Inclined to Liberty: The Futile Attempt to Suppress the Human Spirit (LvMI)
Our goals would be much more quotidian, there is no doubt about it, but the person in prison for a marijuana offense only might prefer that we focus on the quotidian rather than the Utopian. Same goes for the innocent Yemeni under the threat of a drone attack via our war machine…I doubt that person has any interest in ensuring the Libertarian Party stays absolutely radical in its foreign policy messaging, willing to engage in coffee house debates about the free market provision of security while they continue to hide out in fear. Yes, offering an alternative makes tons of sense to me.
Abolishing consent laws is way out on the outer bounds, deeply fringe. It strikes me that positioning on the edge of the public square in a lessarchist direction is most likely to breakthrough. He might have gotten lower percentages than Bergland! In fact, as of , the age of consent in states that had any law on the books at all was generally , with Delaware the low outlier at 7. Even 20 years ago, when I first wrote on the subject, I noted that, living in Missouri, I could move to Hawaii, meet a girl, legally marry her, then be subject to prosecution for statutory rape if I moved back to Missouri with her age of consent in Missouri was, IIRC, 16, while in Hawaii it was Age of consent is decided at the state level.
GJ leading with it would be like GJ leading with whether or not the town of Anyville should impose a 1 cent sales tax for fire protection. It makes no difference whether either is right or wrong, not in the political arena. Surely I agree with you that the standards for consenting ages has changed. However, it makes NO sense that an LP officer feels its appropriate to bring the subject up for general public consumption.
Not even a little bit. Eisenhower, maybe? Its perfectly okay for Reason magazine to commentate on the issue, as Andy Craig points out above. Its not okay for anyone associated with the LP to do so when its not a front burner issue, nor will it probably ever be in the political arena. In fact, to the average voter, moderate libertarian positions ARE. Even if said average voters become amenable to some libertarian position…re-legalization of all drugs, for example…it hardly follows that they are willing to vote for someone proposing to enact the entire constellation of radical libertarian proposals all at once.
His issues were all over the map. Because peace and freedom are aspirational notions. The hate that DJT pedaled was lowest-common-denominator manipulation. Yes it is, if you are in a leadership position in the party. Which is just another reason why he needs to be dumped. I was referring to pretty much every presidential election ever. The public decides that. The candidate just gets to address those issues. If the public is interested in immigration, national security, and welfare reform right now, the candidate is worse than useless if all he wants to talk about is Bitcoin, privatization of space exploration, and abortion.
THOSE issues are ones he might work in edgewise if he thinks they will get him points with one constituency more so than losing him points with another, but the public decides what issues the election will revolve around. As of now, I have little use for his white identity politics butthurt schtick. The general pattern in prez elections is to work the primary process toward their respective bases and then tack toward the middle of the road for the general election. Even when candidates take edgier positions, they do try to make them at least semi-acceptable to the middle during the primaries.
It includes that social con crank who wanted to use copyright laws to silence the Libertarian Nudist Caucus. Fair enough. I care far more about 1 than 2 or 3. I thought they handled 2 sufficiently, and 3 is a libertarian circle jerk I care about very little. In fact, 1 is the non-negotiable one for me. That was the conventional wisdom 20 years ago.
Karl Rove rewrote the playbook in In the internet, alt media, social media age, maximize base turnout on contentious issues like gay marriage and immigration …. Any potentially successful 3rd party run will entail 1 deep pockets 2 deep commitment to a few populist issues. Bernie Sanders could have given it a good go in The median voter theory relies on single peaked preferences and necessarily excludes 3rd parties. Scientifically, a move to the middle strategy for a 3rd party is DOA. Attempts to organize a move to a middle third party run like Unity 08 have fizzled with a thud.
I think John Anderson in is about the max result one could expect from that. I would like to clarify my statements about sexual activity and personal responsibility in light of your feedback. I am cognizant that no prophylactic is a Fail-Safe. I have an IUD, my boyfriend has a vasectomy, and still there have been case studies where both measures have failed and sexual intercourse has resulted in pregnancy.
When I said we should be fully aware — and prepared — for the consequences of sex, I was not suggesting sex was only permissible for individuals who had a K, IRA, and six figure salary. I was in a financial position to have kids when I did, but an unexpected, costly divorce that I am just now recovering from financially changed that.
I am personally fortunate enough to have a wonderfully supportive family, but I am fully aware not everyone is. Not everyone was able to go to college like I was and leverage that education for a higher salary. I do not, even for a second, believe because I was privileged in many respects that I am entitled to engage in sex while others are not. All I am advocating for is being as aware, educated, and prepared as one reasonably can be. And even then: women still get raped and impregnated, so they should have the option of determining if they want to move forward with the pregnancy or terminate it safely with the aid of a trained medical professional.
And even so and after all that, what does it truly matter what I think? Even if I did actually think only a very specific subset of humanity should be permitted to have sex and that we should take a page from Buck v. This rolls right back into my original post from which you excised the snippet for commentary: humans, and their interactions, are inherently dynamic. One size fits all legislation and algorithmic thinking are cumbersome at best and dangerous at worst.
The largest single use of a Presidential campaign at this point is to build a stronger party for the future. Part of this is selling the public on our positions. Part of this is creating stronger state and local organizations for future elections, in particular by sharing the donor, volunteer, and contact information generated by the campaign with state and local organizations.
Not only did the campaign not share the information, but under the agreement between the LNC and the campaign the information will never be released by the LNC beyond the LNC to the states. Unprincipled candidates getting a higher than normal vote total due to a record level of disgust with the major party candidates, and due to no better funded, higher profile, minor party or independent candidates being in the race, and none of the ones who were in the race having 50 state plus DC ballot access, is not a great accomplishment.
How can you not see the irony of these statements when you call for restricting liberty of migration? Are saying you are so weak-willed that if you watch Carlson or Maddow, you will be persuaded by their arguments? Sometimes, I agree, sometimes I somewhat agree, sometimes I strongly disagree with both of them. Mostly I watch them to get a sense of where the left and right are coming from.
I find Tucker Carlson strange. Now, I know Ron is hardly the best on immigration, but he at least understands the economic arguments for open immigration. Me: I have a different perspective. W ran to the right of McCain and his father. He was within the mainstream of conservatives, probably perceived as less conservative than Reagan, more than his Dad. Rove may have done some micro-targeting on more contentious issues. They see an opportunity to stop being what they were and become something else.
Take Michelle Malkin, for example. That makes sense. I always thought Lou Dobbs would have been a more genuine and appropriate replacement for Bill OReilly.
Omnipotent Government the Rise of the Total State and Total War 3 2 by HAROLD ARROYO, JR. - Issuu
I am reflexively pro-immigration. Also, employment rates last I checked are at levels not seen since the s. Incomes have been stagnant for something like 2 decades. Whether this is due largely to immigrants is unlikely. Gore won the election, Bush won the court case. It disgusts me how anti-immigrant conservatives use a few horrible crimes by illegal immigrants to whip up anti-immigrant hatred. RE: economic stagnation. National security states are not prosperous. Well, they are for some people, but not the majority. Talk about a welfare state!
It has nothing with perspective or interpretation; it has do with facts. That the Bush campaign made opposition to gay marriage the fundamental issue of the campaign was a fact. Were you alive in ? Were you paying any attention? Ditto with the national security state.
When Carlson or Maddow point in a direction different from the positions I hold, I take the opportunity to reconsider my position in a new light, particularly if their views have at least SOME merit. I continue to hope for a reversal of SS, a winding down of the national security state but not an abolition of it , and for a welcoming immigration policy. It does if you are comparing payments by, and government transfers to, immigrants to those of natives.
Which is what you were doing. Scroll back up and see what YOU wrote:. It was still the case in 08, iirc, as Obama took that position, too. Highly recommended. Open-mindedness Allowing your mind to serve as open garbage dump can be quite liberating. I did watch them at one time, back in the day of standard definition television.
However, in a HD world, that shit is bad carnival…I got better things to do with my time. Let me try this: I am still convinced that immigration should be encouraged. I am simply wondering whether the net benefits are overstated. And you apparently forgot the Bushies turned to their conservative base on the Supreme Court to win that election. The Rove base strategy started in , ramped up in the midterms and then went overdrive in Um, the difference was that Bush wanted to make it illegal at the federal level while Kerry opposed enforcing legality at the federal level.
You were asleep back then…. And the net benefits would require honesty on both sides of the ledger. In fact, I distinctly recall the Bush firewall in SC that relied in accusing McCain of fathering an illegitimate black child…. The Cato Institute is compromised. Some policies might optimize the net benefits of immigration and others might dampen it. I see. Immigrants are incremental additions to the nation.
I do believe I view immigration as a privilege. I would say the nation clearly has benefited from immigration for most of our history. My guess is immigration is still strongly a net benefit, but that its value to the nation as a whole has passed a point of diminishing returns. Wow, I remember people telling others not to jump to conclusions and not to risk messing things up in Florida when presented with definitive proof that Ramsey is a neo-nazi with ties to white-nationalist organizations.
Now, a dumb Facebook post is made you can come down on either side of whether this was an appropriate message or not, the real questions, in my opinion, is whether this is suspension worthy and of greater importance to the Florida problem, which I think should be the main focus of the party and these people are suddenly willing to do something. Is this not a bigger problem? Our issues seem to be even worse, YOU endorsed a neo-nazi does anyone know if he rescinded this? That comes from a reliable source on the LNC. For those who have a problem with Arvin Vohra to get behind another candidate and try to replace him via election in New Orleans; or for those who have a problem with Arvin Vohra to try to convince the LNC to remove him.
I advocated removing Weld because he was not just not doing his job, he was doing the exact opposite of his job. I have yet to hear any allegation that Vohra has not done his job, the details of which are right there in the bylaws. Apart from being a blood thirsty lunatic, he gives credence to the notion that atheism is itself just another religion. The only difference I see is whether or not Thomas Knapp counts himself among those offended. If he does, then the LNC should overturn the results of the convention a month before the election.
How come he never called for their removal? Elizabeth Van Horn elizabeth. Thank you Elizabeth. I will co-sponsor this motion. Alicia Mattson wrote: After spending time reading through the actual comments in question, I am willing to co-sponsor a motion for suspension. The only proposed motion unambiguously has four co-sponsors, so it must roll forward to a vote.
If Vohra is suspended, he can appeal to the Judicial Committee. Not angels-dancing-on-pin jousting but actually addressing local spending, policing, taxes, and other things that voters care about. But I will grant the LNC members, the reality that their options are more limited and worse when it comes to dealing with a state affiliate gone awry, vs. I think the Arvin situation has been boiling for a while with some of them, so it mgiht have been a tipping point. You were OK with Bill Weld saying that assault rifles should be banned, and that handguns were a problem?
You were OK with Gary Johnson saying that private bake shop owners should be forced to bake cakes for people whom they do not want to bake cakes for? The motion may or may not be valid, because it fails to specify the cause, but there are not four motions, there is only one motion, the motion being the words I quoted. On one hand, the motion may well need to have a cause specified in the motion, so that the accused can defend himself.
Harlos, Mr. Katz, Mr. Redpath, Mr. Goldstein, Mr. McKnight, and Ms. Van Horn have requested that the LNC hold an electronic meeting for the purpose of considering suspension of Mr. That date and time is required to be at least 7 days in the future from when the meeting is called.
My recommendation would be for the people who would like the electronic meeting to agree on a convenient time to hold the meeting and resubmit their request with that date and time. All members who are interested in how electronic meetings are called, cancelled, and conducted are encouraged to read Section 1. End quote. So exactly where did he say what?
What did he say or write before spring of that was so obnoxious? I keep waiting for evidence, if anyone wants to do a probably difficult search. Or just remember? What happened in the winter and spring ? First there was an aggressive attack on the Libertarian Party of Florida and a Pennsylvania libertarian event by individuals who are best described as white nationalists, no matter their current claims to be just libertarian conservatives, or whatever. Then Vohra wrote a poorly worded, and initially poorly defended, statement regarding the morality of soldiers, in line with his recommendation the LP do outreach to schools to warn kids the US might require them to become defacto murderers.
At some point he may foolishly written all soldiers are murderers, but he did apologize for his angry statements to libertarians and the national committee. A convention Ryan Ramsey later threatened he and his crew would protest and disrupt because having it in NOLA insulted the confederacy; he wanted to move it to the hallowed grounds of Vicksburg, MS. Arvin obviously has been the least expert and most annoying and provocative of the critics of nationalist militarists and often sexually uptight conservatives.
Note that i have been very harsh with the white nationalists and defenders myself, making lots of mocking memes, posts, blog entries and emails exposing their non-libertarian views and actions. I just wish Arvin had controlled his temper and focused on those issues, instead of trying to turn off conservatives by bringing up the most outlier interpretations of hard core libertarian views.
Especially those which he knows too little about to discuss coherently! Thus, my thoughts on why Arvin Vohra should resign his LNC position and withdraw from the libertarian vs. He should concentrate on learning to promote libertarian issues effectively and doing a really great Senate campaign. My recollection is that Ramsey derided and mocked that event starting well before it happened. I never did quite figure out why, except that he and Augustus Invictus had had some kind of breakup.
I think he does it to throw people off. He is of course forgetting that the website he used to write blog posts for attack the system or something like that had links to alt-right websites on the side. Finally blocked him. His antics were cutting into my poker and guitar time. Actual removal is looking more and more likely, as opposed to merely a vote. Between the electronic meeting and the email ballot 7 different cosponsors with some overlap, although they are not necessarily all yes votes for removal.
And see the latest exchange on LNC list:. Their purpose was to bait enough party members into having a cow that the LNC would feel forced to put on a public shit-show that could be used to further weaken the party. LNC members have been putting up dopey comments for as long as social media has existed. Mission accomplished. I like that idea. Those who have kids they cannot afford, and then have 15 more they cannot afford, are violating that. Arvin is talking about a lot more than age of consent.
What next? Jesus fucking Christ. Explicitly disavow anarchism in the platform. At that point, the lunatics who want to blather on about abolishing age of consent laws or calling servicemembers murderers can self-select out of the party. No one could plausibly suggest that. We just stick our heads in the sand and hope no one brings it up? The only way to ensure the dopes stay out of the party is to make sure they self-select out before joining.
It would have gone down no other way. The only reason its taking so long is because there is no public pressure on the party. Without looking it up, I have no idea who the Vice Chairs of the D, R, G, C etc parties currently are much less what stupid things they may have said. And two of those parties get a lot more media attention than we do. Harsh reaction from within the party. From the mainstream media and dinosaur parties, not a peep. Which is exactly what the wreckers have conned some members, who have in turn bullied the LNC, into doing. Anon-Tipper, sorry, I thought you meant from the party.
But no amount of brain mutilation or drug consumption can remove him from the party. He can remove himself from the party by rescinding his certification. IF Ls want to be in a position of making change — a big IF — who they associate with politically becomes a vtal consideration.
Before you continue your call to turn the Libertarian Party into the Reform Party, you might want to read your history and see how that turned out. Hell, they came within one vote of nominating me for VP in Is that the LP you really want? That Reform Party was a vestige of the 90s Reform Party.
But you seem to keep employing the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is either a slavish, literal, dogmatic adherence to the NAP, or there are NO principles whatsoever. This is untrue. These principles need not dictate each and every step toward freedom, which itself is a rather murky goal. Is there a bylaws demanding empathy?
Is there some objective reason to believe that political effectiveness requires empathy? Has empathy held our movement back, in that it leads people to refuse to speak out against things like government school use, and focus on things that are nice, like issues no one on earth, including most libertarians, know about or care about? We need less empathy, not more, for this movement to do what it needs to. You can rest assured, if this occurred during an election season, and we had even ONE candidate threatening for a US Congress seat, this would most assuredly be brought up to that candidate.
Surely the dinosaur party candidates opposed to our candidate would be bringing it up. The comments could have been surreptitiously recorded at a private family gathering and the LP would have no option other than to throw him out on his ass immediately. Grow up, Vohra.
- Splash: A Sable World Novella (The Sable World).
- See a Problem?.
- Inclined to Liberty: The Futile Attempt to Suppress the Human Spirit by Louis E. Carabini?
- liberty the futile Ebook.
- Heart Healthy Lunches - Great Meals On the Go (Lower Cholesterol DIet)?
Do you want to instantaneously find out who the Vice Chair of the Democratic Party is? Have him post something on Facebook saying,. In others, he insisted the abuse of children as young as nine should be left to the discretion of their parents. Metaphorically speaking, of course. As you pointed out, for many of them, allegations alone were enough. Of course. Frankly, an organization that keeps someone like that around is just asking for trouble. Maybe not from ALL of them, but surely some of them. One of the supreme ironies I meditate on is how someone who seems relatively smart, like you, could be so completely and abysmally ignorant of the basics of realpolitik, yet so obsessed with riffing on it.
Springer: As for me, Mr. Do you even know what the law of the excluded middle is? The one who is presenting that is you. And once this NAPster dogma is seen for what it is, we generally hear about the Founders, their intentions, and the relevant Bylaws clauses. Vohra claimed that it was preferable for a fourteen-year-old to be impregnated by an adult, because then they would be less likely to collect welfare.
Now I owe myself a steak dinner. Meanwhile in Florida:. I wish I had listened to that guy who tried to talk me into buying FacePalmCoin when it was still going for 23 cents. Alison Foxall voted against removing Ramsey. I bet myself a few finger-bangs that several people would make predictable points that they always do whenever a discussion thread here gets to this length, as well as many other times. Yeah, people will justify that human trafficking and child trafficking by appealing to a freakin welfare state argument.
Silly me — I assumed it was more along the lines of blaming faeries for queering all your sure-thing bets at the track. Neither have I. Maybe Freud is hiding in my keyboard tonight. Silly, good-natured, repartee is all it is. Tom and Paulie are fun to chat with, and things sometimes spin off on absurd tangents. The Libertarian Party exists to give voice to the statement of principles and platform. The chances of changing that document to purge radicals and anarchist ideas from the party are precisely zero. I serve on the bylaws committee, which is actually reporting out a propsal to amend the party purposes.
But even that proposal does not suggest purging radicals or winning elections by jetisoning libertarianism. I find that your entitled sense that a party which has existed for 45 years should kick out half its members and completely change its focus to cater to some jerk is disgusting. Go peddle your shit to the Green Party or the Constitution Party. If the delegates are ever stupid enough to adopt a platform that contradicts the statement of principles alienating all the radicals , those changes will be immediately overturned by the judicial committee — as they should be. A few hundred volunteer sigs on the weekends in Ohio would be a great start.
If socially phobic, validate instead. Do you reject the glamour of coercion and refuse to be mastered by taxation? Do you reject Hobbes, the father of totalitarianism and the prince of Leviathan? Do you reject Bill Weld and all his empty promises? Yes, Bob. We have a party that was founded and ran for 45 years for one purpose. Now a few johnny-come-latelys want to seize those resources accumulated with decades of blood, sweat, and tears, employing them for a completely different purpose.
The correct response for that is: go fuck yourself. A much better path is to get off your ass and form your own damn party rather than trying to steal and subvert a party that will never jetison all its principles or purge half its members. He really went to crazy town in them, almost sounded like an alt-righter. Hmmm, I would say Hegel is the father of modern totalitarianism, and Hobbes should only partially be rejected. Hobbes is something like:. The Lockean liberal would disagree with Hobbes over the existence of the Hobbesian state of nature.
Say three Hail Rose Wilder Lanes and give up beer for a week if you desire absolution for your error. I happen to think the structure was deeply flawed, and it is a millstone that banishes the LP to the fringes in perpetuity. I consider this to be a shame, since I believe the LP could and should be a FAR more effective force for advancing peace and liberty.
I am certainly no king; this is simply my opinion. Resistance is futile, and more importantly, counter-productive. Statism is certainly sub-optimal, though, as I see it. Ditto for taxation. But I do pay taxes, reluctantly. Obviously scary smart. All Long Islanders know each other because of their overlapping CFR, country club, and grocery store rewards program memberships. Yes, I think I read that somewhere. I was living in the DC metro area at the time.
When visiting my Mom on LI she lived a few blocks from WW , the opportunity to meet him presented itself. Sounds kinda bad. Carlson, Maddow, and Harris. I listen to stuff like this when preparing for my day or when driving. I view him as a propagandist. Jones seems certifiable to me, and Stone is certainly a cagey cat. I was beside myself that Trump got the nomination and won the election. In any context I could think of, the guy should be nowhere near the levers of government power. What seemed obvious to me was apparently not obvious to strong minorities.
Far be it from me to try and figure out why an anarchists would want to be the member of a political party anyway, but what I did call for, and have called for, as you can see from my post, is for the platform to disavow anarchism. Those are two different things. Neither should want to be in a political party anyway. Its either not well thought out, or for outright self-aggrandizing, destructive purposes. Sorry to break it to you, but in the political arena only, my strategy is far more effective than yours.
There are nonviolent drug offenders languishing in prison right now, and Pakistani children hiding in fear right now. I see no contradiction. As I see it, effective propaganda has to have truth in it. So, when I listen to propaganda outlets, I get a sense of how they weave truth into their political agendas. I might become a progressive if only I heard a better case for that philosophy.
I also view my dalliances with the right and left to be kind of opposition research. By listening to other sides, I tighten my own arguments, finding places where my old positions might need some revising or repackaging. One of the takeaways from the first L, Lao Tzu, taught us is to get comfortable with paradoxes.
Disavowing anarchism in the platform will draw out the anarchists unwilling to sacrifice. I can imagine that an actual anarchist could participate in a de-fringed libertarian party. This is madness! And, as you point out, its a sop to a faction that is vanishingly small, would be replaced 1,fold by lessarchists not yet in the party and replaced several million-fold in terms of dollars. I agree that I was mistaken. That group does exist. Anything that does that is winning. Would it be possible to amend the platform to disavow anarchism?
There would be two ways to go about that:. Of course, either of those is about as likely as getting the House of Lords to accept those old papers you found in your attic explaining why you, and not Charles or his progeny, are the legitimate heir to the throne of England.
So you might want to consider other options:. Its definitely the easier path. We can then honor the SoP in the breach, rather than in the observance. My preference about getting the SoP changed or getting a convention to disavow anarchism is a pipe dream at this time, of course. But the anarchists are wrong on 2. Of course, I implore them to change my mind by winning elections.
Obviously, we need to do more of it so that it will start working. I also view my dalliances with the right and left to be kind of opposition policy position research. By listening to other sides, I tighten plagiarize my own arguments, finding places where my old positions might need some revising or repackaging. I have no interest in trying to purge anarchists or create some no-anarchists litmus test.
That would just be silly. I strongly disagree. Mostly they pay attention to whether or not he got caught in a motel room with a dead girl or a live boy, and if so how entertaining his excuse is. And that latter factor is becoming more and more important ever since Monica Lewinsky — politics as salacious entertainment. Do you think it was harder on you than it was on Trump, or on Hillary Clinton having to make that call from the other side of things?
Well, of course you would. I never said that you were a member of anything, or a part of any nefarious plot. I just asked how it is that you were able to meet Bill Weld inside his house. Can you tell us the backstory on this, and what happened while you were there? Also, when did this happen? It is a club whose membership includes lots of mainstream politicians and other mainstream movers and shakers. They are about as ruling establishment as you can get.
Do you like the ruling establishment? Do you have any problems with the way the ruling establishment operates? If the answers to these questions is no, then this alone should send up red flags for anyone who is a member of the CFR, or for anyone who surrounds themselves with CFR members. So all Gary Johnson did was hop on board what has now become a popular trend, that is taxing and regulating marijuana, but when it came to the War on Drugs, he and Bill Weld basically justified the war on other drugs.
We might be able to get the nonviolent weed smokers out and marijuana de-scheduled if we nominate a pair of ex-governors with a moderate message and a commitment to work with Congress generally speaking. Proggies often demonstrate a continued active interest in the LP platform and freely publicize it quite often. You know, back when David Koch was the VP candidate. He and Weld were pressed on the issue of legalizing other drugs, and they clearly said no, even when pressed on the issue. All they did was jump on what had already become a popular trend.
This was not pushing a bold libertarian agenda, or even much of an incrementalist libertarian agenda. I fail to see how jumping on board with a trend that was already happening without them really did anything to advance the cause of liberty. Pot worked pretty well for thousands of years until the progressive era made it illegal a century ago for the explicit purpose of brown people social control. If the Libertarian Party, and its candidates, would get more active in promoting jury nullification, something which I have been pushing for many years, this would go a long way toward ending the War on Drugs regardless of whether or not Libertarians get elected.
It would of course be great to get more Libertarian elected, but reality is that the LP is not anywhere close to being able to elect anyone President, and this is true regardless of who the party puts on its presidential ticket. I would say we all develop our positions on issues based on arguments we hear from others.
Even in the narrow band of L schools, there is some slight differences in positions. Well, no. We DID nominate a pair of ex-governors with a moderate message and a commitment to work with Congress generally speaking. And we know what happened. Absolutely…I tear down the authoritarian pretenses when I find them. And its a target rich environment …. This would be true of MANY controversial issues. While there are several unknowns, by my tentative count there are only four, maybe five, firm no votes on removal. It would take six no votes to defeat the motion, assuming all 17 are present and vote.
There are seven or eight confirmed-yes or leaning-yes. It could go either way, but I was originally pretty dismissive myself of the chances it could pass. Anyone else counting LNC noses on this? Agree or disagree with these projections? Why or why not? Who do you think are the likely yes votes, likely no votes and persuadables at this point? My guess is that the removal motion will pretty much be out of gas by the time they can get a meeting firmly scheduled. So if the opponents play their cards correctly, they can force the can to be kicked down the road until the next actual LNC meeting.
I advocate maximal peace and liberty and minimal government interference in private matters, or some such. I might also count hawkish Randroids to some extent. Non-voters are effectively voting no, because a vote of, say, 11 to 0 fails. I assume that LNC members are getting quite a bit of email on the matter of Mr. I just sent all of them a short, not particularly argumentative, note myself. Chair at lp. Demarest at lp. Thanks for asking. Rothbardians tend to answer specific issues in a discernible way, Longites another, Cosmotarians another, Paulistas another.
