Posted by: L | July 13, 2007

The Ron Paul haters….

Updated:

I updated this post, after having read one of the posters blog entries. I also deleted the abusive comment because it made me rather ill to re-read it and I don’t know why I have to give such wretched specimens of humanity space on my private property. So out, out, you nasty trolls, go back to the backwoods and swamps you were infesting. Begone!

A letter from a reader who apparently hates Ron Paul: Why should I bother? | nunya@aol.com | IP: 76.103.124.111

“Ron Paul is a right wing protofascist populist. Lew Rockwell has more than a few racists. CounterPunch has it’s share of oddballs. Dissident Voice has it’s share of politically naive and clueless children. You are either a naive fool or a hopeless utopian simpleton like the fellow who wrote the pathetic missive you have chosen to copy and paste. I assume you have a darker complexion than the average northern European. You had better hope and pray Congressman Clueless never becomes President. I thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that there is little chance of that happening. Racists love Ron Paul, you dimwitted schlep. David Duke supports him. I think he was a Grand Dragon in the KKK. What the hey? Ghandi didn’t think much of blacks,

either

.http://blog.occidentaldissent.com/category/ron-paul/

This, BTW, is a real journalist:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/man-of-hour.html

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/six-impossible-things-before-breakfast.html

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/trouble-with-ron.html

If you read through this material and you remain unconvinced, you are blind, stupid and hopeless. I’m getting too old to care anymore. You fools deserve what you ask for. I just hope you aren’t the first dark-skinned person on your blog to enjoy a nice cross-burning or to get dragged behind a pick-up truck. And you call yourself a “journalist”?

My Comment:

Dear Reader -

First, here is an example of the protofascism behind Ron Paul: here, in this letter – sounds just like Hitler to me.

I wish I had more time to answer in detail your interesting letter. And especially to argue those pieces on Ron Paul, filled with careful research and even more meticulous dissembling….

Let me just say: thank you for the links. Despite your abusive and ugly language, I think you are trying to save me from myself. So a hat tip to you, too.

But, I may not be in need of it. I am not courting the favor of opinion-makers here or anywhere. I am trying to still some voice in my own heart.

Let me just say that had David Neiwert written a study of a left-wing sub-culture, he would not have been awarded an alternative online award. The corporate awards in these areas go to people who trash the left, the alternative awards go to people who trash the right. Usually. Those who are not trying to undermine anyone, but only trying to understand things are left to blow soap-bubbles on their own since they won’t squabble in the sand-box with all the other nice kids.

And much of Molly Ivins’ rhetorical style was taken from the equally clever right-leaning journalist Florence King, I hear.

Meanwhile, does the liberal-left need to be exposed on anything, you might ask?

And I would answer, yes, indeed.

Is there any bigotry on the left?

You bet.

To my mind, as this article shows, it is covert but as deep and in some ways as dangerous as that on the right. Only, it does not show its face as clearly and may show us its fruits only in time to come. And unfortunately, the exposure of left bias is being done by people like David Horowitz who have their own dangerous political agenda (in relation to Middle Eastern politics, I mean).

I am more interested in the dangers of today, than in those of the past. White Christian males (how’s that for a racist category just there) are presently not the only or the most racist people I know, I can assure you.

They (hmm…I can see the whole lot of them – Poles, Irish, Anglos, rich and poor, taking their marching orders from Gary North and Ron Paul, no doubt in between burying gold in their backyards and laundering their multiple wives’ burqas) seem to be reacting defensively.

That’s how I see it right now, anyway. What they might do in the future is anyone’s guess, but that is my perception. The evils of white racism, however, have been so extensively criticized and constrained that I think at times public opinion today (not public culture or institutional bias, I agree – but that’s another more convoluted story) borders on a form of reverse racism. It’s surely wrong to focus solely on white chauvinism and ignore the chauvinism in other communities (to wit. the Duke lacrosse team case, anti-Christian bigotry among Muslims and Hindus, intra-Asian racism, recent black- on- white murders), although, this has to be negotiated with sensitivity to different levels of power and capacity to do harm.

In any case, if I am mistaken on this, it behooves me, as a person of color (not a phrase of my choice but to be polite to cultural norms here), to extend my hand and open my sympathies precisely to those who historically might have been associated with the oppression of my racial group (in the case of Indians, it would be the British empire, of which the American government is the self-styled successor). I have to be generous to white, Anglophone Christianity simply on that score – to be credible as some one who is fair-minded.

To imply (by your last remark) that that morally sensitive position is equal to racism toward blacks is simply laughable, diversionary, and smearing-by-inversion.

As a long-time student and admirer of European culture I am in the peculiar position of having to reach out in generosity to those elements in it which I admire as well as those I identify as having been oppressive to people like me (a moral task), while at the same time being critical of both (an intellectual task).

To do either only would be false.

Besides that, if we are going to go on about racism, white racism is not the most sanctioned bigotry today. Anti-Arab, anti-Muslim rhetoric; bigotry against certain forms of Christianity (not all Christianity, Christianity which genuflects to power, is highly favored today); targeting and harassment of isolated individuals who do not have the institutional support to fight back or even defend themselves; anti-male bias among opinion-makers (combined with misogyny in the general culture..an interesting combination); hatred for anarchists and non-statists and unaffiliated libertarians of all kinds: these are the most respectable forms of prejudice today in this country. In other countries, the dangers might lie elsewhere, I don’t deny.

I am not trying to pass for white…but I am not interested in passing for black or Jewish either. I don’t even want to pass for Indian. Or Chinese (so sorry, great grandma). I think human will do, and is hard enough.

We need to be aware that beliefs are like medicine. Different kinds work in different doses on different ailments. What kills in one place and at one time heals in another.

Your frequent references to dark-skin lead me to believe you too live in a racial glass-house from which it would be unwise to cast stones. Jews, blacks, Chinese, Japanese, Hindus, Muslim, can all be guilty of racism and chauvinism…to one degree or other. The consequences of their racism (i.e. how dangerous it is) mostly depends on their relative histories and positions of power.

Your letter undermines itself. Gandhi expressed certain feelings (reflective of his age and culture) toward black South African workers, as did Jefferson toward his slaves, as did even Jesus toward the Samaritans, and as many Jewish prophets toward non-Jews. (I bring that up, because I think from your letter that you are Jewish).

That does not make me despise Gandhi, Jefferson or Jesus or the Old Testament prophets. It makes me realize that “no man is good except God (or Goddess)”

It makes me more inclined to deal fairly with all opinions and to open my mind (and heart) to the whole human race…to all voices. But especially to the voiceless. People change, they open, grow….why be so transfixed by labels, so crucified by crucifying time?

I am not naive at all. I am aware of all the guilt-by-association tactics employed by “mainstream” writers to weed out which opinions and which people get heard. I just don’t think I want to be part of any of it. I think it is morally corrupting.

I avoided academics for that reason.

Having been published (punished) on the right and left and having established some journalistic creds that way, I will now try to avoid publishers too. When I have enough to retire on comfortably, I will write for myself and avoid readers, as well (chuckle).

I write to clarify my own thoughts and to interact with others who can contribute to that process.
If I have to, I’ll wait for another generation (should there be one left after our own insane one passes away) or some future non- human but literate creature to figure out who was in the right or wrong (assuming that anything we write has not long vanished); if not, I will be happy to join the unoffending dust and the meek silence of the void.

PS: It’s GandHi, not GHandi. I don’t know why that bugs me so much.

By the way: Originally, I took out the abuse because I wanted to address the comment without putting filth on my site. And because I wanted to see whether a soft answer indeed “turns away wrath”. But, lookit, Jesus, you turn the other cheek, and you get it in the neck….

But apparently the “gentleman” (irony! irony alert!) took that in the wrong way (sigh).




No matter how "inclusionary" "diverse" and "sensitive"
this man's public positions and opinions may be, his
private attitudes are pretty nasty.  And maybe
THAT is how we should judge people. Not by random
remarks made when they are being provoked; not by
unpopular political positions that they may have
good reason for holding; but by their day to day
treatment of people who have not injured them.
The fine talk doesn't impress me, at any rate.

Summing Up Comments:

We had a very lengthy discussion on this post between Scimitar (from a communitarian perspective) and John Howard (from a libertarian perspective).

I sum up one central difference (as I saw it) and add my take on it, here. I think it might help:

FIRST: I found myself partly in agreement with both on one point. How so? Because lack of liberty in one area (which JH cites) can coexist with license in others (which S cites).

So, Scimitar – I agree with you (and with communitarians) on the need for balance and for seeing things as they are, not worshiping abstractions. Liberty and license are two different things.

But, JH is right to say there is also a lack of liberty.

As I see it, both operate today, but in different realms and in different ways.

A concrete example: small business is overregulated, while big international businesses – also technically regulated by the same laws – are often able to elude them – because of their privileged relation to the state (i.e. they become a rentier class). You have lack of liberty and license together.

I think the Language of Empire book dealt with a lot of that — to put in a plug (chuckle!) but hey, it’s true. License can even operate through the law as I argue in it. Anyway, here’s what I wrote:

[I am writing about how "patriotism" (i.e. support of the state's globalist policies) is really the unabashed support of corporate-state interests. Not talking here about what Scimitar referred too - the virtuous citizen defending the res publica, for the good of the community)

"This "patriotism" feeds off a a type of radicalism that uproots shatters, homogenizes and perverts the traditional values of community and individual and replaces it with the mass."

(Ch 8., p. 132 "Virtual Violence")
That part of my analysis agrees with what S is saying, I think.

As you can see, I don't really find S (community) and JH (individual) at odds...

Instead what I find is artificially constructed individuals and artificial communities (produced by mass culture) at odds with real individuals and real communities...

I don't know if you'd agree or find it convincing but you can see the kinds of games language plays on us...

That's why we have to deal with human beings and not be confused by the language the empire uses.

Comment on Racialism and Racism

Update: I went back and looked through dictionary entries for racialism and racism and it seems from them that my distinction between the two is not held by all in the same way.

Here is Merriam-Webster, which is what I grew up with:

Main Entry: ra·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
: a theory that race determines human traits and capacities; also : RACISM
- ra·cial·ist /-list/ noun or adjective
- ra·cial·is·tic /"rA-sh&-'lis-tik/ adjectiv

Note, that this definition of racialism (that human characteristics are defined by race) is not mine - it is too broad and would obviously then include racism.

I think that's why 'racism' is placed next to it as a variant - which, to my thinking, ought not to be.

Take an example. Let's say your research finds that ethnic puddleducks (just to make up a group  so as not to be inflammatory) are more likely to get their feathers wet than regular ducks. Are you then a ducka-phobe or duck-ist? Even though your intention in researching may be to save puddleducks from wetfeatheritis, are you now the same as someone who commits duckicide? Gee, someone who might even want to wipe out the duck population?

Give me a break! But that seems to be the position of these dictionaries.

Still, at least, a distinction is recognized.

A similar but not so clearcut distinction is also maintained in the American Heritage Dictionary, which at least gives the second usage a separate entry as it should: racialism, it seems, is also a British usage for racist (something I wasn't aware of before):

ra·cial·ism play_w("R0006500")

(rsh-lzm)

n.

1.

a. An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events.

b. Policy or practice based on racial considerations.

2. Chiefly British Variant of racism.


racial·ist adj. & n.

racial·istic adj.

hm();Sources=Sources | 2;

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Now, that makes more sense, otherwise all the people who tell us that Indians (sub-continentals) have a different blood-type from Caucasians would have to be deounounced as potential Nazis.

But, apparently, other dictionaries DO NOT agree and go with John Howard's position:

An online dictionary (how good, I don't know) inverts the meanings and makes racialist more malign in meaning. That doesn't seem right to me.

Wikipedia (which judiciously prunes and alters things, as anyone knows who has watched the appearance and disappearance of material, defininitions, and so on...) sees no distinction. Now, that could simply mean that the distinction is no longer made routinely or is being erased or that most people are not aware of it.

I will research this more, but if there is no distinction being made any more, there needs to be one or we will be practicing self censorship unwittingly.

Anyway, that the distinction exists is apparent to anyone who had read extensively in the area - it appears all the time, as here:

"While thwarting all majority efforts to weaken minority gains, it would reject the kind of "benign' racialism that we increasingly take for granted. " (that's from an article in the Washington Monthly).

Elsewhere,  David Horowitz  makes that distinction when discussing alleged (I am using the qualifier not to disparage the notion but because I haven't personally studied the media coverage of it)  media black out of  black-on-white crime.

Don't be surprised when such usages, which people born outside this country are accustomed to making without controversy, start disappearing or changing, leaving us without a vocabulary to discuss what is plainly a crucial topic.
In any case, after having had the time to read his blogs, I find that Scimitar, I think, rather mischaracterized his position.

He is not a raciaLIST (one who thinks racial considerations have a role to play in government policy - a position that is not necessarily malign) but rather a racIST (one who believes in the genetic, biological, and civic superiority of one race over another).

(However, I let his comments on my blog stay, since he worded his argument reasonably and without abuse).

He implies clearly that he "does not believe in racial, civic, or biological equality" whereas Ron Paul does.

Obviously, at one level, there really is no such equality - not all people or all races are mathematically equal. But to say that something is not mathematically exactly like another is not the same thing as saying that they are inferior or superior to each other on the basis of an arbitrary quantification that is simply delusory.

Why delusory? Because, the criteria that are used to establish superiority have varied to suit whoever does the selection, and have been shown to change (IQ tests, for example) and use samples and methodology that are - when you look at them closely - somewhat questionable..

The problem is a confusion of language and different meanings of equality that are used in a fungible way inaccurately. Again, I honestly see that as an outgrowth of the whole statist mentality. The use of language as a tool - whether it is to educate (indoctrinate) or propagandize necessarily involves the simplification of ideas -- which means the misuse of ideas. Equality is first misunderstood and then misapplied, leading to false ideas of mathematical equality and inequality that do not obtain.

Why the Ward Churchill affair is important 

That's also why this Ward Churchill fracas is so
instructive - you  get to see opinion makers position themselves
carefully as they go for the jugular - isolating
Churchill from the mainstream left and then letting
the steam-roller of public opinion do the rest....it's
Machiavellian alright..that's the morality of statists,
just there. Then when the right does that to them, they
start whimpering - no fair.  

That's what happens when you adopt statist mentality
 and the tactics of power politics with individuals.
Now, here's my comment on Josh Frank's recent piece on the 
trashing of Churchill by liberals in DV (which I
agreed with).

My Comment on the Churchill trashing:

People who consider themselves “free-thinkers” and “dissidents” shouldn't be involved with turning people into pariahs for their thoughts. Free thinking and free markets together. Propaganda and rigged markets go together.

People don’t consider politicians pariahs for the things they actually do, do they?

If society doesn't shun Bush or Clinton or Brzezinksi or Kissinger (sticking to American pols alone, for the minute) - who are directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundereds of thousands of people - millions…or Jeff Sachs or Alan Greenspan or any other economist whose policies have ruined whole economies... then why on earth are we picking on someone for something they just said? Did Churchill kill anyone? Did he bomb, or poison anyone? Did he steal, plunder or rape? Did he connive and lie?

No, he was voicing an opinion
Ah!

You don't have to agree with the guy. I don't. Refute him. Don't lie about him and trash him. And about his rudeness to somone one day: the guy is under a lot of pressure.

Talking about himself? I guess he’s feeling a bit persecuted these days. Understandable, I think.

Personally, there are many days on which I 've blown off steam for much less.

I have a bit of a story on this because my publisher had sent out for a blurb request from Churchill (whom I had not read and whom I had heard about only in relation to his delineation of Native Indian history) before the controversy developed.

Not remembering this, I wrote a piece on Churchill’s article — “Little Eichman’s and the Harijans” for Counterpunch (http://www.counterpunch.org/rajiva02152005.html).

That’s the perverse logic of binary inversions of black and white and it’s what the radical rhetoric of the right and left both miss. In the immediate aftermath of an event as emotional as 9/11, was the public debate really served by comparing ordinary money managers to the arch-Nazi Eichmann? Would Churchill also be willing to argue that some Iraqis citizens in Fallujah may have tacitly supported Saddam’s oppressive policies and might therefore also be little Eichmanns meriting extermination?

The greatest danger of magical thinking is not simply in the likelihood of such inversions boomeranging to hit you in the face - witness “reverse discrimination” and white or Brahmin backlash - but in the strengthening of exactly the passions and irrationality on which public support for war feeds in the first place…”

In the article, I spent some time - objecting for various reasons to Churchill’s use of the word “Nazi”

I did not say it was a morally indefensible argument - I said that it was tired and intellectually somewhat weak.

A month or two later, I got a blurb from Churchill in which he got his back with a two-handed jab that endorsed my work (He called it “excruciatingly precise” ) but also reiterated his own use of the word Nazi firmly.

Guess what? Having by then waded through a stack of Bush jurisprudence, I was overcome with Schmittean flashbacks…

Nazi still sounded wrong to me..but the legal justifications and military and nonmilitary acts of omission and commission were certainly similar enough that while my criticisms were good ones, Churchill’s rejoinder was apt…

Calling a country’s laws Schmittean (Promethean was the word I coined) is suggesting its government is similar to the Nazis, so why split hairs? Why be so excruciatingly precise?

I felt a momentary twinge. I had been temperate and said something which people might be able to digest without becoming enraged.

Churchill said something that discomfited people…

I am not now sure who took the high road…

I stuck the blurb on the jacket.
Distancing myself from it at that moment would have been wrong.

And distancing ourselves from Churchill, when we really are saying the same things, only in different or more subtle or more nuanced ways, is somehow not right.

Even though, prudentially, I agree, his style and tone might not help.

Intuitively, morally, it is the right thing to do.

On Neiwert and North

[I should add that I am not trashing David Neiwert’s work - I haven’t read it, but see from the reviews that it was carefully done research.

All I am saying is that were some one to do an equally carefully researched piece on (or subverting the opinions of), say, the sub-culture of NY-DC liberal-left opinion making, it would be studiously ignored, however carefully done.

So - please all Neiwert admirers. This has nothing to do with him. I am just saying there is bias on the side of liberal opinion-makers, too.]

(Another aside: I am also not defending Gary North. I haven’t read much of his writing and can’t speak about what he thinks or doesn’t think).




							        	

Responses

  1. “The corporate awards go to people who trash the left, the alternative awards go to people who trash the right.”

    Clearly, you are an idiot if you believe this. It would explain why you don’t know your left from your right or what they even are.

    BTW, I’m not your fan. Talk about dissembling. You have it down to a fine art.

    De Do Run Run, Ron!

    Ron Paul in 1992:

    “Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists — and they can be identified by the color of their skin.”

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

    Where have we heard that before? Now we know where the GOP and the neocons get their noxious rhetoric. What a panderer and a charlatan. I hope he does get the nomination. I want to see him villified and destroyed as the phony, pandering crypto-fascist that he is.

  2. Yes, I simplified my position to make a rhetorical point. It’s more complex than that.

    But it boils down to it on most sensitive issues.

    I was not talking about all corporate awards…
    I was talking about most.
    And I was talking about them in relation to the subject we are talking about.

    It is a very convoluted business. But it works like that. Certain kinds of criticism – even extreme criticism – will be allowed, but only if it is said by certain people in a certain way — people who can be handled and ways which can be coopted.

    You don’t get senior positions in the mainstream media without that.

    I doubt if the awards go to work that directly rebuts the prejudices of the endorsing committees. And I don’t quarrel with that. God and mammon, we are told, don’t blend too well.

    Even major awards go on that basis.

    How else to explain why Henry Kissinger got a Nobel Peace Prize and Gandhi did not?

    “Fan” – you obviously don’t recognize irony when you read it.

    Perhaps that is the problem.

    And also the general lack of self-criticism or of complexity in thinking or feeling these days. It’s “us versus them,” “black versus white.”

    But you know, you can’t tell heaven from hell, or blue skies from pain anymore than I can.

  3. How can liberals complain about the KKK when the grand wizard himself, Robert Byrd, is in the senate as a Democrat? Geesh.

  4. Exactly. But that’s my point. I’m not sure they really care.
    And, frankly, why should we get so worked up about opinions – misguided or not – if someone expressly diavows them in their everyday language and work?

    You can always find a mote in the other fellow’s eye. Too bad you can’t see the Redwood forest in your own.

  5. How to Whip This Ron Paul Character and All His Stupid Followers.

    Ron Paul can be defeated by ignorance. Ignore him if you can.
    By lies. Misrepresent his positions whenever possible.
    By word gaming. As Lenin advised, “First, confuse the vocabulary.”
    By contempt. Dismiss him as amusing and pathetic.
    By smearing his supporters. Find the worst and spotlight them. Call them a cult.
    By consensus. Dismiss him with peer-pressure ridicule.
    By false accusations. Spread them quickly and far.
    By never discussing his policies. Change the subject to his person.
    By the polls. Ask the right people the right questions and get the answer you want.
    By reporting his most unpopular votes. But don’t report his reasoning.
    By rudeness. Wreck any debate where his ideas are winning.
    With all these tools, he can be easily defeated. Use them generously.
    But Ron Paul cannot be defeated by refuting him in an honest and courteous technical debate. Avoid that.

    - Moderno Machiavelli

  6. RON PAUL ON RACISM:

    Full article:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html

    Excerpt:

    “Let’s be perfectly clear: the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way. Furthermore, government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combating bigotry in our society. Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can’t change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

    In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. Government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us.

    The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies.

    Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

    The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

    More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.”

  7. How you can call a guy a protofascist when he is against statism root and branch is pretty odd.

    We will never stop thnking in terms of groups – our families, our communities, our race, our culture, our language….
    so I respectfull disagree on that. I think we should distinguish benign identification with genuine human groups (nothing wrong with loviing your family a bit better than others) that stays within ethical bounds (i.e. you don’t hate other families or communities but you’re not obliged to pay obeisance to them either) and malignant identification with collectives (state enforced arbitrary groups).

    But thanks very much for the support.
    Lila

  8. The notion that Ron Paul is some sort of proto-fascist is utterly ridiculous. Ron Paul is a libertarian and his voting record reflects that. The reader above cited my website as an example of “racists”who “love Ron Paul” without bothering to ask my opinion of the man (a crude and irrational “guilt by association” argument). In fact, I am a communitarian — for those who unaware of what that means, which includes the majority of Americans, let’s just say that my philosophical views are the exact opposite of Ron Paul’s.

    In some cases, Ron Paul has voted in a way that I approve of, as in the case of the Emmett Till Civil Rights Act or renewing the Voting Rights Act, but he did so for totally different reasons. I recognize that. At the same time, Ron Paul voted against Duncan Hunter’s Secure Border Fence Act in 2006. Ron Paul has a “C” on immigration which is my number one issue (a rather poor rating compared to Tom Tancredo). I won’t be voting for Ron Paul in the 2008 election and have encouraged my fellow racialists not to do so numerous times.

    As the commentator “John Reading” notes above, Ron Paul is an anti-racist. I have distributed that article many times to those who share my political views. Paul is convinced that individual liberty is corrosive of racial consciousness. For years now, this has been his view on the subject. As a racialist, I entirely agree. That’s why I dislike Ron Paul and despise libertarianism more than any other political ideology. I hope this clarification of my actual views will be posted and the misinformation being spread above discredited.

    I DO NOT ENDORSE RON PAUL.

  9. Well – obviously I disgree with that position.
    But thanks for clarifying Paul’s antiracist position.

  10. [...] seems my posts about Ron Paul have not gone unnoticed elsewhere. Here is my [...]

  11. No problem. Such delusional conspiracy theories and irrational muckracking is sadly typical of the fringe anti-racist left these days. It reflects poorly upon Ron Paul’s critics at sites like Orcinus that they can’t even get their facts straight. There are many valid reasons to criticize Ron Paul. His so-called membership in the “Protocols of the Elders of White Racism” is not amongst them.

  12. 8 Scimitar (above) calls himself a communitarian whose philosophical views are the exact opposite of Ron Paul’s and then writes:

    “Paul is convinced that individual liberty is corrosive of racial consciousness. For years now, this has been his view on the subject. As a racialist, I entirely agree. That’s why I dislike Ron Paul and despise libertarianism more than any other political ideology.”

    It is remarkable to come across a mind able to grasp so clearly the relationship between racism and libertarianism, and then to choose the wrong one. Scimitar needs to be debated on that, but he is absolutly right about Ron Paul. RP is most certainly not a racist for the same reason that he is a libertarian. It is because he is an individualist rather than a collectivist.

    Saving poor Scimitar will require teaching him first that races do not exist other than as arbitrary mental collections. We can as easily say that tall people are one race, short people another, and medium people are half-breeds.

