The old political saw about libertarians is that they’re conservatives who like to smoke pot. A better description would be that libertarians are liberals who hate paying taxes. Mencius Moldbug described libertarianism as “contain[ing], at its core, a shard of pure Left”, which is why it “will always fail as a revolt against progressivism”. The shard of liberalism embedded in libertarianism is egalitarianism – the myth that all human beings are interchangeable irregardless of culture, class, race, national origin, or sex. This is why, when it comes to matters of cultural and tribal preservation, most libertarians, from mainstream Beltway-goers to Ron Paul-loving Austrian types, sound completely identical to liberals. Take this classic example, where LewRockwell.com contributor Eric Margolis took the side of rioting Muslim crybabies during the Muhammad cartoon debacle. There are a few exceptions I can think of in my blog circle (Foseti and TAS of Flyover Libertarian come to mind), but the overwhelming majority of libertarians are as blind as liberals when it comes to matters of race, ethnicity, and culture.
Recently, some tosser named Charles Glass wrote a piece for Taki’s Magazine opposing France’s new law banning women from wearing veils. While I don’t know if Glass is a libertarian, the argument he makes against the French law is essentially a libertarian one, as summed up at the end:
What ever happened to live and let live?
The real problem here that no one wants to address is that the French, along with the other nations of western Europe, have allowed alien tribes to settle and grow in their lands, tribes that have no interest in integrating with the majority and no respect for their traditions. As I wrote last week, multiculturalism is the enemy of freedom. The presence of multiple tribes in a single area requires excessive coercion from the government in order to keep the peace. The Muslim riots that occurred in Paris a few years back are proof positive that “live and let live” is impossible due to inter-tribal conflict. Libertarianism is only feasible in culturally homogenous nations – in a multiethnic, multiracial society, it is suicide.
The French are one of the European peoples who have realized that if they allow the aliens in their midst to remain apart from them, their country will be destroyed. The true purpose of the anti-veil law isn’t to uphold some “universal secular principle” – it’s to force the predominantly Muslim, non-European underclass to conform to French culture and values, since they refuse to do so on their own. It’s a clumsy, half-hearted attempt, but it’s a step in the right direction. But Glass doesn’t like it, and he pulls out all the usual stops to inveigh against it:
The young women I met in the schools of suburban Paris would have done credit to any family. They were not gum-chewing drunks like London’s street urchins, and they bore little resemblance to the girl gangs of many American urban concentrations. They were thoughtful and polite and, from their polished shoes to their sometimes-covered heads, exhibited an elegant sense of style.
Reminds me of the idiotic pro-amnesty arguments that George Bush and John McCain used to make – “Durr, these people are hard-working, good folks who just want a better life!” Who fucking cares? Even if they were all Mother Teresas, that still wouldn’t change the fact that they’re ALIENS. They have a different culture, and that fact alone means they shouldn’t be here. The Muslims in France are visitors, there at the pleasure of the majority. If they’re unwilling to obey the majority’s laws, they’re perfectly welcome to leave.
A few days later, I took a train to London. At Waterloo Station, where the Eurostar stopped in those days, a British Muslim woman immigration officer was standing with her male colleagues. Her head was wrapped in a demure, white scarf. She was laughing unselfconsciously with her male colleagues, one of them a Sikh whose own head was wrapped in the long scarf of his turban. It was the most natural scene imaginable. I had to ask myself, what is wrong with the French?
I can’t help but wonder if Glass’ libertarian viewpoint is merely a cover to disguise his dislike of the French. Appropriately enough, according to his Wikipedia page, Glass writes for The Spectator, that venerable Limey rag of Tory snobbery and imperialist nostalgia. He also holds British citizenship. One would think that those grizzled old reactionaries would jump at an opportunity to shove Western civilization down the throats of foreigners once more, but apparently frogs are more hated than wogs in Old Blighty.
Here’s the question I have to ask myself, Glass – what the hell is wrong with you English? Like the rest of western Europe, you had the genius idea of opening your doors to hordes of foreign peasants from Africa and Asia who gleefully shit all over your traditions while taking advantage of your hospitality. Outside of the Germans (who at least have the excuse of losing two world wars), no Western tribe displays as much masochistic self-hatred as you Brits. It’s so bad over there, the leader of your major “conservative” party (and Prime Minister) is a preening castrati whose first move upon becoming leader was to launch a recruiting drive to get more women and minorities into the party. You love mocking the French as cowards, but unlike you geldings, they actually have the balls to do what needs to be done. The nicest thing I can say about you Limeys that you aren’t nearly as pathetic as the Swedes.
The anti-niqab law stems from the kind of zeal for which the French used to ridicule the English. English missionaries who forced women in their tropical colonies to conceal their breasts from public view were a laughing stock in France. Here are the French doing the opposite, not letting them cover their heads. What is it in Western civilization that creates this obsession with telling women what to wear?
There’s a big huge difference between invading foreign lands and telling the inhabitants what to do and letting foreigners into YOUR OWN LANDS and telling them what to do. The former is the equivalent of taking over your neighbor’s house at gunpoint and banning him from wearing shoes inside his own home, and the latter is like inviting him to your place for a cup of tea and asking that he leave his loafers on the porch. The French are fully within their right to tell the people they permit to live in their country to obey their laws.
This is one of the big showdowns we will be witnessing in the next decade – Muslim minorities in Europe versus angry natives who are tired of seeing their traditions trampled on. Along with the French standing up for their culture, the Italians have been fighting back as well, and Geert Wilders could very well become the Netherlands’ next prime minister – oh, the liberals will have a collective vein-popping stroke when that happens. If a peaceful solution cannot be found, the next stage will be anti-Muslim pogroms, as Krauser remarked here. Irregardless of whatever happens, I can say for certain that the siren song of multiculturalism and diversity that has seduced the West will wither and die, whether morons like Charles Glass want it to or not.
{ 51 comments… read them below or add one }
Indeed. The West seems too anxious to embrace the Other and not anxious enough to embrace their own culture.
