conceded that they are likely the only other race which has even the ability to sustain a relatively libertarian and capitalist society. This is evidenced by the example of Hong Kong. However, including them in an otherwise White society would, nevertheless, negatively impact social trust as explained earlier. Moreover, East Asians tend to be far more culturally collectivist than Whites which itself renders them overall poorer candidates for an optimally configured libertarian social order. However, Whites could take a lesson from their playbook as East Asians tend to be very ethnocentric. Virtually every East Asian nation is racially and ethnically homogeneous. Richard Storey elaborates:
Thousands of years ago, China was developing great states with a single despotic leader who subdued the population and exterminated those who were non-conformist. Meanwhile, something completely different was happening in Europe. As Prof. Ricardo Duchesne shows in his magnum opus, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, Europeans and the unique societies we produce are descended from the Indo-Europeans. These were warrior nomads from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe who evolved to value kudos from peers above their very own lives. This didn’t merely produce berserker warfare and the heroic sagas of both Northern and Southern Europe, but also libertarian aristocracies. They were libertarian in that they did not force others to submit to their sovereign authority, as did the oriental despots, but rather sought to sincerely earn the respect of their peers.
One of the major differences between East Asians and Europeans are their respective levels of psychopathy. I have written elsewhere on Prof. Lynn’s work regarding the differing levels of psychopathy in different ethnic groups. Now, psychopathy does not necessarily mean antisocial, sociopathic, violent traits. Indeed, moderate psychopathy, consisting of Factor 1 psychopathic traits, are quite desirable qualities, producing the most charming and charismatic characters we know – captains of enterprise, the life and soul of parties etc. With this in mind, Prof. Lynn has shown that whites have a higher average level of psychopathy than East Asians, whose ancient despotic states have long domesticated any individualistic assertiveness out of them. Yet they are moderate when compared to the higher average levels of Africans which, as Prof. Lynn has explained in his article, Racial and Ethnic Differences in Psychopathic Personality, lead to a higher propensity to antisocial behavior. How then does this Faustian, moderate psychopathy manifest Western civilization?
It has been hypothesized that the relatively higher average degree of Factor 1 psychopathic traits in Europeans, inherited from Indo-European ancestors was as much responsible for their flouting of their own lives in berserker warfare, as it is for today’s white man – so restlessly curious and competitive that he must conquer all boundaries, being the first to the poles and ever outwards, even to the moon. This flagrant disregard for one’s own physical safety, to achieve immortal fame typifies Spengler’s Faustian spirit.
Prof. Lynn certainly agrees that the higher degree of psychopathy in the West has historically produced a willingness to ‘stick one’s neck out and dissent from received opinion, like Galileo or Darwin.’ This led to the West becoming more creative and dynamic, overtaking China in terms of innovation around 1500; whereas, the Japanese proverb declares, ‘The nail that sticks out gets hammered down!’
Since Plato, what we call ‘the West’ has been marked by that inner quest to plunge to the depths of the human psyche and conquer oneself, as well as one’s surroundings. The competition to ‘know thyself’ produced philosophy, but it was the peculiarly European ethos of welcoming competitors, whose kudos one valued, which allowed its different schools of thought to exist. Whilst the Chinese sage would never have disagreed with a previous sage, Aristotle was welcome to disagree with Plato.
Thus, various political, religious and scientific revolutions are everywhere in Western history, whereas the Chinese are currently concerned about their creativity deficit, despite their brilliant ability to handle received methods and opinions. Moderate psychopathy, therefore, seems to be the source of the individualism which has given rise to the libertarian streak of the West. This produced an intellectually restless people, innovating the various schools of Greek philosophy and the scientific method etc. in a spirit of rational competition. Note that such movements did not and probably could not develop in the Islamic or Chinese civilization, despite their technological advances. (Storey, “Why Libertarianism is Unique to the West“)
Demographic Decline and White Genocide
Lastly, we come to the more salient topic of White demographic decline and the related and controversial topic of “White Genocide.” From a global perspective, the White population is declining at an alarming rate. The National Policy Institute conducted a study which produced the following results:
Of the 7 population groups studied only whites are projected to sustain an absolute decline in numbers.
In 1950 whites and blacks were respectively 27.98% and 8.97% of world population. By 2060 these figures will almost reverse as blacks surge to 25.38% and whites shrink to 9.76%. (National Policy Institute, “Global White Population to Plummet to Single Digit – Black Population to Double“)
Source: National Policy Institute, “Global White Population to Plummet to Single Digit – Black Population to Double“
What’s the cause of this demographic decline? Is it merely incidental? Certainly not. This is where the idea of White Genocide bears relevance. Whites are becoming an increasingly endangered subspecies by artificial and deliberate means. To be clear, the genocide Whites are experiencing is of a “cold” variety not a “hot” one, with the latter involving the mass murder of a particular ethnic/racial group.
Instead, Whites are being displaced via 3rd world mass immigration and the comparatively higher birth rates of non-Whites in predominantly White countries. Whites are net-tax contributors in White countries, whereas non-Whites are overwhelming net tax consumers, thus Whites are effectively subsidizing the birth rates of non-Whites at the expense of their own!
Moreover, anti-discrimination and affirmative action laws forcefully integrate non-White populations with White populations. This creates an environment of tension and insecurity which likewise depresses White birth rates. Moreover, Whites are socially encouraged (via academia, government, hollywood, the MSM..etc.) to engage in miscegenation (marry and breed with non-Whites), delay (or refuse) having kids and getting married, have more abortions, engage in homosexual behavior, flout traditional gender norms, and even question their gender identity. Consider this, it’s perfectly socially acceptable to encourage a Black man or a Jew to exclusively marry and breed with other Blacks and Jews respectively, yet the same such encouragement directed towards Whites is treated as an (ironically) intolerable form of chauvinism and bigotry.
For some interesting ideas on how to peacefully restore White homelands, see Greg Johnson’s chapter on “Restoring White Homelands” in his book The White Nationalist Manifesto.
Owing to their relatively high IQs, low time preferences, individualist dispositions, faustian natures, and cultural inclinations, Whites are the ideal candidates for a libertarian society. White homogeneity is a necessary, albeit insufficient, criterion for an optimal libertarian demography.
More importantly, Whites are a dying breed and an endangered subspecies. Thus, restoring the racial demographics of White homelands is of paramount importance! Without Whites there can be no Western Civilization, let alone libertarian nations. Now more than ever libertarians must ally themselves with the New Right, Alt-Right, paleo-conservatives, Identitarians, White Nationalists….etc.
Libertarians must likewise allow strategic prioritization to take precedence over foolish and sentimental egalitarian notions. They must realize that intermediate statist steps will need to be taken before a libertarian destination can be reached. So long as the State is progressively dis-empowered, then one’s libertarian sensibilities ought to be satisfied.