Do you see? At 30, feet, they all might say something like what dL says. I need more granularity, if he i think would be kind enough to share. Yes, I think he may well be the head of Opus Dei! While many statistics for the LP are better than comparable years of recent times, it seems we keep having a series of public relations scandals accompanied with lots of outrage.
The convention stripper, the mysterious death in the hotel, Aleppo, Hillary, the No More Pauls meme, the Satanic Panic, the Alt-Right, the fascists, are soldiers murderers, are public school teachers and students welfare queens, and of course the current topic, age of consent, come to mind.
While some of the scandals are inadvertent, the possibility of reaching a large audience might also inadvertently be inciting scandals by opportunists. I was wondering if perhaps the Social Media Process Review Committee or some other committee could take on the task of doing some research on best practices related to damage prevention and reach on social media. Cultural changes are very difficult, but perhaps they could find some information that might help encourage a more positive culture among Libertarians on facebook, and sharing of the good stuff while shunning the bad stuff.
Scandals in Libertarian circles have been erupting since I joined the party 20 years ago, and they happen in the other parties, too. Some people are likely no votes, but in favor of the meeting. The next actual LNC meeting is in April, so I expect they will probably be able to schedule something well before that. That concern is: Does the LNC want to spend half its time, until the sun burns out, deciding whether or not to remove members every time someone gets mad? For any LNC members with that concern, the optimal course is to not even let it get to the point of a meeting and a vote.
The problem with Wes saying this is that he has applied this same logic to people telling other people in the party that the Florida party is being taken over by alt-righters. Fix our habits first. And if you are in a leadership position, that means not saying stupid stuff to anyone, anywhere, for any reason. Once the catastrophically self-destructive learn to shut their traps or not run for leadership positions, we have a better chance to ensure that only professionals concerned with growing the party are in such positions.
Sticking our heads in the sand is not an option. Gary Johnson out of the party. I think that the people who are going on endlessly about Arvin are amplifying all the negative impacts on party image that they claim to be worried about, although as I have also indicated Arvin has said some things that I think are not just wrong but bizarre.
On the other hand that amplifying is not going to go away, so unless and until there is a removal vote the clamor for one will just increase. The only way countries, parties, movements and scenes have fought back fascist incursion any time anywhere that I know of is by actually fighting back, often physically and at the very least in a determined and forthright way.
As far as the other things Wes mentions what was the mysterious death in the hotel? Wes is at HQ. He wants things to be smooth and drama-free. Finally, he IS speaking for the entire party when he assumed the position of Vice Chair. Anytime, anywhere, up to including whispering it in bed to no one other than his sexual partner. I think he might have been some sort of doctor, he looked a little like David Friedman. This is their third attempt in less than a year. The first two got shut down without too much damage. Why is Sarwark working to promote a film produced by a child sex predator?
Sarwark working to promote this film? Is he aware that Daniel Thompson is the producer of this film? If he is aware of these things when did he become aware of them? Has Daniel Thompson been convicted, or have a prior history, or multiple accusers? Do you know them or are you just working yourself up in a lather and throwing out accusations? So should somebody be removed from office for using nasty language even though what they said did not violate any libertarian principles? Should a person be removed for cussing? Sorry about that. Snark works better with real facts.
Capital, including human capital, moves to where it can be best invested. Maybe we have finally found something the FDA should regulate…. It is no coincidence that this is an issue pushed by left wing commies and New World Order globalists. Thugs with guns. You must mean how you want to use the guns of the state to force multi-culturalism onto the rest of the population, property rights be damned. Forced integration is not libertarian. Mass immigration is really working out well in Europe right now sarcasm intended.
It is working out so well that it has caused a huge increase in crime and welfare consumption, and polls indicate that most Europeans are getting fed up with it. After years of welcoming Muslim refugees with open arms, most Belgians are now fed up with Muslim immigrants taking from the welfare system, refusing to assimilate and spreading violence throughout the western European nation.
Stories like this have become all too common thanks to mass migration of hostile people from third world countries. Iranian immigrant strangled allotment secretary with lawnmower cord after charity gave him his own plot, court hears. Grandmother Lea Adri-Soejoko, 80, was attacked at the allotments where she worked and strangled with cords from a lawnmower and one from her own anorak.
More like one of a kind. Probably the most serviceable basket for my purposes is Longite, although your malicious style is more Rothbardian. If you believe that Longism or dL-ism is universally grokked, I suggest you consider getting out more. Yes, employment participation rates seem the better measure. After a few bong hits in the dorm room, I see it, too. I can think of attendant risks to the citizenry from excessive or unchecked immigration. The different sects you name are all different ways some better, some worse, depending on who you ask of arguing that proposition.
And yet you seem to do so with some regularity, and occasionally even get into confrontations with gang enforcers about your alleged right to do so. I think he? Especially given his? And while your at it, maybe you can answer this question, too. Why do white supremacists love tucker carlson? Why white supremacists love Tucker Carlson pic. Well, I like the writings of a lot of European dudes, and Je Jasay is certainly one of them. However, he is one the few that are still alive. If so, good riddance. Can he by any chance give Ramsey, Brandi and Chris Rose a lift on his way there?
He changed his voter registration in Florida from LPF to something else. However, if he remains a national member, the question becomes whether or not LPF gets to replace him on the national platform committee position to which they appointed him. If he is still a national member and still considers himself a platform committee member, then presumably there will have to be some discussions within LPF about what to do about it, and with national about what can be done and by whom.
My understanding is that my state party has just passed a motion calling for the removal of the vice chair. I am rather disappointed in their doing so or at least how they have gone about passing this motion. I would point out that those that have spoken to can not produce a copy of the motion.
My expectation is that if an Officer is to be removed that they be given a fair hearing where the causes justifying their removal and evidence supporting the causes as well as a defense by the officer are presented. Here is where the Washington State Executive Committee seems to have gotten it backwards. The expectation of justice here in the United States states you have a hearing before passing judgement.
Not the other way around. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. I have a response from Caryn that states Washington has passed a motion for her to support sensor and removal and then claims that is different from my understanding.
My understanding is that the Washington State Excom has instructed you to participate in a lynching before a hearing. The question Caryn is are you going to do so? The motion appears to be the precursor to a hearing, at least for Roberts folks. My recollection of the attack on Angela Keaton is that there had to be a motion on the floor with adequate notice before anything else could happen. Thanks, I fail how to see that this could proceed without a hearing before the LNC.
Andy Craig, without a stated motion from the Libertarian Party of Washington I am going to contest their inclusion in their list. Interesting perspective. Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas.
There is nothing to learn from race-baiting profiteers like Carlson…of course, other than how to spin his arguments. It is what it is. So it may well be that it is what it is…for you. However, you have some of your facts wrong, and it sounds to me like you are wildly overreacting. Yes, thanks for clarifying.
Yes, I get it. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property. The first sentence is libertarian. The second is the addition that many libertarians argued would be used as authoritarian poison pill, a warning you have so aptly demonstrated to be absolutely valid based on your recent posts here. To wit:. I maintain it can be appropriate for a nation to check who is coming into the nation, and to ensure that taxpayers are not unduly burdened by such entry.
Say that immigration was fairly easy, but each immigrant was bonded, signed off they could not receive welfare benefits, and had to pay tuition for their children to go to public school? Violate any of those and the funds held in escrow were used to deport those who broke the terms of their green-card status? But crossing a border involves a meta-association with all the citizens of the nation.
While I disagree with most of the laws in the US, they are in place. I can tell the difference, but I refer to something called risk and exposure. In the current setup, new immigrants do represent a financial risk to taxpayers. Today there were no doubt immigrants — legal and illegal — sending their kids to government schools and using emergency rooms for primary medical care. I could ask you why you tolerate that freedom restriction for other taxpayers? I read the preamble and Article 1, Section 8 differently than you do, apparently.
What you are selling is virtually identical to Trump, Carlson and the HoppeBot peckerwoods. It is anti-immigrant entryist poison pill. And contrary to your postmodernist gobbledygook, you are not in the majority in the citizen collective condo complex. You might have the majority among the Charlottesville tiki torchers, but you are not in the majority elsewhere. And you certainly not in the majority of libertarians. The latter explains why that clause was a poison pill.
The other Hoppen argument made by Molyneux is that citizen interconnectivity more or less invalidated libertarian property rights and freedom of association. Because there is nothing that you do that does not affect the collective. So, its not really your private property to control and invite whom you please. I was in the room when that plank was drafted. Richard Spencer was not in the room! I voted for language because it seemed reasonable at the time, and it still does. I suspect there would be a lot more people trying to leave the US than enter if and when that was to happen.
But, if more people were still clamoring to enter the US than leave at that point, I think their entry would be a good thing, in that they would create more and better paying jobs for those already here that would not come to exist if they stay out. And why should such a bond scheme be limited to people who come into an area? Why not require it of anyone in the area, even if they were born in that area? I was aware you had something to do with that plank.