    Then he must learn that collectives do not exist except as mental collections. He needs to understand that what is real is the planet and the individuals upon it. Collectives are just mental lists. And there is no reason to make mental lists of different people, and draw conclusions about which mental collection is best (my own, of course, says the racist).

    Unless of course, the only nice thing you can say about yourself is that you are a member of a mental collection in your own mind which is better than another mental collection in your own mind and you don’t mind looking foolish because everyone sees that there are people in that lesser mental collection of yours that are better than you.

  13. John Howard,

    I’m not hear to argue the merits of racialism and/or collectivism with you (only to refute the ridiculous notion that Ron Paul is a closet racist). Presumably, Lila Rajiva would not approve of me using her blog as a platform for propagating my “racist views.” I can respect that. After all, this blog is her private property. If you would like to engage in a debate about these matters, I am not a hard person to find.

  14. Actually, I am very much interested in using my blog to debate a topic that is important and misunderstood, so long as it’s done respectfully and with evidence and you clearly emphasize in your comments that I don’t endorse your position.

    (Update: Having now researched the blogs S posts on, I can confidently say they are RACIST not racialist — although S denies it — since they certainly DO overtly and covertly indicate a belief in superiority — genetic superiority moreover. I would post samples but I don’t want them on my blog. Genetic differencials and/or differences in various measurements of skills/aptitudes simply do NOT translate into inferiority or superiority. One can accept the former and deny the latter quite logically. Moreover, all such claims are usually backed up — as they are on S’s blogs — by highly tendentious histories with selective use of facts — such as in the Derbyshire post, where he claims that immigration restrictions in 1924 had nothing to do with racISM but with instability and stability…or en S’s claims that anti-Semitism did not exist in any real way in the US). S also does not explain why so-called genetic markers like IQ scores have changed over generations…)

    Re John Howard’s position.

    On one thing I do agree. I think we need to stop enforcing group consciousness through the law. I think we need more liberty and treatment of people as individuals.

    But that’s with regard to the state. If the state is not involved and people voluntarily wish to be by themselves, I don’t think there is any way I can tell them they have to associate with me. Why should they?

    Ultimately, and for a very enlightened consciousness, it will be possible to do away with all attachment to groups of all kinds. I am not so sure that because it’s intellectually arguable that a group is a construct that it does not have an existential reality. By the way, so too is liberty a legal construct – there is no complete liberty in anything, we are all constrained variously.

    Our genes are wired with group consciousness.
    That may be something we have to rise above or make conscious but it’s not something we can easily root out without the danger of perversion.

    Race may be a construct in genetic terms, as the anthropologists tell us. It may be a morally suspect category, as legal scholars tell us. But I see it as an existential reality in terms of perceptions — and it certainly affects the way you are treated.

    Some may feel more at home with other English language speakers. Some may not. Some may tend to relax a bit more with those who are racially and culturally similar. Others may not.

    Why do I need to tell either to feel differently?
    These voluntary preferences have nothing to do with deference to legal equality and to a moral understanding of equal human worth.

  15. And there is also a slight confusion in your language it seems. You say – preference for a thing implies a sense of superiority.

    But preferences do not have to do with feeling of superiority and inferiority. I prefer my mother, not because she is superior to other mothers, but because she is mine.
    I prefer my friends because we share memories not because I think they are superior.

    And I may prefer my own culture (I actually don’t because I gre up fairly Westernized and prefer many but not all aspects of Western culture).

    If someone has spent their whole life living among members of their own race, and prefers to remain so — why I should suggest they are somehow morally inferior to me just because I have spent and prefer to spend my time in racially mixed societies?

    That sounds weak to me.

    Something may be entirely illusory (and here I am not arguing one way or other about whether that applies to race) and yet have existential reality in people’s minds.

    The Swiss are more homogeneous and (probably) more xenophobic than the Americans. But they are far less aggressive to other people….

  16. 16 L (above) is quite right to agree with me that race is mental rather than objective (“illusory”), and also right to suggest that racism is not always a harm. I would say it more definitely: racism, while always silly, is always harmless. Refusing your company to someone is not a harm, for they do not have a right to your company. People silly enough to think that someone with browner skin is not a distant relative have every right to avoid what they fear or do not appreciate. Harm comes when force is used. If harm is motivated by racism, it is no different than if it is motivated by greed. It is harm or it is not and the mental twistings and stirrings of the harmer are not really philosophically relevant (and not really knowable, either).

    We need to all agree that racism is pitiful, not harmful. Force is harmful. We need to learn that the really important moral issue, the one at the root of all of Ron Paul’s positions, is the issue of voluntary vs. involuntary. People have the right to dislike you for any stupid reason they choose, including your color, your shape, the part in your hair, your smile, your gender, or because you are rich. They do not have the right to harm you. Understanding that hate (a feeling) is OK as long as it is free of physical violence is the key to peace.

    The attempt to regulate the expression of hate merely increases the impulse to violence. Forcing fools to associate with those they hate is guaranteed to make things worse. And it has.

  17. 13 Scimitar (above) says she isn’t here to argue her racism and colectivism (we do not need the silly new word “racialism” – an extra syllable doesn’t help – there is no such thing as race, no matter how many syllables). Yet she clearly is here to present her racism or I would not be responding to it.

    The silliest ideas can not be defended, so it is best to merely present them firmly and then retire. Good move.

  18. Agreed. That’s the benefit of free speech, isn’t it?
    We understand things a bit better/
    And it’s state versus antistate today.
    Whch is why I hope to see the libertarian left and right put aside differences and stand up to the statists.

    I really think the difficulty with getting a review of my book had to do with the fact (partly) that I talked about the transnational financial interests behind the CIA – and didn’t just pick on Bush and the legal changes he made (bad as they are).

    Liberals would like to reframe that as a solely anti-Bush narrative.
    It’s the America-first globalists versus the multilateral globalists but none of them can see international free trade without the state….

  19. John Howard,

    Here is what I suggest: grab a handful of firecrackers, light their fuses, and then sit back and watch what happens. After all, the experience of “pain” is something that only exists “in your mind,” as does the abstraction “liberty” which you are apparently so enamored with.

  20. “13 Scimitar (above) says she isn’t here to argue her racism and colectivism (we do not need the silly new word “racialism” – an extra syllable doesn’t help – there is no such thing as race, no matter how many syllables).”

    I draw an analytical distinction between the two terms. “Racism” is the belief that racial differences exist, that some races are superior to others, and that races can be classified into clear hierarchies. “Racialism” is the belief that racial differences exist and that they are relevant to public policy questions. Frankly, I don’t really care which races are “superior” and which are “inferior.” “Racism” of that sort makes no sense in terms of Darwinism.

    “Yet she clearly is here to present her racism or I would not be responding to it. ”

    *He

    “The silliest ideas can not be defended, so it is best to merely present them firmly and then retire. Good move.”

    A good description of libertarianism.

  21. L,

    If I understand you correctly, my posts will not be censored purely on the grounds that some people would describe as “racist.” Well then, I will stick around, at least for now, and see how this debate unfolds. As the gallery can see, I do not subscribe to Lila Rajiva, John Howard, or Ron Paul’s libertarian views. Our respective positions thus should in no way be confused or taken as an endorsement of “racialism” by this website.

    “On one thing I do agree. I think we need to stop enforcing group consciousness through the law. I think we need more liberty and treatment of people as individuals.”

    This would be a good as starting point as any. First, I would like to point out that politics (in this country and all others) is concerned with raw power, not liberal abstractions about ethics or the nature of reality (although these are often invoked to justify specific public policies that powerful interest groups favor). As someone who works in government, I happen to be in a position to observe this critical fact on a daily basis. Acceptance of reality as it actually exists, not as it should be, is the first step towards recovery from libertarianism and all other sects of liberalism.

    Second, I would like to note the asymmetry of acceptance of the ideal of “colorblindness” in the country. While most Americans with few exceptions give lip service to this ideal of the Civil Rights Movement, whites are the only major racial group that live up to it in practice. All other groups — Hispanics, “African-Americans,” “Asian Americans,” Jews, “Native Americans” and so forth — or “people of color” as they are now often called by the politically correct — are completely unabashed about organizing themselves politically and relentlessly lobbying the government to advance their group interests. This is cynically done in the name of “celebrating diversity” which supposedly justifies remedial anti-white, race conscious public policies like affirmative action and third world immigration (to “diversify” hideously white America).

    You think we need to stop enforcing group consciousness through the law. That’s comforting to hear, but unrealistic in our current political system. See, other groups, unlike whites, don’t think of themselves as purely autonomous individuals like John Howard does. The current system affords them legal and financial privileges. Why should they turn against it? They won’t. And whites? What are they going to do about it? They lack the group consciousness necessary to rectify the situation — in no small part thanks to social libertarianism.

    You say we need more liberty and more individualism. I totally disagree. On the contrary, we need to shed this make-believe delusion of ours that human beings aren’t inherently tribal and start recognizing the existence of groups in addition to individuals. You say we need more liberty. In reality, we are choking to death on liberty (and its liberal companion, equality, which have all but destroyed the ideal of fraternity). We are immersed in a commercialized, pornified, disgustingly materialistic culture riven by anomie that inspires 50 Cents and psychotic murderers like Cho Seung-Hui, not great art, music, and poetry.

    It is no coincidence that the expansion of government everywhere coincides with the growth of socially permissive attitudes. License rots away at the character which is the true foundation of the republican ideal of limited government. As people become more atomized and self-absorbed in their own trivial lives, they lose interest in the common good of the res publica. Powerful interest groups capture control of government and use the wealth of taxpayers to succor their own parasitic private interests. As Plato demonstrated over two thousand years ago, an excess of liberty segues naturally into its antipode, tyranny.

  22. “Ultimately, and for a very enlightened consciousness, it will be possible to do away with all attachment to groups of all kinds.”

    This is where evolution kicks in and demographically replaces white libertarian individualists with more self-conscious groups which practice in-group altruism and out-group xenophobia. Hence, the stability of xenophobia across all known human populations.

    “I am not so sure that because it’s intellectually arguable that a group is a construct that it does not have an existential reality. By the way, so too is liberty a legal construct – there is no complete liberty in anything, we are all constrained variously.”

    Good point. It seems you beat me to the punch. The “self” that John Howard is so concerned with is also a construct of consciousness. The abstraction “liberty” as well. To your credit, you don’t seem to share the naive nominalism on display above.

    “Our genes are wired with group consciousness.
    That may be something we have to rise above or make conscious but it’s not something we can easily root out without the danger of perversion.”

    Exactly. That is precisely why “colorblindness” is doomed to fail. Humans are social primates. We are naturally tribalistic like our ancestors. The only conceivable way out of this would be through some sort of massive and dubious world eugenics program.

    “These voluntary preferences have nothing to do with deference to legal equality and to a moral understanding of equal human worth.”

    Why do humans have equal moral worth? Because they are human beings? That’s a tautology.

  23. “Harm comes when force is used.”

    I can’t say that I feel particularly harmed by speed limits.

  24. It is the enforcement of speed limits that may do harm. But roads are property and those who own them have a right to enforce speed limits.

  25. Oh, I thought “property rights” only existed in our minds.

  26. 26 Scimitar

    “Oh, I thought “property rights” only existed in our minds.”

    Of course Right exists in our minds. It is a moral judgement. It is right that those who produce are the owners of what they produce. That’s property.

  27. 20 Scimitar repeats that races exist and are different from one another, having ignored my arguement entirely and opted for repetition rather than arguement. But no, races are arbitrary labels applied by racists to arbitrarily populated groups. Race has no objective reality and cannot be shown to have any such reality.

    21 Scimitar says that “Racialism” is the belief that racial differences exist and that they are relevant to public policy questions. That is also the definition of racism, so we still don’t need the word “racialism”. Race does not exist and the color of people’s skin is only relevant to public policy in the minds of racists who think that race is real, that if effects behavior, and that something coercive needs to be done about it.

    Scimitar then goes on to suggest that Libertarians do not debate and defend their ideas, so clearly Scimitar is not overly in touch with reality.

    22 Sigmund Scimitar writes
    “Acceptance of reality as it actually exists, not as it should be, is the first step towards recovery from libertarianism and all other sects of liberalism.”

    This condescending psychobabble, followed by not a word of substance or explaination is a perfect example of the kind of rhetorical hot-air usually produced by collectivists. Remember what a collectivist is. It is some one who looks at your wallet and sees “our” economy. Contempt for you, for your liberty, for your property is his starting point. Note the lie that wanting to be free of a parasite means you have joined a “sect”. As Lenin said, “First, confuse the vocabulary”.

