Here’s a bit of heresy: ban nothing. Did that raise the hair on your back? Did it strike a chord? Did you find yourself thinking “but Thales, that can’t possibly work!”
One of the more bizarre news items of the day relates to a continuing fetish of American municipal governments for banning plastic straws. Now, a liberal acquaintance of mine assured me that he was not inconvenienced by the use of biodegradable paper and wax straws, and plastic straws do have various environmental consequences. In this, my liberal acquaintance is entirely correct. Yet I still disagree vociferously with these straw bans.
To illustrate why, let us go back to the days of Prohibition. Take a gander at these propaganda posters from the period:
Alcohol had then, and still possesses, a number of terrible consequences for overuse. We have drunk drivers, alcoholics, violent drunks, and to say nothing of the things I see DJing the clubs. Yet Prohibition failed and was repealed. Why?
The usual argument is that banning doesn’t work because people will get what they want regardless. There will be speakeasies and bootleggers, organized crime and street thugs. That’s partially correct. But let’s be frank. None of those things will be a problem for banning plastic straws. Certainly, I don’t see organized crime selling crates of plastic straws out of the backs of sketchy minivans. So what’s the real issue?
Freedom of choice.
If the harm of alcohol was eventually outweighed by freedom of choice, then how can we justify banning plastic straws? Many of the same Leftists arguing for banning straws are, in turn, proponents of the legalization of marijuana. Any substance, device, or creation of mankind will have costs, that is to say negative effects. This applies to every single thing man creates. Automobiles have negative effects. Cubicles have negative effects. Medicines have side effects, or can lead to addictions. Those ugly, tacky garden gnomes have negative effects (the sight of them used to drive my dog into a rage for reasons that are clear only to him).
The trick of the Left is to focus on those negative things in an arbitrary fashion. For the things they like, they speak only of the positives. Weed will save lives, reduce pain, relax people. For things they dislike, they speak only of the negatives. Straws will hurt turtles, and won’t degrade for decades. Animals might ingest them. Ban straws. Legalize weed. Ban guns. Legalize gay marriage. There is no principle here, no overriding guidance they are following, only arbitrary emotions. These are the whims of a mob. If 50% + 1 don’t like something that you like, ban it!
What a lot of people don’t realize is that the mob is not necessarily consistent. 50% + 1 may be found to ban anything and everything, because a person may like ban A, but be against ban B.
Most Leftists are essentially reacting emotionally, not rationally. However, some attempt to rationalize it by amount of harm. They attempt to weigh all of the consequences and all of the benefits, and say that if the balance is more toward harm than good, we should ban it. This presumes that all the consequences and benefits are known (or a sufficient number of them to make a reliable decision). This tries to masquerade as principle.
A common example is when they argue that guns don’t have sufficient benefit to outweigh the harm, but automobiles do. So even though automobiles kill more than guns, we should ban the guns, but keep the automobiles (some other Leftists want to ban both, there’s ban A and ban B for you, again). However, what is accepted as a benefit is not consistent between proponents and opponents of the bans. For instance, a Rightist is likely to include incidents where a thug was discouraged from attack merely by the brandishing of a firearm (such events are common), whereas the Leftist generally only wants to include incidents of a bad guy with a gun, stopped by a good guy with a gun, where the good guy is not employed by the government (far less common).
Furthermore, the Leftist generally tries to include suicides, even though many other alternate (and just as easy) suicide methods exist. Japan has a higher suicide rate than the US, despite a robust gun ban. The Left artificially reduces the perceived benefit, and magnifies the perceived harm by some subtle manipulation with regards to which statistics are accepted, and which are dismissed.
This leads us right back to the lack of principle. What the Left doesn’t like must be banned. They are quite casual with bans, too. They’ll ban guns and plastic straws, both. I heard a tale once of a town in Texas which banned inflatable gorillas. While I’m sure there is an amusing story behind the ban, it illustrates that nothing is beyond the reach of the ban hammer.
This morning, a local community page was full of demands to ban fireworks on behalf of pets, veterans with PTSD, and idiots who hurt themselves doing dumb things with fireworks. The chief proponent of the ban rattled off statistics not unlike what you see in the Prohibition propaganda. 12,000 people annually are hurt by fireworks, she said, and we can’t even count the harm to pets and veterans. They should be replaced with laser light shows, she demanded.
Once you get into debating the pros and cons of a ban, you have already implicitly conceded that bans are justified given a certain harm/benefit ratio. At that point, you are now vulnerable to the manipulation and spin of said data, which is commonplace. It’s an endless rabbit hole, and debates like that spiral into infinity. We’re all caught over the event horizon of a singularity of stupid.
So I’ll repeat the heresy: ban nothing.
An opponent of this statement may attempt to bring extreme circumstances to bear. “Oh, you mean you wouldn’t ban crime? Murder? Theft? Rape?” Each of those things is a violation on the individual’s rights to life, liberty, and property. Those are the consistent principles. So what about extreme drugs like cocaine, heroin, etc… Well, never mind the notion that banning these things has objectively failed anyway, regardless of how much I might loathe them. In my heart, would I like to ban them? Sure. Do I think it’s practical to do so? No. Every attempt has failed utterly. And that circles right back to the original point. Just because I loathe something doesn’t mean it should banned. This is a truth the Left has utterly failed to grasp. To them, dislike is coextensive with “get rid of it, get it out of my sight.” It’s the mantra of tyrants.
In any event, the principle of banning nothing need not necessarily be adhered to 100%. It’s probably impractical, just as my support for limited government does not necessarily imply that I think no government whatsoever can work practically (however much I’d like that). We might say we want to get as close to that principle as is possible and practical. Certainly we do not violate the principle for something as trivial as drinking straws. If you’re going to disobey the rule, you better have a damned clear, concise, and dare I say obvious reason for doing it. And even then, be exceedingly cautious.
Ah, but am I being arbitrary, even with that small concession? Maybe. I’d at least admit that I am, instead of trying to spin the argument otherwise. However, even those things I find incredibly distasteful, I would still not ban. The principle overrules my desires in all but the most extreme of cases – and possibly not even then, if the concerns of practicality can be addressed.
Don’t get caught in circular arguments about the harm and benefits of each thing the Left desires to ban. Instead, respond to the ban demand with some heresy. Tell them you want to ban nothing, and watch their heads explode with anger. For you have just dismissed the core of their entire worldview: that their subjective like or dislike of a thing should be taken seriously and given real weight.
My previous post on the limitations of Libertarianism, and its failings before the Progressive enemy, ruffled a few feathers and stirred up some further discussion. Contrary to the paladins of Social Justice, I find that disagreement on such matters is evidence that the subject is important enough to merit further investigation (SJWs, naturally, prefer to shut down such discussions).
Let us begin with Jordan:
Libertarians don’t believe that government is the sole enemy of freedom. You’ve setup quite the strawman there. There are all sorts of libertarians out there and you’ve basically described a loud leftist minority.
No such strawman exists, but I readily concede how it appears that way. The point I am attempting to make, and which I have evidently failed to articulate sufficiently, is that Libertarians have a marked tendency to tolerate those who do not, in turn, tolerate them. A common theme in the #GamerGate movement, which has attracted a number of Libertarians, is that SJWs have gone too far, by demanding things like the censorship of games, the implementation of hate speech codes/laws, lying repeatedly about gamers themselves, committing fraud and other such ethics violations, etc…
In other words, if SJWs would stop being dicks, for lack of a better way to put it, many Libertarians would consider the battle sufficiently won and return to playing their games. Libertarians are thus fighting in the pursuit of tolerance. This makes them vulnerable to subversion, which is precisely how SJWs obtained power to begin with. Already, with CultOfVivian’s attacks on TheRalph, one can see the beginnings of SJW infiltration into GamerGate itself.
CultOfVivian is a great example, because she has repeatedly stated that she observes the dictates of Political Correctness, is concerned on matters of racism-sexism-homophobia, etc… She agrees with the SJWs on all ideological points. It is only their implementation which bothers her. She would prefer a less obnoxious, less obvious means of ideological subversion. Yet, for the longest time, Libertarian GamerGaters supported her. She didn’t argue for official enforcement of the Trifecta (racism-sexism-homophobia), and thus Libertarians were fooled by her.
Fundamentally, I share many of the core principles of Libertarianism. But where something clearly does not work, it must be discarded and replaced with something that does work. The test is practical application. The Left has exploited the natural tolerance of Libertarians for their own socio-political ends.
Now, it’s important to note that Libertarians are not the only ones who have failed. Conservatives, likewise, have failed to stem the Progressive tide. They have been in retreat for decades, perhaps centuries. They have failed to stand up to the Left at all. Libertarians have at least done that in some smaller scale actions. GamerGate successfully rolled back a lot of smaller scale ethical corruption in their own industry. But compare to the wider Culture Wars:
Libertarians are able to successfully fight “The Man” in certain areas. In particular, they have done well on organizing resistance to government censorship, and have established bona fides in resisting some forms of corporate corruption, also, especially where such ties into government. They know how to fight official organizations.
But SJWs are more like mobs. Or, perhaps, chameleons. They infiltrate organizations from within, including Libertarianism itself. There is no “The Man” for Libertarians to fight. The Libertarian’s live and let live philosophy makes such infiltration and subversion easy. They will win a small victory against the Left, at which point the Left’s ire is raised and either the mob of Social Justice will come for you, mobilizing the political establishment against you, or individual SJWs will attempt to ruin your group from within.
A simple analogy would be that Libertarians are perfectly willing to fight a defensive action, but find the notion of offensive action unpalatable.
If the Conservatives are too wimpy to fight (somebody might call them mean names), and the Libertarians easily infiltrated and subverted, how then are we to win the Culture Wars?
Tough call. That’s what I’m trying to figure out. In any event, the core principles of Libertarianism are something I still hold dear. But there’s a point at which you have to realize that a good portion of the populace doesn’t just disagree with you, they want to destroy you. They want to bankrupt you, take away your livelihood, threaten you, ruin your life, or even take your life, should they find the power to do so. They are your enemies. Tolerating them in the name of live and let live won’t work. You may very well have to destroy them back.
Francis over at Bastion of Liberty sent a great link in reply, one which my readers would be well-advised to peruse. The money quote is below:
I hope to see a continuing refinement of libertarian-conservative or “fusionist” thought. I do what I can to advance it. Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, and others of greater stature than myself are also working on it, from their particular perspectives. It is the most important effort under way in political thought. Unless it succeeds, and allows us to build a single front — united on critical matters and tolerant of divergence on lesser ones — with which to oppose the statism and special-interest-propelled panderings of the Left, freedom in America is doomed. Libertarians will have to face an accelerating loss of the freedoms they cherish. Conservatives will have to face the ongoing reduction of their bastions, as the power hungry, ideologically propelled forces of the Left eat into their numbers via the schools, the media, and the awful power of their patented divide-to-seduce technique.
The answer may well be in some form of Conservative-Libertarian fusion. Libertarians have the backbone that, evidently, Conservatives are lacking. And Conservatives can consider the breaches of absolute freedom that may be necessary to preserve the remainder of it from Leftist destruction, something Libertarians have some difficulty with. The combination could result in a movement which, as Francis describes, is united on important matters and tolerant of divergence on more minor matters.
The beginnings of such a movement have already begun, with the televised collapse of the Republican establishment on Prime Time, a necessary prerequisite to building something stronger in its place.
An answer must be found to the Progressive weapon of ideological subversion and deconstruction which has continually been employed against us since at least before World War I. Vox Day, TheRalph, and others have had some success with employing such techniques against Leftists themselves. Trump has more or less hinged his entire candidacy on this.
But that brings up something I read in one of Tom Kratman’s books, not long ago. When you fight an enemy long enough, there is a tendency to become an awful lot like him. I’m not sure that’s the angle to go for, either.
I, like many in my particular circle of political pundits and commentators, often think of myself as a recovering Libertarian. That is to say, my instincts are to live and let live, and to avoid enmeshing myself in someone else’s business. Those are very Libertarian instincts, when converted into political parlance.
Thus any alliance with the “Social Conservatives” has been one of convenience. We share a common enemy in Progressive Leftism, and that is all.
But as I’ve aged, I found portions of Libertarianism to be self-defeating. Namely, Libertarianism is chiefly defined by its opposite. What Authoritarian Socialists like, Libertarians dislike, and vice-versa. Given that Socialism is one of the most insidious and pervasive of society’s ills, that’s not a bad place to start. But it’s just that, a starting point.
