Our civilization is facing a gradually intensifying disaster in the form of mass immigration from the third world, cultural disintegration by the mass media, social collapse by feminism and general decline of moral integrity. And while the outlook seemed bleak for quite some time, there is a clear current of resistance mounting world-wide.
In Europe, those who reject the modern paradigm typically take up the mantle of nationalism and socialism, inspired by the fascist movements of the 20th century. Golden Dawn and CasaPound come to mind.
But there is a uniquely American phenomenon and ideology which is perhaps the main current of thought in North American resistance movements, which is "libertarianism". For Americans, libertarianism is a logical extension of the conservative or republican mindset. It appeals to "traditional" American values like liberty, self-reliance, small (or no) government, free enterprise, and so on, which explains in part its popularity with former conservatives.
However, libertarianism is a false opposition. It's my contention that Marxism and libertarianism are two sides of the same liberal coin. Bear with me here; I'll explain.
The central underlying assumption of Marxism (and by extension, of all the SJW nonsense that is plaguing us today) is the notion that humans are fundamentally equal in their abilities (talent, potential, intelligence, etc). This is the logic behind the uplifting of Third World primitives to our level, the abolishing of gender roles, and all the other ills of the modern experience.
However, in the realm of moral quality, Marxists do not believe in equality at all. Old-school Communists would classify people as being bourgeois (evil, corrupt), workers (fundamentally good or neutral) and Communists (saintly, selfless people). Today, we're all equal, but Whites are evil and greedy, men are pigs and exploiters, while women and non-Whites are various shades of innocent victims or blessings upon mankind. We're all aware of the SJW "hierarchy of victimhood", where different people have higher or lower moral authority depending on their level of "oppression".
Libertarianism, on the other hand, is based on the notion that men are morally equal, which is to say that all men are selfish and self-interested. Thus giving any man power over others will lead to corruption, as he uses this power for selfish ends. But the ideology does recognize that there is a wide difference in abilities between men. From this dichotomy we get ideas like abolishing governments, or preventing state monopolies.
Marxism and Libertarianism, when presented this way, seem diametrically opposed; one believes in equality of ability but a moral hierarchy, while the other believes in moral equality but a hierarchy of ability. But both are still based on the liberal lie of equality—they just apply it differently. To the weak-minded emotional thinker, it is easier to accept the victim mentality that comes with Marxism, while to the rugged individualist it's easier to accept the idea that everyone is selfish and that all authority is evil.
The problem, of course, is that there is no such thing as equality in this world. I don't need to press this point to this audience; we all know that some people are smart, some are stupid, some are strong, some are weak, and so on. But the concept that there is a moral hierarchy as well will seem blasphemous to many. It shouldn't be.
Humans are social animals. Our individual survival depends on the group. No human can survive and prosper alone in the forest. For social animals like us (and others like ants and bees), survival of the fittest means first and foremost the survival and welfare of the group, not of the individual. And like other social animals, we have instincts for self-sacrifice in cases where the group benefits. However, those instincts are not as powerful in everyone. And whether those instincts kick in in a group depends primarily on genetic similarity, which is to say family and nation.
Thus reality does have a moral hierarchy, but a very different one from the one concocted by Marxist ideologues. Even if you adopt a cynical attitude, you can still distinguish that some people are more likely to help you if you're in need, while others are more likely to steal from you. Moral value (at least from a social standpoint) is based around someone's solidarity on family and ethnic lines.
So what's the problem with libertarianism? The problem is that if you put two groups one against another, the one who is best able to work together will overcome the group of individualists. And the group governed by the best and brightest will overcome the group where the best and brightest do their own thing.
It follows that no one concerned with the survival and fitness of his group will benefit from promoting a libertarian attitude... at least, not within his own group.
The point that libertarianism is Jewish in origin has already been discussed extensively before, and I won't rehash that here. Needless to say, ethnic minorities who occupy White countries (like the Jews) do not adopt a libertarian ethic, but quite the opposite. Ethnic favoritism is at the core of their success.
Ultimately, the state is a tool. Whether it is good or bad depends on who is using it and for what purpose. The American government isn't evil because it's big and bloated. Imagine what this monstrously large institution could do in the hands of good men who care about the future of White people. Practically all of our ills could be cured in record time.
Individualism is a loser's strategy in life's game of survival of the fittest. Even for a cynical observer, it is indisputable that teamwork (and thus cooperation and empathy) are superior to individual effort: if might makes right, two men with sticks are mightier than one man alone.
The enemies of our people want us weak. With Marxism, they make us weak individually so that it matters not if we unite our forces. Through libertarianism, they insure that the strong among us stay isolated rather than uniting their powers and posing a threat.
We must abandon foolish notions of "objectivity" if those lead to our destruction. "Freedom" is no different from "tolerance". We all understand now that tolerance is not a virtue if the thing being tolerated is evil (bad for our people and against the natural order). Likewise, freedom to commit evil cannot be considered desirable. All that matters is freedom to do good. Today, we are not free to do good, because all laws are inverted by our enemies. Wishful thinkers long for freedom, thinking 'well, if we were totally free at least I could do the right thing'. This is a compromise. Instead, we should long for total victory, where the only freedom is freedom to do good (meaning, what is good for our people). Our enemies certainly don't cheer for the freedom to do what they don't like, and neither should we.
Libertarianism, even if it is designed to appeal to the strong-minded conservative type, is still a product of liberal values like equality ('equality of opportunity' and 'don't tread on me'), liberty (freedom of speech for your enemies) and universalism ('judge the individual, rather than his race'). We can't get bogged down with this old ideological baggage. Liberalism must be purged from every crevice of our minds and souls before we are free and empowered to be truly just—which is to say, to dedicate ourselves fully to protecting our family, our nation and our race.