Testify!
I’ll chime in as a Brit and a personal libertarian (though I do not feel libertarianism can work for a large society, one that is filled with idiots, psychos, addicts etc)
Our Prime Minister is liked for the same reason Obama was initially liked – he’s an amazing orator and appears quite sincere and trustworthy. But the ‘real’ Tories feel he’s far too meddling for his own good.
One guy that writes for the Spectator (it’s a minor print now, very little influence) does not reflect the British mood.
We British are essentially colour-blind. We don’t give a shit who you are as long as you’re willing to intergrate and pay your taxes. We also feel it is right to allow people into our country that have or will provide a service to our nation. (our army has been propped up by Commonwealth troops for close to 200 years) (though yes, we really do hate French, a 1000 year rivalry does that to you)
A great post, FB
“Libertarianism is only feasible in culturally homogenous nations – in a multiethnic, multiracial society, it is suicide.”
Indeed. Let me go further than you and assert that cultural homogeneity must also include religion, religion in my opinion being the a bigger driver of culture, bigger than race, bigger than ethnicity, and bigger than language.
Support? Other than easily observable anecdotal evidence, I point to works of our Founders and their contemporaries. I recently read Paine’s “Common Sense” and it was clear to me that the assumptions of the Founding Fathers when setting up our republic was that the population would be freedom-loving Protestants. Paine spoke of a “diversity” of Christian opinion–which I presume meant Protestant opinion since he also wrote unflatteringly of Popery in Common Sense–and his contemporaries such as de Toqueville also reported that Americans’ (protestant) religion so strongly linked religion and liberty together. I suspect that the circle of ‘religion’ considered by our Founders included the Christ-following ones and almost certainly did not include Mohammedeans and Hindus.
Our problem in the USA (and likely the rest of the West) is that the centrist and socon majority of Americans has imbibed the kool aid and firmly believe that not only is America a melting pot…a myth easily dispelled should one simply open his or her eyes…and that, accepting that all man is created equal, they also believe that all cultures are also equal. This has the effect of cognitively disarming them against the cultural Marxists in their midst who, while being the chief peddlers of this myth, believe it the least.
Libertarianism breaks down in the face of multiculturalism, in the face of cultures that themselves seek hegemony. In the case of the West, these cultures are secular humanitarianism and Mohammedeanism, both of which ironically employ the liberal tools of a government set up by Protestant Christians to quash expressions of Christianity and Protestant culture.
“We also feel it is right to allow people into our country that have or will provide a service to our nation. (our army has been propped up by Commonwealth troops for close to 200 years)”
There is a huge difference between those who *give something* to that country/organization/culture of which they become a part, and those who are only consumers of its benefits. A Gurkha, for example, surely falls into the former category.
If you don’t mind a couple of quotes from a Frenchman, Antoine de St-Exupery said:
“A civilization is built on what is required of men, not on that which is provided for them”….also,
“If you would have them be brothers, have them build a tower. But if you would have them hate each other, throw them corn.”
David, my point exactly.
Labour were quite happy anyone in until the public started to get real pissed off.
If you want to come here and work, then good for you I say. The NHS would be (more) fucked without foreign labour.
PS I don’t mind the French per se, then again, the last time I had true English blood as part of the family tree was the late 1700s (we can trace it that far thanks to my ancestors being early Quakers)
You know what’s really ironic? When ‘Westernised’ blacks and Indians are vocally oppossed to immigration. They are just as pissed off: they had fuck all when they got here and had to work like dogs to get their families up to middle class standards within 2 generations. Now every Tomski, Davidbongo and Muharry gets benefits on arrival if they get through the checks. It pisses them off more than it probably pisses off the native whites.
The Muslim riots that occurred in Paris a few years back are proof positive that “live and let live†is impossible due to inter-tribal conflict.
Maybe it’s me, but from my perspective, the riots in 2005 were essentially the French equivalent of the old 1960s style riots here in the States. In other words, a bunch of angry young non-whites (and some poor whites) rioting over being poor and miserable when compared to the white majority.
I’ll note that the 2005 riots exposed an aspect of French society that dampened my virulent Francophonia, and left Canada as the only place where black people are magically equal to white people. I haven’t been up there in nearly six years, but for some reason, in Canada I just feel different. No longer just a black person, but merely a free individual in the country.
You know what’s really ironic? When ‘Westernised’ blacks and Indians are vocally oppossed to immigration.
Coincidentally, you can count somebody like my mother in that group. She’s not fond of Mexicans, and she views some of the new Haitian immigrants with disdain and writes them off as a bunch of simple peasants who shouldn’t be here. It’s rather interesting given that she herself is a Haitian immigrant, but a part of the first wave that came in the late 1960s and 1970s fleeing the Duvalier regime.
“The shard of liberalism embedded in libertarianism is egalitarianism – the myth that all human beings are interchangeable irregardless of culture, class, race, national origin, or sex”
Not in MY libertarianism, buddy!
The shard of liberalism in MY libertarianism would be what was meant by old school liberalism. That is, the primacy of civil liberties.
The only equality I am willing to accept is equality before the law (indeed, this is, to me, the only ‘equality’ which makes sense).
You seem to have a very poor grasp of what libertarianism actually means, and a very strange animosity towards it – old flame was a libertarian or something?
Libertarianism is actually premised on the idea that people are not equal – if people were equal and interchangeable, there would be no need for libertarianism. If people were all essentially the same, one would be justified in imposing ones own values on them if you believed they would benefit from it.
Since people are unequal and different, libertarians say it is wrong for any one person to impose his vision of the right on another person through force. What is right for me is not necessarily right for you – let us both agree not to tell each other what is right and how we need to lead our lives. THAT is the kernel of libertarianism.
In theory, the only people who can possibly oppose the idea that no one has any right to impose their vision of ethics on another person are those who seek to control others minds, generally these are religious people or people convinced they are in possession of an infallible ethics, but some people just LIKE to control others.