But Libertarianism tolerates its own ideological destruction. It would sit idly by, for instance, while civilization tore itself apart so long as that destruction was not perpetrated by a government force. When Brenden Eich was ousted from Mozilla for his donation to an anti-gay marriage campaign, Libertarians shrugged. Let the market decide, they said, even though this was a gross and obvious error.
Libertarians thus allow de facto silencing and censorship, so long as the ruling class retains plausible deniability over its enforcement. If a government had demanded Brenden Eich’s resignation, they would have been rightly outraged. When a group of immature, anti-civilizational SJWs attempt to strongarm the overall culture, the Libertarians remain silent.
Libertarians have correctly identified the enemies of freedom in government (pretty much all of government, really). But they fail to understand that enemies of freedom can exist outside the bounds of government, also.
This is a fatal flaw. A Libertarian society is likely to fall victim to the quotation commonly attributed to Lenin: “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
A better way to put it is, a smart Capitalist would use his brain and decline to sell rope to Communists who want to hang him. Libertarians are well-advised to consider this.
Or, to put it in a modern context, accepting illegals from a Socialist-leaning Third World country like Mexico is unlikely to further the interests of freedom in America. Soon, any nation that did this would be overrun with Socialists and would no longer be free in the American sense. The same could be said with large-scale Muslim immigration. The places they come from are not bastions of intellectual and economic freedom. Unless the individual immigrant is some kind of pro-Western, pro-Freedom revolutionary, they are unlikely to serve the cause of freedom in America.
But Libertarians often feel they must accept immigrants regardless of political leanings, culture, religion, origin, etc… Indeed, in debating with many of them, I find they are torn. Many of them see the results of this problem, but are unwilling to compromise their principles in order to fit reality. They will fuss and fawn over the poor, down-trodden migrants as much as any Leftist.
They dislike radical feminism but countenance its destruction of everything from higher education to toys for girls. They concede the other side’s right to disagree without understanding that the other side does not reciprocate. If SJWs ran the West openly — and weren’t merely subverting it — I’d be thrown into an oven before nightfall. Trying to have “meaningful” dialogue with such people is an exercise in futility.
Agreeing to disagree still requires, paradoxically, a certain level of agreement. Instead Progressives attack Libertarians incessantly, but when attacked themselves, retreat behind freedom of speech. It is similar to the Islamic way of fighting these days. They will murder, terrorize, and commit genocide. But when attacked themselves will revert to tearful denunciations of the evil Western Imperialists. We’re babykillers, they will say, or something equally offensive.
Too many Americans fall for this ruse.
I’m not sure what the proper response is. I don’t wish to destroy freedom in an attempt to save it from the clutches of the Progressive Left. But I can tell you that the Libertarian road leads to eventual defeat. And tolerance of the intolerant is a critical weakness of the West, as a whole.
It used to be understood in the laws of war that when an enemy took off his uniform, but continued to fight, he could be executed as a spy, tortured, and otherwise deprived of the usual protections applied to a prisoner of war. Wearing the uniform was a certain base level of agreement between the combatants.
Similarly, Progressives seek to destroy our freedoms and do not agree on our basic rights. But they will attempt to shelter themselves behind its protections whenever challenged. I said of the freedom of religion, once, that if you do not believe in freedom of religion yourself, you ought to be deprived of its protections. Let it be as you desire. If the Buddhist or the Jew will live with me, the Christian, in peace, all is well. If any should come along and suggest that I shouldn’t be allowed to practice my religion (or, worse, must convert or submit to theirs — see: Islam), why, then, is he allowed the comfort of his own? There are places in the world which function under religious tyranny and enforced orthodoxy. Go there, if this is what you want, don’t turn my country into that.
If I cannot exercise my right to freedom of speech, why, then, do we concede their right to speak?
It’s a dangerous road, one that Libertarians rightly fear, because it trespasses on the knife’s edge of freedom and tyranny. But where they won’t consider it, I must.
But nobody said freedom was easy, simple, or free.
If you read any of my posts to completion, if you suffer through any of my writings, as long-winded as they may be, let it be this one. This is a matter that has weighed heavily on my mind for years. It’s like a secret you can only whisper in hushed circles, an issue you must dance around in public, and I could not summon the courage to say it until now.
