Though conservatives with their sputtering and arm flailing are patently ridiculous compared even to liberals, much less racists, libertarians have a seemingly more coherent and defensible position.
But is this really true? Is libertarianism a philosophically consistent alternative to Nazism?
Having proven all the factual, indisputable truths that make deplorableism inescapable, the only question then is what to do with these factual, indisputable truths. What should we make of them?
Libertarians say nothing. They should have no policy implications at all. It should be like we never knew the truth in the first place. Libertarians are willing to accept all of these facts as facts, unlike liberals and conservatives, but they say it doesn't matter because everyone should just be judged as individuals anyway.
If we judged everybody as individuals to start with, no truth about group differences, no patterns or categories would ever matter to begin with. So why even talk about it?
If a libertarian meets 300 black individuals, finds out that 298 of them suck, and two of them are swell, there's no reason why they can't just ignore the 298 while making merry with their two new friends.
Likewise for gays. If 298 gays are suicidal and promiscuous, spreading disease and death wherever they go, abusing little children and so on, and 2 of them are wonderful people with no faults who just so happen to be gay, the answer is to ignore the 298 and make merry with the remaining 2.
If 298 women pursue careers they never succeed in, become fat and old and ugly while never having kids, get married but instantly grow bored with it and start divorcing or cheating, then that says nothing about the remaining 2 who 'have it all' and are your perfect marriage partners.
If 298 muslims are terrorists who are trying to cut off your head, that says nothing about the 2 remaining muslims who are just devout believers in prayer and a higher power, so why make a big deal out of it? Why can't you just take people one by one?
Like liberalism, this is at least a consistent, honest, coherent philosophy. But it's still just as absurd as before. In fact, just to state the libertarian argument is enough to refute it. But to belabor the point, I'll break it down anyway.
1) It's impossible to vet billions of people individually. It takes years to get to know someone sufficiently that you can accurately predict their impact on the world, whether positively or negatively. If you really judged people as individuals, you would die of old age by around the 50th person on Earth, but Earth has over 7 billion people and growing. There must be a more efficient, even if less accurate, sorting algorithm that is mostly right but sometimes wrong in order to reach any sensible conclusion about anything. If you're 99% sure someone's a bad dude based on what you know of their group average, it's not worth responding with 'let's just wait and see and give it the old college try,' There isn't enough time or energy in life to wade through so much filth just to get to the few pearls. You don't drill for oil where there's one drop every 99 wells, you drill for oil where there's a giant patch that bubbles up wherever you put down your well. This is just common sense.
2) Creating objective standards that do not care about arbitrary categories also doesn't work. This is because the people being judged will never accept the conclusions of your 'objective standards' and will insist that the test is biased until they start passing at an equal rate. They will make so much fuss about how your objective standards are unfair to them that you will either have to alter or abolish the standards in order to live alongside them. No one is going to readily admit that they're objectively inferior, so trying to be fair to people is just a waste of time, you're better off discriminating ahead of time and just telling them too bad, so sad.
3) Objective standards, if they really were imposed, would be so harsh on the losers that nobody could actually enforce them. Instead the standards would be loosened out of compassion for the failures and you'd be right back to liberalism again.
4) There is no better standard than the stereotypes we already use. For instance, if you say "I'm going to sort people by IQ," you'll find that lying Jews, cheating Asians and corrupt Armenians are suddenly at the fore of every field in society. What you really wanted wasn't a high IQ society in the first place, but a white society that prizes the values and virtues of white people of yore. There's no way to sneakily say what you really believe in your heart in order to not be biased. If you try to sort people by honesty, courage, faithfulness, creativity, compassion, a high aesthetic sense, purity, etc, you'll become so bogged down in the vetting process it would take eons to decide who belongs and who doesn't in your new free and fair libertarian utopia. There is no simple test, like IQ, that can sort people objectively based on virtue. We can't tell what is in people's hearts or what they'll do in the future, except by giving them the opportunity to display it and live out their lives, and then you're back to a completely unsorted society again. But what we do know is that the group characteristics of nordic white societies have historically been ideal, and the group characteristics of every other historical society have been atrocious, so if you want to just make a bet on who will work in your society it will invariably be nordic whites and no one else.
5) If you use an objective standard other than IQ, like income, again the end result won't be what you were really looking for. It's possible for everyone in a country to be making tons of money and still be scum. In fact, the more money they make, the more psychopathic they tend to be.
6) There's no way for a libertarian society to remain libertarian. An anarchy is a power vacuum, and the opportunists in your society (who you did not sort against opportunism for, because you let Jews, South Asians, Armenians and the like inside the gates) will quickly turn that into their own organized power base which will immediately drop libertarianism in favor of their own tribal well being. The most libertarian you can be is by having a strictly nordic white community, because they are the only non-tribal people on Earth that would even remain unorganized and individualistic for five seconds.
