Where did I “attack” them? I pointed out that non-whites are unlikely to become allies for Libertarianism. Is that an attack?
This is only an attack insofar as Libertarianism itself endangers the livelihoods of many non-whites (except Asians). So Libertarianism could (and often is) be seen as an attack on non-whites.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-blood-pressure/DS00100/DSECTION=treatments-and-drugs
“Beta blockers. These medications reduce the workload on your heart and open your blood vessels, causing your heart to beat slower and with less force. When prescribed alone, beta blockers don’t work as well in blacks or in the elderly — but they’re effective when combined with a thiazide diuretic.”

If we “abolish the concept of race” as you say, what kind of wording would you suggets if you were chief of thought police? “beta blockers don’t work as well in humans?” “beta blockers don’t work as well in some humans but we won’t tell which ones because that would be racist?” oh no, that word again, maybe: “beta blockers don’t work as well in some humans but we won’t tell which ones because that would be social-constructivist?”

Please tell me what you would do. Give blacks medicine that won’t work for them so that we can avoid this embarrassing sentence? Seems RACIST to me. I’m out of ideas, maybe you can come up with some…

“Therefore, in the final analysis, Affirmative Action is an enemy of the anti-racist.”

Anti-racist is just a code-word for anti-white. There are hundreds if not thousands of “racist” institutions for non-whites, yet the anti-whites only attack Whites.

Since practically all libertarians are white, Whites are “your people”. And it’s completely natural.

“Freedom of association allows you to only associate with whites if you like, but it doesn’t make the proclivity to only associate with whites somehow “healthy.””

Look, you are a White who is posting on a website that is run by Whites, where almost all if not all major articles, books, speeches, etc. were made by Whites and where apart from some rare exceptions even the blog commenters are exclusively White. And very, very likely you live in a White neighbourhood.

Why do you do that? You are not a RACIST, aren’t you?

Obviously because you feel at home here, you find people who think similar, who behave according to similar norms, etc.

mises.org is an excellent example of self-segregation. And that’s not some evil conspiracy or something that ought to be “fixed” – it’s just healthy human behaviour.

And that was EXACTLY what I meant. I want to go to places where I feel comfortable and those places (both in the Internet and in the real world) are white. And that is my (and your) human right. And there is absolutely no duty for “outreach” which is just a modern form of self-hatred.

“Now, you may, being the type of person you seem to be, choose to associate with many individuals who all happen to share some common characteristic.”

Funny that we both are that “type of person”, all major and almost all minor contributors to mises.org “happen” to be white. What a coincidence!

“if you are judging people based on some sort of aggregate “character” that you manufacture and apply to large groups of people based on irrelevant physical characteristics, and choosing associations based on this aggregate “character,” then you are engaging in freedom of association collectivistically.”

So? Are you trying to say that “collectivistically engaging in freedom of association” should be illegal?

Maybe I can explain it to you:

There are various breeds of dogs and those breeds have different physical characteristics. So I have to admit that I have some very deep prejudices against Pitbulls because this breed has a reputation of being aggressive and unpredictable.

Are there individual Pitbulls who are not aggressive? Almost certainly yes. Just because of that fact, should I feel guilty about ignoring all Pitbulls? Maybe that individual Pitbull has the most marvelous character in the world, yet I keep a distance to it. No, it’s not my duty to make a background-check on every Pitbull that I might see in the street, so it is my human right to “harbor prejudices” which is of course just another word for common sense.

And of course there are different breeds of people. Blacks commit 10 times as many violent crime as whites do, so it is just common sense to keep a distance to Blacks as a group. Are there individual blacks who are not violent? Of course there are. But that does not change the fact that it’s a matter of common sense and self-preservation to avoid black neighborhoods (and I guess you act just like me in that matter).

And of course the same goes for all human groups. I harbor deep prejudices against government employees, even though I know one individual government employee who is almost libertarian and is the exception to the rule that government employees are lazy and useless.

What you are trying is to live contrary to human nature (actually you PREACH to live contrary to human nature – you wouldn’t be on this site if you would really live it) and that is unhealthy.

You say: “You’re actually accusing blacks (as a group) of thinking whites (as a group) are deserving of being raped, robbed, and murdered, completely ignoring that every black and every white person is first and foremost an individual, with different views, ideals, goals, and beliefs.”

Actually I did not make that accusation, I pointed out that whites are being raped robbed and murdered by blacks.

But look here:
http://articles.philly.com/1995-10-01/news/25697504_1_simpson-trial-whites-nicole-brown-simpson
“A poll released Thursday by ABC News found that 77 percent of whites think Simpson is guilty, while 72 percent of blacks think he’s innocent.”

Yes, Blacks AS A GROUP think very different than we Whites do. Do they think that Whites should be raped, robbed and murdered? Quite a lot sure do, wether that is a majority of them I don’t know.

I would estimate that there have been about 250 daily articles in 2011 so far. How many were written by Whites? Maybe it’s not 100% and only 99-point-something and a handful were written by Asians, but I’m pretty sure that not even one was written by a non-asian minority.

So yes, maybe some Asians will like Libertarianism – And that is not a contradiction of Libertarianism being a “white thing”, they like European classical music and White culture in general, sometimes even more than Europeans themselves.

But the tropical people will never join us. Of course there might be some rare exceptions, but not nearly enough to make illusions about a “rainbow coalition” a reality.

That’s not to say I ignore the Democrats or liberals, but it can be so frustrating as they seem unable to comprehend the idea that problems can be solved without the government. Even when they understand that the government caused the problem, they still want more government to solve it.

It’s as though you’re trying to accuse me of not being a leftist. And, yet, I insist that I am.

Contemplationist also writes, “Thats why despite having no coherent model of the economy where the aggregate transactions of hundreds of millions can still result in women earning less than men on AVERAGE, [leftists] cry ‘discrimination.’”

Whether one has or does not have a coherent model of the economy is entirely irrelevant to the question of why the pay gap exists. The pay gap doesn’t exist because of the way the economy as a whole functions, but rather because, as Dr. Walter Block has pointed out, married men and married women do not, on average, share household chores equally. There is no pay gap, according to Block, between never-married men and never-married women; thus, it would seem reasonable to conclude that never-married men and never-married women (1) are equally good workers and (2) give relatively the same focus to being successful in business. But when men and women marry, something happens: the men tend to slack off when it comes to running the household, and the wives pick up their slack. The result is what one would expect. Thus, if one is truly dedicated to getting rid of the pay gap, the solution isn’t to try to change the economy somehow, but rather to encourage husbands to do more around the house.

Sincerely,
Alex Peak

To the author of this piece, I would advise caution in equating the “conservative agenda” with the Republican agenda. In reference to the comments on the failure of the right to promote free-market health care solutions, I would submit that the failure is a failure of the Republican Party, not of conservatives.

On the issue of health care reform, Long might believe he has his finger on the pulse of the conservative movement, but the pulse he’s describing is that of the GOP.

Conservatives are vehemently opposed to the individual mandate and they have no love for the various health care cartels — the insurance companies, Obama’s friends in the pharmaceutical industry or the AMA. This is doubly true of conservative physicians. (Put “percentage of physicians in AMA” in your favorite search engine.)

Name one who has contributed to Mises.org in this year.

Just a quibble, but I suspect that many of these gays might want to apply for certain “social services” because of their “marriage.” Also, not to defend the state, but they aren’t preventing gays from forming a union. That’s totally different.