    Scimitar continues: “See, other groups, unlike whites, don’t think of themselves as purely autonomous individuals like John Howard does.”

    Well, of course not because they are racist fools, but they are autonomous individuals whether they like it or not. Objective facts don’t go away because a herd of fools don’t recognize them. Each individual is an individual and there is no race. Facts. Easily proven. Political superstition is hot air.

    Scimitar: “You say we need more liberty. In reality, we are choking to death on liberty.”

    A perfect example of pure contempt for the meaning of words. Can Scimitar the breathless give a single example of how “we” are choking on liberty. Liberty is a negative. It means the absense of violence. Scimitar is telling us he wants more violence. He’s telling us we are choking on non-violence. He’s a racist. No surprise.

    Scimitar, making a lunge at history, tells us that our permissive social attitudes coincide with the expansion of government. This is precisely the opposite of the truth. The war on drugs, the politically correct war on speech in our government-subsidized universities, the abandonment of habeas corpus, are exactly the kind of socially repressive bullying that we expect from the expansion of the power of the parasitic racketeers who call themselves government.

    Scimitar, who has violent collectivist uses for the lives of others, doesn’t want those others to become “self-absorbed in their own trivial lives.” That’s what he thinks of you, your life, and your liberty. He is a self confessed parasite lecturing his victims about how naughty it is to want to be free of his parasitic violence. He wants to guard against an “excess” of non-violence (liberty).

    I will, of course read and ponder his response, but it would be infastidious of me to pursue this forensic intelletual examination any further. One wishes to rejoin the living.

  28. John Howard,

    “But no, races are arbitrary labels applied by racists to arbitrarily populated groups. Race has no objective reality and cannot be shown to have any such reality”

    Please excuse my ignorance, but I’m having trouble coming to grips with the idea you’re espousing that there is no such thing as race. Could you please expand on this a little. The reason I’m struggling with the concept is, having grown up in a multicultural western society, I see people of different races all the time. Different groups of people. People in these groups look similar to each other and different to people from other groups (races). They even act differently and seem to be better or worse at some things and worse. For example, Northeast Asians seem to make up a majority at most (non-private) selective schools. The fact that I can identity Northeast Asians would in itself suggest that there is such a thing as race. Although I’m certainly not saying I can identify races therefore their existence is proved. It’s just that common sense seems to support the idea.

    It almost seems self evident in fact, which is why I’m respectfully asking you to show some evidence that there is no such thing as race, because I’m having trouble with the idea.

    Perhaps your position is that “race” as a concept exists but only as an arbitrary, made-up idea, used by one group to oppress another. Once again, does not the existence of the oppressor group and the oppressed group, defined by race, suggest that such a grouping is valid? In order to oppress another people as a group, one must first say “look, there is a group of people, let’s oppress them.” A different people. And what about all of the different, seemingly innate characteristics of people in these different groups? Are you saying that there are no differences between these arbitrarily demarcated groups? Surely there must be differences, otherwise it would have been impossible to group them.

    Please don’t take this the wrong way. I could be completely wrong, maybe I am. It’s just that the idea that there are no races genuinely puzzles me and I am more than willing to see the light if you can explain your position a bit more clearly.

    Thankyou for your patience,

    Tom.

  29. Many “racists” support Ron Paul because they believe him to be sincere when he says “Government can’t create moral society”.

    They actually believe he might oppose the de facto theocracy of political correctness.

    It’s that simple.

    Many so-called “libertarians” lose their principles when it comes to the “moral abomination” of “racism” exercised by other adult citizens in their private preferences. They see the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition of considering race in the making of private contracts to be a legitimate use of government force and would denounce as “collectivist” anyone who would oppose that so-called “law”.

    They are not libertarians.

    They are the “good sheep” of the theocracy currently dominating the governments of the West.

  30. 12 John Howard said “Then he must learn that collectives do not exist except as mental collections. He needs to understand that what is real is the planet and the individuals upon it. Collectives are just mental lists.”

    Hold on, aren’t planets just collections of molecules? By this reasoning, they don’t exist either?

  31. To: John Howard
    From: Scimitar

    Of course Right exists in our minds. It is a moral judgement. It is right that those who produce are the owners of what they produce. That’s property.

    That’s a very interesting argument: collectives exist “only in our minds,” ergo, collectives are illusory and don’t exist. They are not real. And since they are not real, not objective, collectives have no moral force to regulate the behavior of individuals. Congratulations, you have just rendered libertarianism superfluous, for if collectives do not exist (and this is nonsense), neither does “the state” or “government” which you people are constantly railing against. Neither does “individual liberty,” civic equality, corporations, limited partnerships, marriages, morality, the self, property rights, numbers, every abstraction whatsoever, and a thousand other things libertarians are always talking about. I believe there is a term for this sort of reasoning: oh yes, it is called special pleading.

    20 Scimitar repeats that races exist and are different from one another, having ignored my arguement entirely and opted for repetition rather than arguement. But no, races are arbitrary labels applied by racists to arbitrarily populated groups. Race has no objective reality and cannot be shown to have any such reality.

    As I noted above, it was originally not my intention to stick around on this blog. I was looking forward to a debate re: racialism on my website where my comments would always be around for future reference. L. has since clarified her position re: “racist comments” on her blog. They will not be deleted. Thus, I decided to stay and respond to her position which is obviously more informed than yours. In response to your jejune claims re: the non-existence of races, computer programs now exist which can sort individuals objectively into racial populations with over 99% accuracy (on the basis of blood samples). In fact, it is easier for them to mistakenly classify individuals on the basis of gender than race. The racial classifications they produce correspond more or less to the traditional racial groups of physical anthropology. If race was really “arbitrary” as you say, that would be impossible.

    Sadly, I am unaware of any such test that can objectively verify the existence of what you call “property rights.” Unlike race, which along with sex is grounded in our heredity (and detectable at the molecular level, you know, DNA), “property rights” seem to be purely what some would describe as a “social construct.” Possession of any given piece of land exists only in the mind of the individual property owner and those who recognize the legitimacy of his claim. Come to think about it, you don’t really exist “objectively” either. As psychologists have known for years, you or “the self” is an illusion of consciousness generated by the material brain.

    That is also the definition of racism, so we still don’t need the word “racialism”.

    This is false.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racialist

    n.

    1.) An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events.
    2.) Policy or practice based on racial considerations.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

    rac•ism

    n.

    1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
    2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
    3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

    rac•ism

    n.

    1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
    2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

    Race does not exist and the color of people’s skin is only relevant to public policy in the minds of racists who think that race is real, that if effects behavior, and that something coercive needs to be done about it.

    I addressed this above. Race is not merely skin color. Differences in skin color are merely the most obvious morphological differences between races. I do find myself curious as to why, on the one hand you suggest race is completely arbitrary, but on the other seem to sort races in the traditional sense. From what I gather, such hypocrisy and double consciousness is actually quite typical of your views.

    Note: You never responded to my point about the non-existence, non-objective, illusory nature of pain, nor did you report to us the results of your experiment with the handful of firecrackers I suggested above. Isn’t pleasure something that exists “only in minds”? Damn, there goes sex too.

    Scimitar then goes on to suggest that Libertarians do not debate and defend their ideas, so clearly Scimitar is not overly in touch with reality.

    I don’t usually debate libertarians. I find you people to be a lot like the Catholics who worship their various icons; you just mindlessly venerate abstractions. Your position is hopelessly self-referential like theirs. Thus, I find little reason to argue with you. Such debates reduce invariably to your gospels – John Stuart Mill said this, Ayn Rand said that, Rothbard this, Hayek that – to the authority of the libertarian canon which is rejected by non-libertarians.

    This condescending psychobabble, followed by not a word of substance or explaination is a perfect example of the kind of rhetorical hot-air usually produced by collectivists.

    Actually, I elaborated my position in some detail above. Libertarianism isn’t a political theory so much as it is a plea: a cry for politics to go away and be replaced by economics and liberal abstractions.
    Government doesn’t work that way in practice. In reality, the “entrepeneuers” and corporations libertarians glorify turn right around and spend tens of millions of dollars on lobbyists to corrupt the political process in a way that feathers their own nests. That’s capitalism in the real world. The only thing libertarians accomplish is confusing much of the white population into surrendering their own interests through belief in a pseudo-religion.

    Remember what a collectivist is. It is some one who looks at your wallet and sees “our” economy.

    Yawns. We are really all collectivists – even libertarians, although they will passionately deny this. Humans are social primates. We depend upon others in countless ways: the accumulated wisdom and knowledge of previous generations, language to communicate with each other, our parents to nurture us when we are children, etc. The only real individualists are dysfunctional feral children. Human are animals who evolved over millions of years within close, tight-knit communities. Our instincts, emotions, and psychological needs reflect this.

    Contempt for you, for your liberty, for your property is his starting point. Note the lie that wanting to be free of a parasite means you have joined a “sect”. As Lenin said, “First, confuse the vocabulary”.

    Libertarians confuse liberty with license. A moderate amount of liberty is a social good. An excess or gross deficiency of liberty is not. There are many goods in life. “Liberty” is only one of them. In a healthy republican society, liberty is balanced by other values like community and family, as it was in early days of the American Republic. Is it not amusing how libertarians style themselves as the great defenders of liberty? In fact, they above all else are its greatest enemies. By treating the community, the law, and virtue as enemies of individual freedom, when they are nothing of the sort, libertarians assault the very foundations of our society that make “liberty” possible. In the process, they encourage the vice and atomization that enables powerful interest groups to capture control of the government.

    Well, of course not because they are racist fools, but they are autonomous individuals whether they like it or not.

    John Howard: it is foolish to pursue your own interests; reasonable to kowtow before abstractions. This is why in-group altruism + out-group xenophobia defeats atomized libertarianism every time.

    Objective facts don’t go away because a herd of fools don’t recognize them. Each individual is an individual and there is no race. Facts. Easily proven. Political superstition is hot air.

    The truth is that individuals also have group identities and group loyalties that are salient to them in addition to purely personal identities. Humans, like other closely related primates, are naturally tribal. The us vs. them dynamic is hardwired into our brains. We have a natural yearning to belong to something greater than ourselves. It is foolish – delusional even – to pretend that reality is otherwise. Of course, this sort of naïvty tends to come naturally to libertarians.

    A perfect example of pure contempt for the meaning of words. Can Scimitar the breathless give a single example of how “we” are choking on liberty.

    I gave several examples above: declining social capital along with the anomie and psychotic/suicidal behaviors it encourages.

    Liberty is a negative. It means the absense of violence. Scimitar is telling us he wants more violence. He’s telling us we are choking on non-violence. He’s a racist. No surprise.

    No. That’s simply your own bizarre definition of liberty. That’s certainly not what “liberty” meant to the American Founders who were classical republicans, not libertarians.

    Scimitar, making a lunge at history, tells us that our permissive social attitudes coincide with the expansion of government. This is precisely the opposite of the truth.

    That’s true. We communitarians have a bent for sociological and historical approaches to political questions. In the last fifty years, public acceptance of drug abuse, homosexual marriage, miscegenation, pornography, adultery, divorce, use of profanity, political apathy, and so forth have all risen considerably. At the same time, this has coincided with a drastic expansion in the scope of government. Rot the moral foundations of society and you get more government, not less; government and the market chew up and spit out social and civic institutions.

    The war on drugs, the politically correct war on speech in our government-subsidized universities, the abandonment of habeas corpus, are exactly the kind of socially repressive bullying that we expect from the expansion of the power of the parasitic racketeers who call themselves government.

    1.) The “War on Drugs” has coincided with the rise of more permissive attitudes about drug use.
    2.) Where are the virtuous citizens to stop attacks on habeas corpus by the Bush administration? Glued to their television sets watching American Idol.
    3.) As Alexis de Tocqueville demonstrated over 150 years ago, the stultifying conformism of American society is a perverse reflection of its own individualism.
    4.) Libertarianism is actually an enabler of government, not an opponent of it.

    Scimitar, who has violent collectivist uses for the lives of others, doesn’t want those others to become “self-absorbed in their own trivial lives.”

    Personally, I think it is an utterly dreadful thing for citizens to “glut their own souls” with materialism, lose their sense of public spirit, concern for the general welfare, and retreat into the isolation of their own private lives. That IS NOT what true republicanism is about. The Founders themselves would gasp in horror if they could see what you defend in the name of liberty.

    That’s what he thinks of you, your life, and your liberty.

    Liberty is not a complete, unmitigated lack of restraint. That’s license.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/license

    Lack of due restraint; excessive freedom

    He is a self confessed parasite lecturing his victims about how naughty it is to want to be free of his parasitic violence. He wants to guard against an “excess” of non-violence (liberty).

    Does anyone else see the irony of a Randroid individualist who parrots the ideas of others as if they were his own?

    I will, of course read and ponder his response, but it would be infastidious of me to pursue this forensic intelletual examination any further. One wishes to rejoin the living.

    You would be well advised to back down now.

  32. Human. That is how I always identify myself. Living in Korea, I am always asked where I am from. I answer, “I’m from Canada, but I don’t call myself a Canadian.” That is always greeted with perplexed looks and head scratching. Then there come calls for clarification/explanation.
    For me, since I am not a statist either, it is not logical to align myself with a state. I am not interested in love of a geo-politically defined entity. This I find absurd.
    I love people.

  33. JH, in many ways my analysis is close to yours in seeing the influence as the state as the fundamental problem. But in respect to race as a construct, I still do think there’s a benign ‘racialism,’ which is merely a preference for the company of one’s own. As I said, xenophobia and aggression need not go together.

    Medieval Chinese kingdoms- which were inward turned – did not pursue either extended voyages of discovery or of conquest.

    However, it’s not clear to me that this is a situation that can go on for a long time wihout the collective (a state is not a group, surely) collapsing or being conquered by more outward directed groups.

    Why? Not simply because of superiror technology. But because states are by nature rusty machinery…they are hulks…they can’t stand up to the dynamic interaction of individuals….

    Nothing can. Not even groups. I can talk about ‘Indians’ or ‘Americans’, for example, but when you look closely at the words, they dissolve. I think that’s what JH meant when he said groups were intellectual constructs. Meaning to push him a little further down his line of inquiry, I pointed out that while race might be a construct, surely all ideas are intellectual constructs….

    So is liberty.

    OK. In that case, let’s take both these ideas and make them more specific, more concrete.

    Here goes. When I say liberty, what do I mean? I mean specifically, individual liberty. Why do I place liberty at the level of the individual and not, say, of a collective…why not talk about freedom for states or nations rather than for individuals?

    Because a state or nation “acting” is a bit more of a construct than individuals acting. When the state “acts,” it is always supposedly acting on behalf of a group of individuals. Now, if the state asked permission to act each time, polled the individuals, and then got their consensus and consent – that would be one thing…the state would then begin to resemble an organic group…which would be a more viable form for individuals to interact in and more acceptable to libertarians…but, of course, states don’t act that way.

    You have no control over where you are born, no freedom to accept or reject your allegiance to that state or its laws. It’s purely accidental. And when the state “acts” it is always a group of people in power who act, whose interests are NOT aligned with the people they represent. In fact, they are often diametrically opposed.

    Which brings me back to S’s point about minorities using group rights to push their own agendas. I agree that the majority population is, indeed, likely to feel threatened by those kinds of demands, which is why I prefer to see people think of themselves as individuals when they seek redress or entitlement through the legal mechanism.
    I don’t think they need necessarily give up their identification with their group to live successfully with other groups. But they have to give up chauvinism (feeling they are more entitled than the general population).

    That said, why do they feel entitled? For that, we have to look both at present actions of the government and at past.

    We have to look at the US government’s actions abroad, as well as its actions toward individuals within the country.

    Leaving aside domestic policies now, let me talk about why immigrant minorities (as a subset of minorities) might feel justified pursuing group agendas. I am not now defending them, I am just explaining their perceptions.

    Many immigrant groups who know that their cwn countries have suffered enormously through state-sponsored pillaging and looting (imperialism and current globalization), come to see themselves as entitled to redress that by using the present laws of the imperial states to their benefit.

    Let’s not talk of the US, but of the UK, for example – just to keep a bit of distance between us and an inflammatory topic.

    You can see that a number of British Muslims of Middle Eastern descent feel alienated from English society. This is always presented in the news as something very odd — because they’ve lived there for long; they speak the language, etc. etc., Why don’t they assimilate, ask people.

    Nativists and xenophobes would say that it’s because they are aliens and therefore intrinsically incapable of being assimilated. Their culture is too different.

    But note, these are English-speaking British Muslims, who often enjoy the same music, listen to the same shows, read the same books as the majoirty population. Even their religious adherence is not always a strong allegiance.

    I would say to Scimitar that by not thoroughly knowing modern economic and political history (since the 1500s), one couldn’t understand, this alienation of brown-skinned and black-skinned people from the dominant culture. I mean really knowing the history, not just accepting what pop historians from the dominant cultures tell you.

    It seems horrible to speak in these blunt racial terms, but indeed, you have to, JH, because skin color is what people see and to which they often react. Extensive studies have shown the degree to which we are prejudiced by appearances: the tall, for instance, the pretty, and usually the white (even browns and blacks in tests subconsciously preferred the white)…it’s deep-seated..and has its roots also in religion…but I think it is mainly power structures that keep it going..

    I am not suggesting legal redress for that or defending or attacking any of it; I am merely observing.

    Browns and blacks in the last 500 years were very much more frequently and extensively than whites the victims of various forms of state pillaging and plunder (the British, French, Dutch, Belgian, Spanish and Portuguese empires mainly, but also from other states as well – Middle Eastern, and Far Eastern, too). Because the most extensive damage was inflicted by European states, that oppression came to be identified with white European (and Christian) culture.

    To my mind the indentification is not quite right (although not entirely wrong) because I don’t believe the state and culture are the same thing. I also don’t see culture as unitary…. but very complex. And I blame what happened mainly on the European state system, which then infected the culture….

    But European culture eventually did become infected with feelings of racial superiority that became stronger as the European state system began to dominate more and more of the world. It was not racism that led to imperialism, but imperialism (the state system) which led to racism, to my mind. (With some caveats).

    Now Scimitar, without understanding that group history, you will fail to see why many immigrants from groups once plundered by states associated with the majority population are going to feel justified in “redressing” that past grievance.

    I put the word “redressing” in quotes because the imperial financiers and governor -generals who harmed, say, the general Indian population in the 19th century are obviously not the same as the average British joe. They only share skin-color.

    On the other hand, there is some truth that the Western states DID prosper (in the short-term) and achieve their initial economic dominance through imperialism and force. (Long term prosperity doesn’t ever come through plundering I would argue and is counterproductive to it), and that therefore there IS some legitimate moral claim on western societies, not merely for equal treatment before the law as individuals, but for some group “leveling of the playing field” which may take the form of foreign aid, assistance, entitlements etc., etc..

    I don’t say I agree with that and I am not going into the details. I am not now taking any position. I am just trying to explain to Scimitar where this “aggressive” group- consciousness of immigrants he sees might come from.

    I also want to point out that ” majority rights” alone are seen by opinion-makers today as a form of racism because racism is not just group consciousness or identification, but the imposition through a power-structure of the dominant group’s perceptions. In that sense, since white Americans are said to be the most powerful group in terms of overall property ownership – only their group consciousness is truly “racist” — all other groups are merely righting the balance or expressing random sentiments.

    Again, this is the argument – I am just clarifying.

    Another point. Don’t you think that a lot of what you consider “rights- mongering” by immigrants is often done by immigrant activists (often native-born) or by majority group activists who have their own agendas too? Most immigrants that I know actually want to blend in and not rock the boat so they can fit in better.

    It’s only the one who are organized by politically conscious activists on campus or in the work place who are as aggressive as Scimitar sees them to be.

    At least, that’s my understanding of the situation.

    Knowing this context might help someone to try to look at how the situation might be seen by minorities. Do you see how they could come to feel that way?

    And it’s not just past history.

    The whole world right now is deeply affected by the US state…even countries the US hasn’t gone to war with or armed…or whose governments it hasn’t overthrown.

    American multinationals are setting up and making profits for Americans in India, China, Mexico…in a ton of places. Emerging markets have done better for American money managers than American markets. Finance gets to go where it will. But then the ordinary people in those countries are impoverished unless they work for one of those companies, they have to even pay for their water – because the multinationals have sucked the water table dry…but the people can’t leave and go anywhere else because of the difficulties of emigration.

    They don’t choose to leave – the globalized economy forces them to leave…but there’s no place to go..because in the dominant countries they’re not wanted either…

    So finance gets to move everywhere but labor is restricted…It angers these groups…Can you see how they feel victimized and entitled?

    What if people here started to reign in the American state…or just watched what it was really doing abroad..not what the mainstream told you it was doing..(the media is mostly propagandizing for the financially dominant)

    Understanding where people are really coming from makes it easier to negotiate with them; it makes them more human and less a threat.

    By not taking into account race at all, JH, don’t you think you. too, (respectfully) may be seeing only a part of all of this and not the whole picture?

    Don’t you think that at least part of the alienation minority groups feel is the way they are still treated because they are not white; they are automatically identified as different. They are not seen as individuals but identified and targeted by skin color. Sometimes they are elevated solely because of it. Sometimes they are put down solely because of it.
    Not taking sides on any of it or advocating or anything…again..merely observing and trying to figure out where different people come from…Of course, some are merely opportunists and hustlers..that’s there too.

    The elevation is usually done in very visible places (in positions on TV and in various high profile grievance cases) or among the well-educated with enough clout to go to court. The putting down takes place routinely in hidden ways and among the vulnerable.

    And I do agree that the majority group also suffers. Because not all of the majority group shares in its so-called dominant role. There are poor whites and those in rural areas who have to struggle harder than middle class immigrants and minorities… Because majority and minority are relative terms and group badges and don’t reflect individual realty fully, only one part of it. And because individuals are sometimes minorites in one thing and dominant in another, as they also have a complex number of roles they play simultaenously.

    That’s why ‘group’ is a clumsy way to deal with anything..

    The end result of all of this is that the majority and the minorities thus all get to feel injured. Each one feels ill-used. The majority sees itself giving up more and more and getting less and less; the minority feels it’s getting something only grudgingly and at the expense of a more and more racially-charged culture. Everyone walks on eggshells. No one is an overt racist in public anymore but privately, racial feelings bubble over.

    JH, you would say that that is entirely a product of how the state has “racialized” the whole interaction between individuals and I do thnk that I fundamentally agree with that.

    But, you know, long before there were quotas or affirmative actions, in the 1920s…there was also discrimination on the basis of skin color – so you have to admit that even if the root cause if the state and its coercive policies, there is also a complex interaction between state and culture that needs to be addressed – not through the law but through public discussion and debate and understanding…

    I think then you would see where S is coming from.
    What is interesting to me as I heard both your sides is how I found myself in agreement (to some degree) with both of you. I think the fundamental problem IS lack of liberty, as you say, JH…violation of habeas corpus, increasing espionage, torture, spying, rendtions….that’s the legal level…

    [Fortunately we do have free speech although that's also carefully circumscribed. Still, it's a freedom we should be grateful for.]

    Yet, at the same, time JH, don’t you think what S says is also true – that there is an excess, too – an anything goes, all-rights and no-responsibilities public culture as well?

    Couldn’t both these perceptions be true? Couldn’t we have very stifling laws in respect of the polity, operating side by side with a great deal of license in other areas?

    I think so…

  34. Kim, hi! Didn’t see your last comment there..
    Yes, human being — an interesting, complex organism, no?
    I like that thing Nietzsche said – about not wanting to understand who God was, because he had enough on his hands trying to figure out what human beings were….

    S and JH, I found it very interesting to hear both of you.

    But, just a plea here..let’s not label people “collectivist,” “libertarian” – even though they may in fact hold those ideas…

    I tend to think it’s part of the way we tend to get stuck sometimes in our interactions..

    ‘S’ is Scimitar, before everything else, and ‘JH’ is JH..

    Having gone through the blogs where Scimitar posts, however, I must say his self-characterization as racialIST is not accurate. RacialIST does not to me carry any connotation of superiority or inferiority. RaCIST does. The language of the threads I read certainly were RacIST.

  35. About equal moral worth…
    I would rephrase that if I could – I’m not sure what I meant by it…

    it’s one of those platitudes one utters when one is trying to affirm something which doesn’t really have a rational basis but arises from somewhere else…that we also don’t really live upto. Kind of a fuzzy affirmation…

    Maybe all this skin color talk turned me a bit giddy…
    Yes – a feeble tautology..I will try to do better next time..