Libertarianism is actually best suited to a society that is multi-ethnic and multi-cultural – in such a society different groups have a serious interest in agreeing to not impose their respective visions on others – while a homogenous society will often contain a majority who can agree on a single vision of how life should be lived, even though that doesn’t mean its right to impose it on the minority.
Man, Ferdinand, how you can get such basic ideas wrong is beyond me – you have some pet peeve here that is making it harder for you to think clearly,
I was going to say something, but Gregory hit it. Good job Greg.
Second what Gregory said. The problem is all these bennies bestowed by a centralized state: when one group uses force to exploit another, friction naturally arises. Even worse if a model minority (Chinese in Indonesia, Indians in Africa, Jews in Germany) has its elevated status imposed by a state that is later delegitimated, as Suharto, the British, and the Second Reich were. Libertarianism seeks to get beyond group conflict by removing the incentives; of course, it would be hard for someone sucking off the public teat like you do to accept this against your own interest, just as you MUST accept logical positivism as opposed to negative rights, in order to mentally survive.
Look at the Amish. They do not contribute to Social Security or Medicare, and thus do not have their group strength drained off to support freeloading others. Get rid of the state-directed exploitation of one group by another, and the natural resiliency of Western society has a chance to return. (Obviously, this includes the forced subsidization of women by men.) Things that cannot continue have a tendency not to.
Outside of the Germans (who at least have the excuse of losing two world wars), no Western tribe displays as much masochistic self-hatred as you Brits.
Are you sure the Germans are self destructing with multiculturalism like the British are?
For one thing, post-war Germany has never been overly immigrant friendly. Unlike America, German labor unions have opposed immigration because they (correctly) argue foreign labor depresses wages.
Secondly, Germany has not been importing many Muslims recently as Britain and France have. The Turks are the largest non-European immigrant group in Germany but their presence isn’t expanding much because the flow of Turkish visa worker immigration was shut off in the late 1960′s/early 1970′s. A third of the Turkish workers wound up returning to Turkey and many third generation Turkish-Germans don’t even have German citizenship.
Since the 1970′s, most German immigrants have originated from other Western European countries and the Former Soviet Union, not the third world.
Finally, the German police are pretty strict and won’t tolerate any form of immigrant crime or riots like the British, French, and Scandinavians police forces do (though it should be noted that Turkish Muslims in Germany seem to be comparatively less devoted to Islam than Pakistanis and Britain and Muslim immigrants in the Netherlands).
Germany actually looks like it is in good shape compared to other Western countries such as Sweden and Canada. Yes, Germany’s birthrate is low, but birthrates are also low in 99.9% white countries such as Ukraine, the Czech Republic, Latvia, and Poland where multiculturalism does not exist.
Geert Wilders could very well become the Netherlands’ next prime minister – oh, the liberals will have a collective vein-popping stroke when that happens.
Wilders party is actually a libertarian political party (Wilders and his party support gay marriage) but with immigration restrictionism tacked on to the party platform.
Wilders’ party (and related Northern European parties like the Danish People’s party and the UKIP) is interesting because Wilders argues for restricting immigration from the third world and Islamic world because he says that their cultures are incompatible with Dutch values like gender equality and gay rights.
Libertarianism is actually premised on the idea that people are not equal – if people were equal and interchangeable, there would be no need for libertarianism.
Wilders, and other libertarian parties in Europe like the UKIP and Danish People’s Party have found defend their immigration restrictionism from a libertarian perspective, e.g., Muslim immigration is bad because Islam is against the Dutch values of individualism, gay rights, and gender equality.
1) You are promoting ethnicity and discounting religion in the consideration of tribalism. The great world religions create a powerful bond among the people who practice them. They also result in a more fluid movement of people between nations, which weakens both ethnic and national ties.
It can even be argued (as some secularists do) that those religions are a creation in response to ethnic diversity. In other words, once a tribe gets mixed up and transitory, societies have to come up with some other tie that binds: patriotism, communism, religion, etc.
[Blood is thicker than holy water. - ed.]
2) America did quite well with it’s Founding Myths and Documents, but many of the newest arrivals have a cultural bent that is so far away from Protestant Christian thought that it clashes, rather than meshes, with the American patriotic ethos. Even Catholics, Mormons, and Orthodox Jews strain a bit to fit into the native political landscape.
Because of that, I agree, that such foreigners are not generally a positive addition to the melting pot. However, I would also note that their presence is due to the large numbers of natives who are also don’t buy into that ethos. After all, who campaigns to let them in, in the first place?
My inclination would be to follow the German example: Make immigration quite limited, selective, and difficult. But that doesn’t help anything as long as people are willing to employ illegals.
3) You call Germans “a tribe”. But they aren’t really. They are a bunch of tribes that the Allies lumped together. One of the reasons that the Germans were so willing to bend and scrape and do penance after the War was because it didn’t hit them that close to home. Germany was a creation of Hitler, that’s why he harped on and on about Das Deutsche Volk, and created national myths about Aryans, sung to the tune of Wagner. He was trying to bind them together, and get them excited about his dream of a new German Reich.
One thing you’d notice, living in Germany, is how the various tribes squabble amongst each other, and blame each other for every problem. The Prussians blame the Southerners, who are sure that the Easterners are guilty. The little unity they feel was built on the powerful Deutschmark and the Wirtschaftswunder. Now that those are gone and the finances are in a hole, the mud-slinging is resuming.
Furthermore, the Germanic tribes cross the borders into Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, etc.
4) I am a self-professed libertarian, and I that is because I believe people are very diverse. Those who are so different that they are incapable of living in a Christianity-based libertarian country should go, and the rest of us should happily return to the patriarchy that would naturally resume if the government limited itself to the few things it does passably well.
Libertarianism can only work if the people agree on a core set of principles and rules, and are left to sort the details out for themselves. This was the state when the country was founded, and it worked quite well.
