So Where Are the Feminists? Reply

wherearefeminists

Ann Sterzinger asks the question at RightOn, spotlighting how the clash in the feminist worldview between “Enlightenment Person” and “Mommy Goddess” curtails any meaningful criticism of the more predatory and illiberal residents of Dar al-Islam. I notice the bifurcation a lot in abortion debates, where feminists talk about personal autonomy with one breath only to endorse the subjugation of unwilling fathers to the wombocracy with the next; and let’s not get into the decidedly maternalist bent of feminist anti-sex-industry campaigns.

Of course, the mistake made here is taking the feminist “equality” spiel at face value, instead of simply acknowledging the special pleading that forms the backbone of the ideology. On a related note, I’m somewhat wary of the reports of a “rape epidemic” in Scandinavia, given not only the prevalence of feminist dogma, but also expanded definitions of “rape”, the possibility of false/mistaken reports, and questionable reporting procedures (particularly in Sweden); it certainly raises the question of how embellished the “epidemic” is by such factors.


Why do radical feminists remain silent on the issue of mass immigration into Europe, in spite of the fact that the statistics show that European women are among its primary victims?

I’m not the first to ask this, but the more times it gets asked, the better.

During this debate on just how we’re going to get millions of Muslim migrants settled in Europe—since Europe’s politicians apparently have never seriously considered the option of actually securing their borders—where the hell are the feminists?

Because rape is bad, right?

Have they read the rape statistics regarding the millions of devout Muslims who are already ensconced in the Land of the Unbeliever?

More…

Greg Johnson Interviews Vox Day Reply

This includes an interesting discussion of some of the problems with conventional libertarianism, including free trade, open borders, and excessive reliance on ideological abstractions.


Vox Day and wife

From Counter-Currents:

Greg Johnson talks to video game designer, musician, blogger, novelist, and publisher Vox Day. Topics include:

  • His political outlook and its formation
  • Why he is no longer a Libertarian
  • “National libertarianism”
  • The necessity of borders
  • The European refugee crisis
  • Why nationalism and tribalism are unstoppable forces
  • Illegitimate forms of identity politics
  • The problem of white identity in the United States as opposed to European national identities
  • His book new Why SJWs Always Lie
  • Why they always lie
  • Advice to those who wish to roll back political correctness
  • A preview of coming attractions

Recommended reading:

Sanders v. Klein on immigration: The old Left against the adolescent Left 2

A division emerges between the social democratic labor Left and the cultural Left.

By Ian Smith

The Hill

The recent fiery to-and-fro between old-style social democrat Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Vox-founder Ezra Klein was a perfect illustration of just how long it’s been since the Left was right on immigration. Klein, an immigration-novice who once stated we need open-borders or else the quality of Chinese restaurants would decline, attempted to rebut Sanders’ once-uncontroversial notion that excessive immigration depresses wages, by touting the increasingly popular, yet evidence-free, idea that an open-borders policy can actually solve global inequality. Although Klein’s response was less thoughtful assessment, more emotional spasm, it’s become standard argumentation for contemporary facts-be-damned Democrats.

Refuting Sanders’ argument that “open-borders” debases American sovereignty and hurts working people, Klein stated that the question was really a more ‘philosophical’ one. By making the “global poor richer”, he said, what immigration policy should really be based on is a ‘weighting’ between national sovereignty and global inequities. This overly moralistic but increasingly common position is a major subject of a new book on immigration: How Many Is Too Many? by Philip Cafaro. A philosophy professor himself, as well as a progressive against open-borders, Cafaro pillories his fellow leftists when they apply “overly abstract” and “highly general ethical principles” to a “particular policy issue in a specific time and place.” This usually shows, he writes, they have “little apparent understanding of the effects [such] proposals might have on the people living in that society.” This is indeed a fair sketch of the left today.

READ MORE

The appeal of Trump: Why immigration may be the defining issue of the 21st century 1

Will the future of political conflict pit a hyper-capitalist Left versus an anti-capitalist Right?

