Alexander Knepper, ineffectual intellectual
The problem with Knepper is his whole approach to politics is a series of “if, then” propositions. He’s what we call “a theory monster.”
I favor a fairly open immigration system in principle, but not while we have this welfare state.
So “if” we got rid of welfare, he’d be in favor of open immigration. Is he anti-immigration since we have a welfare state? Does he support VDARE and the Minutmen and FAIR? No. It’s all about keeping his theories straight, about toe-ing a certain line. I hope you’re at least getting paid for it, Mr. Knepper.
I want to be perfectly clear that I am entirely consistent in my philosophy: I condemn all forms of collectivism, including all claims based on ‘ancestry.’
Yeah, well multiculturalism has forced collectivism on us, and as individuals we are getting cut down. Maybe you don’t see what’s really happening out there. We can’t afford to be pristine angels of Ayn Randian individualist perfection, in a multicultural hell hole that we didn’t ask for. White collectivism is our only defense, and it’s one I believe you’ll end up resorting to yourself.
I can tell you that the energy of the White collective is with our view, not yours. You are going to begin to sense this in the coming years, as the growth economy withers away and we have to survive in a contracting economy, the automatic society becomes manual again, and you have to count on White people to survive.
David Frum wrote speeches for Bush in the run up to the Iraq War. He coined the term, “Axis of Hate.” He’s part of the war crime cabal that launched the long wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you realize that? He’s not just some guy who gets on NPR to hawk the phony-con neo-con “side” of the argument. He was the official inciter to drive the Americans to attack some hapless goat herders half a world away. He’s a real rat of a man.
It’s rather interesting that this former presidential speechwriter and genocide justifier/inciter recruited a little team of college kids to try to “keep us on the fringe,” to quote Knepper.
The forces of history are going in our direction. It’s not about “consistent philosophy,” but rather raw reality. America is in deep shit on so many levels, mostly caused by misgovernance and mismanagement, and the reason we have been misgoverned, mismanaged, and driven to ruin is because the people who rule us don’t feel any tribal or national connection to us.
We are driven to ruin by the most extreme collectivists in the history of mankind; of course we have to become collectivists ourselves. It’s like when one army develops the longbow; the other army better make good shields to block the rain of arrows as best they can, and if possible, develop their own longbows.
So we are becoming collectivists out of raw necessity. That’s all there is to it.
Craven beltway homosexual effeminate neocon poking his head in —
A question to you and your readers: do you fight cancer through chemotherapy, or by spreading the cancer elsewhere? This so-called hard-nosed pragmatist says that we fight collectivism — by being collectivists! — Can someone make heads or tails of this for me?
I’m curious — are you saying that when we push all the spics and niggers out, we can go back to being individualists who care about values more than race? —
I disfavor this “individualist/collectivist” dichotomy. We are individuals; we are also part of communities, families, states, countries, civilizations, broad ethnic groupings, races, etc. To say that conservatives and communists and liberals are all “statists” is about as useful as saying we all breath are all human beings. What matters is how we are different. In some ways we’re individuals, in other ways we have obligations to others, and those others are somtimes chosen (bosses, wives), and sometimes not (parents and countrymen).
There is nothing wrong with philosophical consistency and the application of reason to the problems of life. It is better to be careful, thoughtful, and deliberate. It’s the mark of a free and thinking man. But the libertarians are honestly all quite stupid. They take one important principle–liberty–and ignore many other principles, like order, security, social harmony, good manners, honor, sustainability, wealth creation, etc.
Second, they forget that much of politics is balancing competing claims, individual versus community, war and peace, short and long term, etc. They are seeking an air-tight, handy-dandy answer to everything and, in the process, show that they don’t know what they’re dealing with. Because the very nature of politics is that it can’t be resolved by a single principle, that there are competing principles, that the claims of different communities sometimes are inherently irreconcilable, and your team and interests are imposed upon you, in part, by birth, history, race etc.
Individualism is taking a knife to a gun fight.
It’s ironic that a man who helped deceive a nation into slaughtering hundreds of thousands in a senseless war can pass judgment on us for merely attempting to assert our right to exist. Pity the frail homosexual who was allegedly spoken to roughly by Mr. Spencer – the same frail homosexual who advocates for the slaughter and ruination of millions of lives from his posh cubicle at a DC think tank.
I sincerely hope Richard Spencer is lying when he denies having spoken harshly to this arrogant little chicken hawk. For just once in his comfortable and charmed life of serving his overlords, he should get a small whiff of the violence he’s responsible for.
Yeah, he only supports the collective of “individualists”. Oh wait, he doesn’t support any collectives! But wait… uh… damn…
And if individualists choose to be a collective then… uhm… bad! Very bad!
Pretty funny, too, how they support a “consistent philosophy” that is inconsistent with reality. How do you work that trick again? Sum one pleeze explain it 2 mee. I don’ ged it.
I want to be perfectly clear that I am entirely consistent in my philosophy: I condemn all forms of collectivism, including all claims based on ‘ancestry.’
If he were consistent, he’d have stuck a grenade up his ass by now.
The human body is a collective.
Alex Knepper: http://www.frumforum.com/richard-spencers-nordic-supermen#comment-85871
“Why is it that every alt-righter that responds to me decides that I’m Jewish? Not that it makes any difference, but I’m not Jewish — although yes, I do support the state of Israel, which is one of the greatest societies on Earth. The real root of anti-Semitism is envy: Jewish culture has been highly successful, and supports productive work, individual accomplishment, and academic success. Tiny little Israel, with its six million inhabitants, has the third-highest number of tech start-ups every year — not per capita, but in absolute numbers!”
He is either being deceptive or he is genuinely ignorant of the Jewish-racialist nature of Israel.
Individualism is taking a knife to a gun fight.
Right. Individualism goes out the window as soon as you’re forced to share a living space with collectivists.
And the attack on white “racists” by Jews like Frum, members of the most ethnocentric group on Earth, is simply an attempt to ensure that the fight stays rigged in their group’s favor.
It’s fun when the Frum types send out compromised SG mercs to try and engage and oppose us. You can really tell the difference between the paychecked up “professional party line writers,” versus the passionate volunteers in the trenches who are writing and fighting for kith and kin.
Knepper’s writing is pale and lifeless. He’s a textbook example of what Bob Whitaker calls a “wordist,” which is someone who thinks according to a certain interpretation of a certain book.
I’ve seen people like Knepper end up “going native.” It depends on how compromised he is as a person. If he is very compromised, he will remain toe-ing the line, as long as he’s getting his paycheck. If he has any principle or spirit, he will be moved by us after enough exposure to our discourse, and will be conflicted between his easy paycheck versus what he knows is right.
Because the very nature of politics is that it can’t be resolved by a single principle
Very true, Roach. Can you imagine feudal Europe embracing an ideology of complete liberalism? It couldn’t have stood because feudalism was all about obligation. Without the system of feudal obligation Europe would have perished before its high culture even truly began. It is deracination, in fact, from those networks of old which have led to the utter chaos of the modern day. That’s what NN means when he calls liberalism ‘crypto-anarchy’.
Bob Whittaker calls it “wordism” – and the ultimate example of it must be the Randroids. And what wonderful irony that the favorite term of abuse of the (literal) cult that it Randroidism is “collectivist.” Unless you are wiki’s Man With Falcon on the Mountaintop – guess what, you’re a collectivist.
It was liberating for me personally when I simply stopped caring about political ideologies and instead focused on my *political interests*
I’m curious — are you saying that when we push all the spics and niggers out, we can go back to being individualists who care about values more than race?
Alex,
As a former libertarian (very active), I’m quite familiar with your worldview of “individualism versus collectivism.” In the past, I made the same argument many times. But, upon serious thought and observation of reality, I abandoned that view.
I don’t know if you are a Randroid or not, but it is humorous how such guys call themselves “Objectivists.”
Well, the fact that blacks commit hugely disproportionate amounts of murder, rape, and all sorts of social ills far out of proportion to their share of the population is an OBJECTIVE fact. Yet the so called objectivists deny objective reality. Apparently, A is A, unless it disagrees with their ideological fantasy. That’s why Kievsky calls you a “theory monster.” Do all of the completely gratuitous rapes and murders of whites outrage you? Huge numbers of whites have been murdered or raped as a result of your “individualist” philosophy. Whites that otherwise would still be walking around, living their lives. Beliefs have consequences, and the body count goes ever higher. Does that bother you at all?
Multiracialism inflicts all sorts of ills amongst whites, numerous rapes and murders just being the tip of the iceberg. The simple truth is that we are more in tune with objective reality than you are. Do you have a magic wand to change all of this, or just ideological fantasy?
Blacks and hispanics have destroyed countless schools, and in so doing have crippled the education of countless whites. This is objective reality. Why do you deny objective reality?
The funny thing is that the immigrants that you support DON’T EVEN AGREE WITH YOU. Most are anti-market. They vote for Democrats because they support fully funded government programs. This shows that libertarians truly are ideological fruitcakes…in the unlikely event that they could ever create a libertarian paradise, they would immediately allow it to be overrun by anti-market groups.
The libertarian paradise run by ideological fruitcakes who care not a whit about objective reality would be submerged in no time flat. You guys are so out of touch with reality that you can’t even preserve yourselves. Just look at Southern California. It used to be a hotbed of libertarianism. Now? Brown as far as the eye can see, and a Democrat pro Big Government stronghold. Mostly because of the non-white immigrants that the libertarians welcomed with open arms! And yet the ideological fruitcakes still can’t see the error of their ways.
In essence, Alex, you are a religious cultist. Reality be damned, you’d rather stick to your fantasy ideology. The truth, if you cared at all for it, would show that white societies are the best hope for individual liberty. Whites are the only people who, with some degree of consistency, create relatively free societies. Your solution? Submerge whites under a sea of anti-market non-whites. Brilliant! Never mind that it is those very non-whites who are pushing for more and more government, more and more centralized power. But don’t worry about that, don’t let facts get in the way.
“I’m curious — are you saying that when we push all the spics and niggers out, we can go back to being individualists who care about values more than race?”
No, the hyper-individualism we observer today does not make for a congenial nor sustainable society. Btw, you forgot to mention the expulsion of the Jews.
do you fight cancer through chemotherapy, or by spreading the cancer elsewhere? This so-called hard-nosed pragmatist says that we fight collectivism — by being collectivists! — Can someone make heads or tails of this for me?
If someone barges into your house with a weapon, what do you do? Why, get your own weapon, and use it to repel the intruder, of course.
I’m curious — are you saying that when we push all the spics and niggers out, we can go back to being individualists who care about values more than race?
‘Values’ only have meaning if they help to achieve the goal they intend to serve.
Here, apparently, the goal is a free/Constitutionally limited republic where it is possible to earn a decent living, and one is free to live one’s life as one chooses without having to put up with constant attempts by Christian crazies to ban gays and porn, and constant attempts by left wing crazies to ban guns and SUVs.
The problem is that we live in a democracy, which means that everything biologically classified as ‘human’ over the age of 18 gets an equal say in the laws that govern this country. Allowing women and the indigent to vote created enough problems, and these problems become astronomically worse when hostile minorities are introduced into the mix.
First off, we can forget about any sort of economic freedom, because they will vote into place programs which serve their short term group racial interests. Welfare, Section 8, TANF, WIC, food stamps, SSI, SSDI, minimum wage, affirmative action, the whole lot. We have all this with about 15-20% nonwhite voting population, imagine all the fun programs they will come up with as this percentage increases?
As far as social freedoms go, respect for these comes almost exclusively from the northern European tradition. Other groups tend to be hostile to such things as private gun ownership, and have no concept of such a thing as ‘free speech’. Not to mention, as they have a lower IQ on average, and religion/superstition correlates with IQ, we will have a more religious/superstitious populace as the average IQ of the country declines.
So, we can see that allowing low IQ races entrance and participation into our country serves to decrease freedom, including for us the current inhabitants, and therefore the only way to preserve/advance this is to keep/kick them out, or at least bar them from any rights of citizenship/voting.
Not to get too far off track but- with another amnesty push coming our way, it’s important to remember that once the republican/conservative scullery maids nominated their malignant dwarf for the presidency, minuteman activism (at least in Illinois) all but ceased. Unless you consider the leadership of local minuteman organizations running in Illinois republican primaries to be activism. I don’t.
No doubt this group will resurface. No doubt those of us who showed up for their scheduled events, and thereby suffered not just the slings and arrows of la raza but the sharpened elbows of said leadership sprinting towards the cameras, will stand with them again.
Because we have no choice.
Stay strong.
“If someone barges into your house with a weapon, what do you do? Why, get your own weapon, and use it to repel the intruder, of course.”
It’s the break-in that’s the evil here, not the possession of a weapon. You don’t respond to a break-in by breaking into someone else’s house. You use self-defense against aggression. Either way, life is not a gunfight: it is a battle of competing value-systems. Yours is one of brute force and primitive tribalism; mine is one of individual achievement — rather than a quest for the unearned.
As for the other point — I am not a democrat, and I do not believe that anyone — no matter what his sex or color — don’t forget: plenty of white men are voting for these welfare schemes, too, and there are plenty of excellent black leaders like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and Clarence Thomas stand against them — should be able to vote his personal whims into government policy.
At the heart of things, you, like all statists, want to micromanage a society from above, with someone who so happens to agree with you ordering individuals around — telling them what they can and cannot do, where they can and cannot live, and what role they must play. I am in favor of spontaneous order and voluntary interaction. Classical liberalism is the only consistent anti-power philosophy. It is the only belief system that stands against power-lust.
You don’t respond to a break-in by breaking into someone else’s house.
…says the staunch advocate of the Iraq War!
And he’s a servile advocate of Israel, they were the ones who broke in with weapons!
There is no belief system ever that stands against power-lust in the real world and virtually every one claims to in theory.
Trainspotter should be happy with Alex’s thorough and point-by-point reply. Uh…
One often hears libertarians say something like, “Once we get rid of the welfare state, we can have open borders.”
This shows how blind and out of touch with reality they really are.
On the other hand, someone who is interested in objective reality over ideological cultism knows exactly what would happen.
We start off with a libertarian paradise. No welfare state, laissez-faire. Of course, because they aren’t mean collectivists, all immigrants are welcome. In comes the flood of mestizos and Africans. The initial ones come not for the welfare state (because there isn’t one), but for work. All is well…for about five minutes.
Unfortunately for the libertarian cultist, these non-white immigrants are not merely “labor units.” They are instead people, with their own values, personal qualities and group affiliations. The blacks immediately start engaging in higher rates of crime…the murder and rape of white libertarians begins in earnest. Doors that were left unlocked are now tightly secured. Many white libertarians can no longer walk down their streets in safety.
Hey, you import a more violence prone group of people, and not unsurprisingly you get more violence. Who’d a thunk it?
Other non-whites import their religious views, and start organizing along those lines. The first glimmerings of Sharia are noticed. Or just Catholics that support redistributionist policies.
Still no welfare state…yet. Don’t worry, though. It’s coming.
One basic problem is that the non-whites have average IQ levels ten, fifteen or twenty points below the white average. So, shock of shocks, they don’t perform as well as a group. They tend to cluster in the low end jobs, making shitty wages…while watching all those white libertarians riding around in their fancy cars. Must be racism! Then the organizing begins, the protests, the demands for social services to meet the needs of the impoverished non-whites. Many whites, after looking around at the squalor and crime of the new ghettos, conclude that something “Must be done.” Our first liberals are created! The problem now afflicts tens of millions of people, a task far too great for private charity. And don’t forget, these new “labor units” are becoming voters, and they know that the market is “unfair.”
Soon there are demands for affirmative action and government control to stamp out the hated racism, not to mention a welfare state to help ameliorate the grinding poverty. How much can a person with an IQ of 80 actually expect to make in a truly free market? Yet the libertarians have imported tens of millions of 80 IQ cretins.
That didn’t take long, did it? And, lickety split, you might as well be in the Kwa circa 2010. From libertarian paradise to utter shithole in no time.
In short, group differences will manifest themselves, as they always do. The religious cultist/libertarian cannot and will not allow himself to see this. He must imagine that, magically, his libertarian paradise will be preserved, no matter who moves in. This is of course insane, and contrary to everything we know from history, experience and human nature. Every law, every government program, every centralization of power has to start somewhere. Soon, the demands for government programs to combat the gross disparities between races would be sufficient to get them off the ground. Either that, or massive violence would result. One way or another, the seething resentments will find their way into the open.
The libertarian cultist just imagines that once he has created his mythical “true free market,” that everyone will of course simply accept market outcomes. I mean, why wouldn’t they accept market outcomes? The market is like, you know, god or something.
But human nature tells us that large numbers of people only accept market outcomes if they see them as reasonably fair, and only if it seems better than the alternative. For example, blacks don’t support a true free market, because they would rather have government provided advantages. They know that, in a truly free market, they would cluster toward the bottom of the economic rung. Fuck that! In what must be galling to the libertarian, blacks have concluded that their self interest is better served by government programs and beneficial laws than by the free market.
The libertarians have been putting up candidates for almost forty years now, and in all that time have probably gotten approximately three votes from blacks. Maybe four, assuming Walter Williams cast multiple votes. Yet they never think to ask themselves why that is. Ideological blinders are amazing.
Your good black conservatives can be counted on the fingers of one hand, Mr. Knepper.
We aren’t statists — we want our freedom of association back. It’s the statists who push affirmative action, anti-discrimination policies, school busing, et cetera.
We will need a strong state for a while, to undo all the damage, to be certain.
“I am in favor of spontaneous order and voluntary interaction.”
LOL!! I’ll bet you are. Multiracialism makes these things impossible.
I’m curious — are you saying that when we push all the spics and niggers out, we can go back to being individualists who care about values more than race?
No value can ever supersede the value of life.
“Classical liberalism is the only consistent anti-power philosophy. It is the only belief system that stands against power-lust.”
Classical liberalism failed. You might want to ask yourself why. I’ve given you a good start in the posts above.
I am in favor of spontaneous order….
Organic communities of related humans are, of couse, a prime example of spontaneous order.
Libtard delusion knows no bounds, nor, of course, does their inane race denial. They’re like hippies who take flowers to an inter-racial gunfight and wonder why they get slain! One thing’s for certain though, they love to worship Israel.
…Either way, life is not a gunfight: it is a battle of competing value-systems. Yours is one of brute force and primitive tribalism; mine is one of individual achievement — rather than a quest for the unearned. – Alex
__
Such as these kinds of
unearned ‘achievement’, Alex –
Can you buy your way into Harvard? Of course you can, if my friend Dan Golden’s new book, “The Price of Admission,” is to be believed. You can also buy your way into Duke — home of the notorious “development admits , ” where fund-raisers collaborate on admissions decisions — and many other top-tier universities in the country.
…
The most egregious example of pay-for-Crimson – play is that of Jared Kushner , now the youthful owner of The New York Observer. While Jared was applying to colleges, his dad, New Jersey billionaire developer Charles Kushner , pledged $2.5 million to Harvard, to be paid in installments. (Kushner pere pleaded guilty to tax evasion and other counts in 2004 and recently completed a prison sentence.)
An official at Kushner’s high school told Golden: “There was no way anybody in . . . the school thought he would on the merits get into Harvard. His GPA did not warrant it, his SAT scores did not warrant it. We thought, for sure, there was no way this was going to happen.”
Kushner graduated from Harvard in 2003. …
~
Harvard’s admissions of gilt – The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/09/04/harvards_admissions_of_gilt/?%20Boston%20Globe%20Article%20Charles%20Kushner%20buys%20Harvard%20admission%20for%20son
29 – WTF does that have to do with anything?
—
“We aren’t statists — we want our freedom of association back. It’s the statists who push affirmative action, anti-discrimination policies, school busing, et cetera.”
I oppose all of these things on property grounds.
—
“LOL!! I’ll bet you are. Multiracialism makes these things impossible.”
Then let’s try it out. Why not advocate a dismantling of the state to its bare bones and see how things work out?
—
“Classical liberalism failed.”
The reason you’re talking to me right now — the Internet — is a result of classical liberalism.
So the federal government had nothing to do with the invention of the computer or the internet?
29 – WTF does that have to do with anything?
Oh c’mon Alex — I was expecting a bit of a more detailed response than that.
OK, can anyone else describe why the Boston Globe article in post #29 has much to do with a lot of things that Alex is saying, and advocating for??
Hint: “Meritocracy” – or lack of it.
Alex – “A question to you and your readers: do you fight cancer through chemotherapy, or by spreading the cancer elsewhere?”
On the Jewish world-cancer:
UNDERSTAND THE BIOLOGICAL JEW – http://www.archive.org/details/BiologicalJew
“If someone barges into your house with a weapon, what do you do? Why, get your own weapon, and use it to repel the intruder, of course.”
It’s the break-in that’s the evil here, not the possession of a weapon. You don’t respond to a break-in by breaking into someone else’s house.
Good logic indeed: so I take it you are opposed to the Iraq War? That, after all, is exactly what you are talking about.
At any rate, one certainly has the right to bar and evict unwanted trespassers in their house or nation.
life is not a gunfight: it is a battle of competing value-systems.
If this were true, there would never be any wars or violence in the world.
mine is one of individual achievement — rather than a quest for the unearned…Classical liberalism is the only consistent anti-power philosophy. It is the only belief system that stands against power-lust.
Generally yes, but in its purest form it lacks any teeth to defend itself against an ‘unarmed’ invasion and internal subversion by people biologically not inclined to support such principles.
Why not advocate a dismantling of the state to its bare bones and see how things work out?
Because it’s pointless. It will never happen when the number of Non-Whites increase and note the numerous advantages of legislating the transfer of wealth created by Whites to Non-Whites.
It would not have happened even with a Whites only population and it certainly never will now.
Again: reality.
the debate that is going on is interesting…i hope it continues.
“Then let’s try it out. Why not advocate a dismantling of the state to its bare bones and see how things work out?”
Advocate it all you want, it ain’t gonna happen. Due to your support of non-white immigration, the country is filling up with those who stand to do better from government programs than the free market. The reality is that people with an IQ in the 70’s or 80’s are, on average, going to do poorly in the free market. Your policies are resulting in the importation of tens of millions of these sorts. So advocate all you want, but the importation of millions of people who disagree makes your cause hopeless. For every convert you get, you import twenty “statists.” Do the math.
“The reason you’re talking to me right now — the Internet — is a result of classical liberalism.”
I love how you guys groan about “unearned achievement”…then proceed to claim credit for things in a way that would make Al Gore blush. Talk about unearned achievement. The truth of the matter is that government funding of research and development had a great deal to do with our talking right now. Another thing that had a great deal to do with it is the existence of whites as a people.
Here is the reality: whites more than any other race created the internet. Your conclusion? Whites need not exist. To care about the continued existence of whites would be wrong – evil collectivism.
Cultish blinders are a strange thing, and lead to bizarre contortions of logic.
“A few thoughts on Donald Boudreaux’s recent column Libertarians & immigration. Boudreaux starts off:
One of the most bizarre developments in the past decade or so is the insistence by a small handful of people who parade under the banner “libertarian” or “advocate of free markets” that the state has both the right and the duty to limit immigration.
The most popular version of the so-called libertarian case against immigration runs like this:
A couple of comments. First, he is clearly talking about Hans-Hermann Hoppe, though he never mentions him. Why not name names and provide a link, so people can read it on their own and see what he’s critiquing? (It’s pretty clear, though, that he is talking about Hoppe here.)
Second, Boudreaux implies that the only libertarian position is completely open borders, no restrictions at all on immigration. He implies that only a “small group” of libertarians believe otherwise; and that this view is only a “so-called” libertarian opinion; that the tiny number of people who oppose completely unrestricted immigration in present-day America merely “parade under the banner” of libertarianism. In other words, he implies that there is no real debate about this in libertarian circles. There is; and more than that, it is more than a “small group” of libertarians who oppose unrestricted immigration probably at least half, if not more, of libertarians would oppose unrestricted immigration.
In fact, an entire Journal of Libertarian Studies symposium issue a few years ago about immigration had only one open-borders advocate (as I recall) Walter Block. The rest Hoppe, Machan, Raico, Simon, Hospers, et al. if I remember right, were all against completely open borders/unrestricted immigration:”
http://www.stephankinsella.com/2007/09/12/boudreaux-on-hoppe-on-immigration/comment-page-1/
Consistency has two meanings- logical, or consistent with facts. Any view consistent with facts must be logically consistent. Alas much libertarianism is logically consistent, but fuck dem facts. The theory CANNOT be wrong- it’s consistent. Only logically consistent.
Libertarianism has been heavily infiltrated by thy Usual Suspects for decades. Jacob Hornberger is a “former” member of the ACLU, and an open border advocate.
W. Block says that if a property owner won’t sell land for a private road, the road company should build a 400 foot tall bridge over said property. Yet these folks maintain that the theory CANNOT be wrong.
Hans Hermann Hoppe (libertarian) writes:
“What should one hope for and advocate as the relatively correct immigration policy, however, as long as the democratic central state is still in place and successfully arrogates the power to determine a uniform national immigration policy? The best one may hope for, even if it goes against the “nature” of a democracy and thus is not very likely to happen, is that the democratic rulers act as if they were the personal owners of the country and as if they had to decide who to include and who to exclude from their own personal property (into their very own houses). This means following a policy of utmost discrimination: of strict discrimination in favor of the human qualities of skill, character, and cultural compatibility.
More specifically, it means distinguishing strictly between “citizens” (naturalized immigrants) and “resident aliens” and excluding the latter from all welfare entitlements. It means requiring as necessary, for resident alien status as well as for citizenship, the personal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumption of liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant. It implies requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen; moreover, for both categories but especially that of citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only (English) language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values – with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias.”
Copyright 1999 by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe1.html
My view is simple- White Individualism.
The libertarian will counter that invididuals create inventions, not races. This again reveals their cultish blinders. Had Beethoven been born as a black in Africa, can anyone seriously imagine that the Eroica Symphony would exist? Obviously not. If such a person created music at all, it would of course be “African” in nature. Or Chinese, or Aztec, or whatever.
In other words, context matters. Particular groups of people provide particular contexts. Beethoven did not exist in a vacuum, he was not out floating in the ether. He spent his life amongst a particular set of people, from which he gleaned everything from values and aesthetic sensibilities to financial support for his music, to literally the type of musical instruments to play. Nothing of the sort emerged from non-white populations. Non-whites created different contexts for people to operate in, with different results. This should be obvious to non-cultists.
Again, context matters. Since different “tribes” create different contexts, the survival of a particular tribe may be of great importance.
You dismiss this as rank tribalism, but in fact it comes down to preserving particular contexts. Without the context created by whites, we would not have the internet today. Or, for that matter, most of the other goodies that you take for granted. Yet you seem to think that it is evil for whites to preserve themselves. That’s wack!!
I’ll add that no tribe’s desire to preserve itself is called into question – except for whites. White countries and only white countries are expected to submerge themselves under the non-white hordes, and dissolve themselves out of existence. This is not expected or demanded of any non-white country. Therefore, intentionally or not, your positions aren’t anti-racist, they are anti-white. You aren’t pro-individual, you’re just anti-white. (hat tip to White Rabbit)
The libertarian will counter that invididuals create inventions, not races. …
Except, of course, when they are speaking about the ‘Ashkenazi ‘Jews’.
“Except, of course, when they are speaking about the ‘Ashkenazi ‘Jews’.”
Yes. Whites as a group can never claim credit for anything positive. Any positive action that whites have ever taken is simply marked down as the achievement of a few individuals (ignoring the broader tribal context that made the achievement possible, as if those individuals existed in a vacuum).
On the other hand, whites can certainly be condemned as a group. When it is time to ridicule them, discriminate against them, or punish them in myriad ways, whites miraculously become a “group,” and that group must pay. Suddenly, the same anti-white who denied the existence of whites five minutes earlier now “knows” exactly who whites are. No confusion at all, as long as whitey is being punished. It’s only when whitey seeks to defend himself that the claims of “race doesn’t exist” begin in earnest. It’s Orwellian.
With non-whites, it is just the opposite: they exist as a group to be admired, cherished, and lauded for (often false) accomplishments. When they commit horrors, on the other hand, the group designation is immediately removed. Suddenly they are just “individuals,” and the group context that made the horrors possible is ignored and held blameless.
Obviously, Jews benefit from this hypocritical non-white standard in which they can only be praised as a group, never criticized. In fact, all non-whites get this standard. Only whites are exempt from this favorable treatment. Again, this whole way of thinking isn’t anti-racist, it’s anti-white.
“The libertarian will counter that invididuals create inventions, not races. This again reveals their cultish blinders. Had Beethoven been born as a black in Africa, can anyone seriously imagine that the Eroica Symphony would exist? Obviously not. If such a person created music at all, it would of course be “African” in nature. Or Chinese, or Aztec, or whatever.”
That’s a culture, not a race. Culture is chosen and evolves over time. And don’t say that race creates culture, that’s total unfalsifiable bullshit.
With non-whites, it is just the opposite: they exist as a group to be admired, cherished, and lauded for (often false) accomplishments. When they commit horrors, on the other hand, the group designation is immediately removed. Suddenly they are just “individuals,” and the group context that made the horrors possible is ignored and held blameless.
Obviously, Jews benefit from this hypocritical non-white standard in which they can only be praised as a group, never criticized. In fact, all non-whites get this standard. Only whites are exempt from this favorable treatment. Again, this whole way of thinking isn’t anti-racist, it’s anti-white.
__
Here is an excellent example of what we are describing, Trainspotter, from a good, honest and decent Israeli scholar — and human being –
If Jews have to bear blame for such atrocities, then white people have to take the blame for Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin, Marx, etc. Idiots. Collectivism is a two-way street.
“Then let’s try it out. Why not advocate a dismantling of the state to its bare bones and see how things work out?”
“If Jews have to bear blame for such atrocities, then white people have to take the blame for Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin, Marx, etc. Idiots. Collectivism is a two-way street.”
You conflate “try[ing] it out” with “advocat[ing it]”, as if it were politically possible to turn America into midieval Iceland or the Wild West in the 1800s (note the racial composition of those sparse historical examples of libertarian societies). You completely ignore political (as well as racial) reality. And you continue to show your ignorance by chiding us for not claiming (the Jew) Karl Marx as one of our own.
One of the most bizarre developments in the past decade or so is the insistence by a small handful of people who parade under the banner “libertarian” or “advocate of free markets” that the state has both the right and the duty to limit immigration.
That’s not what they say. What they say is that immigration is a creature of the State, and the State needs to stop imposing immigration on the people. It’s not a call for the State to act; it’s a call for the State to stop acting.
If Jews have to bear blame for such atrocities, then white people have to take the blame for Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin, Marx, etc. Idiots. Collectivism is a two-way street.
You’re a bit thick. We’re not advocating a double standard. We’re merely pointing one out.
By the way, Orthodox Jewish law recognizes collective guikt:
To this day orthodox Jewish ethics has remained in its essence national rather than individual, and this accounts, incidentally, for the otherwise incomprehensible legal theorem of the common responsibility of all Jews for the deeds of each.–Salo Wittmayer Baron (1895–1989), a preeminent scholar who revolutionized the study of Jewish history during his lengthy tenure at Columbia University. [The quote is taken from page 10 of Baron’s “A social and Religious History of the Jews”, published by Columbia University Press, 1957.]
“A question to you and your readers: do you fight cancer through chemotherapy, or by spreading the cancer elsewhere? This so-called hard-nosed pragmatist says that we fight collectivism — by being collectivists! — Can someone make heads or tails of this for me?”
Your metaphor could more completly and utterly fail. The Midieval Icelanders, faced with an invasion by seafaring collectivist Bantus, would have rightly declined your “leadership”.
“And don’t say that race creates culture, that’s total unfalsifiable bullshit.”
Behaviour has a heritable component. Culture is the result of the behaviour of a group of people. Ergo, …
“Culture is chosen and evolves over time. And don’t say that race creates culture, that’s total unfalsifiable bullshit.”
The proposition that only in societies where mono-linguistic and mono-religious Europids are the only members or the overwhelming majority do anarchic (I don’t mean warlord-based), libertarian or liberty-based political cultures ever develop is easily falsifiable with a counter-example.
Libertarianism has never developed or remained stable in any “multicultural” society. In fact one of the surest ways to destroy such a society is to ad-mix anything other than an infinitesimal amount of people of different racial, lingustic or religious origins.