Thanks, Conservatives!

You are some kind of intellectual? You are what Lenin would have recognized as “a useful idiot”. While I am sympathetic to libertarian calls to dramatically reduce the size and scope of government, especially wrt economic freedoms, deregulation, and broader de-socialization, and while I think the US Empire needs to be downsized, for fiscal as well as strategic reasons, you obviously understand nothing about the role that coercive racial diversification through unwanted mass immigration/invasion has played in the real loss of the real liberty (not to mention property rights) of real Americans. Because you lack a realistic view of the evil (and again, coercive nature) of immigration, I will simply point to one statistic: Obama 08: white vote: 43%. More significantly, Obama, the most socialist president ever (as well as culturally and morally enervating – though as a libertarian, you understand nothing of the racial, cultural and moral bases of really existing liberty), was as a fact elected by post-1965 immigrants and their adult descendants.

Now I certainly hated McCain (aka “Senator McAmnesty”, aka “Senator Traitor”). But from the libertarian perspective it is impossible to deny that Obama is more hostile to liberty as defined by libertarians than was the not very good McCain. Under McCain (whom I did not vote for; I wrote in Ron Paul) we would not have had medical socialism, nor likely cap and tax, nor two radical new socialist judges on the Supreme Court, nor the $800 billion 'stimulus', nor many other Obamarxist evils. We might not even have had more warmongering!

So your filthy immigrants have lessened your beloved liberty. And just wait for the future, as more and more it becomes clear that the ONLY libertarians in any great numbers are whites, while the engine for constant state socialist expansion will be an ever-increasingly non-white America.

I could offer many other arguments for why the Big Government Federal corporate as well as social welfare program called “immigration” has been and is a disaster for the real liberty of real Americans. But I suspect you would be too stupid to understand them.

Oh, and here's a real libertarian (or maybe a real conservative), Hans-Hermann Hoppe, on “libertarians” who think the current immigration invasion is acceptable:

Against many left-libertarian open border enthusiasts, it is incorrect to in-
fer from the fact that an immigrant has found someone willing to employ
him that his presence on a given territory must henceforth be considered
“invited.” Strictly speaking, this conclusion is true only if the employer
also assumes the full costs associated with the importation of his immi-
grant-employee. This is the case under the much-maligned arrangement of
a “factory town” owned and operated by a proprietor. Here, the full cost of

employment, the cost of housing, healthcare, and all other amenities asso-
ciated with the immigrant’s presence, is paid for by the proprietor. No one
else’s property is involved in the immigrant-worker settlement. Less per-
fectly (and increasingly less so), this full-cost-principle of immigration is
realized in Swiss immigration policy. In Switzerland immigration matters
are decided on the local rather than federal government level, by the local
owner-resident community in which the immigrant wants to reside. These
owners are interested that the immigrant’s presence in their community in-
crease rather than decrease their property values. In places as attractive as
Switzerland, this typically means that the immigrant (or his employer) is
expected to buy his way into a community, which often requires multimil-
lion dollar donations.
Unfortunately, welfare states are not operated like factory towns or
even Swiss communities. Under welfare-statist condition the immigrant
employer must pay only a small fraction of the full costs associated with the
immigrant’s presence. He is permitted to socialize (externalize) a substan-
tial part of such costs onto other property owners. Equipped with a work
permit, the immigrant is allowed to make free use of every public facility:
roads, parks, hospitals, schools, and no landlord, businessman, or private
associated is permitted to discriminate against him as regards housing, em-
ployment, accommodation, and association. That is, the immigrant comes
invited with a substantial fringe benefits package paid for not (or only par-
tially) by the immigrant employer (who allegedly has extended the invita-
tion), but by other domestic proprietors as taxpayers who had no say in the
invitation whatsoever. This is not an “invitation,” as commonly understood.
This is an imposition. It is like inviting immigrant workers to renovate
one’s own house while feeding them from other people’s refrigerators.
Consequently, because the cost of importing immigrant workers is low-
ered, more employer-sponsored immigrants will arrive than otherwise.
Moreover, the character of the immigrant changes, too. While Swiss com-
munities choose well-heeled, highly value-productive immigrants, whose
presence enhances communal property values all-around, employers under
democratic welfare State conditions are permitted by state law to external-
ize their employment costs on others and tend to import increasingly
cheap, low-skilled and low value-productive immigrants, regardless of
their effect on all-around communal property values.
Theoretically bankrupt, the left-libertarian open border stance can be
understood only psychologically. One source can be found in the Randian
upbringing of many left-libertarians. Big businessmen-entrepreneurs are
portrayed as “heroes” and, according to Ayn Rand in one of her more ri-
diculous statements, are viewed as the welfare state’s “most severely per-
secuted minority.” In this view (and untainted by any historical knowledge