    Afterthought: After reading your response to this part, I realize that my attempt above at irony didn’t get through……I do realize that my phrase – “equal moral worth” was not logical — but I am also quite certain that not all our highest aspirations are logical and that you are enough of a human being to understand what it was I was trying to assert when I said it. You are also human enough to understand why I might feel reluctant to delineate human beings in terms of morphological attributes….

  36. About Race:

    What evidence from the past we have tells us that humans arose and groups of them were isolated in various places and adapted to the differeing conditions. Some became browner over the generations, some whiter, etc. But the populations were related. When they later came across one another, they mated and produced mixed generations. This separation, adaptation, and remixing has been going on for as long as we know. Finding a lot of people who are more closly similar and all have brown skin, wide noses, and curly hair and claiming they are a race is certainly possible. But it is also possible to find a group who all have brown skin, straight hair and short, chubby fingers and declare them to be a race. Finding patterns where there is an infinite number of patterns is easy. What you can’t do is to prove that the particular pattern you are pointing at is any more valid or significant than any other pattern.

    Imagine that you find 3 people of 3 different races and number them 1, 3, and 5. I will then find a 2 who is “racially” a halfbreed between 1 and 3. I will find another half-breed between 3 and 5. I will then argue that 2 and 4 are the races and your #3 is a half-breed.

    When I say race does not exist, I am not saying that differences and similarities don’t exist or that patterns of similarities don’t exist. But the listing and labeling of those selected patterns is arbitrary. You can not prove what is a race and what is a half-breed without setting an arbitrary standard by which to measure every individual.

    The simple truth is that all humans vary in all kinds of ways across a vast continuum and can be sorted and labeled however you choose. You can create whatever arbitrary lines of demarcation in that continuum you wish but that does not mean those lines are objectively significant.

    Color is a convenient favorite of racists because it is so handy to have your slaves easy to spot, just in case. So a bunch of narrow nose, straight-hair whites enslaved a bunch of their wide-nose, curly-haired brown cousins and got away with it partly by arguing that brown people are a different race.

    Race is nothing but rhetoric. It’s politics. The word race is actually useless, unless you just want to use it to discuss the human race. It’s significant that biologists do not use the word when discussing the rest of the animal species.

  37. 39 L

    Actually, Scimitar and John Howard each labeled themselves as collectivist and libertarian, they did not abusively label each other. They both freely confessed their respective afflictions in a shameless fashion.

    They both strike me as gentlemen, especially the nice one with two first names. But Scimitar seems to have difficulty accurately summarizing his opponent’s position. It might be best if Scimitar would focus on presenting his own beliefs rather than devoting himself to paychobabblistic and inaccurate mis-representations of the beliefs of his opponents.

    So far, little of what he says about libertarians is true. It seems he is a poor source for that kind of info and should perhaps ask more questions and make fewer statements in that field of inquiry. But he’s a nice person whose tone and manner is just what you would expect from a gentleman who is a racist and collectivist. I think there is much to be learned from him. About him.

  38. It is dishonest to characterize libertarianism as libertine. Libertarians are promoting liberty and equality for all. That means that you can’t just do what ever you want. You must be careful not to do harm to others. The ‘equality’ part means that every one has both the same right to liberty and the same responsibility not to infringe upon the rights of others.

    To constantly pretend that libertarians are seeking liberty without responsibility (without equality) is simply ignorant. There is no evidence of such a position. Ron Paul is constantly tying together the ideas of liberty, individualism, and responsibility.

    The key to the philosophical battle going on is to understand that it is a battle between voluntarism and violence. Pick one.

  39. JH -

    I am not trying to straddle a fence. You mistake me.
    I am trying to react to human beings and their viewpoints, not to ideologies which don’t exist in a vacuum.

    I AM a libertarian. But Scimitar is right to say (as you do here) that liberty without responsibility is license and that’s what we have now.

    And yes, you and I might be aware of that part of libertarianism, but unfortunately, Scimitar is also right that many libertarians are actually only advocates of uncontrained license. I personally need to see ethics articulated more strongly, especially in market issues; anything goes is not libertarianism.

    I try to avoid battling for a philosophy. There’s something peculiar about that statement. Philosophy can take care of itself without my boxing gloves…

    To me, anyway, philosophy is a process, not a doctrine. You never arrive at it. Like liberty.

    If I ever fight anyone, it will be for something concrete, like picking my wallet.

    My position is unequivocally in favor of reduced government in all areas. I prefer contraints on the superior state power by the next in line on the principle of devolution. So, I tend to support international bodies/law against the arbitrary exercize of hegemonic state power, national laws/against international bureaucracies/laws (unless they contradict fundamental ethical values i.e. are genocidal or murderous); I support states against national government and individuals against states — again, within the limits of ethics.

    For the same reason I am also against group entitlements of all kinds, starting, however, with corporate and defense welfare, the space boondoggle, federal reserve bailouts of hedge funds..and then when that’s taken care of, we can cut government subsidies elsewhere.

    But gradually and fairly. And making sure it’s working without stress on the weakest elements in society.

    My ideal is the city-state, clustered around self-selecting groups, with a minimalist government that preserves security of life and property..(but with no room for speculative activity)..

    I do understand [NB: the Boasian] the concept of race as a construct and a morphological variant that has been essentialized. Not sure about it. But still, I don’t think it’s correct to say that raciaLISM is the same thing as a racISM. That’s, respectfully, not so. I like to use politically correct and respectful language to show consideration for human beings, but I use it as courtesy and not because I want to constrain my thinking.

    I try to avoid reading motives or finding slippery slopes, unnecessarily. There are surely people who think libertarianism is a slippery slope to anarchy (by which they somehow mean chaos, although even chaos is not what it used to be)…they are wrong.

    And the same goes for racialsim. It is not – or at least does not have to be – a slippery slope to racism.

    (On the other hand, I just visited one of S’s blog haunts, and having looked at the discussions and threads, I would say that the language is not just racialist – it is racist).

    ‘Nuff said.

    Still, it was not the nativists and xenophobes like Buchanan, you note, who advocated war in Iraq – but quite a multiculti crew – two Indians (at least), a few hispanics….some women..you get the picture.

    So, let’s not get mesmerized by language. There are arguments even in Rothbard and Rand, I find weak and problematic. Mainly because they are not always sophisticated about language.

    Do you know Michael Oakeshott? You might find him useful on that count…just a thought..
    Let’s see things for what they are. Let’s not confuse labels with reality.

  40. So far, little of what he says about libertarians is true. It seems he is a poor source for that kind of info and should perhaps ask more questions and make fewer statements in that field of inquiry. But he’s a nice person whose tone and manner is just what you would expect from a gentleman who is a racist and collectivist. I think there is much to be learned from him. About him.

    I’m hardly the first person to notice how an excess of liberty (which characterizes libertarianism) often goes hand in hand with the expansion of government. Here is Alexis de Tocqueville writing about the matter in Democracy in America. I have always considered his analysis chilingly prescient:

    Thus I think that the type of repression which threatens democracies is different from anything there has ever been in the world before. Our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I have myself vainly searched for a word which will exactly express the whole of the conception I have formed. Such old words as “despotism” and “tyranny” do not fit. The thing is new, and as I cannot find a word for it, I must try to define it.

    I am trying to imagine under what novel features despotism may appear in the world. In the first place, I see an innumerable multitude of men, alike and equal, constantly circling around in pursuit of the petty and banal pleasures with which they glut their souls. Each one of them, withdrawn into himself, is almost unaware of the fate of the rest. Mankind, for him, consists in his children and his personal friends. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, they are near enough, but he does not notice them. He touches them but feels nothing. He exists in and for himself, and though he still may have a family, one can at least say that he has not got a fatherland.

    Over this kind of men stands an immense, protective power which is alone responsible for securing their enjoyment and watching over their fate. That power is absolute, thoughtful of detail, orderly, provident, and gentle. It would resemble parental authority if, fatherlike, it tried to prepare its charges for a man’s life, but on the contrary, it only tries to keep them in perpetual childhood. It likes to see the citizens enjoy themselves, provided that they think of nothing but enjoyment. It gladly works for their happiness but wants to be the sole agent and judge of it. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, makes rules for their testaments, and provides their inheritances. Why should it not entirely relieve them from the trouble of thinking and all the cares of living?

    Thus it daily makes the exercise of free choice less useful and rarer, restricts the activity of free will within a narrower compass, and little by little robs each citizen of the proper use of his own faculties. Equality has prepared men for all this, predisposing them to endure it and often even regard it as beneficial.

    Having thus taken each citizen in turn in its powerful grasp and shaped him to its will, government then extends its embrace to include the whole of society. It covers the whole of social life with a network of petty, complicated rules that are both minute and uniform, through which even men of the greatest originality and the most vigorous temperament cannot force their heads above the crowd. It does not break men’s will, but softens, bends, and guides it; it seldom enjoins, but often inhibits, action; it does not destroy anything, but prevents much being born; it is not at all tyrannical, but it hinders, restrains, enervates, stifles, and stultifies so much that in the end each nation is no more than a flock of timid and hardworking animals with the government as its shepherd.

    I have always thought that this brand of orderly, gentle, peaceful slavery which I have just described could be combined, more easily than is generally supposed, with some of the external forms of freedom, and that there is a possibility of its getting itself established even under the shadow of the sovereignty of the people.

  41. JH,

    If I may try, crudely perhaps, to sum up your argument:

    Variation in human populations occurs evenly along a continuum. Between any of the so-called “races” there is a near infinite number of possible mixtures and half-breeds with differences right down to the level of individual human beings. The point at which one “race” becomes another is therefore arbitrary and useless because there is no valid reason for the line to be drawn there and not somewhere else.

    Assuming that human variation does actually occur on a smooth continuum (which may be debatable, but for now let’s say it does), I do not see this to be a problem, nor real evidence that the significance of race be discarded. The colours of a rainbow occur in a contiuum. Where does one draw the line between red and yellow? And does the existence of orange mean that red and yellow’s status as primary colours should be doubted? The fact that there are shades of grey at the peripheries surely does not mean that black and white does not exist, nor that the terms are invalid.

    The supposed problem of which is the breed and which is the half-breed is also of little value. It is the same as saying that the demarcation lines we use to differentiate different breeds of cats and dogs are arbitrary and useless because of the existence of myriad combinations of breeds and mongrels. Obviously, we can in fact say that x dog is a Golden Retriever. There are other dogs like it, and other dogs less like it to the point where they are either mongrels or a different breed entirely. Though it may be hard sometimes to draw the line, it can not be doubted that there is actually a breed called a Golden Retriever and that it has certain qualities. To me the same thing applies to humans. I’m open to an argument telling me why the analogy cannot apply.

    “Race is nothing but rhetoric. It’s politics. The word race is actually useless, unless you just want to use it to discuss the human race. It’s significant that biologists do not use the word when discussing the rest of the animal species.”

    That is ridiculous. How is race useful if used in the context of the entire human race? To the contrary, one would think that the term is completely devoid of any utility when it is used to describe human population as a whole. Is there a chimpanzee race? A Kangaroo race?

    There is also little significance in the omission of the word “race” by biologists when discussing non-human animals. It is a pleasantry: words like “breeds”, “variants”, and “sub-species” are used to describe variations in non-human animals because we like to think that humans are different from beasts; we find it inappropriate to differentiate ourselves using the same labels that we use for animals.

  42. Having gone through the blogs where Scimitar posts, however, I must say his self-characterization as racialIST is not accurate. RacialIST does not to me carry any connotation of superiority or inferiority. RaCIST does. The language of the threads I read certainly were RacIST.

    I’m not sure what blogs you are referring to. Majority Rights, perhaps? As I said above, I am not interested in the “superiority vs. inferiority” issue. I don’t believe that makes any sense in terms of Darwinism. An organism is “superior” to other organisms only in the sense that it is better adapted to its environment than its rivals and has a higher fitness.

    Take negroes for example. Their extremely dark skin is an adaptation to the environment of Sub-Saharan Africa. The same is true sickle cell anemia which a side effect of their greater resistance to malaria. If I were forced to live in such an environment, I would be more likely to succumb to tropical diseases and/or skin cancer. The opposite is also true. In the environment of, say, Alaska or England, my fair skin would give me a survival advantage over them. There is no stability to the “superiority” or “inferiority” of any given race. Evolution doesn’t work like that.