That is why I bothered to collect your comments. Obviously, this narrative does not contradict itself. But is it true? In some places, though, if you look really closely, I think you can see a stitch or too. Everything has a progressive answer, just as it has a conservative answer. There is no shortage of progressives to compose answers.
Of course, you will have to judge this yourself with your own good taste. Here, for example, is a Times story on the fight against malaria. Often, as with politicians, journalists speak the truth in a fit of absent-mindedness, when their real concern is something else. If you read the story, you might notice the same astounding graf that I did:. And the world changed. Independence movements led to freedom, but also often to civil war, poverty, corrupt government and the collapse of medical care. If I read this sentence, I would ask: what is this word freedom?
What, exactly, does this writer mean by freedom? Especially in the context of civil war, poverty, and corrupt government? What we see here is that independence movements — which the writer clearly believes are a good thing — led to some very concrete and very, very awful results, in addition to this curious abstraction — freedom.
Might we not be tempted to revisit this particular piece of arithmetic? No one believes this. You will not find anyone on Fox News or townhall. And what, exactly, is this word independence? It seems to mean the same thing as freedom , and yet, it is strange.
For example, consider this Post op-ed , by Michelle Gavin of the CFR, which starts with the following intriguing lines:. Today, Zimbabwe is a basket case of a country. In the case of Zimbabwe, however, this word seems to have changed strangely and taken on an almost opposite meaning. From La Wik :. The British government, the Commonwealth, and the United Nations condemned the move as illegal. So, strangely enough, the country now known as Zimbabwe declared independence in , much as the US declared independence in The former, however, was not genuine independence, but rather illegal independence.
In order to gain genuine, legal independence, the country now known as Zimbabwe had to first revert to British control, ie, surrender its illegal independence. Are you feeling confused yet? It gets better:. So: the independent rulers of the new, free Zimbabwe has refused to tolerate challenges to their power.
Thus, the international optimism held by Ms. Gavin who perhaps needed a bottle or two herself in and her ilk, has given way to pessimism, and the place is now a basket case. Gavin and her not-uninfluential ilk. This independence , as you can see, is a very curious thing. In the sense of doing its own thing and never, ever needing a bottle, there is actually one remarkably independent country in the world.
Aid from foreign governments was non-existent, making it unusual in Africa for its low level of dependence in foreign aid. While Somaliland is de-facto as an independent country it is not de-jure legally recognized internationally. This question is rather similar to question one. Unlike independence , I think everyone pretty much agrees on the definition of nationalism. Nationalism from the Latin natus, birth is when people of a common linguistic, ethnic, or racial heritage feel the need to act collectively as a single political entity.
German nationalism is when Germans do it, Vietnamese nationalism is when Vietnamese do it, black nationalism is when African-Americans do it, American nationalism is when Pat Buchanan does it. And this is where the agreement ends. Nationalism is a term referring to doctrine or political movement that holds that a nation, usually defined in terms of ethnicity or culture, has the right to constitute an independent or autonomous political community based on a shared history and common destiny.
Most nationalists believe the borders of the state should be congruent with the borders of the nation. Contemporary nationalists would argue that the nation should be administered by a single state, not that a state should be governed by a single nation. Occasionally, nationalist efforts can be plagued by chauvinism or imperialism. Fortunately, contemporary nationalists reject the racist chauvinism of these groups, and remain confident that national identity supersedes biological attachment to an ethnic group.
Everything between them is pure nonsense as far as I can tell, but note the direct contradiction of the first and the last sentences. How can you be a nationalist , even a contemporary nationalist , if you believe that national identity supersedes biological attachment to an ethnic group? Should I make violence and terror and bomb until I get it? Should I make violence and terror and bomb? They noticed that America and her friends were very much committed to national self-determination , that is, unless you happened to be German.
Czech nationalism was good — very good. German nationalism was bad — very bad. Once you start looking for this little stitch in the canvas, you find it everywhere. It is good, very good, to be a black nationalist. Indeed, every reputable university in America has a department in which students can essentially major in black nationalism. On the other hand, it is bad, very bad, to be a Southern nationalist.
Any connection to Southern nationalism instantly renders one a pariah. Of course, Southern nationalists have sinned. But then again, so have black nationalists. Are Americans, black or white, really better off for the activities of the Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam, or even the good Rev. Similarly, it is good to be a Vietnamese nationalist. It is still bad to be a German nationalist, or a British nationalist, or even a French nationalist.
Germans, Brits, and Frenchmen are supposed to believe in the common destiny of all humanity. Vietnamese, Mexicans, or Czechs are free to believe in the common destiny of Vietnamese, Mexicans, or Czechs. This one may have changed. Okay, they murdered ten million people or so. Baker is a progressive and pacifist of immaculate credentials his previous achievement was a novel which fantasized about assassinating President Bush , and what Human Smoke drums into you is not a specific message, but the same thing I keep saying: the pieces of the picture do not fit together.
For example: we are taught that the Nazis were bad because they committed mass murder, to wit, the Holocaust. On the other hand And, of course, c : the Allies positively reveled in the aerial mass incineration of German and Japanese civilians. They did not kill six million, but they killed one or two. There was a military excuse for this, but it was quite strained. In fact, it was a lot better.
But was it a lot lot better? And as Baker does not mention, our heroes, the Allies, also had no qualms about deporting a million Russian refugees to the gulag after the war, or about lending hundreds of thousands of German prisoners as slave laborers to the Soviets. The idea of World War II as a war for human rights is simply ahistorical. If Nazi human-rights violations were not the motivation for the war that created the world we live in now — what was? Furthermore, Baker, who is of course a critic of American foreign policy today, sees nothing but confusion when he tries to apply the same standards to Iraq and to Germany.
If Abu Ghraib is an unbridgeable obstacle to imposing democracy by force on Iraq, what about Dresden or Hamburg and Germany? Or is Iraq just different from Germany? Beyond this is the peculiar asymmetry in the treatment of fascist mass murder, versus Marxist mass murder. Both ideologies clearly have a history of mass murder. Yet somehow, today, fascism or anything reminiscent of it is pure poison and untouchable, whereas Marxism is at best a kind of peccadillo.
North Korea is clearly somewhat Stalinist, while apartheid South Africa had looser but still discernible links to Nazism. I welcome anyone who wants to claim that South Africa, whose border fences were designed to keep immigrants out, was a worse violator of human rights than North Korea, an entire country turned into a prison. Again: this is just weird.
As with nationalism, each individual case can be explained on its own terms. Put all the cases together, and double standards are everywhere. And yet the inconsistencies do not seem random. And yet X does not appear in the explanation. But why? Again, we are left with pure confusion.
Inclined to Liberty: The Futile Attempt to Suppress the Human Spirit
It is simply not possible that the horizon is made of canvas. And yet our boat has crashed into it, and left a big rip. In part 1 , which should be read first, we looked at three anomalies in progressive political thought: a surprising definition of the word independence , an oscillatory ambivalence around the concept of nationalism , and a chiral gradient in sensitivity to human rights violations. These particular anomalies are not just progressive.
They are in fact modern. They are generally shared across the conservative-progressive spectrum. They are even shared by most libertarians — except maybe the Randians, who have epistemic troubles of their own. They are simply as close to universal as it comes. Unless, of course, the past is allowed to dissent. Because when we look backward a little, we see that these ideas come along quite recently. They are fresh. Very fresh. To a progressive, of course, this is mere progress. But if you are also an evolutionary geneticist, you might also call it a selective sweep.
Obviously, our anomalies have some competitive advantage. But what might that advantage be? After all, people would rather think thoughts that are good and sweet and true. They would also prefer to share such with their friends. Since this is after all the 21st century, perhaps we can enliven our proceedings with a little mixed media. At least, the blue car gets away. If you were fooled sorry , try watching it again with this perspective. If you really are a progressive, when you try to connect the clip above which might well have been staged with the broad sweep of human history, you will think of Hitler or Mussolini or maybe even George W.
Because our protagonist is behaving exactly like them. His actions are tribal , territorial , and predatory. If you sneaked in — who knows what you think. Something awful, I suspect. Kids, this presentation is not for you. In any case, thanks for participating in our first experimental test of URTV. More videos are not coming soon. We will continue by assuming two things about the null hypothesis. Two is that any small ways in which it may be imperfect are a minor, b accidental, and c either self-correcting or at least correctable.
Since this is basically what progressives and most non-progressives believe, it is only fair to start with it. It is easy to note that progressives, as well as most non-progressives, express these mental adaptations. It is hard to understand why. This is especially true since progressive thought seems to lack any sort of theology, which can explain just about anything.
Why are people with red hair and blue eyes evil? So our three anomalies have three things in common. One: progressives have explanations for all of them, but these explanations seem less than usually compelling. And three: there is a single anti-progressive hypothesis, which is obviously on its face wrong or at least incomplete, but can at least be explained in terms that do not require a gentleman to hurl his Sartor Resartus at his dinner companions, and seems to explain them all quite nicely with plenty of headroom left over.
And I can tell you that it is simply impossible to mistake a transnational bureaucrat or tranzi for an SS officer, or vice versa. As anyone who has ever known any number of progressives knows, progressives are generally decent, intelligent and well-meaning people. Moreover, this fact does not stop at the edges of government. By definition, decent, intelligent and well-meaning people are not predatory. But, not endorsing this false hypothesis, but simply using it as a tool of argument, it sure is interesting to look at how nicely it explains our little anomalies.
It may or may not be productive to replace three poorly explained phenomena by one incorrect assumption. But at least it reduces the number of problems. What exactly is a multilateral declaration of independence? Well, on the sweet and good and true side, MDI seems to involve a change in the ethnicity of government officials. Foreign officials are replaced by native-born officials.
Clearly, for example, it would be an outrage for true-born Americans to be governed by a dirty no-good Mex — oh, wait. Ethnicity means nothing to us. Well, the postcolonial regimes are no longer controlled from overseas. They can do whatever they want. Sure they are. Or the Democratic Party? One test we can apply for independence , which should be pretty conclusive, is that the structures of government in a genuinely independent country should tend to resemble the structures that existed before it was subjugated — rather than the structures of some other country on which it may happen to be, um, dependent.
These structures should be especially unlikely to resemble structures in other newly independent countries, with which it presumably has nothing in common. In other words: after , did the Third World become more Westernized or less Westernized? Did it revert to its pre-Western political systems, rejecting the foreign tissue like a bad transplant? Or did it become a more and more slavish imitation of the West?
There is exactly one region in which the former happened: the Persian Gulf. Not that the Gulf states are utterly un-Westernized, but their political systems are clearly the least Western in the world. There are also two exceptions in Africa: Somaliland , which fell through the cracks, and Botswana , which has diamonds. You will sometimes hear Botswana described as a model of African democracy. How fortunate that the Botswanan people should be so wise as to elect, as their first President, none other than their hereditary monarch.
In practice the place is more or less run by De Beers , on the good old United Fruit model. Across most of the Third World, however, we see a very simple transition: from the traditional forms of government and tribal leaders whom the British, French, Rhodesians, etc, supported at a local or even regional level in the policy of indirect rule , to a new elite selected and educated in Western missions, schools and universities.
Moreover, the rhetoric of tiers-mondisme is and was almost the same everywhere. If Algeria and Vietnam were truly growing up and following their own destinies, you might think the former would be ruled by a Dey and the latter by emperors and mandarins. And finally, perhaps the subtlest aspect of dependency is power dependency. To whom did this rash of fresh presidents, congresses and liberation fronts owe its existence?
For that matter, who cares about all these people now? Why does a vast river of cash still flow from European and American taxpayers to these weird, camo-bedecked, mirrorshaded thugs? Well, one theory is that the brave liberation fronts seized power through their own military prowess. Or the unquenchable anger of the people at foreign domination, which could no longer be repressed. Or the fiery will of the workers, which blazed out once too often. Or the shining light of education, which brought the dream of democracy to our little brown brothers.
Sometimes the friends were in Paris, sometimes they were in London, sometimes they were even in Moscow. But for the most part they were in New York and Washington. Note that the English language has a perfectly good word for a regime which appears to be independent, but in reality is dependent. A muppet state is not quite a puppet state. It delivers a far more lifelike impression of individual identity. It has not just an invisible hand supporting it from below, but invisible strings pulling it from above.
In fact, muppet states often appear quite hostile to their masters. De Gaulle had to cause problems for the British and Americans, because his whole story was that he represented the true spirit of oppressed France — rather than being just some guy that Churchill set up in an office, which is of course exactly what he was. Furthermore, because a blatant display of puppetry would have been no use to the Allies, they had to tolerate his acting out. We have the perfect example: the Warsaw Pact, and its assorted flunkeys in Africa and Asia. In fact, we have two evil muppet empires to look at, because the Maoists spun off their own.
The Marxist-Leninist muppet states all insisted fervently that they were liberated, independent, etc, and that their alliances were brotherly partnerships of equals, with their own Politburos and everything. And of course the whole enterprise was run by Comrade Brezhnev, from the white phone in his petit salon. So from our counterfactual perspective, the story of the Third World is quite clear. In the second half of the 20th century, the Third World passed from its old colonial masters, the British, French and Portuguese, who were certainly no angels but who were perhaps at least a little less brazen, to a new set of ruthless and cynical overlords, the Cold War powers, whose propaganda skills were matched only by the devastation that their trained thugs unleashed.
Major continents such as Africa were reduced to desolate slums ruled by corrupt, well-connected fat cats , much of whose loot went straight from Western taxpayers to Swiss banks. If anything, the 20th century is more of the same, only more so. We see four basic structures of government: native rule with private Western trade, native rule under the protection of chartered companies or other monopolies like the East India Company , the British South Africa Company , Anaconda Copper , etc, etc , classic nationalized colonialism with indirect rule, and the postcolonial muppet states.
Across all these stages, as time increases, we see the following trends. One, the non-European world becomes culturally and politically Westernized. Two, more and more Westerners are employed in the actual task of governing them. And three, the profits accruing to the West from all of this activity dwindle away and are replaced by massive losses. Who benefits from these trends? Who loses? What you do see is social and political structures, whether native or colonial, that are clearly not American in origin, and that are unacceptable not only by modern American standards but even by s American standards.
And neither quite makes sense. The first hypothesis is very hopeful and reassuring, and most people believe it, but it has these odd, Orwellian tics in the way it uses English. And the second is, once again, quite counterfactual. I know these people. They are not at all predatory. They simply do not remind me, in any way, shape or form, of Corner Man. In other words: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Typical Machiavellian predatory behavior. It is always pleasant to depart from the bleak, mendacious twentieth century and return to its predecessor, whose leaders could be just as unscrupulous but who dressed much better. Quick association test! The unification of Italy — good or bad? A couple of years ago Mrs. Moldbug and I spent three weeks in Italy.
For the first week we split a villa in Cilento with some friends, which was lovely if a little buggy, and involved inhaling enormous quantities of Limoncello. Our first stop: Naples. The year-old city of Naples is a reeking, garbage-ridden sewer. This year there was an actual garbage strike , but the problem is perennial — there was a giant, seemingly permanent mound of it right across the street from our LP-recommended albergo. At all times, almost everyone on the street appears to be a criminal, especially at night.
The streets are ruinous, unlit, and patrolled by thieves on mopeds. We saw one pull up in front of an old lady carrying a bag of groceries, openly inspect her goods for anything worth stealing, then scoot away. From Naples you can take the Trans-Vesuviano to Pompeii. This train has a wonderful name, but its main purpose appears to be to transport criminals from the Stalinist banlieues in which they live, to the city in which in which they steal.
Signs in every language known to humanity warn the tourist that pickpockets are everywhere. The trains are stripped to the metal and covered with graffiti, which is not in Latin. As the train stopped at one station, we saw a couple of carabinieri carrying a body-bag away from the platform. The night after this we wandered the historic district of Naples, simply looking for one open-air cafe in which to sit and chat. Eventually we found one. We were pretty much the only people there. It was Saturday night. We moved on and discovered one clean thing in Naples — the new, EU-funded subway.
Tried a couple of stops. Everything was the same. Moldbug over to the funicula , which goes up the hill to the Vomero , a sort of internal suburb. Quelle difference! You go three hundred feet up a cliff, and you have gone from Cairo to Milan. We immediately found a wine-bar with an English-speaking hostess and enjoyed several lovely glasses. So we asked. And no one knew. Not the waitress, not anyone in the bar. These hip young people had no idea of the subway hours in their own city. I believe the waitress actually said something like, "why do you want to go there?
We hurried, and I think we got the last train. The next day, Mrs. So: Naples. Obviously, Naples being this way, I assumed that Naples had always been this way. That poor bastard on the Trans-Vesuviano had seen Naples, and died. Was it worth it? Until Naples was the political and administrative centre of the Kingdom of The Two Sicilies, the most beautiful kingdom in the world. Consisting of Southern Italy and Sicily, it had a land mass equal to that of Portugal and was the richest state in Europe For five generations — from till — it was ruled by a branch of the French and Spanish royal family of Bourbon who filled the city with monuments to their reign Until , glittering Court balls and regal gala nights at the San Carlo which staggered foreigners by their opulence and splendour were a feature of Neapolitan life There is far less beggary than in Rome, and far more industry At present, my impressions are very favourable to Naples.
It is the only place in Italy that has seemed to me to have the same sort of vitality which you find in all the great English ports and cities. Rome and Pisa are dead and gone; Florence is not dead, but sleepeth; while Naples overflows with life.
