Radical Agenda S06E072 – In Defense of Walter Block

Radical Agenda
Radical Agenda
Radical Agenda S06E072 – In Defense of Walter Block

Walter Block is, among other things, the author of a book titled “Defending the Undefendable”.

Let us then begin with the poetic element, that the undefendable feels compelled to return the favor.

On the non-zero chance that some folks might read this without knowing me, my amusement with that thought stems from my being a notorious anti-Semite with a (largely unearned) reputation for violence.

When I needed defending in 2017, I could hardly find a lawyer willing to accept money for the task. By the time the feds broke my door down in 2020, I had been completely wiped out and had only the public defender to rely upon. In a civil trial that occurred when I was still in federal custody, I was forced to represent myself pro se, even as the United States government sabotaged my trial preparation and the Court ignored my complaints.

No matter what anybody tells you, I won at that civil trial, by the way.

But this blog post is not about me. This is about the latest circular firing squad among the libertarian sect.


Walter Block, driven it seems by an ethnocentric impulse, has been a prolific defender of Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine, though doubtless he would rather avoid calling it “ethnic cleansing”.

The libertarians, though they are in most contexts quite cautious of upsetting the Jews, have taken up with Leftists and too many on what was once known as the Alt Right, in their full throated opposition to the Israeli military operation.

For being on the other side of that argument, Mr. Block has been assailed my his erstwhile colleagues and now been stripped of titles at the Mises Institute and the Ron Paul Institute.

It might go without saying that the folks at those institutions are free to choose whom they associate with. If they care not for the opinions of Walter Block, then, axiomatically, out he goes. I’d not for one second dream of suggesting a think tank ought to be compelled to feature someone with whom they vehemently disagree. For that matter I doubt Mr. Block has a great deal of interest in trespassing, and there are plenty of people and places that I’m sure could learn a lot more from Mr. Block than anyone inclined to attend a Mises conference.

So, no big deal really. This guy thinks one thing. They think something else. They part ways. Who cares?


It is of some interest to me because I parted ways with the libertarians some years ago, having realized that they were behaving like a thinly veiled fundamentalist religion. Their ideas it turns out, do not stand up to the scrutiny of the real world, but social status in the movement is nonetheless conveyed according to the degree of detectable ideological fervor, multiplied by IQ. If you can verbally contort reality in such a way as to make a stateless world free of initiatory violence seem plausible, you will be lauded with praise and paid speaking engagements and earn just enough money to avoid seeking more useful employment.

If there is an upside to this, it is that it produces some pretty impressive thinkers who often move on from that thought exercise into roles that are of greater service to mankind. Trying to think about how a world without a government might operate according to a given theory, can teach us things about how best to govern, even if the theory itself is useful only as a thought exercise.

But much like the conservative movement, the libertarian movement has been known for its occasional purges. They purport to be eager to debate the “statists” who ignore them, but the moment a “fellow libertarian” strays from the script he is mauled by the bloggers and the chattering masses and declared persona non grata.


Such happened to me long before I decided to abandon the movement myself. The context was not entirely different from the one that has seen Mr. Block chased away. In my case, I argued that it was an entirely libertarian thing for a person to use violence against government agents who would initiate force against him. From this I extrapolated that, given the certain knowledge that they would do so, and that their entire sustenance was of just such coercive measures, one need not wait until his house is surrounded by a SWAT team to make that decision. Any sane actor, in fact, would have to choose between submission to that coercive force, or to act with lethal and overwhelming violence when that superior foe was least able to defend against it.

For this observation I was branded a terrorist, investigated by the JTTF, thrown out of the Free State Project, and quietly as certainly, blacklisted from speaking engagements at libertarian events.

What is perhaps most noteworthy about the above situation is that I was absolutely correct that what I described was “libertarian”. It just isn’t something any reasonable person would do. Much of libertarianism has that quality to it. The libertarians, as is so often the case, teeter between the ideological and the practical as it suits them largely. While this can be frustrating for a debate opponent, it at least tells us that they are not so enthralled to their superstitions that they would knowingly march us toward extinction in the unlikely event they actually obtained political power.

Yeah, the government is force. Yeah, it is libertarian to use force in defense against force. No, it is not a good idea to shoot at police officers.

Pretty simple.


The bigger issue is that the libertarians, in their largely well intentioned desire to avoid violence, seem to try very hard not to think about how violence actually works. Their goal being to prevent it, its exercise and management has been pushed out of their psyche. They keep on trying to assert that all conflicts can be resolved according to a given set of rules, and the religious element of their ideology becomes evident when they assert that their rules are the one true law which all of mankind is simply destined to follow. In their minds, by repeating the same ideas in greater and greater numbers across time and space, eventually humanity will assent to their superior reasoning, and thus shall know eternal peace.