    In the environment of the modern welfare state, I would argue that nonwhites probably have an advantage. Call that “superiority” if you like, but they are better at exploiting the altruism of their European host nations to increase their own numbers. The frequency of whites within the United States continues to decrease relative to the general population. Are “whites” thus inferior? Maybe, but that could always change. This language is antiquated and doesn’t really fit the new conception of race. Whether a given race is “superior” or “inferior” is now really a question of the group evolutionary strategy it pursues.

    Racialism is the belief that racial differences exist and that they are relevant to public policy questions. This does not necessarily require antagonism to other races, but it doesn’t preclude it either. History has shown time and again that racial consciousness is inversely correlated with racial homogeneity. The surest way to “fight racism” and get people thinking in terms other than race is to separate the races. It is time we accepted the fact that humans are animals and share the anxieties of other closely related species. Generally speaking, we naturally feel more comfortable around those who share copies of our genes. There is nothing whatsoever pathological about this. It is the ultimate source of morality itself.

  43. L,

    That was a long and thoughtful response. It will take me some time to digest it and reply. For now, I want to respond to this point you raised above:

    I would say to Scimitar that by not thoroughly knowing modern economic and political history (since the 1500s), one couldn’t understand, this alienation of brown-skinned and black-skinned people from the dominant culture. I mean really knowing the history, not just accepting what pop historians from the dominant cultures tell you.

    First, I would like to point out that I have a M.A. from Duke University in International Relations, so I actually know quite a lot about these matters. I have also taken numerous graduate level courses in European history as electives. You will find that I am extremely well versed in the subject. As for the alienation of “brown-skinned and black-skinned people from the dominant culture,”that is, from the liberalism of the contemporary West (to use your example of Muslims in the UK), I can perfectly understand such sentiments as an outsider, perhaps in a way that you cannot (as someone still inside liberalism), and sympathize with their concerns to a great extent.

    You mention historically based grievances above. While much of what you say is true (and I will address this in a few minutes), it is important to keep in mind that purely cultural grievances exist as well, and are often powerful motivating factors in anti-Western violence. Take Islam for example. There are certain strains of Islam which are simply fundamentally incompatible with Western liberalism. Muslims look at the West and they are appalled by its materialism, social atomization and leveling, rootlessness, irreligiosity, and excessive permissiveness. They especially resent the encroachment of “Americanism” of this sort upon their own cultures; in my view, rightfully so. In their minds, the United States is the great spewer of cultural garbage upon the world – Hollywood, McDonald’s, Wal-Mart, MTV, Eminem, Paris Hilton, etc. Western liberals need to wake up to the fact that much of the world rejects the notion that their beliefs are universally applicable. As we can see in Iraq today, not to mention Venezuala, Iran, Nicaragua, Mexico, North Korea and so on, as well in the budding anti-globalization movement, everyone doesn’t want to be like Americans.

    This is a common critique of the United States which can be found everywhere from Latin America to the Middle East, from East Asia to the former Soviet Union, and especially in Western Europe in countries like France and Germany. It cannot be explained away in terms of historical grievances because it antedated those grievances. It is found in countries that have no particular historical axe to grind with America as well. The general thrust of it was already around in the days of Jefferson who had a long exchange with Buffon about the inferiority of American wildlife. The French had no historical reasons to dislike American culture, but they have always felt threatened by it. Even after D-Day and the liberation of France from Nazi rule, French intellectuals continued to look down on the United States. During the mid-nineteenth century, Germans satired the California gold rush as being typical of Yankee materialism. Read Oscar Wilde, H.L. Mencken, Sinclair Lewis – Americans and non-Americans alike, even privileged and cultured men – have shared this view throughout history.

  44. See Ya!:
    “Ron Paul in 1992: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

    no :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Newsletter_writings_on_race

    Texas Monthly wrote at the time they printed the denial, “What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.” They state that it would have been easier for him to deny the accusations at the time, because the controversy would have destroyed most politicians.

  45. John Howard: “Saving poor Scimitar will require teaching him first that races do not exist other than as arbitrary mental collections.”

    yeah, sure.

    The New Science of Race, (Globe and Mail (Toronto))

    http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/06/the_new_science_1.php

    I can provide tons of other articles refuting race-denial. And if you were really concerned about those believing in such mental collections you would be in favor of completely stopping immigration from Mehico and south america and deporting them because mestizos are a 100 times more racist than white americans.

    And those hypocrite politicians give speeches in front of ‘La Raza’ meetings but they would rather be tortured at Guantanamo than to give speeches in front of a white race lobby. Asymmetrical, it’z.

  46. Lila:
    “On one thing I do agree. I think we need to stop enforcing group consciousness through the law. I think we need more liberty and treatment of people as individuals.”

    but that can only happen in relatively homogeneous white communities. I bet most white americans wouldn’t have a problem with a few mexicans here and there working and minding their own business. But when you have lots and lots of them, the pressure to behave and not to annoy the majority disappears: they feel their demographic power and go from defensive/submissive to offensive/dominant. Yes, it’s animalistic and it’s because humans aren’t the intellectual creatures the egalitarian liberal fools said they were. And yes, some humans are more animalistic than others.

    as I wrote here:

    http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/samidioting/

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

  47. L,

    it’s one of those platitudes one utters when one is trying to affirm something which doesn’t really have a rational basis but arises from somewhere else…that we also don’t really live upto. Kind of a fuzzy affirmation…

    It’s a meme with a long history in the West that can be traced back through modern liberalism to Renaissance humanism and ultimately to Christianity. It permeates our civilization. You probably picked it up from the surrounding culture. Most people do.

    The source of the idea is the Biblical notion that man was created in the image of god and thus enjoys a special place in his creation above other creatures. Of course we now know this isn’t true. Humans evolved from other species like all other organisms on this planet. There is nothing particularly special about us. We share the same genetic code of the lowliest sea sponge. At some point in history, I shared a common ancestor with my family dog.

    Some of us have left behind anthropocentrism in ethics in the same way that geocentrism was discarded during the seventeenth century and a 6,000 year old earth in the nineteenth century. Men have always liked to believe they are at the center of things and that their actions enjoy cosmic significance. Sadly, this isn’t so. Morality isn’t handed down to us from up high from some god in the sky. It doesn’t exist in the natural world either; there are no Newtonian universal laws of ethics to be discovered.

    The roots of morality are in our genes. In our emotions. The same is true of our sense of taste. There is no “one true cuisine” waiting to be discovered. Moral behavior is always a combination of reasoning, intuitive feelings, and tradition. This often generates contradictions which are the source of moral controversies. Most Americans may say they acknowledge the equal moral worth of all human beings, but they are hopelessly biased in practice in favor of their own children, mates, friends, and close relatives, even if all concerned are “equally human.”

    There is nothing wrong with admitting that the death of a close loved one, a parent or sibling for example, is far more emotionally troubling than the death of thousands of complete strangers. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with favoring one’s own ethnic and racial kin over more distant relations. This comes natural to us. It feels right intuitively to the primate brain. The liberal ideal of non-discrimination, far from being a celebration of “human rights,” is actually deeply anti-human. Forcing people of dissimilar ancestry to live in close proximity to each other, to share limited resources, and then browbeating them for failing to live up to utopian liberal ideals is utterly cruel.

  48. Think about that: the US government can launch wars that cost hundreds of billions, kill tens of thousands of innocents in foreign countries and have thousands of its troops killed and injured but it refuses to deport aliens who broke the law.

    And Chertoff is saying he knows in his gut that the terrorists are going to attack yet he doesn’t give Arizona the funds they need to protect their border with Mexico :

    it seems only Lou Dobbs points the finger at such absurdities.

    70 % of americans are against the war in Iraq. At least 80 % are tired of all those illegal aliens and all the problems and crimes they commit.

    Which candidate is against the wars in the Middle East and against amnesty & benefits for illegal aliens ? Ron Paul.

    Who is for sending americans to fight and die in the Middle East for no good reason and for open borders and total amnesty for illegals ? George Bush, Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama and maybe 15 out of the 18 presidential candidates of both parties.

    Democrats, Republicans, none of that matters. They’re all greased by AIPAC and big corporations. They don’t care about what americans want.

  49. It would appear that Tom has beat me to the punch and summed up the gist of what I had to say in reply to John Howard. While he is on the ropes, I will take several more shots at him.

    1.) Re: the ridiculous argument about categories. As Tom has shown, this sort of absurd reasoning could be employed to wreck any concept whatsoever. Take sex for example. Do men and women exist? Apparently, not. We can classify men and women in all sorts of different ways, say, a gender of people with brown hair or a gender of short people. What about a gender of the extremely sexually active? Why stop there? Let’s dissolve humanity itself. Some animals have brown fur. Some humans have brown hair. There you have it: a new species that bissects traditional ones.

    2.) Re: half-breeds existing along a continuum. I will return to my example of the handful of firecrackers which John Howard has yet to respond to. I believe it is safe to say that “pain” doesn’t exist because there is no precise way to measure the concept. At what point does pain become pleasure? Where does extreme pain become moderate pain? And isn’t pain a quality that exists only in the mind? It is thus a figment of our imagination with no real world significance – just like race according to John Howard.

    Note: For the record, all life on this planet exists along a continuum. Every organism in the world is shares the same genetic code and is related at some level. Race is just a finer distinction than species or genus.

    3.) John Howard continues to insist that racial classifications are arbitrary. This simply isn’t true. The primate mind doesn’t sort people into categories arbitrarily. Even infants at a very early age automatically pick up on racial distinctions and others like it. This is really an argument about categories, not race.

    The devastating counterargument to this sort of reasoning is that if the mind really worked in such a fashion, and it clearly doesn’t, the world would be unintelligible. The mind would be unable to make any sense out of the chaos of sensations it receives from the nervous system. It would simply record images without drawing relationships between them like a security camera in a shopping mall. This also explains why children are able to pick up language and make sense of it so easily. There has to be some innate mechanism in the brain responsible for this.

    Pace John Howard, race is more than “just rhetoric.” Race exists at the biological level in the same way that sex does. As I noted above, computer programs exist that can objectively sort individuals into races that are 99% accurate. If race were “arbitrary” as John Howard insists, that would be utterly impossible.

    John Howard has yet to respond to my post about property rights being social constructs that exist only in the mind. The self as well. No one browsing this blog experiences the world “objectively” or as it really is (our sense of sight, hearing, and smell is actually quite poor). The way we experience reality is mediated by consciousness, an emergent property of the brain, which in turn has been shaped by millions of years of human evolution.

    John Howard denies the existence of collectives. What about the individual? Can’t we stand this argument on its head? How can the individual truly be said to exist when the personality of the individual is so heavily determined by social and historical factors beyond his control? Did John Howard invent the English language? Did he reason out his libertarian conclusions from the nature of reality itself? Or did he instead merely pick up these ideas from others?

    Most people hold the beliefs they do for no other reason than the fact that they happen to have been born in a particular place at a particular time in history and were raised in such a fashion. Some individualists we humans are. Yeah right.

  50. To: John Howard

    It is dishonest to characterize libertarianism as libertine.

    This is not a dishonest characterization of libertarianism. As I noted above in my previous post, your ideal is license, not liberty. License is defined as “lack of due restraint; excessive freedom.” That’s exactly what you believe in. Libertarians defend and rationalize all sorts of sordid behaviors. A good example of this is Walter Block’s book Defending the Undefendable in which Block defends prostitutes, pimps, drug addicts, habitual litterers, counterfeiters, slumlords, scabs and the other dregs of society.

    Libertarians are promoting liberty and equality for all.

    Here is what you are doing: you are redefining “liberty” as the non-initiation of force, or “license,” holding it up as the highest good, and characterizing all uses of restraint by the public law as harm and violence. There are several fundamental problems with this worldview is 1.) license is a vice, 2.) there are many other goods besides liberty, and 3.) it is ultimately faith-based. We have too much “liberty” as you understand the term in America. You also define “equality” as civil equality. Obviously, you reject theories of redistributive justice, but that is a topic for another discussion. I’m still scratching my head trying to figure out how the mere absence of restraint, which in my view reflects an adolescent mentality, is more important in life than enjoying meaningful relationships with others.

    That means that you can’t just do what ever you want. You must be careful not to do harm to others.

    In other words, feel free to indulge your worst appetites, no matter how vulgar, base, or insolent, so long as you stop at the other guy’s nose. And do this in the name of “liberty.” Who would want to live in such a repulsive, immoral, lawless society?

    The ‘equality’ part means that every one has both the same right to liberty and the same responsibility not to infringe upon the rights of others.