They have had a particularly bad press in the Anglo-Saxon world. Nineteenth-century English liberals loathed them for their absolutism, their clericalism and loyalty to the Papacy, and their opposition to the fashionable cause of Italian unity. Yet even now there is a mass of blind prejudice among historians. All too many guidebooks dismiss the Borboni as corrupt despots who misruled and neglected their capital. An entire curtain of slander conceals the old, pre Naples; with the passage of time calumny has been supplemented by ignorance, and it is easy to forget that history is always written by the victors.
However Sir Harold Acton in his two splendid studies of the Borboni has to some extent redressed the balance, and his interpretation of past events is winning over increasing support — especially in Naples itself. Undoubtedly the old monarchy had serious failings. Though economically and industrially creative, it was also absolutist and isolationist, disastrously out of touch with pan-Italian aspirations Beyond question there was political repression under the Bourbons — the dynasty was fighting for its survival — but it has been magnified out of all proportion.
On the whole prison conditions were probably no worse than in contemporary England, which still had its hulks; what really upset Gladstone was seeing his social equals being treated in the same way as working-class convicts, since opposition to the regime was restricted to a few liberal romantics among the aristocracy and bourgeoisie The Risorgimento was a disaster for Naples and for the south in general. Before the Mezzogiorno was the richest part of Italy outside the Austrian Empire; after it quickly became the poorest.
The facts speak for themselves. This gold was immediately confiscated by Piedmont — whose own reserve had been a mere 27 million — and transferred to Turin. And then the northerners imposed crushing new taxes. Far from being liberators, the Piedmontese administrators who came in the wake of the Risorgimento behaved like Yankees in the post-bellum Southern States; they ruled The Two Sicilies as an occupied country, systematically demolishing its institutions and industries. Vilification of the Borboni became part of the school curriculum. We are being plundered like an occupied territory.
Throughout the s , troops were needed to hold down the south. Note the pattern. What made Italian unification happen? Why did Ferdinand of Naples, with his million gold lire, just roll over for Charles Albert of Piedmont, with his mere 27? Where did exiles such as Mazzini and Garibaldi find their backers? Unless you count the American Revolution, perhaps the first and clearest case of this strange phenomenon — multilateral independence — was the Greek War of Independence. Lord Byron is of course the archetype. Again, these are the best and nicest people in the world, now or then.
So we have not solved the anomaly of nationalism. But at least we have reduced it to the same problem as our first anomaly, which has to be something. What happened to the Third World? It was devoured by predatory, cynical, bogus nationalism. Why would educated, cosmopolitan, and civilized thinkers support predatory, cynical, bogus nationalism? Again we hit the wall. Of course I hold no brief for Hitler.
And the Allies are therefore revered for defeating Hitler, wrapping the whole problem up in a neat little bow. The only problem with this human-rights theory of World War II is that it has no resemblance to reality. Which makes neo-Nazi claims that the Holocaust was Allied war propaganda grimly comical, to say the least. Put these facts together, and the human-rights theory of World War II makes about as much sense as the suggestion that Caesar invaded Britain because he wanted to see Manchester United play Chelsea.
So why did it happen? The nominal cause of the European war was that Britain wanted to preserve a free Poland. Much the same can be said with respect to the US and China. Note that what we are interested in, here, is not the motives of Hitler and Mussolini and Tojo. These men are dead and so are their movements. Our question is why said community had such a harsh reaction to Nazi Germany.
Especially since its response to Soviet Russia, which was just as aggressive and just as murderous, was so different. One simple answer, continuing our counterfactual, was that the fascist movement was a competing predator. Perhaps the Allies destroyed the Nazis for the same reason that a lion will kill a leopard, if it gets the chance: not because leopards are all that good to eat, but because there are only so many antelope in the world. Unfortunately, the waters here are freshly muddied by a half-educated bestseller which argues that fascism was really a left-wing movement.
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn , a far better writer, made the case far earlier and far more eruditely. He was still wrong. Fascism and Nazism were certainly creatures of the democratic era — nothing like them could have been imagined in the 19th century. They certainly borrowed many techniques of government from both liberals and Bolsheviks. And the experience of living in a totalitarian state does not much depend on whether that state is Communist, Fascist, Buddhist or Scientologist.
Nonetheless, Goldberg is wrong: there is a fundamental difference. In the s, there was no confusion at all as to whether the fascist movements were parties of the extreme Right or of the extreme Left. Everyone agreed. They were parties of the Right. Populist right-wingers to be sure, but right-wingers nonetheless.
For once, the conventional wisdom is perfectly accurate. For example, in Francesco Nitti nephew of a liberal Prime Minister by the same name published a book called Escape , about his escape from internal exile on an Italian island. In the preface, his uncle the PM explains Mussolini for the English-speaking reader:.
Mussolini represents a mediaeval adventure in Italy. Until some fifteen years ago, Communist and Anarchist, he defended regicide, anarchist crime, political assassination. He has written and predicted individual revolt. He has always considered all religions these are his very words like opium, to lull people to sleep. He has written and repeated for twenty years in his discourses that the abyss between Capitalism and the Proletariat should be filled with the heads of Capitalists.
Again in the year he incited workmen to occupy factories and to pilfer. In he laughed at the Belgian occupation and urged the Italians to rebel against those who wanted to drag them into the war. Not having succeeded in making a red revolution, he attempted a white reaction, taking advantage of the discontent after the war.
He succeeded with the help of a few generals and part of the army who wanted reaction Becoming Dictator, Mussolini has not only forswore all his past, but has introduced the most terrible reaction. All form of liberty has been suppressed; press liberty, association liberty, reunion liberty. Members of Parliament are practically nominated by the government. All political associations have been dissolved For those not versed in the color symbolism of 19th-century Europe, white is the color of reaction, just as red is the color of revolution.
Thus, Nitti is telling us, unlike the old socialist Mussolini, the new fascist Mussolini is a reactionary. Just like the Borboni. So, while the Soviets might be seen as a competing predator, fascism is something quite different. Fascism is a species of prey that unlike the Borboni decided to fight back. And it was not exactly averse to fighting dirty. Here is my perception of fascism: it was a reactionary movement that combined the worst ideas of the ancien regime , the worst politics of the democrats, and the worst tyrannies of the Bolsheviks.
And what was the result? It is every bit as vanished as the Borboni. For a reactionary, fascism is more or less a short course in what not to do. Even a lifetime later, our emotional responses to fascism and Nazism make these concepts very difficult to handle.
One way to step away from these associations is to look not at the Third Reich but at the Second — the strange regime of Kaiser Bill, and the war he made. A less loaded name for fascism might be neomilitarism. The ideology of Wilhelmine Germany was generally described as militarism , a perfectly accurate description. It was certainly reactionary, and also quite populist — for a monarchy. World War I was extremely popular in Germany, as in all countries. Under the Kaiser, the highest social status available was conferred by military rank. You might be a distinguished professor of physics, but if your reserve rank as a military officer was low or worse nonexistent, no one would talk to you at parties.
Why did the last survivors of the ancien regime become so aggressive and militaristic? Why, for example, did the German military jump at the opportunity to start a war in ? And we have already seen how the British dealt with reactionaries when they got the chance. The theory of the German General Staff in was that Germany, surrounded and besieged, had to attack or it would be gradually choked to death. This bit of Nazi propaganda from explains the German militarist theory of modern history quite well:. Although its homeland is relatively small, England has understood how to cleverly exploit others to expand its possessions.
It controls the seas, the important points along major sea routes, and the richest parts of our planet. The contrast between England itself and its overseas territories is so grotesque that England has always has a certain inferiority complex with respect to the European continent. Whenever a continental power reached a certain strength, England believed itself and its empire to be threatened.
England was not happy with the results of the war of France had secured its own colonial empire, and its shrinking biological strength left enough room for expansion within its own natural boundaries. Things were different in Germany. England knew that the German people were strong when they had good leadership, and that nature had given them limited, resource-poor territory with a limited coast. Great Britain kept an eye on Germany, all the more whenever Germany expressed its strength, even in the most natural ways.
We know that England did not want a true balance of power. It wants a situation in which England is always in a position with the help of its allies to have its way with a minority of confident, forward-moving nations. Obviously, this is propaganda. His memoirs are extremely readable — indeed, reading them one sees just why we have not seen the lamps lit again. Needless to say, to Lord Grey writing after the war , no one would ever dream of trying to encircle Germany. Rather, the German militarists are paranoid and jingoistic, constantly trying to enhance their domestic political position by triggering European crises.
And indeed the pot that boiled over at Sarajevo was by no means the first such crisis — Agadir is a fine example. The British, on the other hand, are simply doing their best to keep the peace. In the end they failed, Germany attacked Belgium without provocation, and British honor bound her to respond. I find Grey completely credible. I have no reservations about his sincerity.