7) There is no benefit from not discriminating. Imagine two societies. One is totally racist and only allows nordic whites to live there. Would it be a poor country? Would it lack for inventions? Would there be no beautiful women in it? Would the athletes suck? Could they produce no interesting works of art? Are they unable to understand philosophy? Would there be no one you could befriend? A single person can only interact with so many others in a lifetime, if you meet tens of millions of other nordic white people and still can't find anyone to get along with, and insist that if you were just allowed to mingle with non-whites as well things would go swimmingly, you're insane. You're the problem, not them. A nordic only white country would lack for no amenities and have bountiful opportunities for communal bonding regardless of the fact that everyone else is excluded.
The other society is open and free for all. 9/10 of the people are black and muslim, just like the UN demographic predictions for planet Earth say. You barely ever meet someone remotely like you. They speak all languages, practice all religions, and are constantly fighting each other over mutual hatreds and mistrusts. You're in a world of constant noise and commotion that goes nowhere and has no unified purpose. Is this fertile ground for a booming economy, great art and science, plenty of love and friendship? What do you gain by not discriminating and instead trying to interact with everyone individually?
There is a medical condition where you are so swamped with information your brain fries and can no longer process it all. Imagine a bombshell so loud you lose your hearing, or a flash so bright you go blind. That's diversity for you. So many people and things that you can't make any sense of it. Judging people as individuals is not the enlightened course, it's the chaotic one, that ends in such a complete jumble as to just be a farce. Your brain will simply turn off and give up long before you picked out all the best friends and family members out of your endless smorgasbord of choices.
8) Grouping by race, sex, heterosexuality, etc, does not preclude also grouping by ideology. I would say it is the first step towards grouping by ideology. It is libertarians who wouldn't even be allowed to discriminate against ideologies they disagree with, because that would violate x's freedom. And only grouping by ideology can ever lead to lasting harmony and happiness. This is why families and friends only stay together if they have shared ideologies and values. If even a family can't overcome its differences, there's no way a nation can.
Imagine a group that stays within the libertarian creed of no force or fraud, but is just so ugly and repellent in everything they say, all their practices, how they look, how they talk, everything about them you hate. In addition, they hate everything about you, and freely say so to your face every time you meet. There are hundreds of millions of them, and they are the vast majority of the populace. Mind you, they never use force or fraud against you, they just insult you to your face every time you meet, and they are everywhere. It is impossible to avoid interacting with them on a daily basis, and they all hate your guts. Is this really a basis for a nation? A society? It's clear that libertarianism on its own isn't enough to create the communal spirit for people to live together. There has to be a stronger bond and more shared values than just 'negative freedoms.' There has to be mutual love. (Like, say, a shared preference for everyone of the same race. Funny how that works! As though humanity evolved to have instincts to naturally make them get along happily and harmoniously, and we'd be stupid to ignore these instincts because they evolved for a reason -- they're the only way communities ever work!)
9) Libertarianism doesn't stop private individuals using their massive power to oppress you. It doesn't stop groups of people working together to screw you over by refusing to do business with you. Libertarianism is not a community. If, for whatever reason, you don't fit in, they'll grind you down and destroy you via concerted private maneuvers and there's nothing you can do about it in response. Imagine people who will willingly accept worse products just to not buy from you. People who refuse to sell you things even though you have plenty of money, or make you pay ten times as much as anyone else. What can you do in a society like that? In the end libertarians can be forced to do whatever society wants even without any force or fraud. Peer pressure is plenty.
This is why you absolutely must live in a homogeneous society where you already belong and people already approve of you. If a nordic white hangs out with a lot of other nordic whites who all believe the same things and respect the same values, you'll never be bullied for who you are again. So long as you live in libertarian land where people can judge each other as individuals, odds are you will be bullied and there's nothing you can do about it.
10) Regression to the mean means that whoever you judged fairly as an individual now, in the long term, will be deleterious to your descendants in the future. Nordic whites are good breeding stock and so they'll never let you down, but let in a 'good one' black or 'good one' jew and you'll find that all of their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren were pure evil and because you insisted on judging someone as an individual you forced this curse on all your children that didn't have to happen if you had just consulted the wisdom of pattern recognition. If you care about the future at all, it's less important that you be objective and fair this iteration, but instead care about the vast majority of the iterations down the line, and aim for them to be improving rather than regressing. It's like religions that handle snakes, why take the risk? What on Earth are you trying to prove?
No man is an island, we are all a part of the main. Libertarianism makes no sense and refuses to grapple with this reality. Maybe if we all lived in perfect isolation and only interacted with each other commercially and anonymously so no one would ever know who we were, it would be possible to co-exist with any number of other isolated individuals without discriminating via preferring one group over another. But that's about as far from the real world as life can get. Nor do I feel like that would be preferable to the love and harmony you could find in a pure, homogeneous, ideologically unified Nazi society.
Libertarianism can grasp basic facts, unlike liberals, and they can grasp the meaningfulness of these facts, unlike conservatives, but they can't build a society around these facts, so in the end they're no alternative either. Liberals at least have the unified kumbayah singing, struggle against oppression vibe going for them. So long as they have someone to collectively resent, liberal communities can stick together seemingly indefinitely. The only people worthy of fighting Nazis are liberals. Libertarians are so scattered and selfish they'd never even be able to field an army in the first place.