Libertarianism is a white American phenomenon. There is also a racial and intelligence factor and anyone who takes an honest look of who make up the majority of libertarian activism meets this criteria.
Ron Paul libertarians seem afraid of acknowledging race differences or even biological differences among individuals which I find even more odd, but with the perfectly rational fear of being branded a Hitler by their leftist peers. They are completely sold on the idea that the ideas of liberty will triumph (I once was…), regardless of other considerations like social conditions. They’ve merely replaced the utopian beliefs they’ve gathered in school and the wider culture with freedom.
I largely agree with this summation, at least in regards to the multitude of problems a more diverse U.S. will pose politically:
My own personal additions to this article:
One might say small city states might form, you might say have already formed if you look at maps of urban/suburban demographics. But calculate the extra costs on white Americans, who leave established communities to live with their own kind requiring the construction of new homes, infrastructure and so on. The premium on living in a white community is quite high thanks to this extra costs incurred via “diversity.” Then there is the issue of the massive transfer payments to try to maintain the other half.
(I personally believe this outward pressure is having a damaging effect on white demographics. Today more than half of children are born out of wedlock. The productive class is not having children, partly because it is so busy trying to support the children of the unproductive.)
NH is 95% white and is probably the most promising case of a Switzerland-like state at the moment. But look at Hong Kong, They are perpetually dogged by the ethnically and socially distinct Chinese mainland just as NH will be by D.C. which will soon be under the control of a non-white majority (by 2050 IIRC) U.S. It is a horrible strategy to wait for the U.S. to be divided and conquered.
I don’t agree with everything you said, but I think this is the basic reason why the ideological shit needs to be dropped from the political end of “movement.”
We need to simply push alongside the anti-corporate groups (who currently have momentum), and the anti-state groups can follow at the same time, with the central banking issue. It is easy to explain to people that big corporations are enabled to do all of the horrendous things they do (who cares what it is) by the central bank which is not a part of the government, but, since it can create money for anyone, governments are enabled to oppress as well. The classical/Austrian argument fits in too. “If credit doesn’t come from savings, then it is coming from a central bank, which is owned by a cartel of private banks, and since credit is given to private banks firsrt, then to government, then to big corporations, you can see the chain of ‘monied corruption’ as it develops.”
The property rights argument is not going to win the actions of others; it needs to be discussed down the road. Simply put, much of the capital of banks and capital derived rom government debt and arbitrary central bank credit expansion, which many hold, is simply illegitimate and does not need to be “respected.” Repudiating the debt is to admit that it is legitimate.
We will see the changes we want if the debt is never paid back anyway.
As for the population demographic…it is not just America that will see that, but Western Europe as well. The World Bank has projections for global captial and wealth distribution will tip towards 65% to what we call the “developing world” and 35% to the traditional Western Hemisphere. (It was in the 60’s 15% to the rest of the world and 85% for the West.) This projection is a result of the population trends in the world. Western EU and USA aren’t even at birth level high enough to sustain their current level (avg I think is 1.5 in USA, but as far as 1.2 in some parts of EU; 2.0 is required to sustain current level). The USA has had a policy if depopulation in the third worl since the 60s.
This is, I think, why Monsanto terminator seeds are what they want to use to sterilize massive amonuts of people. Vaccinations are too expensive. Terminators seeds takes 2 or 3 generations to sterilize the consumer of it; ie til around 2050.
OWS is as politically impotent as they are intellectually. They are indoctrinated with cultural Marxism- they don’t really care about workers and state collusion (which is I think your impression of them is), their sole concern is securing more money for redistributive programs. They aren’t allies on any level.
The only political allies nationally are folks like the Tea Party as they seem to be the only ones willing to stem the tide of cultural Marxism. Rothbard saw them as natural allies and the left-wing populists you are talking about are just more of the same: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html
There is something to be said about food quality (the alt right seems to think so to with the advocacy of slow food), but I haven’t seen convincing evidence of sterilization as a goal but more of a side effect. I don’t want to derail this thread with this issue though.
I wasn’t even referring to OWS; just the particular picture of people I am familiar with. I think what you do of them. But, you think the OWS people are supportive of central banking? Or, rather, that they would be if they knew that cental banks create all of that money for their welfare programs?
The Tea Party is nothing more than a PR stunt for the planners on the right. They provide the “right” to the OWS “left.” I don’t think we have allies in that regard. Either we can say that both are useful or wallow within the highly successful DNC based propaganda machine that will continue to paint libertarans (the LvMI itself) as radical racists neoconfederacy types as the SPLC does (Good luck with all-lllll that.) or stealth our way into both groups…
I don’t care what Rothbard said about parties 20 years ago. These kinds of things shift drastically. If people can be brought to understand the central bank as their enemy, then the left/right arguments will be moot. They simply won’t have the weight that they do when people think that it is either the State or the Corporation. The Central Bank is both.
I think your first post reflects some of the sentiments in Adorno’s “Dialectic of Enlightenment.”
The OWS website’s manifesto was the usual list of demands, no mention of central banking. Taxing the rich, printing money; I don’t think how it is done is a pressing concern. They are the left-wing populists that Rothbard hinted at, moreover, I believe these not just parties but sentiments which have been around alot longer than 20 years ago.
as radical racists neoconfederacy types as the SPLC does
Trying to live up to the expectations of those who hate us to our very core either way is not particularly self-affirming. PCness is a mental box that you can let control your thoughts or not. But my point isn’t that an anti-immigration policy is a winning political strategy, merely that the libertarian movement (or any political movement) is inseparable from the people.
I think your first post reflects some of the sentiments in Adorno’s “Dialectic of Enlightenment.”
i’d be curious to see this evidence too. I can’t imagine what would be planned for dealing with the inevitable PR-shitstorm that would ensue when entire populations are decimated by widespread infertility.
So fear leads to domination because “Humans believe themselves free of fear when there is no longer anything unknown. This has determined the path of demythologization … . Enlightenment is mythical fear radicalized”
I suppose this would relate to an unwise faith in ideas as overcoming problems?
The problems of modernity derive from action (amplified by technology) under the pretense of knowledge. I don’t think it gets much more complicated than that but leave it to a Marxist to make everything incomprehensible.
So how would Adorno view multiculturalism but as another ‘experiment’ on human populations?
He would point out that multiculturalism is the result of many people placing social value (exchange value as opposed to use value) on what ever actions constitute ‘multiculturalism’. And that this follows from Tocqueville, and others, saying that democracies are dominated by the public opinion and that social value (being elite, popular; having, not necessarily high priced, but, brand name things, etc.) is the public opinion and that this is a self-reinforcing (dialectic) pattern of behavior.
You will not avoid, what you call, ‘multiculturalism’ unless you can convince white girls to stop having abortions… =P None of the eugenics programs and sterilization efforts that the US government has operated has helped to depopulate the third world countries. Except AIDS if that was the government (?)…
And if you have to have a more white community and are willing to pay more for it (which I don’t know why you would say … ), you can always move to Russia. I hear that there are white people there.
How would he judge multiculturalism with respect to enlightenment thinking?
‘multiculturalism’ unless you can convince white girls to stop having abortions…
How does a declining birth rate necessitate multiculturalism?
And if you have to have a more white community and are willing to pay more for it (which I don’t know why you would say … )
This was not a statement of personal preference. Look at white flight trends. If you live in a multi-ethnic community, observe how people choose to associate.
I don’t know. I do think he’d say that multiculturalism probably isn’t always formed from preference and that his theory of social value taking over use value extends to quality as well. Social value has simply taken over personal utility. I think he also might link this to the fetishism of the commodity.
People pity those that aren’t as affluent as them. So, they think that they can force themselves to pay for those less well off and since it is a white dominated culture, or was, that white liberal guilt became built into the bureacracy. Those not well off were of the ‘multiculture’ and thus were granted beneficial incentives and the idiotic ramblings of global warming and population growth fears, that resulted in population control, eugenics, and sterilization, only worked on the white people who bought into them.
Look around, white populations have doomed themselves through their fear of others.
Well, if one dominant group declines in population then the ratio of many cultures to the dominant culture changes…towards the poly.
I do. I think there is a certain amount of natural segregation, but i don’t think it is an overt, conscious decision to make it that way. (Which is how you seem to be thinking about it.)
I don’t know of anyone who thinks the “ideas of liberty will triumph” like it is some ineluctable evolutionary peak. I know that communism presents itself in this cultlike manner, but libertarianism does not (oddball cases, which I’m sure exist, notwithstanding)… perhaps you are confusing one with the other?
Libertarianism and the free market are not some predestined utopia, it’s simply the fair and peaceful foundations for “polite society” where the acceptable use of force is limited by the NAP. This framework provides a very reliable guide to what’s wrong with our current situation and the changes that are necessary.