For me, life is a game of connections, finding the links between disparate events, times, and places, and reconciling them together into a broader picture. That’s why I started writing here, to link together the pieces of evidence behind the Decline of the West.
Is this the end game?
Reading another post by Francis over at Bastion of Liberty turned into something of a depressing exercise. I will repost the video here. At first, I did not want to discuss it, because there are hints within it that border on Fascism, an ideology as unfriendly to the Libertarian-minded folks like myself as you can get. At the same time, much of my own research has supported the statements contained in this video. These things are happening. Make of them what you will.
I don’t know what that means, except that the future doesn’t look bright anymore:
The Slow Collapse
When I was young, my Armenian grandfather, who was already quite old, would lay back in his recliner and watch Headline News. He was looking for something, I think, a sign that what had happened to his own family in Armenia decades before was happening again. In some ways it is merciful that he passed before the thing came to fruition. But he would often caution me about Islam, and the weakness of the West, that someday we would fail to stand up to evil.
He was always proud to be American, and he worked harder than I ever have in his life, to provide for his family and build a life for himself. He put his brother through college to become a doctor, took care of his mother, raised a family, and spent nearly 50 years working at the China Lake Naval Weapons facility. He never took a sick day or a vacation day if he could possibly avoid it, and when he retired, he had saved up over two years of time. He was well into his 70s, by then. I try to make him proud, now, but I know I don’t have one tenth of the work ethic and drive that he did. Still, I try.
Where is that mindset in the migrants coming to Europe today? “Money money money” one migrant tells us. They are listening to music on their phones, and tossing out food because it isn’t “good enough.” They riot and loot because Germany is not giving them enough. I don’t even know what it is they propose to do.
While some of the illegals here in America lurk around Home Depots looking for actual work, others prefer to enter the drug trade. All of them expect free this, and free that. Students march for free college, insulting the sacrifice my own grandfather made to put his brother through medical school. Families are broken now, and people are distant from one another.
I come from a broken family, two brutal divorces and enough family drama to sink the Titanic. I know very few people outside of my wife’s family that managed to stay together anymore. Westerners are weak, damaged, and focused on all the wrong things. Indeed, their sense of kinship is precisely reversed. Watch the video and see Germans cheering their own destruction, Swedes telling the migrants that the country is “theirs now.” It’s not Sweden, it’s Syria. Or Somalia. Or whatever.
There was an interesting study done awhile ago, called “Kill Whitey.” It was an intellectual exercise wherein people of varying ethnic and political backgrounds were asked to sacrifice one person to save many. Most ethnic groups chose their own ethnicity over that of another. I.e. they would rather sacrifice someone of a different background than their own. But Whites were divided. Conservatives adhered to the same maxim, but Liberals were precisely reversed.
They would choose to Kill Whitey over any other ethnicity. I.e. every group acted as you’d expect except White liberals. Leftists would say that this is proof of Conservative racism, and they might even be technically correct.
But then they would have to admit that their cherished minorities are also racist, something I suspect they would be unwilling to do.
On my Twitter feed this morning, I saw this little gem:
The photo on the left looks a lot life Tarpon Springs, an area near where I live. The picture on the right… well, obviously not. Leftists would have you believe Rhodesia was built upon the backs of impoverished Africans, quasi-slaves, really.
If that were true, I submit that Zimbabwe would look a lot better than it does today. Freed of the oppressive rule of Whites, Africa should have rebounded upward like a beach ball held underneath the water by a fat man, suddenly released.
So what is really going on here? Is race the real problem? Is even considering that prima facie evidence of Nazi-like racism? Let’s dig a little deeper here.
Some months ago, I was talking with a fellow Libertarian-minded individual whom I will call John. Obviously that’s not his real name, but still. John and I were coworkers for some years, and I always thought he had a unique insight into things of an intellectual nature.
He explained to me once that success, as we understand it, is a flawed concept. Humans of different belief systems, races, creeds, religions, etc… do not all want the same things, or prioritize the same metrics for success.
John compared Thomas Sowell, the famous Conservative-Libertarian economist, with Snoop Dawg. Mr. Sowell, he said, made it in the White man’s world (The Western world), did a great job of it, and was well respected by most Conservative Whites. In essence, he claimed, Mr. Sowell appealed to White Americans and White American culture.
It’s worth mentioning that I have more respect for this man than almost any White guy alive today. Not only is he one of the economic greats, the heir to the Chicago and Austrian schools, but he did this by going against the prevailing cultural winds. God, if only the Black students of Mizzou could look up to this man instead of some race-baiting scum. I wish it were so.
Snoop Dawg, he claimed, was similarly successful and well known, perhaps even more so, but utilized the cultural norms of the Black community. He appealed to Black Americans and Black American culture, and did so in spectacular fashion. Snoop didn’t want to be respected for his intellect or his contributions to the future, he wanted to be rich, famous, and have lots of people worshiping him.
But, John explained, this was a conscious decision on the part of Mr. Sowell, and Snoop, as to which culture they would embrace. In America we have the luxury, John explained, to choose which culture(s) we will embrace because the dominant culture was more friendly to others. In Africa, with the Whites a tiny minority, and, in any event, constantly in retreat from previous dominance, leaders there were keen enough to embrace what they saw as Black culture, over the European White culture.
Mugabe, in essence, was a “reactionary” deliberately distancing himself from what he saw as a weak, failing culture. He embraced what he saw as a successful, powerful culture. Why embrace the values of White Europeans who had just lost? His decision to commit genocide against White farmers has a certain rationality to it when viewed this way.
John explained that comfort, financial security, even the elimination of hunger were largely European cultural fixtures. They were not necessarily universals. Of course, any human would prefer to be satisfied as opposed to starving, but some might prefer power over others to physical comfort. Some would rather live in a shithole if that meant they could tell other people what to do.
Offering those men a position in a cubicle farm would, in their minds, be a demotion from getting to be the genocidal warlord of a dump.
Better to rule in Hell, as Mugabe has done, than serve in Heaven, in other words.
Plant Snoop Dawg in Zimbabwe, and he’d do okay for himself. Plant Thomas Sowell there, and they would rip him to pieces. This despite the fact that Thomas Sowell is the more intelligent, rational man, overall.
I don’t know what to make of John’s theory, and in any event, it was a discussion that involved more than a few beers, but the memory stuck with me. Meanwhile, Black students are self-segregating, creating White-free zones, so as to “decolonize” their experiences. Gangsta rap would have horrified previous Black American generations, but is considered the norm now, and offers in fantasy what is reality in Africa: killing of cops, gaining of money, power, and fame, and to hell with everything else. Western culture is in retreat in Western countries themselves.
Western European culture has been in retreat for a long time. It’s been leaving places since long before I was born. Even as technology rapidly expanded, Western culture has been slowly vanishing. First, it disappeared from the distant, loosely ruled colonies. Even that was in stages.
In the first stage, the ruling colonial government was expelled, like in Rhodesia, South Africa, and most South American countries (even in America herself). But, former colonials remained in power for a time. Ian Smith kept a hold of Rhodesia for awhile, the South African apartheid regime stuck around, and in South America, the casta system persisted awhile, with Castizos and Criollos maintaining dominance in the government. Don’t mistake me here, I’m not saying I support those regimes, but nonetheless, the process by which Western culture was expelled from these areas began this way.
Note that even the Marxists generally agree on this count.
After awhile, though, the levers of power fell onto those with little to no European affiliation or loyalty. In some countries, like some of the South American nations, most of the Anglosphere, and otherwise, it seemed to stop here. In Africa and the Middle East, on the other hand, it did not.
The next stage, of course, was dictatorship. And, finally, the extirpation of any remnant of European Western culture. Assad can be viewed as a post-European dictator. His replacement, should he fall, is likely to be of a completely Islamic and religious character. In this view Assad is actually mildly preferable to ISIS.
Now, if this process happened only in the distant areas where Europeans never really achieved a high percentage of the population, I’m not sure it would bother me any. Africa for the Africans is not necessarily something I disagree with.
But, and here’s the important part: this process has now taken root inside Western nations themselves.
I read something on Twitter surrounding this #MizzouHungerStrike thing that I commented on earlier. They wanted to decolonize the university spaces. Now, at first, this sounds like typical Progressive claptrap, but I looked this up. It’s actually a thing.
And in the context of what I’ve written above, it makes a certain kind of bizarre sense. These people view any expression of Western culture as colonial. The word is a stand-in for European, or White, or Western, or whatever.
And it’s not just happening in countries with colonial Western roots, like our own. It’s happening inside Europe itself.
Now, like that Wired article I referenced earlier, the Kill Whitey experiment, Leftists sympathize more with the migrants than their own neighbors. It would make sense, then, that they deliberately work to destroy their own countries and cultures in order to welcome in the newcomers.
They want a Mugabe to come in and push them over the railing in front of the bus because that, in their mind, will save all the downtrodden people.
What they fail to understand is that, like Snoop Dawg, these are individuals who have a different metric for what success means. Success doesn’t mean integrating, or living in a multi-cultural salad bowl. It doesn’t mean a healthy GDP, or scientific and cultural contributions. Success means conquest.
Unfortunately, that’s all too likely to happen now. Watch that video again and see if you see what I saw. Yes, it’s all true. But consider the tone of the video. The subtle references to Jews, as if to say “somebody did this to you.” There are only a couple, and they are short, but there it is, the tiniest beginnings of what happened to Europe time and time again in history: the roots of genocide.
People on the Right have been warning the Leftists of this for decades now. Even Vox has noted that things are starting to spiral out of control, and somebody is going to wind up strung up on a lamppost for it. These are not Right wing people, largely. The Golden Dawn in Greece is fundamentally Left-wing, but it is also nationalist. That seems like a contradiction, but in the bizarre political situation we find ourselves in, it’s not. Some Leftists are waking up to the invasion, but, critically, are NOT abandoning their otherwise totalitarian, Left-wing sympathies.
And they don’t like Muslims very much.
Tom Kratman warned us about this in his book The Caliphate, that Europe is going to be presented with a choice eventually: cultural and racial suicide, or jackboots. He wasn’t sure which one would be chosen, ultimately, but the choice would have to be made eventually.
The warnings of the Right-wing on immigration, Islam and otherwise were made to prevent the necessity of making that choice. We didn’t want things to come to this.
Europe is getting to choose between something Nazi-like and Islam. Native Evil vs. Imported Evil. I understand why Native Evil would be preferable to them. But ye gods what a shit sandwich.
Now I know why my grandfather sat there watching the news all day. He knew it was coming 30 years ago. After all, it had already come for our family in Armenia.
This is how genocide starts, people. This is how World Wars are made.
We told you this was going to happen and you didn’t listen!
Tad Williams will have real Nazis to contend with soon enough. No, not George Bush, or me, or the Sad Puppies, or Gamergaters, or any number of other people he finds unpleasant and wants to tar with the fascism brush. He will have Real. Fucking. Nazis.
And it’s sorry excuses for human beings like himself that made this possible. Thanks, progressives, for bring the planet another episode of war and genocide. Brought to you by Marxists everywhere.
Meanwhile, all of us liberty-minded folks who just wanted to be left alone are left holding the bag in this shitstorm.
Is Donald Trump a President Buckman, as Tom Kratman described? Maybe. But what’s left, now? Aside from Ted Cruz, everyone else has decided to just give up on even having a border in this country.
Maybe the people calling him a Fascist are right. Maybe. But what’s left, now? Jeb Bush? John Kasich? Don’t make me laugh. I like Rand Paul and Ben Carson personally, and think they are good people, but do they have the balls to do what needs to be done? I doubt it.
And then you have Bernie Sanders on the other side, an actual Socialist, and Hillary Clinton who is as corrupt as they come.
The shit sandwich has come to America too. What do you want? A further deterioration of Western culture in America, or jackboots? National suicide or tyranny?
Where to go from here
I’ll answer this in one phrase: I have no fucking idea.
In Armenia, under Ottoman rule, my family had a choice to get on that boat and come to America. European-Africans left Rhodesia, and are now leaving South Africa, too. They vanished from previous colonial enclaves, and have turned over their territories.
There is nowhere left to go.
I just had an exchange with one Leftist on Twitter. Take a look for yourself:
Now, this guy was so ridiculous I suspect he might be a troll. I checked out his Twitter account and he seemed legit, but I don’t trust anything on the Internet anymore. Nonetheless, every one of his talking points I have seen elsewhere on the Twitterverse. His idea for decolonization is to exile Whites to Russia. Europe is for the Syrians (Whites might be allowed to stay if they submit). The rest of the world is off limits to Whites. Note, this man claims to be Black, as far as I can tell.
This is another episode in my long running Twitter series: Who said that, SJW or Stormfronter? Here’s another quote from today’s lineup: “It’s dangerous to them when [blank] people realize their collective power!” In fact, take any SJW statement and remove the ethnicities referenced. You cannot distinguish them from Nazis or other genocidal maniacs. Because they are genocidal maniacs. Except that, as the Kill Whitey study revealed, the White Progressives want to commit genocide against themselves. It is, in their view, the ultimate payment for the sins of their ancestors. Of course, they don’t articulate it quite that way. They rationalize it, make excuses for it, etc… but pretty much everything they hate can be substituted with “Western culture,” “European,” or “White.”
When I started my Who said that, SJW or Stormfronter? series, I didn’t mean for it to become almost literal.
We’re rapidly heading to a point where the choice will literally be SJW or Stormfronter. Anti-White Fascism or Pro-White Fascism. I told Francis over at his place that this worried me. But it’s more than that.
I mourn the death of the ideals of our once-great Republic. Freedom, responsibility, independence and self-reliance. Sarah Hoyt’s books reference the half-mystical Usaian or USA-ian. That’s me. I bleed red white and blue. I want to go back to the way things were, and in that I guess I’m finally embracing myself as a Conservative. I don’t want to choose between Fascist A and Fascist B.
And I’m so tired of being called a Fascist because I don’t want to choose.
I feel like what a Roman citizen must have felt like, on the day that Augustus took office as the First Citizen of Rome. Everything we fought for is gone. Our grand experiment is over, and war is coming. Liberty probably won’t survive it, and it’s questionable if Western Civilization will make it at all.
I don’t know what that means for me in the future. I won’t put on the jackboots. I can’t. It’s anathema to me. But neither, my friends, can I sit here and watch the Left enslave us and kill our culture.
I guess that means I’ll have no shortage of enemies when the fighting starts. But, I’m a Usaian, and we are no strangers to hopeless causes.
Politically, I am a strange animal. Larry Elder once called himself a “Conservetarian,” a sort of hybrid between a Conservative and a Libertarian, or a right-leaning Libertarian, as it were. I don’t care for labels overmuch, but that is the closest fit I’ve been able to find. And so, individuals like Ron Paul produce mixed reactions from me. There is much to be said about his commitment, his economic and domestic values and his no-nonsense speaking style. Whatever his other faults, the man displays a minimum of hypocrisy and doesn’t waffle, a rarity for any modern political figure. Ron Paul would be perfectly correct in a world more like the one that existed prior to the 20th century. Even still, his ideas on economic and domestic policy are mostly sound, with few exceptions.
The problem is that he doesn’t understand the military situation, the nature of 4th Generation warfare and how to fight those battles. Even here, he has a few good ideas (the return of letters of marque and reprisal would actually be positive). But ignorance of the threat posed by radical Islam is a gargantuan black mark against him.
I see the logic of his positions, and if we were dealing with relatively civilized, reasonable enemies, he would be right. But that’s the whole point, they are AREN’T reasonable. He seems to think they would be if we left them alone, like a hornet’s nest: don’t disturb it and you’ll be fine. But in this case, the hornets are deliberately seeking to expand their territory and sting more people. The nest must be burned out, from time to time, to keep them from getting out of hand.
Western civilization used to have some idea of how to do this. Individuals like my esteemed colleague, KodeTen, definitely have notions on how this could be achieved. Islam does respect strength and threat of overwhelming force. It can be made to be (relatively) peaceful if they realize that the cost of waging war is too high. But their bar is set much higher than that of the Western World. Purchasing peace with them requires doing things that would, in any other scenario, be considered profoundly unethical and disturbing.
Ron Paul lives in a fantasy world where most nations of the world are civilized, Westernized and committed, underneath it all, to peace. He is a good man, nonetheless, his poor choice of words on Chris Kyle’s death non-withstanding. But I would not vote for him, especially not for the position of Commander-in-Chief. That position requires a modicum of understanding in matters of War. He has demonstrated that he possesses none.