By Michael Brendan Dougherty

The Week

There was once a fanciful idea that the internet and all its attendant technologies of cheap communication would reverse the pattern of urbanization in developed countries. Some people still believe this: People could telecommute to work while enjoying the comforts of the small towns and country roads of their childhood. A few people, in fact, do this. But the for the most part the opposite phenomenon is playing out. The information age is the age of moving people. And if that’s true, Donald Trump is just the first manifestation of a new era in global politics.

The information age makes it very easy for a small town kid to find an apartment, a job, and a social network in the big cities and growth areas. It also allows him to stay connected with friends at home. In other words, it lowers the price of moving and the cost of leaving. It reduces the feeling of disorientation in new places, while allowing people to still belong, in some sense, to where they came from. New York, Los Angeles, D.C., Silicon Valley, Portland, and Austin have all benefited from these trends.

And the truth is that this is a global phenomenon. It’s easier than ever to establish social, commercial, and employment relationships in places thousands of miles away from you. So why not go there? According to the U.N.’s figures, by 2013 the number of emigrants from the Global South that emigrated to the Global North was equal to the number of emigrants in the Global South that emigrated within the Global South. One of every nine Africans with a tertiary diploma was living in one of the elite nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It’s not a coincidence that Trump is surging ahead because of his anti-immigration views in America, while Europe is roiled by debates over how to handle migrants crossing the Mediterranean.

This, incidentally, is why I am convinced that there was no way that the GOP could have precluded the Donald Trump moment in American politics by passing comprehensive immigration reform two years ago. The movement of people from country to the city, from poor nations to richer nations, from the Global South to the Global North, may be the great political problem of the next age in global development. Just as the building of trade routes and the maintenance of empires defined the mercantile age, then the construction of a political economy (capitalist or socialist) became the major problem of the industrial age, the mass movement of people may be the defining issue of whatever we’re calling the information age.

More…

Is Trump Our Last Chance? 1

My take on Donald Trump:

Unlike many anarchists, I think immigration can be criticized on a variety of grounds. Mass immigration appears to be an effort to an effort to flood the economy with cheap labor for capital, thereby dispossessing the traditional working class. It also appears to be an effort to create a permanent constituency for the left-wing of capital, thereby assuring permanent electoral victory. Immigration also appears to be an effort to impose global capitalist mono-culture on all societies everywhere. There’s also the concern about large-scale immigration from highly reactionary societies that inevitably bring their cultural norms with them. Do we really want Islamist parties to become competitive in Western elections?

That said, Donald Trump’s anti-immigration program as outlined by Jared Taylor in the article below clearly involves a massive extension of state power and approaches the level of being a “war on immigration” comparable to the “war on drugs.” Taylor is a white nationalist who regards preserving the white demographic majority in the United States as the highest political good. Fair enough. But as revolutionary anarchists our principle ambition should be to weaken and destroy our primary enemy, the plutocratic-imperialist-police state based in Washington, D.C. As I wrote in “Liberty and Populism: Building an Effective Resistance Movement for North America“:

On immigration, it is clear enough that the only viable solution is one of local sovereignty. Obviously, we should not wish to strengthen our great common enemy, the US federal government, by militarizing the borders and building a Berlin Wall along the Rio Grande. Instead, the Swiss model can be applied to immigration policy and individual communities can decide whether to be pro-immigrant “sanctuary” communities, anti-immigrant communities with the Minutemen stationed at the county line, or somewhere in between.  The great Israeli dissident Israel Shamir discussed the value of the localist approach in his debate with Noam Chomsky: More…

Borders? What Borders? 1

By Neil Lock

Libertarian Alliance

Sean Gabb has called for (in his words) a decent libertarian essay in favour of open borders. I hope this will fit the bill. My view is certainly libertarian; for I favour not so much open borders, as no borders – at least, no political borders, and so no barriers to migration. As to decency, you the reader shall judge.