He certainly strikes me as a far more trustworthy character than the slippery Palmerston, who really was a bit of a snake. And his summary of the causes of the war is peerless:. After Germany had no reason to be afraid, but she fortified herself with armaments and the Triple Alliance in order that she might never have reason to be afraid in future. France naturally was afraid after , and she made her military preparations and the Dual Alliance with Russia.
Britain, with a very small Army and a very large Empire, became first uncomfortable and than particularly when Germany began a big-fleet program afraid of isolation. Finally Germany became afraid that she would presently be afraid, and struck the blow, while she believed her power to be invincible. Heaven alone knows the whole truth about human affairs, but I believe the above sketch to be as near to a true statement of the causes of war as an ordinary intelligence can get in a few sentences.
And yet — did Germany, or more precisely the Hohenzollern monarchy, have no reason to be afraid? The Borboni were certainly caught napping. And note that, while Germany was challenging British naval hegemony, the overdog remained Britain and the underdog Germany. Who, exactly, had more reason to be afraid of whom? Grey is not exactly shy in waxing Palmerstonian about the contest between democracy and reaction:. We had no thought ourselves of going to war in because we supposed that sooner or later we should have to fight.
We just strove to prevent war happening at all. But when, in spite of our efforts, war came, it is well that we took our place in it and at the outset. The latent forces at work became apparent as the war proceeded, and the incidents in which the war originated were forgotten as these forces were revealed. It was a great struggle between the Kultur that stood for militarism and the free unmilitarist democratic ideal. It was the perception of this, whether consciously or unconsciously, that brought the United States into the war — the United States, which as a whole had cared little about the incidents that caused the war at the outset, and which did not as a whole then perceive it.
But it was the perception of it, revealed to us as the war developed, that made us know that we were fighting for the very life of what Britain and the self-governing Dominions cared for. We could not have escaped that struggle between militarism and democracy by turning our backs on the war in August The thing would have pursued us until we had to turn our backs and face it, and that would have been when it was even stronger and when we had become weak and isolated. Who sounds a little paranoid here? The British Empire covered the globe.
The forces of democracy and liberalism were clearly on the advance. Reactionary militarism was beleaguered. Did it absolutely have to be utterly crushed, right then and there, bang? Note that for most of World War I, it was Germany who wanted peace on the basis of the status quo, and the Allies who insisted that Germany be defeated and militarism eradicated. Perhaps Hitler considered his war a crusade to stamp out democracy forever, but the Kaiser did not. His opponents, however, felt no such compunctions. Grey reproduces a memo from his ambassador in Washington that states the basic German perspective, as of September German Ambassador has stated in Press that Germany is anxious for peace on basis of status quo , and desires no new territory, but that England has declared intention of fighting to finish for her selfish purposes, and is consequently responsible for further bloodshed.
Germany has planned this war and chosen the time for forcing it upon Europe. No one but Germany was in the same state of preparation. Treitschke and other writers of repute and popularity in Germany have openly declared that to crush Great Britain and destroy the British Empire must be the objective for Germany. We want to be sure that this idea is abandoned.
A cruel wrong has been done to Belgium — an unprovoked attack aggravated by the wanton destruction of Louvain and other wholesale vandalism. What reparation is Germany to make to Belgium for this? Clearly, it is not. His concern is setting a condition that the German militarists cannot accept without losing face, because his objective is to crush Germany and destroy the German Empire.
As he wrote in early Nothing but the defeat of Germany can make a satisfactory end to this war and secure future peace We must, however, be careful in stating our determination to continue the war to make it clear that our object is not to force, but to support our Allies. Increasing mischief is being made between us and our Allies by German propaganda. This propaganda represents the war as one of rivalry between Great Britain and Germany; it insinuates that France, Russia and Belgium could have satisfactory terms of peace now, and that they are continuing the war in the interest of Great Britain to effect the ruin of Germany, which is not necessary for the safety of the Allies, but which alone will satisfy Great Britain.
It is just possible that this insidious misrepresentation, false though it be, may create in France, Russia, Italy and Belgium a dangerous peace movement — a movement positively unfriendly to us. It would be well if we could all, Ministers and Press alike, strike one note, that of determination to help the Allies who have suffered the most grievous wrong, to secure the liberation of their territory, reparation for wrong done, and the advantages necessary for their future security.
We should emphasize the impossibility and disgrace of thinking of peace till the Allies are secure, but should let it be understood that it is for them whose territory is occupied by the enemy, whose population has been, and is being, so grossly ill-treated, rather than for us, to say when it is opportune to speak of peace. Till that time comes, we use all our efforts and make every sacrifice to defeat the enemy in the common cause, and have no other thought but this. If they would prefer peace, it is their place to speak of peace, not ours. Obviously I am not presenting it at its best.
It is simply impossible to think of him as a predator. And yet once again, it is difficult not to see the fangs. In any war, each side presents itself as the injured party, and the other side as the aggressor. Is Germany trying to crush Britain? Or is Britain trying to crush Germany? Or are they both aggressors? Again, we are at an impasse. We have a very tempting theory that seems to explain all of these anomalies quite neatly, but the theory is obviously not true.
Reject it, however, and the anomalies are back — and they seem to have friends. What to do? Okay, open-minded progressives. Quite a bushel of prose. And has any of it changed your mind? Are you ready to stop being a progressive, and start being a reactionary? Almost certainly not.
Doubt is a slow flower. You have to give it time. The great caravan of the past comes with quite a baggage wagon of paradoxes, each of which needs its own explanation. So, for example, by one set of standards which seem essential to the progressive mind, the end of colonialism was a great victory for humanity. By another set of standards which it is equally difficult to imagine rejecting, it was a vast human tragedy. Could it be both? A tragic victory, perhaps? Clio was always both poet and historian, and the idea of a tragic victory has definite Empsonian potential. On the other hand, however History is big.
When we study the errors of others, we see that nonsense often conceals the obvious. And what is nonsense, to those who believe in it? To a Catholic, what is the Trinity? A mystery. Some things are truly mysterious. But others have simple explanations. The Trinity is a compromise designed by a standards committee. History 1, mystery 0.
- 30 Healthy Desserts You Can Eat Every Day!
- Outside in!
- Inclined To Liberty: The Futile Attempt to Suppress the Human Spirit.
- Inclined To Liberty: The Futile Attempt to Suppress the Human Spirit | Mises Institute.
- A Heaven In The Ghetto: Poems of Truth, Love and Honor.
- Against Monopoly?
- Book Category: Economics;
I hate to beat this colonialism thing to death, but there is an odd little op-ed in the Times this morning. And yet how far away they are. Because why should John Darnton apologize? What could he possibly be sorry for? President Mugabe is clearly a bad egg. But how could Mr. Darnton and his Quill Club friends be responsible for him? They report. You decide. In 20 years you have never heard anything inflamatory? He initally lied the when ABC first aired the tapes. The next night he was asked by three different news medias and he said he did not hear nor did he know of any of these remarks.
Too wierd! Is it not slightly weird that a twenty-year member of the Church of Hate Whitey could become not only the leading candidate for the Presidency, but the candidate who stands for racial harmony? Is it more weird, or less weird, than the fact that Robert Mugabe had no interest in T. In the progressive story of the world, they are mysteries. They can be explained, but they need to be explained. In the reactionary story of the world, however, they are firmly in dog-bites-man territory. I have yet to justify this assertion. But as a progressive, you can swallow it without fear.
It is not the red pill that will turn you to an instant Jacobite, forcing you to abandon your life, your beliefs, your friends and lovers, and replace them with an ascetic and fanatical devotion to the doomed old cause of the Royal Stuarts. Because even if we admit that the progressive story has these little lacunae, the reactionary story has giant, gaping holes.
If there was, how would you know it? What would Archbishop Laud make of the iPhone? Of jazz? Of Harley-Davidson? The mind, she boggles. Hopefully she will boggle slightly less after you read the following. Which will still not turn you into a Jacobite — but might at least help you understand the temptation. Before we can tell the reactionary story, we have to define these weird words, progressive and reactionary. Vast tomes have been devoted to this purpose.
To be reactionary is to be right-wing. What is this weird political axis? As you may know, the terms left and right come from the seating arrangements in the French Legislative Assembly. A body no longer in existence. Yet somehow, the dimension remains relevant. Moreover, we can apply the axis to events even before For example, we can say that in the Reformation, Catholicism was right-wing and Protestantism left-wing. This gets a little confusing in the post era — most preC Catholics would find the present-day Church quite, um, Protestant. If you are unconvinced of this, you may enjoy Novus Ordo Watch.
Of course, politics is not a quantitative science or a science at all , and sometimes it can be a little tricky to decide who is to the left or right of whom. It even works pretty well on the Greeks and Romans. Imagine, for instance, that we wanted to classify music along a linear axis. Is Bach to the right of the Beatles? Okay, probably. Are the Stones to the left of the Beatles? Where does the Cure fit in? And John Coltrane? And the Dead Kennedys?