5) On a side note, I’ve noticed the general rule that the more a woman loves (respects and admires) her husband, the more libertarian she will be. Women tend to seek to divert power to the entity they trust the most. That is probably why socialism and feminism seem to develop in lockstep.
Libertarianism is the default theology for the smug. If one feels conceitedly self-satisfied with an inflated sense of superiority out of all proportion to actual productive output, Libertarianism gifts that person with a reason for not getting involved in any of the hard work required to maintain things as they are or were.
Gregory says: Libertarianism is actually premised on the idea that people are not equal – if people were equal and interchangeable, there would be no need for libertarianism. If people were all essentially the same, one would be justified in imposing ones own values on them if you believed they would benefit from it.
The inherent contradiction in this logic is that if “If people were all essentially the same…” then why would one need to impose their values at all?
There would be no need to impose values on a group of people who held your own values.
So we can see that what Gregory is really arguing is that his values are different to his society’s values so don’t impose them on him! If you are, as Libertarians see themselves, not simply not the same as the hoi poloi but actually their embodied juxtaposition, an uber elite floating high above them in their imagined isle of Laputa, then no one must assert their values on them, the mighty Libertarians.
Since people are unequal and different, libertarians say it is wrong for any one person to impose his vision of the right on another person through force. What is right for me is not necessarily right for you – let us both agree not to tell each other what is right and how we need to lead our lives. THAT is the kernel of libertarianism.
The only way that Libertarianism was ever able to rear its ugly head in our society can be directly attributed to large groups of people asserting their concept of “right” over large groups of other people they found to be “wrong”. If Libertarianism were a true principle then it could never have been articulated as no one would ever have had the right to impose anything on anyone else, since the history of man and his civilisation is a long drama essentially about large groups of people asserting themselves upon the world about them.
So Libertarianism, as Gregory defines it, cannot create a society nor can it maintain a society. What it does create is a verbal bubble they hope to hive themselves off in from the rest of the productive society about them. That bubble, like the Libertarian ego, is easily burst.
Hughman said: “We British are essentially colour-blind. We don’t give a shit who you are as long as you’re willing to intergrate and pay your taxes.” That may well be who your are now but that is certainly not the way you were then, when Britannia ruled the waves. “Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves: Britons never will be slaves.” But that was Ferdinand’s point.
While I may not be in you blog circle, I can say that I am of a libertarian bent and other than the inherent equality that I think we all have in the eyes of God, I don’t believe that any such other equality is possible.
And contra to what some of the other posters have said, I believe a polyglot society can only survive in a libertarian political structure. Every group will rise or fall, continue to exist or not, on its own merits in a libertarian economy. In a socialist economy or what we have in America now which is a mixed-economy–not completely planned but far from free–some groups are propped up at the expense of others. Eventually the system has to fail because it can no longer artificially inflate the worth of those people or groups who take from the system but dont put enough back in to keep the system afloat.
We also feel it is right to allow people into our country that have or will provide a service to our nation.
The cost-benefit equation comes into play. What “services” have the African and Asian minorities provided to the UK relative to the services they have consumed from the UK? They seem like an obvious net negative to me.
(our army has been propped up by Commonwealth troops for close to 200 years)
Sorry, bad example. When the British used non-whites as cannon fodder to build and maintain the Empire, they kept the non-white cannon fodder outside Britain itself and did not see any need to import large numbers of non-whites to Britain itself in order to maintain the imperial army.
Moreover, the non-white immigration to the UK itself largely occurred long after the imperial project was over and done, so this argument falls flat on its face. Any soldiering Britain needed done since 1947 could have been done (and largely was done) by white Britons, there was no need to bring in non-whites for this purpose.
the riots in 2005 were essentially the French equivalent of the old 1960s style riots here in the States. In other words, a bunch of angry young non-whites (and some poor whites) rioting over being poor and miserable when compared to the white majority.
That was just as much horseshit in the USA in the 1960s as it was in France in 2005.
That was just as much horseshit in the USA in the 1960s as it was in France in 2005.
So the riots were a bunch of kids acting under the aegis of their imams and global jihad? Or was it because setting stuff on fire and looting when you’re bored, unemployed, and have little to lose seems fun?
some groups are propped up at the expense of others
The problem is that when those supports are taken away, those groups become poorer, and can become angry that they’re poorer vis à vis the majority. In other words, either we have third rate socialism, or we have perpetual riots by blacks and Hispanics. I do not believe it is possible to maintain a society where nearly 15% to 30% of the population looks different, but isn’t in the middle or upper classes.
You are promoting ethnicity and discounting religion in the consideration of tribalism.
I don’t even think religion has much of a real role at this point. I can wave a baptismal certificate and run around with a rosary, but it’s not going to magically make me into an acceptable white person for some Catholics who don’t want their children to date non-whites.
I like the French and the Germans, but they are as doomed as the Swedes, the Dutch, and of course the British.
Because they don’t have kids. And Muslims do.
Simple as that. The future 20 year olds nineteen years from now have all been born in those nations. And guess what, they are nearly all Muslim.
Geert Wilders, offers sense, but recent polls show his parties collapse as women recoil in fear from actually doing something about immigration. As Sandra Tsing Loh wrote in the Atlantic, “sensible, liberated Swedish women are marrying Muslims,” because they dominate the women. Women love dominance, they’ll even take the burqua and polygamy to get it.
There’s a commercial, for some fiber/metamucil product, running on cable. A woman gets into an elevator with a hot woman, they talk about fiber, and the hot woman labels the dorky White guys diarrhea, constipation, and gas, while the hunky Black guy pushes them out of the elevator. That’s the dynamic at work in Feminized Europe. The Sex and the City movie criticized (mildly) Islamic restrictions on women, and got raked over the coals and abandoned by its fickle, PC-Diversity female audience.
Europe wants to submit to Islam because its women want to submit. If they’d had any testicular fortitude they’d have kicked their Muslim population out a long time ago. They don’t because female native European women find even dole-bound Muslim men an improvement over their own, because they are more aggressive and dominant. The two things women care about (everything else they don’t). That they are not White of course is a plus, most women find White men “icky” (ala Beta non-Masculine) as Conan O’Brien constantly riffs on.
Yes Libertarianism fails, spectacularly, because it fails to consider tribe.
Riots broke out in Athens, Paris, Stockholm, over the Israelis killing a few Palestinian provocateurs, a bunch of them Turks. You’d expect Greeks to figure, a good job done on their traditional enemies, but Greeks hate Israelis (because they are Jews) more than the Turks, indeed the Greeks desire to surrender to Turkey, desperately, because they hate their own nation, culture, and religion. Most of it again driven by their women’s disdain of too many Beta Greeks who fail to dominate.
Mexico is an utter disaster, between 2007 and today, more than 22,000 drug murders took place. There is no rule of law, economy, or even private business anymore — its rule by armed gangs who kill for amusement at this point. Yet, Mexicans don’t have disdain or contempt for their obviously failed people, culture, nation, or politics. Why? Because the women, even as they mourn dead relatives, find the Zetas and so on dominant. Cruel, sadistic, rapacious, but dominant. And for women, when you get down to it, that is all that matters.
[Meanwhile teens in America are dressing up like Vampires and Werewolves in an emo-apocalypse. I kid you not.]
The shard of liberalism embedded in libertarianism is egalitarianism – the myth that all human beings are interchangeable irregardless of culture, class, race, national origin, or sex.
This is very imprecise language. “Interchangeable†implies that libertarians believe all people are literally the same. Libertarians merely believe that people should be equal before the law and be free to pursue their own happiness. You cited LewRockwell.com, which is actually promotes a paleo-ish version of libertarianism including immigration restriction. It was Lew Rockwell, in fact, who wrote the controversial Ron Paul newsletters.
[The Rockwellites haven't been anti-immigration for at least a decade. Rockwell, Margolis, and their buddies love to attack anyone who opposes open borders as a "fascist." - ed.]
If we use the literal definitions of “liberal†and “conservative,†I would be more apt to describe myself as a “liberal†as it implies an emphasis on liberty while “conservative†implies an emphasis on tradition. However, in an American context, I align myself more with those who describe themselves as conservatives. Using similar language to you, Will Wilkinson described libertarians as “liberals who like markets” because they have similar views on morality but the Cato Institute found that most libertarians were <a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa658.pdf"likely to vote Republican.
Additionally, not too long ago, you basically wrote with regards to white nationalists “Hey, the white tribe ain’t done shit for me.” But now, you are critical of libertarians for not caring enough about the tribe.
[I still don't give a shit about the white race, and I'll articulate why in my upcoming as-of-yet-unwritten post on why white nationalism is a doomed ideology. But I still know how the world works.]
The true purpose of the anti-veil law isn’t to uphold some “universal secular principle†– it’s to force the predominantly Muslim, non-European underclass to conform to French culture and values, since they refuse to do so on their own.
Only about 2,000 French Muslims out of five million actually wear the veil. This is meaningless posturing by the French government and such petty measures are more likely to trigger the ethnic conflict that you speak of. The French problems with integration isn’t because they are too libertarian, it’s because they aren’t libertarian enough. The massive welfare state means that Muslims can just live off the state and stay within their Islamic communities without having to integrate into French society.
Even if they were all Mother Teresas, that still wouldn’t change the fact that they’re ALIENS. They have a different culture, and that fact alone means they shouldn’t be here.
Would you have told Italian immigrants to U.S. this in the 1890s? It’s an apples to oranges comparison to be sure, but you seem to be suggesting that ALL aliens are inherently bad for society.
[Americans in 1890 had more in common with Italians then the French of 2010 have with Muslim immigrants from North Africa.]
Ultimately, this comes down to demographics. France can implement all the petty regulations they want, the Muslims will just repeal them once they become a larger share of the electorate.
[And that's when the pogroms start.]
France’s fertility rate isn’t as bad as other European countries, but it’s still not great and it’s being propped up by its Muslim population.
Americans in 1890 had more in common with Italians then the French of 2010 have with Muslim immigrants from North Africa.
Fun intellectual leap of faith: Where do black immigrants fall in this spectrum of good immigrants (white people) and bad immigrants (Muslims)? There are already black people in the United States, so in theory, we’re just adding to an existing pool that’s been in the country for nearly as long as the white component. Or are Black Christians magically bad?
[Upper or middle class blacks? Good. Lower-class ones? Bad. But that's just my opinion. - ed.]
So the riots were a bunch of kids acting under the aegis of their imams and global jihad? Or was it because setting stuff on fire and looting when you’re bored, unemployed, and have little to lose seems fun?
Yes. More the latter than the former.
“Because they could” is also a good answer. They knew the “authorities” would sit there and do nothing while they did whatever they liked. The failure to crush left-wing violence the instant it occurs (which is how the state responds to right-wing violence) is a recipe for ever more left-wing violence.
I think those who write off the Europeans due to demographics miss a few factors:
1) He who controls the guns, controls the country. White Europeans by an extreme majority control the guns.
2) South Africa was successfully run as a “white country” by a white minority for almost a century.
3) Europe has a pernicious habit of exterminating undesirable minorities.
4) Points 1 and 2 make point #3 possible even 30-40 years from now.
Of course, I am not saying that it is good, desirable, or anything of the sort. I’m merely pointing out that it would not surprise me to see that Europe, once the flame of Christianity is essentially extinguished in another decade or two, reverts back to pagan savagery and in a “blood and soil” nationalist frenzy begins committing genocide against those Muslim communities that won’t “enthusiastically integrate.”
your formula is missing a key ingredient, scarcity. just like a well fed lion is much less likely to attack a handler than a hungry lion, different tribes can live together so long as everyone is prospering. once things begin to decline or stagnate… all bets are off. multiculturalism generally worked in america (face it, most of us are mutts – this is why people cling to mc as an ideal) due to fairly constant growth throughout our history.
Europe has a pernicious habit of exterminating undesirable minorities
Arguably, that’s probably why they shouldn’t have taken in so many minorities in the first place. In contrast, the Anglosphere settler nations can at least claim to have some degree of digesting immigrants given their history of having various white ethnic groups that barely tolerated each other in Europe living under the same government.
“Only about 2,000 French Muslims out of five million actually wear the veil. This is meaningless posturing by the French government and such petty measures are more likely to trigger the ethnic conflict that you speak of.”
And that’s the entire point, right? Unless there’s conflict at some point, the Muslims will just take over France…
1) He who controls the guns, controls the country. White Europeans by an extreme majority control the guns.
Um…. Have you checked out the European armed forces lately? They’re looking sort of dusky to me. The military is populated by the youth, and the youth is increasingly brown. Russia is having the problem that soon Muslims will make up a majority of their military.
Blood is thicker than holy water.
LOL. Okay.
I didn’t say it was more important, but that it still has a significant effect, and will grow in importance as orthodoxy deepens among the religious. Many patriarchal religious communities have a skewed marriage market. I belong to a very conservative Catholic church in a rural area and there’s a surprising number of white men married to Mexican, Filipino, or mixed-race women. None of the women are native, they’re “imported” for marriage. The local white women leave to go slut around in the big city.
[Wasn't disagreeing. I just never miss an opportunity to lay down a pithy line. - ed.]
Likewise, orthodox Muslims in Germany often import women from Muslim countries for marriage. And not always from their own country of origin. North African and Southeast Asian women are increasingly popular, for instance.
“sensible, liberated Swedish women are marrying Muslims,†because they dominate the women.
They’re sexy, of course. Patriarchy is always sexy. It’s like a national shit-test. If your men agree to give up the patriarchy, they’ve declared themselves chumps, so you stop sleeping with them and find sexier men. LOL.
The majority of mixed-marriages involving German women are with Muslim men, by the way. The German men are starting to complain that they get to the women after the Muslims have used and discarded them. I’ve been reading some really nasty, bitter comments under Der Spiegel articles lately.
I’ll articulate why in my upcoming as-of-yet-unwritten post on why white nationalism is a doomed ideology
Save your breath. WN is doomed because white women are nearly sterile. Unless they marry patriarchal white men who teach them how to “lay back and spread ‘em”. Of which there are about 53459 in America. Just pulled that number out of my ass, but it’s a pretty accurate figure, I think. Most of those guys are Mormon, orthodox Catholics or Jews, have converted to Islam, or are old-old-old-school Southern Baptists. And those men generally aren’t that keen on WN.
[There's a few more obvious problems with white nationalism that I'll be talking about. Sparks quoted me on one upthread.]
And that’s when the pogroms start.
You’re cute. LOL. My husband said the same thing today. “We German men wouldn’t stand for it. We would fight to the last man.” Sure. The old, doddering, Teutonic retirees against the young, testosterone-pumped Muslim thugs. I hope you’re not taking bets.
I’m sure you’d fight, FB. But you, my husband, a couple of his friends, and what army? You have to come over here (Germany, which is still youthful in comparison to many other European countries) and look around. Oh, man! FB, I’m here on vacation and the first thing that struck me was that it’s like a gigantic old-folks home. It’s totally depressed me. All they care about is getting their retirement money and heading off to Mallorca. It’s so fucking sad, FB, I could just cry.
[Sheesh. And I thought I was a pessimist.
I always put my money on the group with the bigger guns and better organization. Europeans - Germans especially - have had the market cornered in both respects for eons. The people who created the modern world aren't going to go down without a fight.]
Charles Glass is not English. He’s an American and I think he’s part Lebanese.
Eric Margolis is not a libertarian. His mother was an Albanian activist for Palestinians way back in the 50s or 60s. Margolis supports the Muslim side in every conflict in the world.
I think you put it well a few months back when you referred to libertarian ‘mental masturbation’.
Patriarchy is always sexy.
It doesn’t make it right. I will fight to ensure that there will be no patriarchy, whether Christian or Muslim.
And it’s perfectly rational for Swedish men to give up patriarchy. It forced women to work and experience the real world instead of being isolated at home sponging off their husbands like a bunch of fucking useless freeloaders. If the women chose to engage themselves with Muslim men, it’s within their rights to do so, but I will not allow the Muslim men to turn my country into a Muslim patriarchal state, nor will allow lazy women who crave escape from the career world the opportunity to destroy the lives of men. The status quo will remain, the sluts will remain, the porn will be broadcast 24/7, and the PlayStation will always play video games.
I’m sure you’d fight, FB. But you, my husband, a couple of his friends, and what army?
They have idiot young men willing to strap bombs to themselves. We have drones, B-52s, aircraft carriers, and nuclear weapons. The reason white people are so reticent in using their power is because we have immense power at our disposal. We can literally bomb their states back into the stone age if we desired, and as the winners, if we desired, we can write our own little narrative about how it was right and how we made the world safe for liberalism.
All they care about is getting their retirement money and heading off to Mallorca. It’s so fucking sad, FB, I could just cry.
How is that sad? They’re simply enjoying the fruits of their labour, something that we should have the ability to do at some point in our lives. That’s why we work so damned hard in the first place to earn income.
[I still don't give a shit about the white race, and I'll articulate why in my upcoming as-of-yet-unwritten post on why white nationalism is a doomed ideology. But I still know how the world works.]
Ask not what the White race has done for you, but what you have done for the White race!
Seriously though (not that my comment here wasn’t without any seriousness) I’m looking forward to that post.
1) I’d say that the attitude “I …don’t give a shit about the white race…” coming from Whites is a major reason why WNism is a hard row to hoe. This is because White people have been educated to despise their history and culture and simultaneously admire inferior races and cultures.