It’s also almost impossible to honestly disagree with, which is why debates and arguments usually end up being such cockeyed political affairs. Perhaps that is the sense in which you meant “triumph.” Unfortunately, nothing is guaranteed to triumph over individual stubbornness and willfull ignorance.
I’m not sure if I would call libertarianism a white American phenomenon. It seems to me that the Anglosphere is simply ahead in libertarian theory since the basics of libertarianism is small or non-existent in most of the developing world. Most developing nations are former colonies and never really went to the classical liberalism stage. They’ve been dominated by imperialistic mercantilism, and even now most of them have their institutions littered with rent seekers.
Tell you what, let’s raise a sample size of the world’s races in a communist society. The first one to develop a full anarcho-capitalist framework should get us an idea of which race is more inclined to liberty.
I’m very skeptical that race has anything to do with it though. It seems that institutions are a larger force. In which case libertarianism is not a ‘white American’ phenomenon, but a common law society phenomenon.
I had thought when the case for libertarianism was made, the majority of people would come around because it was true. This sort of thinking stems from believing differences among individuals is a result of choices and are therefore people are the same on a fundamental level. It’s easy to see how this utopian picture of the voting public can lead to frustration while maintaining an indifference to the composition of said voting public.
I’m not saying libertarianism is a racial impulse but I’m not ruling it out either. Rather, my point is IQ is a factor in being able to even understand the case against the state and social cohesion is a prerequisite for political action.
Jewish (mean IQ = 113), East Asian (106), White (100), Hispanic (90), South Asian (87), African American (85), and sub-Saharan African (70)
When whites are gone, so too is that link with American classical liberalism. In the future social conflict will more and more become the focus of political concern, more remote will the issues of sound money become.
Most developing nations are former colonies and never really went to the classical liberalism stage.
This “colonization” destroyed Africa myth is plain garbage. The African nations which were most heavily colonized are today the most modern. South Africa, Ivory Coast…If you just account for IQ, it’s easy to see why some former colonies failed and others prospered. Hong Kong was obviously a success. Australia certainly became a developed country but it was rife with tall-poppy syndrome, not a likely candidate for a libertarian movement.
Neglect of Common Cause. Whites generally have a higher IQ than the others, while libertarianism is dominated by whites, throughout history whites have generally been more free as well. Whites are also generally better off financially so they are less likely to worry about welfare. (Most believe that in a libertarian society there would be no form of welfare.) So you can see that whites, generally being more free, as well as more financially secure, making them more likely to be libertarian.
Culture and family relations have greater predictive power as to whether a person will become libertarian or not.
I’m not familiar with that utopian picture of the voting public. Vast blocks of them “vote the line” and do not bother to scrutinize their what they’re told by politicians and the media.
At an individual level, however, they can’t deny the fundamental fairness of libertarian principles. When people have their beliefs honestly challenged at a basic level, they experience “cognitive dissonance”. From here, one of two general reactions will ensue:
They incorporate their realization into their thinking and begin to change (perhaps slowly) their previous beliefs which are no longer tenable.
They dismiss the libertarian arguments by falling back on any number of logical fallacies, accusations of racism, mental illness, etc. (see any good debate on Israel or Global Warming for countless examples).
As for the IQ/Race dogma, I see little reason to expect tribal cultures to measure up to a technological society’s common tools for assessment of intelligence. Even in America the cultural paradigm for blacks and, to a lesser extent, hispanic minorities is one of underachievement and self-destruction, which is ever nurtured by government meddling. I don’t see anything that shows intelligence is not hugely affected by environmental factors, as opposed to simply having “smart genes”.
The numbers Walden put up seemed to use White people (100) as a metric. The assumptions built into that…
What the fuck is going on in this thread?
There are definitely corporate manipulators as well…lots of celebrities have come out (I’m thinking Chapelle) and spoken about how the people wo handle them manipulte their behavior and image. It is not just the government and it is not limited to minorities. Look at the manipulation of the upper classes.
How many cell phones or cars or houses can one have? Or buy a year? White people are manipulated into thinking the same shit that blacks and hispanics are which is, “Buy material goods!” White people simply have a measure of success that requires more money because they are the decendents of the people who created/centralized it all…
I’m going to go ahead and point out that it is white people who have doomed white people’s future. Trying to figure out population control methods has backfired. White people’s populations are declining because white people are the only ones who bought into the global warming/overpopulation garbage.