or experience), what can possibly be wrong with a businessman hiring an
immigrant worker? In fact, as every historian knows, big businessmen are
among the worst sinners against private property rights and the law of the
market. Among other things, in an unholy alliance with the central State
they have acquired the privilege of importing immigrant workers at other
people’s expense (just as they have acquired the privilege of exporting
capital to other countries and being bailed out by taxpayers and the military
when such investments turn sour).
A second motive for the open border enthusiasm among contemporary
left-libertarians is their egalitarianism. They were initially drawn to liber-
tarianism as juveniles because of its “antiauthoritarianism” (trust no author-
ity) and seeming “tolerance,” in particular toward “alternative”—non-
bourgeois—lifestyles. As adults, they have been arrested in this phase of
mental development They express special “sensitivity” in every manner of
discrimination and are not inhibited in using the power of the central state
to impose non-discrimination or “civil rights” statutes on society. Conse-
quently, by prohibiting other property owners from discrimination as they
see fit, they are allow-ed to live at others’ expense. They can indulge in
their “alternative” lifestyle without having to pay the “normal” price for
such conduct, i.e., discrimination and exclusion. To legitimize this course
of action, they insist that one lifestyle is as good and acceptable as another.
This leads first to multiculturalism, then to cultural relativism, and finally
to “open borders.” See further on this Hoppe, Democracy—The God That
Failed, esp. chap. 10.

Anyway, trying to educate someone like you may be not only futile but, ironically, unnecessary. I say ironically, because you open borders idiots, precisely by supporting such nonsense, are creating (indeed already have created) the very conditions for your own political diminishment and ultimate irrelevance. As America becomes ever less white, thanks to unwanted immigration, life is going to become ever worse for whites (that's a function in part of liberal multiculturalism, which teaches minorities that all of their 'under-achievements' and social pathologies are the fault of whites, though also of the artificial increase in the non-white population itself, leading to greater non-white assertiveness, as well as calls for wealth redistribution). As that happens, whites are, first, going to become MORE libertarian (this is happening even now, with Ron Paul's popularity and the Tea Party phenomenon), thinking that this is a good way to preserve their America without necessitating racial confrontations. This will fail, however, as it becomes clear that only whites are by genetic instinct libertarians (why do you fools think both Ron Paul gatherings as well as Tea Party demonstrations are so overwhelmingly white?), as well as that the growing number of non-whites is creating ever more racial hostility and flashpoints (look at how the gentle Tea Partiers are aggressively called racists by minorities and their radical, anti-white spokesmen), as well as general social and economic problems.

Eventually, a tipping point will be reached where whites finally realize how unpleasant the general runs of non-whites really are, as well as how non-whites vote in blocs for wealth redistribution from whites. When this happens (in about 5-15 years), whites will not defect to libertarianism, but to (racial) nationalism, if only out of self-protection.

The irony of course is that had we merely NEVER opened our borders at all since 1965, America today would still be nearly 90% white, in which case whites would be so racially secure that they might at least consider the radical individualism of libertarianism. But the trends are not towards increased individualism, but greater groupthink. The mosque controversy in Ground Zero NYC is an early indication of this future trend. Whites are waking up to race. If we had kept out the non-white immigrants, this would not have happened. I weep for my nation, but I can't help laughing at libertarian fools like you.

There's a lot here one could respond to, but for now I'll just say that I'm not too impressed by what my fellow whites were voting for prior to 1965, my fellow whites' repeated election of George W. Bush, or the policies my fellow whites have chosen in Europe. Most people of all races support terrible policies.

Of course I reject your suggestion that whites have a “genetic instinct” toward libertarianism that others lack. I'm sure your supposedly superior brain is capable of coming up with some alternative hypotheses to account for why most U.S. libertarians are white.

Apparently Mr. Haller longs for the days when “libertarian” white people gave us “libertarian” white politicians like Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson.