5 replies »

1. In the latter part of the interview, there was a discussion about how people self-segregate in colleges. I won’t deny for a second that there is truth to that though I saw less of that at the school I was at ( perhaps it’s less obvious up here than in the US). The problem with such arguments from my perspective as a libertarian is that the same arguments about human nature are made against my own position. People will argue that segregation is natural, they will also argue that domination, hierarchy, and control of other people is natural as well. I am staunchly opposed to such things so I suppose that I am going against human nature, so be it. I also have found from my own life experience that I have never been able to become a member of any group, always being the odd one out. That is one of the reasons that I am sceptical of tribalism and am drawn to individualism (the real thing, not the gross caricature of authoritarian collectivists). Another area where I am fighting against human nature.

   I will also say that Spencer really strikes me as an authoritarian at heart (not the pc type, the old school type) despite having some sympathies toward libertarian figures such as Ron Paul. As a prime example, take this article http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/left-right/anarcho-tyranny-in-ontario/ about the G-20. What it amounts to is Spencer bemoaning the supposed restraint of the police and yearning for the good old days when the cops cracked skulls, beat people half to death, and used the third degree on suspects etc. This leads me to one more point I want to make, which is that despite being against the pc thing because of its totalitarianism, I suspect that many pc opponents (not necessarily Spencer) would prefer to have their segregation enforced through coercion. They only oppose the current power of the state because it interferes with their own power to subjugate others.

   Reply

2. “People will argue that segregation is natural, they will also argue that domination, hierarchy, and control of other people is natural as well. I am staunchly opposed to such things so I suppose that I am going against human nature, so be it.”

   All of these things are natural in that they occur as a manifestation of what humans are, but that’s not all there is. Sometimes the libertarian side actually wins. For instance, I think the anti-Vietnam War movement was successful. American involvement in that war ended. Two presidents left office in disgrace because of it. The draft ended and shows no signs of return after 40 years. It created such a distaste for imperialist war among Americans that Americans would no longer accept war that required high casualties on their side. That’s why subsequent wars have been fought with professional armies, proxy armies, or mercenaries. Even that will soon be cost prohibitive.

   Look at the collapse of Communism, a vicious totalitarian ideology that once ruled much of Eurasia. Some of those countries are now more libertarian than the Western European or North American ones.

   Of course, libertarian victories can easily be overturned in various way. Eternal vigilance and all that…

   “I also have found from my own life experience that I have never been able to become a member of any group, always being the odd one out. That is one of the reasons that I am sceptical of tribalism and am drawn to individualism (the real thing, not the gross caricature of authoritarian collectivists). Another area where I am fighting against human nature.”

   I’m the same way. I’m not a herd creature by nature, so I tend to be not much of a joiner. I’d prefer to have an elite intellectual class comprised of Stirnerites whose uncompromising radical individualism trickled down to the activist base who went out and smashed up authoritarian institutions to such a degree that even the herd masses had nowhere to go but to embrace the ideal of the egoist or the anarch. But we also have to realize most people don’t seem to be wired for that.

   Reply

3. “I will also say that Spencer really strikes me as an authoritarian at heart (not the pc type, the old school type) despite having some sympathies toward libertarian figures such as Ron Paul. As a prime example, take this article http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/left-right/anarcho-tyranny-in-ontario/ about the G-20. What it amounts to is Spencer bemoaning the supposed restraint of the police and yearning for the good old days when the cops cracked skulls, beat people half to death, and used the third degree on suspects etc. ”

   Over the past weekend, I attended the H. L. Mencken Club’s conference in Baltimore. At one point, Richard announced from the podium that we needed to prepare for a “post-America” where the American nation as we have traditionally known it has failed or collapsed. He also told several of us during one of the receptions that he’s big on decentralization as much as possible and open to working with decentralists or separatists not usually associated with the Right, like black nationalists. So he’s clearly open to a lot of radical ideas, including much of the stuff we talk about here. Richard is also cultivating an independent intellectual Right that is philosophically quite diverse and wants nothing to do with the Republican-oriented Right, the neocons, or movement conservatives. I also met a number of younger guys in their 20s and early 30s at the conference who are of impressive levels of ability and who are familiar with what we do here and are quite interested in what we have to say. Some of them are involved in dissident right-wing student organizations where they attack Totalitarian Humanism vociferously but share many of the left-anarchist and left-libertarian antagonisms to the police state, drug war, imperialist war, and who are interested in outreach to libertarians and leftists on these issues. They also mentioned stories about having “dissident left-anarchists” like primitivists, neo-tribalists, and the like show up at some of their activities and express their frustration with the hold that PC has on the mainstream anarchist movement.

   That’s long been what I hoped to see happen on the Right. I want to see as much of the Right as possible realize that the System is a lost cause, and trying to regain control of the state is impossible. I also want to show the Right that there are alternatives to simply acquiescing to Totalitarian Humanism on one end or embracing Fascism on the other.

   “This leads me to one more point I want to make, which is that despite being against the pc thing because of its totalitarianism, I suspect that many pc opponents (not necessarily Spencer) would prefer to have their segregation enforced through coercion. They only oppose the current power of the state because it interferes with their own power to subjugate others.”

   One thing we’re going to have to realize and accept is that many of the people who eventually come into our camp or embrace us as allies will do so because they regard us as the “next best thing” or a Plan B. Yes, many dissidents from other camps who move our way will be people who might prefer to have a state of their own which reflects their own values, rather than people who are anti-statists as a value unto itself. But that gets back to what I said in my above post. I don’t think every one is wired to be an anarchist or to be radical philosophical individualists like Nietzsche or Stirner. The best we can be is an intellectual elite whose ideas inform activists and radicals or the ground level and dissidents within other movements or philosophical paradigms as well. This is just as much an issue when we deal with the Left as with the Right.

   Reply

4. I agree with your comments. I realize that assessments of people and/or groups can often be inaccurate if made too prematurely. When it comes to the alternative right and related movements, I have become less apprehensive about them and more open to some of their ideas. The same thing happened to me a few years ago regarding classical anarchism which, I had dismissed reflexively, coming as I did from a standard right libertarian background. A similar parallel can be found in the way that right-wing libertarians dismiss classical left-anarchism (the contemporary kind mostly deserves dismissal) as socialism and those on the left who dismiss national-anarchists and others as fascists. In both cases, socialism and fascism are just used as “terms of abuse” without any coherent definition of what they are.

   If most people will not adopt our perspective than we have to find ways to deal with people who have very different ideals than ourselves. I see two ways of doing that, one is the way of genuine tolerance and acceptance of different perspectives, http://socialmemorycomplex.net/leftlibertarian/2010/08/23/because-killing-them-all-is-not-an-option/, http://www.newkindofmind.com/2010/09/why-im-not-anti-racist.html, and the other way is this garbage http://unsustainablespecies.blogspot.com/2010/05/arrested-facing-serious-charges-in.html (right about crimethinc, wrong about everything else).

   One last point: As for libertarianism not being compatible with the nature of most people, I would point that neither is intelligence, creativity, courage, wisdom, and general human excellence.

   Reply

5. “As for libertarianism not being compatible with the nature of most people, I would point that neither is intelligence, creativity, courage, wisdom, and general human excellence.”

   That’s why I’m an elitist!

   Reply