Even if we were to grant them this, there is still a great deal of conflict to resolve by way of force between today and that uncertain future, which most sane folks do not expect shall ever arrive. Just like a taxpayer would be perfectly libertarian to kill his tax collector, but would yet be a fool to take up the sword, so is it preposterous for human beings to try and live according to the rest of the libertarian theory in a world organized by the coercion of States.

Thus it is near always the case that in matters of war and foreign policy, the libertarians find themselves most confused. The military is among the most unlibertarian things imaginable, and without it you shall certainly perish at the hands of some other military less obsessed with obscure moral theories.


The libertarians also have an uncomfortable relationship with what they deem “collectivism”. In a debate I once had with Adam Kokesh, I was mocked for saying “we” as though any term describing more than one individual had been stricken from the English language by the Austrian economists.

This hyperindividualistic approach to social matters frequently puts them in conflict with units as small as families, but it emerges most fervently when it comes to race.

The libertarians have, with notable exceptions, fully adopted the Leftist conception that “racism” is the greatest of all sins. To some, more heinous than their raison d’être, aggression. To suggest that a race of people have a right to do so much as exist causes them to go into hysterics (though some races have more right to exist than others, you might notice if you talk to enough of them long enough. It is specifically preservation of “the White race” that renders them fit for a straightjacket). Talk about the means by which that existence is secured, and the hard nosed realities that this means lethal violence with other groups, and the Hitler comparisons will not take long to follow.

This conception of race as a form of evil collectivism seems to be in conflict with their aversion to genocide. After all, what is a genocide other than a series of individual murders wherein the victims have this supposedly insignificant detail of their race in common? Here their individualism meets its limits, as Mr. Block and so many others are accused of supporting genocide.


But race and violence are firm fixtures of the human condition, and this stubborn fact of life gnaws away at the souls of libertarian thinkers who strive to retain their intellectual integrity, and their libertarian social status, simultaneously.


Just so you understand where I’m coming from on the Israel/Palestine conflict, I have no affinity for the State of Israel. So far as I am concerned, its establishment was one of history’s greater errors, following on mankind’s most grievous during World War II. Had Stalin and Hitler carved up Europe, and told that crippled Left wing fanatic FDR where to shove it, there’s an argument the world would be a much better place, despite the fact that it would likely lack the benefit of Walter Block.

But I’ve never been much about trying to undo history. Leave that to Doc Brown and Marty. I have enough trouble trying to get through this day and plan for the future. I’ll be damned if I am going to waste my life fretting about the past. We are met with the circumstances with which we are met, and I no more expect the Israelis to give up the land they swiped in the wake of the second world war, than I expect Americans to take “indigenous land acknowledgements” seriously in the United States. Conquest is conquest, however conquered.

I am rather indifferent to the plight of the Palestinians myself. They kill Jews not because the Jews swiped their land or dominate the porn industry, but because the Jews are their neighbors and these people kill their neighbors. It’s just what they do, and we see this throughout the Muslim world. Remove the Jews and put Europeans in Israel, the Palestinians would launch rockets at them. The Palestinians are Sunni Islamists. Give them Shiite Islamists as neighbors, and the rockets will continue to fall on both sides of the line. Convert all of mankind to Sunni Islam and they’ll find some other excuse for slaughter. It’s fairly straightforward and these myths of the noble savage which have been attached to this particular tribe of brown bipeds is pretty nauseating, especially when it comes from the far Right who know all too well from the Islamic invasion of Europe that these “people” are not our friends.


So, let’s pick this apart a bit.


Israel is, in some sense, what White Nationalists strive to achieve. It is an ethnostate. A government which has as its purpose the survival and improvement of an ethnic group both inside and outside of its territorial boundaries.

In this sense the Leftist accusation that Israel is a racist country is an accurate statement. It is only in the negative value judgement that the critique fails a rational test. There is nothing wrong with a government concerning itself with the interests of its people. That is the only reason for a government to exist, actually. There’s no other reason to have a government, than to maintain the racial organism.

The race is a body comprised of cells, and the individuals are the cells. When the libertarians try to suggest that those cells have some kind of inalienable right to exist without the body, they are speaking nonsense. No cell can live without the body, and no human can exist without society.

Like any other organism, when foreign cells enter the body, the immune system of a society is supposed to attack those foreign cells. We have all been told the exact opposite by people who would prefer us all to die.

The humorous thing for us anti-Semites is that it is mostly Jews who peddle that vicious lie. They want their ethnostate, and they deny us ours as they meddle in the affairs of other nations.


Now, just as human beings cannot live without society, so is a society doomed without territory. The Jews have claimed as their territory the land now called Israel, as well as the land now called Palestine.

For the Jews to fully realize their claim, the Palestinians must go. The Palestinians can move to America, or be buried in Palestine, but they cannot live in Palestine, so far as the Jews are concerned. The Jews absolutely cannot accept the establishment of a “Palestinian State” because the same international conventions that preserve the existence of Israel would then protect the existence of Palestine, and the verbal gymnastics would become much harder to justify an ethnic cleansing and taking over of the territory. For the Jews to exercise their claim to the territory, they absolutely must rid the land of Palestinians before such a State can gain legitimacy on the world stage.


Let’s just forget all about the October 7th attacks for a moment. Let us imagine that the Israeli military operation were more forthright about its purposes, and simply announced one day that Palestine was theirs for the taking. Let us pretend they held a press conference and said to the world that these primitive barbarians could hardly be considered humans, and that they intended to eradicate the indigenous population to make way for more Jewish settlements.

Looked upon from the total timeline of human events, this would not be the most unusual thing a government ever did, as a matter of fact. Plenty of countries today trace back their right to the territory they govern to the conquests of their forbears.

In our arrogance, modernity has asserted that all prior conquests are final and that all that is today shall forever be. That is absolutely preposterous, and it is disproven with some regularity, though few dare to describe their operations as conquest in the current year.

Israel is conquering Palestine. Those are the rules of engagement. This is a conflict between two races of people, in which one will cease to exist and the other shall continue until someone conquers them. There is no non or anti racist way to look upon it.

The October 7th attacks are a pretext. Some speculate the Israelis knew about the attacks in advance. Some have said that Israel created Hamas. Some call the whole thing a false flag. The hysterical claims we all heard perpetrated by America’s Jewish propagandist media are disproven with some regularity, and anybody who knows anything about Jews saw that coming from a mile away.

We know for certain that the Israeli intelligence services are very interested in Hamas, and devote a great deal of resources to monitoring and influencing them. We know that something resembling the October 7th attacks was anticipated, but there is some lack of clarity as to just how much was known.

In any case it is never a long wait before Muslims start killing people, so whatever Israel’s role in the events of that day, the narrative is ready made. Israel needs a pretext to invade Gaza. People from Gaza kill some Israelis, and thus begins a military campaign that was planned independently of that event.


So, is Walter Block’s defense of this, “libertarian”?

The smart folks would say “Who gives a fuck?”

The only people who care what libertarians think are other libertarians, and the libertarians keep chasing people away because for all their economic study they can’t seem to figure out that politics works better with multiplication and addition than division and subtraction.


The real question is “Who has the power to do what?”

And the answer, in this context is “The Israelis get to do whatever the fuck they want because most White people are afraid of being called Nazis.”


The day after (soon to be formerly) White countries tell the Jews to pay their own bills, Muslims will pour into Israel. By the following morning, every woman who survives will be pregnant. The Jews will cease to exist in Israel, and given the change in public opinion that would have to happen for this to be permitted, one doubts those in the diaspora would have much of a future either.


White Nationalists are watching a similar process play out right now in America and Europe, albeit slower and less honest. Our borders have been thrown open to invaders who are destroying our race and our territory and we are rendered helpless to stop it because anyone who raises his voice in objection is chased out of the financial system and framed for crimes and thrown in prison.

The Jews are largely responsible for that state of affairs, and I am all too happy to see them suffer at the hands of the same savages they unleashed on Europe.

But I am not in the least bit surprised to see that Jews like Walter Block would tolerate unspeakable violence to prevent the extinction of his kind.

Because I would tolerate all that, and much worse, to prevent the extinction of mine.

And if you wouldn’t, then you’re a fucking coward.



I’ll have much more to say about this, and plenty more, when Radical Agenda airs live, this and every Friday at 9:30pm US Eastern on Odysee, and on the GetMeRadio app for smartphone, Roku, and FireTV.


If you would like to help finance my quality productions, I try to make this easy enough to do….

Follow me elsewhere, listen, watch, and keep in touch…

Be sure and get subscribed to my newsletter if you haven’t already, and whitelist [email protected] and [email protected] so I don’t end up in your spam trap!







Leave a Reply