Borders in a Libertarian World

Can borders exist in a libertarian world? Most definitely, yes. Where does the justification for these borders come from? From property rights. Each individual has the right to set a border around his own property, and to admit only those he chooses to.

At first sight, it might seem that in a libertarian world there would be no general freedom of movement. Individuals might agree to the use of routes (easements) over each other’s property; but each would only allow use of his easements by those who have a contract with him. However, libertarians are practical people – aren’t we? And we don’t like to waste time or effort. So, after a while, many would not bother to check who was using their easements. As long, of course, as they kept to the route, weren’t noisy, and didn’t commit acts of violence or theft.

In this way, I think there would arise a general presumption of freedom of movement along defined routes, even across property owned by others. This freedom might, perhaps, be denied to specific individuals – for example, convicted criminals or former politicians – because of their past actions. And some might choose to guard their property jealously, not permitting anyone to cross it; though they would, of course, always be in danger of tit for tat. Others might choose the opposite tack. Perhaps, even, donating part of their property for public use, such as a park. More…

Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders? 1

By Sean Gabb

Libertarian Alliance

As I write, there are several thousand non-European refugees outside Calais, all trying to enter the United Kingdom. Because they are disrupting travel across the Channel in the main holiday season, the British media has no choice but to report on their presence, and to keep reporting. Their presence is followed by the British public in part because of the disruption, but mainly, I think, because of what they visibly represent.

Britain, together with every country like Britain, is faced with an inward movement of peoples no smaller in extent than the mass-emigrations from Europe that settled North America and Australasia, and perhaps as great in its effects as the incursions from across the Rhine and Danube that transformed the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. We face a mass-immigration from the Third World that may eventually double or treble our populations, and that will, by inevitable force of numbers, make us minorities in what we have so far considered to be our homelands.

What have we, as libertarians, to say about this?

The mainstream response, I suggest, has been unsatisfactory. For the libertarian mainstream, the only legitimate use of force is to protect individual rights. Since movement across a border is not in itself a violation of individual rights, closing the borders is, by definition, an illegitimate use of force. Therefore, the libertarian mainstream is formally opposed to immigration control. More…

Robert Stark interviews Ann Sterzinger Reply

Ann Sterzinger Returns!

Ann Sterzinger

Topics include:

Trigger Warning, her new project with Rachel Haywire

The Pros and Cons of Child Abuse

Why she is a “radical moderate” and why it’s foolish to subscribe to any ideology in its entirety

Why people feel a need to be part of a political team that will support them and how it’s difficult to be politically homeless

More…

Greening Out Podcast #27 – Propaganda Is Alive and Well and On Channel 4 Reply

GreeningOut27

We chat about the propaganda ‘docudrama’ UKIP – The First 100 Days and what an absurd vision it promotes. We talk about UKIP generally and their policies and why we’re not UKIP supporters, the EU, the Scottish independence referendum and how the UK mainstream media try to shut down any form of radicalism with unfounded fear-mongering.
We go on to talk about secession as a left-wing phenomenon in Scotland, how the media like to throw left and right terms about, the errors of conflating UKIP with the EDL or the BNP, how the mainstream media loves to shut down debate about immigration and how movement of people would be different in a stateless world.

We also chat about how propaganda pieces like this one can give the general public the wrong impression of what libertarianism is, how a lot of the dystopian elements in the show are actually happening now, monarchy worship, the surreal news and how the free market gives people more choice.

We then move on to talking about the 2012 documentary “Please Subscribe” about people who make their money from YouTube, drunken cookery shows (and why Caity doesn’t want Dan to start one), the culture of instant gratification, the great Massive Attack song/video “Live With Me”, the coming One Direction breakup, who really owns Channel 4 and why they may be hostile to UKIP, Chris Atkins, why mainstream TV stations sometimes surprise us, what the Labour party are actually for anymore (nobody knows).

We end by talking about how the mainstream media will crush any form of radicalism, how conservatism is very different in the UK compared with the US and how when things are getting on top of you you should “have a wee word with yerself”

Download (right click save as)

Show notes: http://www.greeningoutpodcast.co.uk/greening-out-27—propaganda-is-alive-and-well-and-on-channel-4

Greening Out Interview #22 – Keir Martland on Libertarianism in the UK and the US, UKIP, Mass-Immigration and Much More 1

martland

Caity and Dan have a very interesting conversation with Keir Martland. Keir is Director of Youth Affairs for the Libertarian Alliance is an A-level student in the north west of England studying History, Philosophy, Economics, and Maths, who has been a member of the Committee since August 2014.

He has been writing for various libertarian blogs since 2012 and his writings appear on sites including The Libertarian Enterprise, Mises Hispano, and Attack the System. Keir is a former Conservative Future Secretary and for much of 2013, he was an Editor of the webzine The Libertarian. He is a keen public speaker and debater and in 2014 he addressed the annual conference of the Traditional Britain Group. Keir is also the driving force behind the fortnightly Libertarian Question Time and other YouTube activities. He is to be contacted at keir@libertarian.co.uk. .
We chat about the current state of libertarianism in the UK, if individualism is making a comeback with younger people, the illusion of living under capitalism, the differences between libertarianism in the UK and the US, Milton Friedman, the misconceptions of the state, libertarian infighting and if it is organic or otherwise, establishment libertarianism vs. radical libertarianism, cultural marxism, the notion of left-wing bias in the media and how the mainstream media lives on fear.

More…

Halal & Hypocrisy XII: Vive la Dissonance! 3

16077033019_8e447c3098_o

On the 7th of January, three Islamic gunmen stormed the offices of left-wing satirical mag Charlie Hebdo, killing eleven staff members in the ensuing bullet shower. The magazine had previously made an international name for itself by printing the Mohammed cartoons of 2006, and continuing to satirise Islam on its pages after being firebombed in 2011. Prior to all that, the magazine had secured a decades-old niche as France’s answer to Private Eye.

1cartoons

The following Sunday, a legion of “leaders” came together in Paris to express their solidarity with those slain. Key figures from fifty of the world’s nations joined a substantial number of Parisians, taking to the streets to declare their fealty to the principle of free speech. Je suis Charlie, nous sommes le monde, and all that.

How I wish I’d been there amongst them – to spit on their fucking faces.

As things stand, I’ll settle for the next-best option: kindling the Inferno.

More…

The State of the Culture War and the Class War Reply

Neoliberalism and totalitarian humanism converge.

“Feminism: Originally a necessary and progressive movement. Today it’s a crowd of attention-starved, hysterical totalitarians masking themselves as progressives, and whose continued screaming existence shows that the movement has destroyed itself with its success.

Multiculturalism: All dandy, as long as it is not a smokescreen for the right’s industrial magnates importing cheap labor, and the left’s power brokers importing voting-cattle.

Gay rights: Whatever that is. Gays have, or should have, the same rights as any other human in a somewhat enlightened society.

Atheism: Far preferable to dressed-up theocrazy, especially (but not limited to) since the rise of theocratic tendencies tends to drag down scientific and technological advances with it.

Summary of the activist central bank policies since 2008 in the US: These have remarkably enriched the top1%, while keeping the US warfare state afloat.”

-Peter Bjorn Hansen

Hot Air and the Paris Atrocities 1

By Dr. Sean Gabb

Libertarian Alliance

For the avoidance of doubt, I will begin by saying that the murders this week at Charlie Hebdo were a barbarous crime, and deserve the strongest punishment allowed by law. This being said, the smug chanting of the politicians and media people is getting on my nerves. Here, without further introduction, are the more objectionable mantras:

Je suis Charlie

I will repeat that this was a barbarous crime. But there seem to be barbarous crimes and barbarous crimes. Suppose the attack had not been on a cultural leftist magazine, but on the headquarters of the Front National, and the victims had been Francine le Pen and the party leadership. Would all those city squares have filled with people reciting Je suis le Front National? I hardly think so. Nor would the media have given blanket and uncritical coverage.