2) Elitism. White people despise “trailer park trash” as you Yanks call them or Proles, Bogans in Oz. White culture has abandoned our lesser’s to the blight of the multicultural wastelands and gets off laughing at their predicament.
3) Individualism run rampant. This is a particularly American blight that has infected the world. American litigiousness is a curse that is catching.
4) Puritanism. Another American curse inherited from your British forebears.
5) Managerialism/Corporatism, not that I want to harp on the yanks but again it all stems from your country. Socialism run over into Capitalism. What the Communist countries abandoned the Yanks took up with a religious fervour.
White culture has abandoned our lesser’s to the blight of the multicultural wastelands and gets off laughing at their predicament.
If you believe in equality, then whites will have a tendency to believe that other whites that are unable to become upper middle members of society are lazy because they lack the excuse of racism that theoretically hamper non-whites. Admittedly, elitism makes sense given that if you believe whites are superior to all other races, then you should exclude the dead weight that isn’t capable of living an upper middle class lifestyle. Otherwise, white nationalism just basically means that whites are a fragile creature unable to defend itself from other “inferior” races.
The idea of racial superiority does not equate to superiority in all aspects. Whites are superior in some aspects, inferior in others.
White civilisation like any achievement is a “fragile creature” hence the need for eternal vigilance. If you’ve ever seen a boy painstakingly construct a Lego masterpiece and then watched as his jealous mate kicked it to smithereens you would understand the concept. Yes it is fragile but that doesn’t mean inferior.
Your Twin Towers were emblematic of White achievement and as such a source of jealousy to inferior cultures/religions and so they were smashed. Does that mean White culture is fragile and inferior? The Towers only became fragile to the forces of Islam once White culture became weakened by multiculturalism. White culture was strong and is now weak. Those things that made us strong have been white-anted and so our civilisation is collapsing.
So yes, Whites are fragile creatures and at the same time superior to all others in the ability to construct a mighty civilisation/s.
Re, your other objection, one can be an elite and still have a loyalty to those of hi own kind aka Noblesse oblige. Our elites have no understanding of the concept. They are the beneficiaries of Noblesse oblige but refuse the social contract written into what was bequeathed them. As a matter of fact they are hell bent on destroying the very foundations that gave rise to their own enhanced circumstances to maximise their own benefit.
Alte:
“Patriarchy is always sexy.”
Doesn’t explain why women were so eager to dismantle it then, does it?
Whiskey,
jou just crack me up. You basically state over and over again that Western women are dumb nasty sluts who would even welcome Islamic subjugation – yet on another occasion you stated that you don’t want them to become either porn actresses/bar sluts or veiled slaves to the Muslim thugs because…what? You respect them? You care about such idiotic beings who supposedly fully deserve all the abuse that alphathugs subject them to?
Hündchen,
I said it was a shit-test right? Women ask for stuff they don’t really want or need all of the time. Men need to learn to say no. Of course they’re going to keep asking. So you just keep saying, “No. Now go back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich.” That’s how my husband handles it. Or he sends me off for a beer. Problem solved.
I always put my money on the group with the bigger guns and better organization. Europeans – Germans especially – have had the market cornered in both respects for eons. The people who created the modern world aren’t going to go down without a fight.
That’s why I’m such a pessimist. These aren’t the same people. My Opa’s generation wouldn’t have gotten into this mess in the first place, because they didn’t put up with shit from anybody. They terrorized the entire world, and their children just want to eat Italian ice cream and stroll on the promenade. Totally different people, FB. As for the military, they’re cutting the budget again. Easier to do that than cut the retirement accounts or the Nestle subventionen.
The more masculine men are all getting thrown in jail for DV, anyway. How can they fight if they’re all incarcerated? Or drinking away their depression after their woman leaves them?
My husband and his chums are just a throwback. Yeah, I’m a bit down this week. We’re focusing on our financial plans now, and debating where it’ll be better to hold out: Germany or America? He says New Zealand. But who knows?
I say America. We have God, guns, and babies. Besides we were stupid enough to buy a house last year and now we’re upside-down on our mortgage. Shit.
We have drones, B-52s, aircraft carriers, and nuclear weapons.
Yeah, try using those in downtown Munich. Great idea. The enemy is here, you know. The war would take place in your own neighborhood, not in some far-off country.
I think things are going to get interesting really soon. It’s sort of exciting in a way. It’s like one gigantic “let’s get you and him to fight”, exempt on a cultural level. The group with the most nerve and guns wins.
But now I’m just rambling…
One more thing. My husband came rushing in yesterday evening to tell me that they’re considering replacing the German President with a woman. That would mean that both national heads would be female.
This while the country’s families are dying and the federal coffers are so empty that they echo. Nice.
Frauen, Frauen ueber alles…
Another good response to a request for female enfranchisement: Woman, what part of NO do you not understand?
See how easy that is? It works with my preschooler.
Another good one: Woman, this is my country, I make the rules here. If you don’t like it, then you are free to leave. If you want to stay here, then you will do as I say. Basta!
‘
Why do men always make things so complicated?
LOL. Now I’m just being facetious, I suppose.
My Opa’s generation wouldn’t have gotten into this mess in the first place, because they didn’t put up with shit from anybody.
Um, your Opa’s generation is exactly why you are in this mess in the first place. Without WW2, no decolonization, and thus no mass emigration from former colonies to Europe; without WW2, no mass death of Europeans, requiring replacement with non-Europeans; without WW2, the Right would not be so discredited in Europe that it cannot effectively oppose the Leftist program of mass non-white immigration to Europe.
If you try to oppose immigration, the Left screams “Nazi! Holocaust!” — if WW2 hadn’t happened, that weapon would not be available to them.
Non-Jewish white men are more alpha(tall, handsome) than Jewish white men. And then think of Jewish feminism…
Um, your Opa’s generation is exactly why you are in this mess in the first place.
Sheesh. Here we go blaming Opa again. He just got a bit greedy and overshot. He should have just stuck with conquering Sudetenland and then gone back to his cows.
But Germany was in a very strong position in the 1970s. It was when the feminists arrived that everything went all to shit. The Germans used to reproduce like rabbits. And that was after the war. They imported the Turks to deal with the booming economy, and stopped the immigration after a time. It’s just that the Turks never left. It is only since the Germans stopped making babies that that the baby-making Turks have seemed threatening.
Besides, WWII brought us out of the depression. Well, it did.
If you try to oppose immigration, the Left screams “Nazi! Holocaust!†— if WW2 hadn’t happened, that weapon would not be available to them.
Oh, they’d just scream something else. They could just call you a racist or a xenophobe. Why don’t you just tell them to fuck off?
I admit, I’m feeling quite irreverent today, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t some truth to what I say.
If they call you a racist, call them a trotskyite.
Anyway, it is likely that instead of a clash between Muslim and Native Europeans happening, the Muslims and the Israelis will wear each other down.
Just say, “How now, Chairman Mao?”
Anyway, everyone’s a bit of a racist, aren’t they? It’s sort of ingrained, so who cares? Most of the black people I know are pretty racist, in that they use race to make initial judgments about people, and sort people into “better” and “worse” races, or those they feel a closer affiliation with. Black Americans are sort of screwed over that way, as we’re most closely tied with White Americans but they don’t want us around. It sort of sucks.
the Muslims and the Israelis will wear each other down
But then the Americans would get involved, right? They’ve got Israel’s back over there. And Germany would guilt-trip themselves over there eventually, although they’d first complain about the Jews being unreasonable again, and then hem and haw and drag their feet about it. The French are a bit of an unknown, which is a shame because they have a powerful military.
The perpetual warring will be needed to sustain the economy and keep the citizens distracted, I suppose. Like in 1984.
Is it just me, or does it seem like the news are coming faster lately?
“Mencius Moldbug described libertarianism as “contain[ing], at its core, a shard of pure Left—
I had such a thing until around fall 2008, a few years after I became a libertarian. It was amazingly hard to get rid of. I think my belief that racial and gender differences exist was one of the reasons I finally did so.
As for the rest of the article, while burkas, chadors, and niqabs have no place in Western society, I don’t see the problem with headscarves (usually when the term “veil” is used by Americans, they include every form of Muslim women’s headgear, including headscarves). Western women commonly covered their head with shawls, veils, bonnets, and hats until relatively recently and Catholic women had to cover their heads in churches until the 1960s (women in some Eastern churches still must do so), so the idea that women’s modesty includes covering their hair is not exactly alien to Western society.
Islamic notions of modesty really aren’t much different from those of the West a hundred years ago, something that conservatives invariably overlook when criticizing Islam.
Charles Glass is not English. He’s an American and I think he’s part Lebanese.
Eric Margolis is not a libertarian. His mother was an Albanian activist for Palestinians way back in the 50s or 60s. Margolis supports the Muslim side in every conflict in the world.
More explanatory than any of that is that they are both Jews.
No one shrieks more hysterically about discrimination than Jews. It doesn’t matter to them how deserving the objects of discrimination are, for Jews it’s always “them today, Jews tomorrow” so all discrimination has to be nipped in the bud.
Widespread Jewish influence in western countries means that this attitude of non-discrimination-uber-alles is the leading reason why western societies struggle to publicly criticize any groups (except their own white majorities), let alone manage to come up with the all-important “expulsion formula” that, while perhaps insufficient, would go a long, long way to alleviating the trouble caused by the multicult. (The least discriminatory — since, like it or not, this is going to be a concern — way to go about it is chronologically. Obviously no one with only a year in the country could be considered to have put down roots, so maybe give him another year to settle his affairs and then require him to leave. Two years gets you two more years; four years gets you four more years, and so on. Probably not exactly this, but something based on its logic would be workable.)
My main gripe with libertarians is their insistence that liberty overrides every other concern. While liberty is wonderful it’s still only one value among others. How much “liberty” does a person really enjoy if he can’t walk down his own damn street without fear of being mugged by a pack of wild moolies out “representin’”? Of course, the libertardian will tell you that you can just move, that you don’t have to live in niggertown. Well sure. But then why can’t such obviously real world racial concerns be reflected in the law?
The Germans used to reproduce like rabbits. And that was after the war.
Only if you consider a fertility rate somewhat above the replacement rate “breeding like rabbits”.
Besides, WWII brought us out of the depression. Well, it did.
Preparing for it, yes. Actually fighting it, not so much.
There’s no such word as “irregardless”.
[I hate grammar Nazis. - ed.]
Paris bans open-air “sausage & wine party” over Muslim concerns
A giant “sausage and wine†party planned later this week in a Paris neighbourhood with many Muslim residents risks sparking disturbances and will therefore be banned, police in the French capital announced on Tuesday.
The event, announced on the social networking site Facebook late last month , had drawn growing criticism from politicians and civic groups in recent days as its page containing barely disguised anti-Muslim slogans attracted over 7,000 members.
The event, called an “apéro géant†(giant cocktail party), was due on Friday. The main organiser, Sylvie François, wrote that she wanted the event to be “a joyous protest†against the closing down of roads in the Goutte d’Or neighbourhood every Friday by Muslims praying in the street outside the overcrowded mosque there. The Facebook page also appeared to signal the party’s thrust with appeals to “native Parisians†and complaints about “the resolute foes of our local wines and pork products.â€
Well, well, what do you know…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html
Ferdinand, I love your writing, and at the risk of being labelled a “Grammar Nazi” I ask you, please don’t use “irregardless.” You are a much better writer than people who use that word. By the way, wouldn’t someone who knocks the usage of a non-word a “spelling Nazi?”
A new fan.
*be* a spelling Nazi?
Sorry for the missing word.
The British Isles have a current surplus of what some Brits refer to as “home counties wankers”.
These are the sort of people who think they are superior to everyone else but don’t do much to prove it.
{ 5 trackbacks }