    See, in a libertarian society, even equality is redefined as respecting the inalienable right of the individual to engage in unrestrained licentious behavior. It is important to keep in mind that this is the essence of libertarianism – a modest amount of liberty, which communitarians and classical republicans favor, is not good enough. No, libertarianis will settle for nothing less than the ethics of the brothel and the crack house.

    To constantly pretend that libertarians are seeking liberty without responsibility (without equality) is simply ignorant. There is no evidence of such a position.

    Responsibility to who? To your spouse? In your view, marriages are illusionary collectives. To your family? That’s another non-existent group. To your kin or community? There is no such thing. To your nation? You are a man without a patrie. To your own sense of moral decency? Morality is just another one of those unimportant things that only exist in our minds.

    Ron Paul is constantly tying together the ideas of liberty, individualism, and responsibility.
    I won’t put Ron Paul in the same box with you, but clearly you share a similar worldview.

    The key to the philosophical battle going on is to understand that it is a battle between voluntarism and violence. Pick one.

    That’s a false dilemma. A reasonable man doesn’t have to choose between liberty on the one hand and the law on the other. He recognizes that it is the public law, the community, and his own good moral sense that makes his liberty possible. And for that he is grateful.

  51. L.,

    Re: Your long post above.

    Racialism is not necessarily aggressive or hateful.

    This is very true. I wish more people were of this view. As I have explained, racialism is simply 1.) the acknowledgement that racial differences exist and 2.) are relevant to public policy questions.

    How we react to this state of affairs goes beyond racialism (which is merely an acknowledgement of the reality of race). There are a diversity of approaches. There are white separatists who would dissolve the United States into racial enclaves. There are race realists who would have whites reassert their racial interests like other groups currently do. There are libertarians like Charles Murray who would give up on integration. There are eugenicists who hold out hope for a medical remedy. There are liberals who would use the genetic lottery as an argument for redistributive justice. There are conservatives who would use heredity as an argument against various government programs. The mere acknowledgement that race exists and has salient effects upon public policy doesn’t imply that we should hate other races or mistreat them in anyway. So yes, there are “benign racialists” in addition to the more radical ones.

    Re: liberty

    As a communitarian, I agree with you that “liberty” is a good, and limited government is an ideal. The difference is that 1.) we believe “liberty” has to be balanced by other goods like “fraternity,” 2.) we reject the harm principle as a consequence, 3.) we are equally suspicious of the market and government alike, 4.) we don’t see the state as the enemy like you do. I believe your ire is misguided. The problem is not so much the state as it is character of the population itself. The fact that powerful groups have captured the state and are using it to advance their own interests is a symptom of the moral rot that is so pervasive in American culture today. Where are the virtuous, vigilent, public spirited citizens busily organizing themselves to fight the usurpation of their liberty? Why do Americans stand for it? Because more and more of them are people like John Howard, self-absorbed in their own petty lives, who really could care or less about the welfare of their fellow citizens, much less future generations.

    Virtue is the foundation of liberty. Dispense with virtue, as the libertarians generally do, and the population will degenerate into a vicious mob. Sooner or later that vicious mob will throw up a tyrant to do their bidding. And thus liberty ends as it began – in the arms of tyranny. Moral lesson: a government is only as good as the people it governs. The man who exercises his “freedom” to desert his own family can’t be relied upon to sacrifice himself for the sake of liberal abstractions.

    Re: the state

    I’m not sure where to draw the line between “the state” and “government.” “Government” in some sense has always existed. Even the smallest, most obscure tribes are dominated by authority figures which are seen to possess a mysterious “legitimacy” that others lack. I believe human beings naturally live in hierarchial societies. All the other primates do. I don’t see what could possibly be done about this. “Government” is a sort of extended phenotype. The tribe, also. The notion that “the people” can govern themselves sounds nice, but doesn’t really work that way in practice. Even in democracies, the public looks to the media and other authority figures for cues as to which way to vote.

    Re: lack of control over where one is born, and so forth

    A good point. I would follow up on that and point out that the individual is largely a construct of his surrounding environment. Religion is a good example of this. Is my sense of individuality separable from the culture I was raised in, the language I speak, all the knowledge of others that circulates in my head? No, I don’t believe it is.

    Re: historical grievances of immigrants

    Yes, I am well aware of these. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Notes on the State of Virginia, such negative historical experiences, in addition to the strong racial differences in morphology, will always “divide us into parties.” I believe that is as good an argument as any for immigration restriction and some form of separation. In that case, best we part ways on good terms.

    It’s not like I can’t see where American Indians, African-Americans, and Hispanics are coming from. On the contrary, I clearly do. Will these groups ever forget these historical grievances? Will they ever cease to hold them against whites? Will they ever eschew their own group identities and join whites in their pining for a colorblind utopia? I’m not convinced they will.

  52. Just to say, that I censored some of Scimitar’s post not because I am afraid to debate them honestly but because I don’t want some one with an axe to grind to take them out of context and post them as an example of what I endorse. They are not.

    The sections related to

    1. Supposed correlation of levels of social violence and social freedom with racial type

    2. Supposed racially and politically motivated agenda to mongrelize American society

    I am not going to answer them in the comments section, because I think this section has got long enough.

    I will take up this thread in a new post, summarizing as best I can the main points in your arguments.

    L

  53. “Yet, at the same, time JH, don’t you think what S says is also true – that there is an excess, too – an anything goes, all-rights and no-responsibilities public culture as well?”

    When individuals are robbed of their liberty by collectivists, they are robbed of responsibility. The more decisions that are taken from their hands, the less responsible they become. A free society breeds responsibility because individuals are no longer able to use government to help them rob their neighbors or make up their minds for them. They must begin to be responsible for themselves as the collectivist welfare state is dismantled because their survival will depend upon becoming responsible.

    It is a grave error to look at the behavior of people under the rule of a vast collectivist empire and to assume that that is how they will behave when free. Liberty means independance. But that means being both free of your neighbor and leaving him free of you. Liberty imposes responsibility.

    So I conclude, don’t worry too much about the current behavior of people. Set them free and they will adapt to liberty by becoming responsible.

  54. JH -

    I totally agree with that.
    For me – even the corruption of our language stems from the state.

    If you look back over the last 400 years, what people think of as capitalism has always been state driven mercantilism. The enlightenment grew up around it. You don’t have to reject the good that came out of that but you have to reject certain misuses of logic, rationality in contexts where their use must be embodied to have any value.

    Verum factum. Truth is an act.

    “ll nations begin by fantasia, the power of imagination and the age of gods which are needed to comprehend the world. After that, there comes a second age in which fantasia is used to form social institutions and heroes are used to inspire moral virtues. The third and final age is the age of rationality, in which humanity declines into barbarie della reflessione — barbarism of reflection. According to Vico, this is a cycle — gods, heroes and humans — which repeats itself within the world of nations, forming storia ideale eterna — ideal eternal history.”

    I talk about it in my new book, “Mobs, Messiahs and Markets” — this misundertanding that if we don’t have a state telling us what to do society will degenerate into chaos and also here in this article “Katrina and the Fishy Logic of the State.”

    But I think, we need to close this thread and I will start a new one, with the starting point being some of the main points of contention between you and S (as I see them):

    Is Libertarianism license? Or phrased another way, does libertarianism needs ethics or does it already assume it?

    Community versus Individual (Are they opposed?)

    Does racialism always lead to racism ( I would argue that it depends on the form the government policy takes)

    And then, the more controversial aspects of S’s post (which is secondary to a debate about libertarianism, of course.

    Maybe these need several posts….

  55. John Howard: “Finding patterns where there is an infinite number of patterns is easy.”

    when it comes to animals, race, biology, the valid pattern is ancestry.

    John Howard: “What you can’t do is to prove that the particular pattern you are pointing at is any more valid or significant than any other pattern.”

    OK then let’s try classifying animals by the number of legs that they have. That should be as valid as any other classification. Let’s see:

    the 4 legged animals would be all in the same family
    the 3 legged ones,
    the 2 legged ones,
    the 1 legged ones,
    the 0 legged ones,
    etc.

    in the 4 legged category we would have : horses, cats, dogs, elephants, rhinos, crocodiles, turtles, rabbits, giraffes, rats, lizards, etc.

    in the two legged ones: humans, chimpanzes, kangaroos, lemurs,

    the 0 legged ones: whales, fishes, snakes,

    and that would make sense, right ?

    John Howard: “You can not prove what is a race and what is a half-breed without setting an arbitrary standard by which to measure every individual.”

    it’s only arbitrary if you believe that Individuals are supreme Choice-Making beings and are not influenced by their parents’ genetic background and the group from which they came from. I don’t subscribe to that libertarian religion and I wonder why some do. I mean you can hope that some day racial heredity would be not relevant anymore and you could work to promote the creation of a grey/beige single race but to assert that all humans and all human races are born equal is silly.

    Was it the lack of freedom that prevented the aboriginals of australia to build a great civilization or to discover the wheel ? What about Africa ?

    Either you believe in evolution or you believe in equality.

    John Howard: “You can create whatever arbitrary lines of demarcation in that continuum you wish but that does not mean those lines are objectively significant.”

    for you nothing seems to be objectively significant except whatever you can come up with to justify the libertarian-egalitarian dogma.

    John Howard: “So a bunch of narrow nose, straight-hair whites enslaved a bunch of their wide-nose, curly-haired brown cousins and got away with it partly by arguing that brown people are a different race.”

    it was africans who sold other africans into slavery and they didn’t need some scientific justification to do so.

  56. To make things clear my racism or racial patriotism doesn’t imply some justification for harming other races who live elsewhere on the planet – in fact if white nationalists were in power in the West we would likely not be involved in the Middle East or elsewhere around the world and we would deal honestly with arabs and other races. We would welcome tourists of all races and some foreign temporary workers and perhaps some racial foreigners as citizens but our laws would ensure our survival as a group. There wouldn’t be attempts at colonization on the part of non-whites in our lands and we wouldn’t be in their lands trying to impose “democracy”, “free trade” or some other scam.

    Compare that to the policies of “our” current leaders : they wage wars against arabs and other nations, they twist the arms of lots of nations through international organizations and global banks and they have opened our gates to millions of invaders from the non-white world to drown us in the cauldron of “diversity”.

    They’re the mortal enemies of the West, the worst traitors we have ever had.

  57. You aren’t letting me close this thread and start a new one.

    JB – you make some valid points, such as the complicity of the powerful members of a colonized or enslaved group in their colonization or enslavement. I agree with them.

    But would you also agree that people can enslave withOUT racism and enslave WITH racism and that the distinction (like all subtleties) needs to be addressed?

    Would you agree that the role of the state in fostering human trade needs to be looked at carefully, as well, and that it cannot be seen solely as the outgrowth of culture?

    Can I also suggest that different levels of technology are only that…that one can well have barbarism and technology too?

    And also that many stone-age cultures (in fact, I have heard anthropologists argue – but don’t cross examine me on this till I research it better) show evidence not of being primitives left behind but of being cultures that have stultified through loss of contact with the original meanings of their rituals?

    Can I further suggest that extrapolating from present circumstances to larger theories about races and racial attributes is quite suspect as a method and has in other cases proved exceptionally ill-founded?

    Take India. In the 19th century, British imperialists made all those same arguments you are now making about African culture – ie. our customs were barbarous, we had no ancient civilization, our classical language was rubbish, Hinduism nothing but superstition etc., etc. (read even Macaulay, not the worst of them by any means).

    Well, in the early 20th century, excavations by the British themselves uncovered the Indus Valley Civilization – an advanced civilization that is as old as the Egyptian. I won’t go into it any more; just to point out there is now no question that the “barbaric” Vedic thought of the Indians is ancient and the source of a cross-fertilization of ideas that led to among many other things: Emerson’s oversoul, Schopenauer’s philosophy, Nietzsche’s notion of the “body” (he took many of his best ideas from eastern religion), theosophy, the New Age of today, a lot of the work of transpersonal psychologists, Reich, most of Jung etc etc …..

    I have no doubt that the same holds true in the African continent.
    Some argue for a substantial African contribution to ancient Egypt. I don’t know for sure.

    But I do know that the human mind is exceptionally capable of deception when it wants to be deceived and that how we interpret history often says more about us than about the past.

    PS: I opened a new post with some of the main points summarized…if you want to take it there.

  58. How does one get to the new thread?

  59. Just go to http://lilarajiva.wordpress.com
    and comment on my latest post, where I’ve added some research on some of the stuff we’re talking about…especially the racialism/racism distinction..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: