Posted by DissidentMan on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:28 | #

Libertarians are either in a state of cognitave dissonence or they are knowingly disingenuous, seeing as they favour allowing people with most unlibertarian views into society. It wasn’t long ago that online I met a libertarian who was spouting off (wall streen journal style) about how “the borders shall be open!”

Furthermore some people may be biologically inclined to be group-oriented and some ethnic groups may be more ethnocentric than others. This is a purely scientific question and questions like this should never be answered with anyone’s dogma. What are libertarians going to do about hyper-ethnocentric ethnogroups attempting to control resources and eventually the legal system. That hyper-individualism would be a failing strategy (insofar as individuals in the outgroup are concerned) is merely a matter of game-theory. Let’s see X and Y team up to pick on Y and Z but Z and Z won’t help each other because they have renounced collectivism. Brilliant.

Posted by DissidentMan on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:32 | #

One other thing. Aren’t a bunch of libertarians joining forces to advance and defend their views behaving in a “collectivist” manner? What a bunch of nasty hipocrites.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:45 | #

“Aren’t a bunch of libertarians joining forces to advance and defend their views behaving in a “collectivist” manner? “

Exactly.  Good point.  Collective action is absolutely required for the victory of any ideology - even one that opposes collective action.

The “psychological” explanation of racialism as some sort of “inferiority complex” (which was, by the way, promoted by a certain Bengali some time ago) is irrelevant.

As JW has pointed out time and again, what matters are genetic interests.  If these “libertarians” disregard their genetic interests, they will be replaced by more ethnocentric and collectivist groups that do not share this cognitive defect (the paradox of “citizenism” as well).

More hypocrisy: if a group of people decide they wish to engage in a collectivist, racially homogenous experiment, shouldn’t “libertarians” be supportive?

White racial interests are the dividing line separating sincerity and hypocrisy with respect to “freedom”, “democracy”, “libertarianism” and the like.

“Libertarians” need to explain why multiracialism must be FORCED upon people who do not want it.  After all, if “diversity is strength”, aren’t the racialists only hurting themselves?

And don’t “libertarians” believe that people should have the right to decide for themselves, even if they decide wrong?

The counter-argument that we want to force our ideology on them is false - at least for some of us here, who support the idea of breaking up America into different experiments.

Let the “libertarians” enjoy their diverse libertarian state.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:56 | #

You make some good points Alex. You are right to suggest that multiculturalism diminishes real political freedoms.

People who share the same ethnicity have a very strong reason to stick together and act cooperatively. Once a society becomes multiethnic, other less natural and less instinctive means have to be relied on to secure social cohesion.

The elites are currently hoping that “values” or “propositions” can do the job. But the flimsiness and riskiness of this strategy is clear in what Australian PM John Howard had to say on Australia Day this year:

“In the 21st century, maintaining our social cohesion will remain the highest test of the Australian achievement. ... A sense of shared values is our social cement. Without it we risk becoming a society governed by coercion rather than consent. “

Posted by Matra on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 17:57 | #

Dissident Man:

What are libertarians going to do about hyper-ethnocentric ethnogroups attempting to control resources and eventually the legal system.

I’ve asked this question to libertarians on numerous occasions and only once did I receive an answer. It went something like this: the tide of individualistic free market globalism will lift everyone’s boat leading to rising prosperity and the breaking down of inherited loyalties to race, nation, and religion. In other words free market globalism will deracinate Asians, blacks, Muslims and other ethnocentric groups eventually turning them into white liberal cosmopolitans. So open borders is nothing to worry about!

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:01 | #

Nice work, Alex.  I hope you are receiving some suitably hard-nosed support.

Dissident, you should check these guys out.  They suppose themselves imbued with sovereign free will, like little gods of Capitalism.  But they possess no concept of the frailty of ordinary waking consciousness, nor do they understand absence, no do they know what it means not to possess oneself.  And, of course, they cannot be told.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:06 | #

And I am sure Amalek could assist by firing up his Anonymiser and revisiting the scene of his crimes.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:46 | #

“It went something like this: the tide of individualistic free market globalism will lift everyone’s boat leading to rising prosperity and the breaking down of inherited loyalties to race, nation, and religion. In other words free market globalism will deracinate Asians, blacks, Muslims and other ethnocentric groups eventually turning them into white liberal cosmopolitans. So open borders is nothing to worry about! “

Even if this were true- which it is not, the ethnocentrics will never change - the nonwhite nations are better situated to maintain genetic interests given their high population density.

And, even if a general panmixia took place, that would reduce current global genetic interests - relative comparison of current to future panmixed global populations - by the global Fst, as described in Salter’s book.

But, the Chinese, blacks, Arabs have no worries, because this is NOT going to happen.  As Sarich and Miele - aracial meritocratic libertarian types they - tell us, it’ll be the western populations that cease to exist.

All OK to these folks.
Racial masochism, anyone?

Posted by onetwothree on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:39 | #

An honest libertarian will tell you that, along with open borders (that, being government interference), other forms of government interference will disappear—those which allow the easy lives and easy reproduction of inferior individuals. That will not happen, of course, for reasons others have described.

I have a sneeky suspicion that Libertarians are against the state roughly to the same degree that Marxists are (who, after all, claimed that the state would dissolve, and whose sometime allies were the anarchists.

It would take an amazingly powerful apparatus to actually break up the bureaucracy of this country in a rapid pace. The army would likely throw a coup before being destroyed, and given the attitude of libertarians, I have no doubt they would raise their own storm troopers to combat this, and enforce, uh, freedom.

Posted by Niozilda on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:54 | #

I’ve asked this question to libertarians on numerous occasions and only once did I receive an answer. It went something like this: the tide of individualistic free market globalism will lift everyone’s boat leading to rising prosperity and the breaking down of inherited loyalties to race, nation, and religion. In other words free market globalism will deracinate Asians, blacks, Muslims and other ethnocentric groups eventually turning them into white liberal cosmopolitans. So open borders is nothing to worry about!

Hmm, what about the Japanese?

Posted by Matra on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:15 | #

I’ve noticed that many of those libertarians at Samizdata are going on about race realists being collectivists who support state coercion. Yet most, if not all, the libertarians at that site were staunch supporters of the invasion of Iraq. I guess some things are just too important to be left to non-coercive individual non-state actors.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:28 | #

That hyper-individualism would be a failing strategy (insofar as individuals in the outgroup are concerned) is merely a matter of game-theory. Let’s see W and X team up to pick on Y and Z but Y and Z won’t help each other because they have renounced collectivism. Brilliant. [changes mine and hopefully agreeable - svy]

Yeah, duh.  How brilliant does one have to be to recognize that individualism (never mind radical individualism) is a losing strategy except when it’s the only strategy?  Thus, for individualism to continue, it must be protected by a double-standard.  Double-standards are something even kindergarteners can grok but are beyond the ken of 99% of the world’s “thinkers” it seems.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:31 | #

The “psychological” explanation of racialism as some sort of “inferiority complex” (which was, by the way, promoted by a certain Bengali some time ago) is irrelevant.

Armchair psychoanalysis is just another way of changing the subject.  Those using it might as well use the “how bout them Yankees?” “argument,” it’d be as effective.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:32 | #

White racial interests are the dividing line separating sincerity and hypocrisy with respect to “freedom”, “democracy”, “libertarianism” and the like.

That’s so very true.  That’s why I’d be a WN as a matter of principle, even if my heart wasn’t in it.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:35 | #

I’ve asked this question to libertarians on numerous occasions and only once did I receive an answer. It went something like this: the tide of individualistic free market globalism will lift everyone’s boat leading to rising prosperity and the breaking down of inherited loyalties to race, nation, and religion. In other words free market globalism will deracinate Asians, blacks, Muslims and other ethnocentric groups eventually turning them into white liberal cosmopolitans. So open borders is nothing to worry about!

Translation: we don’t know - we’re going to gamble against history, nature, and good sense; never mind that collectives outcompete individuals every time, and please don’t look behind the curtain.  Have some Kool-Aid.

Posted by Søren Renner on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 23:03 | #

Svigor, you are worthy of love.

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 23:08 | #

onetwothree - I think libertarians are just like marxists. They have a belief system which allows them to reduce everyone else to the status of worker ‘droids. But as libertarians they get to hold the moral high ground and get to own flashy cars, have expensive holidays etc - its perfect!

Actually I suspect that many libertarians are not really the thrusting, capitalist buccaneers they fantasize about. More likely to functionaries in large, dare I say, bureaucratic organisations. I cant back that up, its just a suspicion of mine.

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 02:06 | #

My experience of racists is that they are race based collectivists who are so utterly without anything to redeem them (and know it), that they pick out something they didn’t have to earn (race) and claim that as their most valuable asset.

Stupid. 

“Collectivist” is a meaningless buzz word like “racist”. 

No sane person needs to find something to “redeem” himself.  As a living organism, every sane person (and every sane group of persons) wishes to continue to live.

“Racists” don’t claim race as their “most valuable asset”; they simply recognize their identity, and want themselves to continue to live.

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 02:23 | #

An honest libertarian will tell you that, along with open borders (that, being government interference), other forms of government interference will disappear….

The primary principle of principled libertarianism is non-aggression (or property).  An open-borders policy is, of course, a flagrant violation of this most basic principle.  The countries whose borders “libertarians” wish to open do not belong to them.

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 02:35 | #

What I *did* argue is that the implied absolutist model of human biology posited by Samizdata in its constant quest for ‘individual freedom’ is scientifically outdated, and that this explains why libertarians are, if anything, losing ground in public debates.

Of course, and if this blog is remiss in any regard, it is the failure of any of the posters to explore the implications of David Sloan Wilson’s work.

I can’t speak for others on this site but, far from guilt, my interest is tinged with anticipation. I see an individualist future, not a collectivist one.

But science says that an “individual” may consist of more than one person.  And the idiots at Samizdata will never be able to compete with those larger individuals.  They are utterly illiterate scientifically.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 03:10 | #

The main problem with libertarianism, as Dr. Bob writes, is the invoking of an individual autonomous morality, [everybody does his own thing as long as no one gets hurt] which is not only destructive but flies in the face of evolution.

Consider the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, for example. Launched by the technological advance of readily-available and reliable birth control, nurtured by the anti-authoritarian environment of an unpopular war and a universal military draft, conventional wisdom evolved to the point where sexual activity between any two “consenting adults” was permissible and desirable - as long as “no one gets hurt”. The consequences of millions of individuals defining sexual morality in such constricted and self-referential terms is nothing short of staggering: spiraling rates of divorce and sexually transmitted diseases (including AIDS); exponential growth of children raised in single-parent homes or born to unwed mothers; breakdown of families with deteriorating educational systems and outcomes; increased rates of juvenile crime and drug use; epidemic levels of domestic and child abuse. Whatever benefits may have accrued from this moral earthquake in the areas of sexual repression and prudishness are swamped by the adverse consequences - consequences never even imagined by those making these individual moral choices.

Darwin writes,

It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of
morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one important element in their success, the standard of morality and
the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase.

Thus even a multi-racial libertarian society will fail when confronted with a morally superior coercive philosophy like Islam.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:31 | #

I note that on another Samizdata thread titled “Blogspot.com over-run by spammers” the excellent Matt O’Halloran said:-

The American government thinks it can enforce ‘freedom’ at the point of a gun all over the world; but it can’t or won’t stop its advertisers deluging foreign email accounts with crass and disgusting unsolicited electronic junk.

What a picture of the modern USA this spam conjures up: a land full of men worrying about the lengths of their tools and their ability to keep them up, or desperate for cheaper medicines, or gagging for rip-off software, dodgy investment tips and dirty pictures.

You’d think Emperor George would tackle the nuisance if only to salvage his nation’s cyber-image of diseased impotence, so consonant with his achievements in foreign policy. But the Bush administration would rather spend the citizens’ taxes on frisking little old ladies at airports and tapping your telephone without court authorisation.

Big government: vainglorious, incompetent and riddled with graft. And it was a ‘free enterprise’ Republican who made it more so than ever.

Matt is exactly the kind of irredeemable racist/collective who gets himself banned at Samizdata.  OK, we have our occasional difficulties.  But when we ban we do it on the grounds of incivility rather than challenging content.

But LaPerry bans early and bans often, when he feels that his favourite little fetishes are becoming threatened.  In this case it is neocon-capitalist Bushite, Iraq-invading Kwamerica.

LaPerry replied to Matt’s comment thus:-

Matt O’Halloran, no, but are you bored with your antisocial racist collectivist thingy? Banned.

Thingy, no less.  Ouch.

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:52 | #

....an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection.

And 123 years after Darwin wrote those words, D.S. Wilson’s Unto Others finally returned evolutionary biology to the state of advancement it had possessed in 1871.  It is amazing what the collective efforts of a cohesive tribe can accomplish.

Posted by Amalek on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:20 | #

This Samizdata thread

http://www.samizdata.net/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=8677

is worth reading in full because it shows how Pope Perry De Havilland and his right-hand man, Johnathan Pearce, respond to argument.

I think they banned Matt O’Halloran when others, to their horror, began to chime in with genetic-realism arguments against the libertarian pipedream of absolute free will. Look for instance at what ‘Dave’, ‘Andy’ and ‘sj’ were saying, and compare it with the tone and substance of the hosts:

I would be more willing to grant Matt O’Halloran and other such folk the benefit of the doubt had he not been so snarky and dismissive of libertarianism and arguments for liberty generally. I smell a rat, and I continue to do so.

as a general rule if you assume anyone discussing racial intelligence is crypto-fascist wacko (and generally obsessive about the subject), you will very rarely be proven wrong.

Oh and Euan, no need to apologise for any rudeness. Sometimes rudeness is the only morally correct response to hate-filled bigotry

The stakes are big. We live at the time of growing irrationality, fear of strangers, paranoia and concerns about security. My fear is that there are probably quite a lot of people like Matt O’Halloran and the various other charmers who sneer at free will or the capacity for humans to be free. It frightens the fuck out of me, frankly.

Your comments on interbreeding are also disgusting. The mask slipped there, and the savagery was revealed. It usually happens in the end.

I’ll be keeping a beady eye on the Majority Rights outfit in future.

Perry, I think we need to sweep these wankers off the site. I don’t think Euan Gray needs to be subjected to that sort of abuse, and it is getting beyond a joke. These people are evil.

The whole race issue is a psychological trap that draws out the fascist collectivists who masquerade as libertarians or conservatives but are really just as collectivist as they come. Vast volumes were produced using phrenology to ‘prove’ racial superiority, this is no different.

As I said, you people are evil. Either that, or very, very depressed people, as your rantings about inter-racial marriage etc demonstrate. Makes me wonder whether you are all sexual inadequates or something.

We shouldn’t ignore these censorious twits. We should get into such debates and horrify them some more, instead of only nodding our heads to each other. Bombard them with science and common sense! Shall I go first?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 13:13 | #

The pity is, Amalek, that they are so well-read.  Many who might profit from hearing some truth are constantly denied it.  So no, we shouldn’t ignore them.

I, of course, am already banned.  But I think “sj” - strange, those are my daughter’s initials - has just posted rather a lengthy comment on the sources of liberty, amongst other things.  Perhaps you might care to present further arguments for the hereditarian cause.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 13:16 | #

I see that “starimomak” - a welcome guest at MR - has had a comment deleted from that thread.  God knows why.  No explanation.  I read it when it went up and saw nothing inflammatory in it.

God of Samizdata moves in mysterious ways.

Posted by Alex Zeka on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 13:49 | #

Perry de Havocland (or whatever his name is) is a well known excomunicatist. The SIs have not yet responded to any comment by myself, sj, starimomak or any other race-realist. They’ve just accussed us of ignorance, and of being irredeamably unintelligent. I got the distinct feeling that I was at a Stalinist show trial:

Me: X is the case, here is the evidence.

Free speakers: How dare you question our dogma! Anybody who doesn’t immediately realise the truth of libertarianism is beyond sympathy.

Their belief was almost religious. Considering most of them are vehement atheists, might their ideolgy be a substitute religion?

Posted by DissidentMan on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:52 | #

These arguments follow a typical pattern. At first we are considered uninformed and a little bit dull and there is an invitation to have a civilised debate with which to set us straight. Very soon into the debate our hosts get cold feet, seeing that the floor is getting wiped with them. Thereupon, like pious churchladies, the once generous hosts denounce their guests as “evil” and unredeemable and the debate ends.

Posted by seelow heights on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:11 | #

The Libertarians on that board keep congratulating themselves on their posing of the question of why North Korea is so much poorer than South Korea when they are racially and ethnically indistinguishable. As if anyone believes that rigidly totalitarian   social-economic systems imposed from above have no consequences for the economic prosperity of a people! 
Maybe they think the DPRK came into being as the result of a popular election. Well, the North Korean regime began its life as a creation of the victorious Red Army and the political leadership of Josef Stalin .Until the collapse of the USSR it was essentially a semi-colonial dependency of that state. The USSR is gone but in North Korea the Stalinist system of political control and the Stalinist command economy remain in place.

              An attempt at a analogy
Since “libertarians” prefer to examine everything at an individual level they might ask this question: What if Albert Einstein had spent the first 15 years of this life confined to a packing crate? All other factors like education and nutrition the same (home schooling would be required). Might this not this experience have had a negative effect on his cognitive abilities?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:20 | #

Somebody would still have managed to teach him the Kol Nidre through the gap in the planks.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:21 | #

Svigor, you are worthy of love.

People love me, and I’m a winner.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 16:08 | #

At first we are considered uninformed and a little bit dull and there is an invitation to have a civilised debate with which to set us straight. Very soon into the debate our hosts get cold feet, seeing that the floor is getting wiped with them.

It’s always fun to watch this stage unfold.  Race-realists put everyone else in a bind.  The common wisdom is that we’re all toothless, stupid hicks.  Unfortunately, while this may attach for many, it does not attach per se.  To be acceptable to common sensibilities a group must leave no room at all for race-realism.  This makes it an easy target for race-realists; victory consists of simply making room for race-realism, which is a trivial task.  The upshot is that inertia is the race-denier’s best tool and ignoring race-realism his best tactic.

On the other hand the GNXP-types make plenty of room for race-realism and they’re not inclined to open debate on following it to certain logical conclusions either.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 16:34 | #

The North/South Korea example means what? No one denies the innate intelligence of Northeast Asians, and no one denies that Stalinist Marxism, as practiced by North Korea, is an impediment to economic development.

These facts do not magically make blacks - or Koreans - the equal to Europeans in civilizational development.

But - that is actually irrelevant.  As JW has pointed out, where a group ranks on someone’s hierarchy of traits - be these IQ, civilizational development, technological prowess, phenotypic aesthetics, or whatever - does not change the fact that the group in question has innate interests in their own genetic continuity and group well-being.

Even IF every group was equal in ability, or, even IF every group was superior to whites in every way, whites would still be perfectly justified in wishing to preserve their unique biological (and cultural) heritage.

Would these “libertarians” dump their own kids for those of a stranger, if the stranger’s offspring were of superior ability?

I think not.

Would it be adaptive for them to do so?

I think not.

Of course, the fact that certain peoples do, and have, contribute more to human progress is added incentive to their preservation, but such incentive is not absolutely required.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 17:01 | #

There was a recent poll of South Korean young people which showed that only 11.6% would support an American attack on North Korea. The reality of ethnic loyalties is evident as strongly as anywhere in Korea.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 17:28 | #

Oh, to the Samiz readers “keeping an eye” on this thread or MR in general; jump in any time.  Unlike most of the “thinkers” online, we don’t censor ideas here.  Whenever you’re ready to leave the kiddie pool we’ll be glad to have you.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:42 | #

Svi, you might have noticed the hit counter belting along since this episode began.  Somebody is talking an interest.  Shy, though.

Posted by starimomak on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:58 | #

Deleted posts.

Yeah, I was wondering too. One of the deleted posts consisted of a correction and four (seemingly unaswerable) questions for our libertarian friends.

One did not the fact that Randy Weaver’s wife was ‘shot by an Asian with a government job’, which I guess is a bit edgy but is also 100% true. I guess libertarians don’t have a sense of irony.

Posted by starimomak on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:02 | #

One did note that ... instead of One did not that…

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:18 | #

That’s it, stari.  Unacceptable use of the word “guess”.  To the tumbrils with you!

Posted by starimomak on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:49 | #

Well, I’m a Yank, though I live in London. Saying ‘reckon’ sounds hopelessly hill billyish to me.

Posted by Amalek on Wed, 08 Mar 2006 21:38 | #

Mark Richardson: “There was a recent poll of South Korean young people which showed that only 11.6% would support an American attack on North Korea. The reality of ethnic loyalties is evident as strongly as anywhere in Korea.”

Since North Korea got nukes, not only has America handled it with care (Axis of Evil charter member or not) but South Korea has begun detente and military conversations, doubtless anticipating a fluid situation after the Dear Leader snuffs it.

The reunification of Korea could be as seismic for the Far East as that of Germany was for Mitteleuropa, triggering all sorts of interesting consequences.

Japan, though still grateful for American protection, is moving towards a more pro-active military, 60 years after MacArthur neutered it, and there is a protest movement against the continued US presence on Okinawa. China is flexing its muscles over the Spratley Islands and Taiwan, considering them rightfully the Middle Kingdom’s possessions.

This does not necessarily presage a new coalition of old Asiatic enemies based on shared ethnicity, but a big ball of high-IQ wax is building up a long way from Baghdad and Teheran… and America’s overstretched forces are in no condition to cope with standoffs on two widely separated fronts. As the old ‘isms’ lose their potency, we see a world not obediently falling into line behind the American model of governance, but redividing itself on ethno-strategic faultlines.

It’s amusing how all the public rhetoric of liberalism is about globalisation and convergence, whereas the plain fact is that there are more, and more racially assorted, sovereignties on the planet than at any time in modern history. Until 2003 the globalists would say ‘yes, but they don’t matter where it counts most, in war.’ The Iraq insurgents have put quite a crimp in that theory. Fighting for your own turf can give you an ascendancy, or at least an unconquerability, which the mongrelised US cannot crack with all its shock ‘n’ awe.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Thu, 09 Mar 2006 02:56 | #

“The primary principle of principled libertarianism is non-aggression (or property).  An open-borders policy is, of course, a flagrant violation of this most basic principle.”

Never were truer words spoken. Open borders is the greatest form of aggression anywhere.

There are different ways of coming around to supporting limited constitutional government, private property, and free markets (which is basically the practical application of libertarianism - and I would be classed as a “libertarian” for this reason).

The problem is: on what first principles are you basing your opposition to government? Most libertarians do so on an extreme understanding of individualism - such that every factor in an individual’s nature must be amenable to change through the power of reason. They see the government as being a threat to the ability of individuals to do this. Hence, they support open borders, even if it means importing millions of jihadist fanatics, because they don’t wish to attribute characteristics to humanity that individuals can’t control.

However, I tend to come at the issue from the opposite perspective - there is an elite conspiracy at the highest levels of our governments to debauch our communities, destroy the family structure, and to basically foster a degenerate culture that will in turn be more easily controlled and manipulated by the rulers. Mass immigration tends to actually enhance the processes of statism and government control, not break them down.

So I am attracted to the notion of tearing down our government predators for communitarian reasons - the elites have conclusively demonstrated that they wish to destroy western civilisation and submerge all peoples under a coercive one world government, of which the EU and the FTAA are intended to be the building blocks. In my view, this is decidedly anti-social and anti-community.

To me, the most obvious way to not only uphold liberty and private property, but also to cease forthwith the trashing of all that is good and decent in our communities, is to tear down our parasitic elites and, as importantly, to close off our borders.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:02 | #

BTW - for those who like to bash libertarians (and I accept there are good grounds for bagging out the majority of deluded open-borders fanatics who call themselves “libertarian”) I can only recommend Hans-Hermann Hoppe as the perfect antidote.

I ordered a couple of his books over Amazon, and the man is quite simply one of the most clear-eyed college professors around - especially on the issue of immigration, which, as Hoppe points out, is really about state-enforced global de-segregation.

Posted by Andy on Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:39 | #

BTW - for those who like to bash libertarians (and I accept there are good grounds for bagging out the majority of deluded open-borders fanatics who call themselves “libertarian”) I can only recommend Hans-Hermann Hoppe as the perfect antidote.

I ordered a couple of his books over Amazon, and the man is quite simply one of the most clear-eyed college professors around - especially on the issue of immigration, which, as Hoppe points out, is really about state-enforced global de-segregation.

You’re right—-Hoppe is outstanding on immigration. I’d wager a fair amount, however, that these libertarians hate Hoppe as much as they hate MajorityRights.com. 

You might recall that Hoppe was almost suspended from his teaching position at UNLV because he claimed that homosexuals tend to have a lower time preference than heterosexuals. Nasty bit of “collectivism” there.

Collectively, the Samidiots are just mental midgets. Their confusion regarding the whole idea of “collectivism” is definitive proof of this. They seem to think that because people are “individuals” (technically true), one therefore cannot make generalizations about groups.

This is for the libertarian anti-racist lurkers:

Your view of “collectivism” is patently false. Take this example: Men, on average, are taller than women. This is an obviously true generalization. (The average numbers are something like 5’10” versus 5’4” or something like that in the US).  Clearly, this does not mean that every man is taller than every woman. If you were to pick one woman at random and one man at random, the woman may turn out to be a WNBA center who is 6’4”. She would be taller than the majority of men. This would in no way invalidate the generalization.  If you were to take 10,000 men at random and compare them to 10,000 randomly selected women, the average height of the male group would without a doubt be higher.

The same goes for racial differences. Yes, people of all races are individuals. Yes, there are very intelligent blacks. Some blacks, like Thomas Sowell, are more intelligent than the lion’s share of whites.  This does not mean that the mean black IQ of one standard deviation below the white mean is not significant. 

In any activity where height is a critical factor, one can predict with great accuracy that men on average will outperform women.  In the same way, in any activity where intelligence is critical, one cannot expect blacks to perform as well as whites on average.

There is lecture number one.  Get back to me when you have digested that and we will continue with the lesson. I’m available for follow-up questions as well. 

One more tip: You don’t have to take everything Ayn Rand said as Gospel.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Thu, 09 Mar 2006 13:12 | #

There are some over at Samizdata who don’t mind Hoppe - particularly Charles Copeland.

Posted by Ben Tillman on Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:01 | #

They seem to think that because people are “individuals” (technically true)....

Actually, I would say that is *technically* untrue.  We can, and do, divide.  The process is called meiosis.

Posted by jock on Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:53 | #

Copeland’s one of us, isn’t he? Haven’t seen him here in ages.

Posted by JB on Thu, 09 Mar 2006 22:56 | #

slinker:

Let the “libertarians” enjoy their diverse libertarian state.

There must be an empty island somewhere where they can start a libertarian society based on their axioms. Once the experiment is a success they could launch the product on the market and set up a marketing campaign to sell its merits to the consumers and if they really want it it will sell.

Posted by JB on Thu, 09 Mar 2006 23:20 | #

Rothbard was wrong : libertarianism is also a revolt against nature.

* * *

for some reason I can’t post replies at Samizdata, there’s always an error msg. I read the whole thread there and typed replies before reading this one so pardon my redundancy. Here they are:

1)
Midwesterner:

Your arguments for race as a factor are so lame that the only way you can defend them is by tying them into the legitimate factors of culture and language.

a “people of common culture, language, and common descent” is what the founding fathers of America referred to when they spoke of americans (they weren’t libertardians, sorry folks) :

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8003

“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice, that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general Liberty and Independence.”

2)
Johnathan Pearce:

One thing we have pointed out repeatedly on this thread (by VeryRetired, Euan, Josh, and others) is that there is a lot more variation within supposed racial sets than between them. And yet you never seem to accept that point, I suspect because it does not suit your paranoid purposes.

that assertion is usually followed by a “for example an african could be genetically closer to a white than a white to another white”. But what are the chances of that happening ? You have some numbers ?

Johnathan Pearce:

But race has nothing to do with it. Look at the success of Asian emigrants to the United States, for example, or Indians here, or the Chinese in Malaysia, etc.

the other side of the coin: look at the lack of success of africans in the post segregation era in American and those in England :

DNA of 37% of black men held by police
http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,,1678169,00.html

no, race has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Johnathan Pearce:

Put a black person in a different and supportive environment and he or she can thrive, as many do.

I know libertarians can’t compute plurals and collectives but let me rephrase that:

“put blacks in a different and supportive environment and they can thrive, as ...”

see that doesn’t work - no black community, city, country that I’m aware of thrives. If you truly had a rational and open mind you wouldn’t balk at the thought that the cause of that might be the black environment, meaning the blacks themselves, their nature & personality traits.

Johnathan Pearce:

I do think it is in Man’s nature to require liberty to thrive and survive. It is one of the core values of classical liberalism and a reason why it was not sustainable for the United States, built on such value, to tolerate indefinitely the institution of slavery.

but the “Great Emancipator” had no problem with slavery. Lincoln was not only openly said blacks were inferior he was also seriously thinking about sending blacks back to Africa. The Founding Father didn’t care about blacks and Jefferson was a pseudo-scientific racist.

And I don’t think any pre-50s american thinkers worthy of the name had a problem with segregation either.

Johnathan Pearce:

Rand was also ethnically Jewish, but she was pretty fierce on racism, regarding it a s primitive form of racism. Quite what she would have said about the likes of you does not bear repeating in front of people of a nervous disposition.

but isn’t it interesting that Rand herself and jewish randians like Leonard Peikoff and Yaron Brook are vehement in their defense of Israel ? I mean why Israel and not I don’t know Hong Kong or Taiwan ?

3)
Joshua:

If you’re looking for a genetic explanation for which nations are successful you’re unlikely to find it because all races, as far as we know, have both intelligent and stupid, lazy and diligent members.

in exactly the same proportions right ?

4)
Euan Gray :

Nope. Often quite the contrary, as the mingling of different cultures opens the host culture to new ideas, which is usually a Good Thing (tm).

ideas like emprisoning blasphemers, misogyny, practicing voodoo medicine, having sex with children, etc. ?

We can get examine new cultural ideas through books, TV, newspapers, movies, National Geographic magazines, etc. No need for Mohammed or Mboto to be physically present among us.

Alex was referring to a decrease of liberty and you bring up a non-sequitur about the mingling of different cultures. A good thing it may be but that doesn’t imply it doesn’t reduce liberty, which is what happens when the state pushes for multiculturalism and what would happen anyway without it because the permanent “guests” to which we must supposedly be open have no incentive to respect the hosts and its culture when the host is weak and says “the whole world can come here, step on our feet and replace us, we won’t fight back because we don’t want to be racial and cultural collectivists”. They will simply take advantage of the situation and impose their will on the host. Jean-Marie Le Pen was right when he said that when the muslims(arabs) of France will be at 25 millions instead of 5 they’ll rule the country and whites will be afraid to look them straight in the eyes.

You must have seen the pictures of the muslims protesting in London. In a healthy England these people would have been scared of offending englishmen. You would have never seen them going out in the streets to yell “Death to Europe!” and “Get ready for the real holocaust!”. Their actions aren’t really the result of their free will it’s mostly the result of a few decades of liberal-egalitarian decomposition because without it 1) most of them wouldn’t be there to begin with and 2) those present wouldn’t dare offending the host country because they would know the natives wouldn’t tolerate it.

Euan Gray :

Immigration is good and healthy. Selective inbreeding amongst the host population results in recessive genetic disorders and is bad and unhealthy. Ever heard of Tay-Sachs disease?

Tay-Sachs has been almost eradicated by a selective inbreeding process - eugenics :

Tay-Sachs Said To Be Nearly Eradicated Among Ashkenazim

http://jewishweek.org/news/newscontent.php3?artid=10405&print=yes

“Professor Gideon Bach, who heads the Department of Genetics at Hadassah University Hospital, Ein Karem, said the eradication of Tay-Sachs in Israel can be attributed primarily to the fact that the general public is advised to carry out, at the expense of the state, genetic tests to diagnose the disease before the birth of the baby. In the event Tay-Sachs is diagnosed, the pregnancy is usually terminated.”

referring to Tay-Sachs was a non-sequitur anyway. The disease is bad but it’s not linked to immigration. Human groups have survived and evolved in racial and ethnic segregation for thousands of years up until the 2nd half of the 20th century so there wouldn’t be anything biologically unhealthy to maintain or bring back segregation. And you speak of immigration as if all immigrants were Equal.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:07 | #

I disagree - Rothbard was a cultural conservative who very clearly laid out the true cause of our social decline. If communities are left alone and governed by their own rules, then they will come to a natural order. It is due to deliberate social-engineering (not the free market) by predatory governments that the whole social fabric has collapsed. The John Birch Society has a similar view, which I concur with, that suggests the social-engineered decline was part of a deliberate conspiracy.

Posted by Alexei on Fri, 10 Mar 2006 03:50 | #

Libertarianism is not a term that explains much unless one specifies a brand. As far as I understand Hoppe, I have no problem with his version of libertarianism. It’s something that can only work in homogenous communities with strong shared values. These values are too strong for the Samizdata majority; hence, their libertarianism cannot work.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 10 Mar 2006 03:51 | #

Fine comment, JB

Posted by JB on Fri, 10 Mar 2006 03:51 | #

to be honest I’ve never read Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature but the rothbardians at Lew Crockwell dot com are all anti-racists. I’ve read that one of their writers has been ‘erased’ from the archives because he expressed a racist opinion on the Strike the Root website

Posted by JB on Fri, 10 Mar 2006 04:03 | #

I mean, what’s the point of being a neo-confederate cultural conservative free market capitalist on LewRockwell.com if you are not free to write about race ?

Posted by Amalek on Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:45 | #

Samizdata has frozen completely since the latest outbreak of race realism defaced its impeccably One Worldish, colour-blind columns. No new threads, no comments, complaints from the faithful that they can’t get through. And Pope Perry makes his living advising companies how to run blogs!

It’s the Curse of Matt O’Halloran;-)

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 10 Mar 2006 07:13 | #

Amalek,

I think Matt is a very interesting and clever man, as was WJP, Effra and L’Universal.  Any of them would have been welcome bloggers here and it remains a mystery to me why the three whom I asked have never had the courtesy to respond ... as, indeed, it remains a mystery why you were such a jarringly anti-semitic Darlek, Amalek, when you materialised on our threads.

Somewhere here there is a missed opportunity.

Posted by Matra on Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:34 | #

JB:

I’ve read that one of their writers has been ‘erased’ from the archives because he expressed a racist opinion on the Strike the Root website

That would be Bob Wallace and here are the offending observations.

JB:

I mean, what’s the point of being a neo-confederate cultural conservative free market capitalist on LewRockwell.com if you are not free to write about race ?

Their neoconfederate views are based entirely on anti-statism. The Lew Rockwell crowd never miss an opportunity to remind readers of Lincoln’s racism.

Hoppe may be against open borders but there is little evidence to suggest other paleolibertarians care much about the issue. Now that they are trying to find common ground with the Left I would not expect immigration to come up too often at their websites unless they decide to take a pro-open borders stance.

Posted by Phil Peterson on Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:54 | #

The description of so-called “racists” as “collectivists” or “barnyard socialists” was an invention of Ayn Rand - that repository of great wisdom.

In my experience, Libertoids tend to be (and I use this term only as a description of open borders Randists and other assorted idiots) herd animals. Amazingly herd-like for supposedly “sovereign individuals”.

Their understanding of politics and of political ideas only slightly better than that of 10 year old children.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:29 | #

If Rand’s piece Racism is any indication, hers was a pedestrian mind.

I started shredding it a couple of years ago but I quickly tire of simple work:

http://svyatoslav.50megs.com/AYNRANDSRACISM.HTML

Posted by Andrew on Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:20 | #

They must have taken your criticism to heart Svi, if there was ever an about turn, at least from ARI Institute: There is nothing in this article that defends Multiculturalism.
See what you think: PDF Format. http://www.aynrand.org/site/DocServer/newsletter_multiculturalism.pdf?docID=162
Every little bit helps.
I can not remember the fellows name , but Multiculturalism was a Marxism reinvention in the early 50ies, as they could not achieve success over the prolatateriate, so replace them, make them Guilty, Castigate them, Isolate them, and that is just against the Anglo-sphere. Thus , to where we are today.

Posted by Charles Copeland on Sat, 11 Mar 2006 08:15 | #

Steve Edwards writes:

There are some over at Samizdata who don’t mind Hoppe - particularly Charles Copeland.

Steve, I was IP-banned at Samizadata almost two years ago, chiefly for taking the mickey out of the pubertarian Perry de Havilland, and for expressing my realistic views on the assimilability in Western society of cognitively disadvantaged breeding populations. Glad to see MR-supporters are doing such a splendid job in winding up these know-nothings.

I am, of course, a great Hans-Hermann Hoppe fan (though his world does not resemble the real existing version we unfortunately have to live in).

Posted by Phil Peterson on Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:39 | #

pubertarian Perry de Havilland

LOL!!

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:47 | #

Hoppe memories, Charles.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:36 | #

I also notice that Charles has done a fine job in provoking the Crooked Timber crowd. Liberals really are pathetic individuals, aren’t they?

Posted by Steve Edwards on Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:47 | #

Somebody should inform Perry of his new ideology!

Posted by Alex Zeka on Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:12 | #

Steve, the Andy Duncan in your link seems to be the sort only too likely to get banned by Havocland. Any idea if he might prefer to blog for us?

Posted by Steve Edwards on Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:25 | #

I don’t know - I’m not familiar with Andy Duncan.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:02 | #

Alex,

Andy was a good writer and a solid guy, a fact he proved by emerging orginally from the clutches of youthful socialism.  He stalked off Samizdata publicly, which was somewhat unsubtle if interesting.  I did send him a mail at the outset, but he did not reply.  I think, anyway, that he had lost faith in blogging as much as in the Temple of Perry.

Posted by Johnathan Pearce on Sun, 09 Jul 2006 10:10 | #

What a hopelessly illogical thread! Samizdata contributors deny—as I emphatically do—the idea that racial differences trump humans’ ability to have free will etc, which is what I suspect a lot of the racists who contribute to this site do believe. You are basically race-determinists. The problem then is what this does to any coherent morality. How can you believe in notions of right or wrong if we are genetic puppets on a string? You are like Marxists who try to push aside those messily different people called individuals and base everything on class. In the case of this blog, you base it all on race/genetics. And of course you persist in confusing race and culture. But that is possibly a bit too nuanced and inconvenient for folk who don’t like people who look a bit different from themselves, doesn’t it?

I am delighted that you think that Samizdata has its left-liberal leanings. It does. One thing that is good about this blog and why I write for it is that it is emphatically making the point that capitalism, freedom and respect for rights are not “right-wing” issues. The more distance we put between ourselves and the likes of Majority Rights, the better.

And on that note, have a nice Sunday.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Jul 2006 13:29 | #

Jonathan,

Welcome to my disorderly house.  I am very proud of it.  You can read another “about Samizdata” thread under a post written by me here.  You get a (sympathetic, I think) mention.

“Individuals” is just another word for “people”.  Here we freely discuss how people aggregate in Nature, and what is the import and value of those aggregations.  We hold ourselves above petty-liberal political ideology.  We deal with the issue of the survival of European Man and his unique creation, the Western world. 

Here’s a suggestion - just for fun, you understand.  Why don’t you or another Samizdatista write a post about anything serious and germaine to our disagreement?  Then post it here, announce it on your blog and we’ll see if you can defend your position on the thread.

Or if you prefer not to visit us - and in a spirit of fine libertarian free speech - invite us to post the proposition to Samizdata, open the thread to those of us who are banned and off we go.

If you trounce us you will have a victory to savour.  If you eschew the chance you won’t.

The glove is at your feet.

Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 09 Jul 2006 16:00 | #

Johnathan Pearce,

Browsing your website, I am reminded once again of the hopeless detachment of the cult of libertarianism from the natural world in which we are immersed as well as the poverty of libertarian philosophy and political theory generally. You people are the true descendents of the Scholastic logic choppers and theological hair splitters of the Middle Ages and the worthless debates they had for centuries over unobservable, untestable, nonexistent entities (a good example would be at what velocity do angels travel through void space).  Yours is but the latest example in a long series of philosophical and religious castles in the air.

It’s like over a century of progress in the biological sciences has yet to filter down to you. From the standpoint of libertarianism, the work of Charles Darwin, E.O. Wilson, Robert Trivers, W.D. Hamilton, and Richard Dawkins might just as well never have existed. You come here and ask: how do you reconcile hereditarianism/racialism with any “coherent morality?” A much more sensible question would be: how do libertarians reconcile the existence of morality with the free will they posit? If morality is something that is freely chosen from an infinite set of possibilities by undetermined free agents, on what basis can libertarians posit the existence of universal, binding moral obligations? Of course, they can’t, and this is why libertarianism degenerates into vacuous nihilism: do whatever you feel like doing, so long as you harm no one, and even this last caveat is logically suspect. The “race collectivist,” however, doesn’t have such difficulties: humans possess an innate moral sense which is recalled, as oppose to learned, the function of which is to regulate social interaction within and between groups. This explains 1.) the high degree of predictiveness of human behavior which the existence of free will is unable to explain, 2.)  the unreflective nature of moral judgements as they are actually made in the real world, and 3.) the paradox (on your end, at least) of libertarians being in the possession of the “true morality” when a truly libertarian society has never existed in all of history.

Libertarians would have us believe that humans are not social beings like other primates, but are instead, unrestrained, free agents; self conscious atoms combining with other self conscious atoms in unconstrained voluntary relationships. What sense does this theory make when juxtaposed against reality? Humans everywhere live in social groups, yearn for a sense of community, and are compelled for biological reasons to seek out companions. They are born and raised in social groups, spend their entire lives within a social setting, and when they die are buried and remembered by other members of groups. This, I suppose, is your evidence against “collectivism.” A true individualist who goes off to live on some mountaintop in isolation would quickly be eliminated by natural selection from the gene pool and the frequency of collectivists would increase with each subsequent generation. Humans have evolved all sorts of adaptations for living within a social setting, as cooperation with others enhances reproductive fitness (and is thus favored by natural selection), one of the most important being language, but others include numerous instincts such as xenophobia, morality, and an innate sense of beauty.

This explains much of the unpopularity of libertarianism. If humans do possess an innate moral and aesthetic sense, it stands to reason that most would experience a feeling of revulsion when exposed to the amorality and tastelessness you people advocate. A sense of culture is one of the many benefits that come prepacked with bigotry, the unknown ideal.

Posted by JB on Thu, 18 Jan 2007 02:03 | #

J.Pearce:

Samizdata contributors deny—as I emphatically do—the idea that racial differences trump humans’ ability to have free will etc, which is what I suspect a lot of the racists who contribute to this site do believe. You are basically race-determinists.

having to choose between Free Will and determinism is a false dilemma and a dilemma that can only be raised if you ignore many realities. A man with an IQ of 70 does have free will but within the limits of his mental capacities. What can he do with that freedom ?

Take blidness as an example: say a blind man has free will. fine, but what he will be able to achieve will be determined by the limits of his capacities or by the help he receives from others.

I think pretty much every individual has free will, however that freedom is expressed within the limits of each person’s nature. And that nature is in large part influenced by genetics.

There are simply no optimal perfect all-knowing choice-making Individuals completely free of any external or internal restraints or leanings. Do you choose to be attracted by the kind of woman you’re attracted to ? Does your free will decides if you will panic in this or that situation ?

No individual or group is born equal to every other, and no one is an island. That’s what the typical libertardians refuse to acknowledge and what makes them irrelevant to any serious social or political debate.

J.Pearce:

And of course you persist in confusing race and culture.

because race is probably one of the most important factor in the production of culture - and culture here refers not to simply art but to customs, social orders and what is known as civilizations.

I defy libertarians to create islands of freedom and comfort in the non-white world. Just try it and give us the results. You’re the ones who should be trying to convince whites that every human on this planet is a white person with a different color. I know empiricism isn’t one of your strengths but you can’t seriously ask us to simply take your words for it.

the West has been the freest part of humanity for centuries and if it is because whites are the racial group that leans the most towards individualism then libertarians should be working to preserve the human environment that is more receptive to their ideas and philosophy instead of being fools helping those who want to destroy it.

Libertarians have faith in projects and ideas that are not sustainable. is that logic ?

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:10 | #

Marx is in libertarianism as Jewish blood was in Popper’s veins.  Hence, JB’s challenge to modern libertarians to work “to preserve the human environment that is more receptive to their ideas and philosophy” will never be answered.  Libertarian society in the West is a Jewish ideal, not a practical proposition for European <strike>peoples</strike> ... whoops, sorry ... individuals.

Posted by alex zeka on Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:07 | #

Yet if the desire for liberty is an expression of the Western genotype, how can we practicably preserve the latter without satisfaction of the former? We desperately must rescue libertarianism/classical liberalism from the clutches of the closet marxists, and many thinkers, most prominantly Hans Herman Hoppe, are attempting just that. Do they too have Marx in their bloodstream?

Posted by alex zeka on Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:16 | #

I forgot to mention the excellent prof. Anderson, also a libertarian ready to withstand the anti-euro tide, whose latest is here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson166.html

He’s done more for white awakening than any number of Bourbon-loving internet gadflies.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:58 | #

how can we practicably preserve the latter without satisfaction of the former

Through social stability, a modern “baying for the moon” sort of word for which is social cohesion, a basic condition for which is racial homogeneity.  Conservatism IS the making of stable conditions under which the people may be released into their own hands.  A Conservative society is only possible in a Conservative zeitgeist, and a Conservative zeitgeist is only possible with racial homogeneity.  There is simply no place in this where libertarianism as a path to individual freedom can mesh.

On Hoppe, I did once note that he is not a very good psychologist.  But I’ve not read D:TGTF.  So beyond the fact that the man is not considered a libertarian by the Samidiots - which is a fine recommendation - I don’t feel qualified to fully answer your question about him.

Probably, I would categorise him with Steve Sailer and Lawrence Auster.  He is a serviceable outlier for those who are moving towards us.  But I don’t think he has the keys to the kingdom - not a literary pun.

Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:26 | #

“We desperately must rescue libertarianism/classical liberalism from the clutches of the closet marxists, and many thinkers, most prominantly Hans Herman Hoppe, are attempting just that. Do they too have Marx in their bloodstream?”

Hoppe doesn’t.  He is not an advocate of atomization.  While he addresses voluntary rather than instinctual and organic association, he supports freedom of association absolutely.

Posted by JB on Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:32 | #

He’s done more for white awakening than any number of Bourbon-loving internet gadflies.

not really:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson106.html

As someone who has adopted two Ethiopian children, I understood what she was saying to me, and one can be sure that the woman did not receive my vote.

this libertardian-christian fool defends whites on cyberpaper but he willingly participates in the replacement of not only his race but of his own children.

Posted by alex zeka on Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:52 | #

JB, I was not aware of that, or perhaps I’d forgotten. Nonetheless, intentions are not outcomes, and if his chronicalling of the legal abuses heaped on white Americans isn’t of value, I don’t know what is. An intelligent sinner may yet see the light through introspection and argumentation, and even if he doesn’t might lead others to see it. (I apologise for the Christian imagery, but we really have no other at our disposal. Perhaps saying that makes me a ‘fool’.)

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:09 | #

No, it makes you a writer.

Posted by JB on Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:49 | #

Bob Wallace was eradicated from Lewrockwell.com for telling politically incorrect truths about race and religion

http://home.att.net/~bob.wallace/out-damned-spot.html

I used to write for a libertarian site (well, sort of libertarian) called LewRockwell.com. But no more. My archives have been erased, and on top of that, they have been erased from the Google cache, which can only happen if the owner of the site where the articles were posted requests it (I’ve already saved all of them, so not to worry). Now who could it be who did this, I wonder?

By the way, over 200 articles were destroyed. 217, I think. All dropped down the libertarian version of Orwell’s Memory Hole.

I’m not the only one who has been banned. Jimmy Cantrell, who has a Ph.D. in English, was banned, as was Carole Ward. And all for the same reason I was: pointing out what are the real problems.

(...)

No Treason is an anti-American, left-wing site that reminds me of what Jean Raspail wrote in The Camp of the Saints: they are “righteous in their loathing of anything and everything that smacked of present-day Western society, and boundless in their love of whatever might destroy it.”

(...)

So, you ask, what did I write? I pointed out, in exactly one paragraph, that blacks have an mean average IQ that is genetically much lower than whites, which is why they’re on the bottom in every country of the world, including Africa. These are the facts, folks, and everyone knows it. To ignore these things is to condemn many, many Africans to poverty and death.

Of course, this is something leftists will tolerate, as long as it doesn’t intrude on their groovy little fantasy world.

What I wrote doesn’t mean I hate blacks, which of course is what leftists will always say. It just means we need the free market so people, no matter what their IQ, can find a high-paying job and support themselves so the government won’t destroy neighborhoods, families and people’s individual lives with welfare. And I know perfectly well there will always be smart ones who will rise to the top.

I also wrote that Jews have been expelled from some 80 countries – sometimes more than once, sometimes for hundreds of years – because of their attempts to destroy every culture that admits them. And under a completely free market, without government interference, many Jews will be ostracized. Everyone who is honest about it, knows this is true, too. This is a shame, because the innocent get hurt along with the guilty. But then, that, too, is part of depraved human nature.

I also pointed out that the Chinese and Asian Indians have a problem with ancient, ossified cultures that have destroyed much of their creativity. After all, most everything in the world has been created by those of European ancestry, along with the free market.

(...)

Posted by JB on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:32 | #

Andrew:

I can not remember the fellows name , but Multiculturalism was a Marxism reinvention in the early 50ies, as they could not achieve success over the prolatateriate, so replace them, make them Guilty, Castigate them, Isolate them, and that is just against the Anglo-sphere. Thus , to where we are today.

In a recent TV report on multiculturalism in Canada I heard that p.o.s. our former PM Pierre Trudeau say :

“multiculturalism is to gather more and more people of different ethnic background under a same government or a same super-government”

Nobody ever explains why this is supposedly a good thing, not even Trudeau himself I believe ever argued in favor of it. It’s supposed to be self-evident unless… unless you’re a big bad white racist.

Multiculturalism and mass immigration inevitably lead to social conflicts even if the State keeps everyone together at gun point. No country can possibly benefit from these two things coupled together and the politicians pushing for both are traitors who should get the rope.