Indeed, we had our answer before the gunmen had opened fire. When Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh and Lee Rigby were murdered no less barbarously, we were all urged to moderate our response. In the first two cases, we were told, with more than the occasional nod and wink, that victims had brought things on themselves. As for the third, the only protest demonstrations were broken up by the police.

Cultural leftists have the same right not to be murdered as the rest of us. So far as the present lamentations indicate, they are seen by the directors of public opinion as having a greater right.

More…

The Cat is Out of the Bag Reply

By Keith Preston

For an opposing perspective, see this article by Joseph Nye. For an article that makes comparable arguments, see this piece in Foreign Policy by Gideon Rachman.

When the future history of the former United States of America is written, the pivotal turning point that likely marked the downfall of the USA will be the events of September 11, 2001.

The United States emerged from World War Two as the most powerful nation-state in the world, rivaled only by the second-rate Soviet Union. American hegemony and dominance spread throughout the world as Western Europe became protectorates of the USA, and the colonies of the former European colonial empires in Asia, Africa, and Latin America became U.S. client states. However the postwar era and the late 20th century were also a time of anti-colonial insurgency, leading the U.S. to get bogged down in the anti-colonial war in Indochina and eventually experience defeat. This had the effect of de-legitimizing U.S. militarism to a great degree. More…

The State: Its Rise and Decline Reply

Read this classic lecture from 2000 by Professor Van Creveld, and then read my “Philosophical Anarchism and the Death of Empire” from 2003. Van Creveld’s lecture describes the emerging world order, and my essay outlines a new paradigm for the “worldwide Grey Tribe” as it might be called.

By Martin Van Creveld

October 16, 2000

This is an excerpt from the keynote lecture given at the Mises Institute conference on the themes in Professor van Creveld’s talk.

The background of the state as we know it today is formed by civil war, although at that time, of course, it was not yet called civil. The endless wars between the various principalities, some of them Christian and others Moslem, that took place in the Iberian Peninsula during the fifteenth century; the English Wars of the Roses; the French guerres de religion; and the Thirty Years War which devastated much of Germany and Central Europe–all these resulted in so much death and destruction that, to end them, people were even prepared to have their appetites controlled. As figures such as Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes argued, the only way to bring about peace and quiet was absolute government invested in a single person. And peace and quiet, more than anything else, was what people wanted and what history seemed to demand.

More…

Sean Gabb on “The European Right” Reply

Dr. Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance speaks at the H.L. Mencken Club.

Listen to the audio of the speech here.

When I was invited to address this gathering on the subject of “The European Right,” I rather think I was expected to bring with me a note of cheer. The various, and mutually hostile movements that may be described as the European Right had just done well in the elections to the European Parliament, and you were living through the fifth year of what you doubtless call the Obama Tyranny. If I could be brought over, to tell you how clean and brave things were turning in the Great European Motherland, what a fine dinner this would be.

Well, that was then, and we are now. Since there are people in this room who were in Budapest earlier this month, and since you have all read at least as much about what happened there as I have, I will spend no time on the details of the conference of the National Policy Institute. I will only say that, of all the countries in Europe, Hungary seemed the most appropriate for this conference. It was still banned by a government that the mainstream media regards as semi-fascist, and disowned by a party that is regarded as fascist without qualification.

More…

A Realistic Libertarianism? 4

This should ruffle some feathers.

I should qualify that I am not necessarily taking Hoppe’s side in this argument, which is a growing  argument in libertarian and anarchist milieus, concerning whether anti-statism is more compatible with a leftist or rightist worldview. As those who are familiar with the entire body of my work would know, I am generally to the left of Hoppe on both economic and cultural issues, but to the right of “left-libertarians, bleeding heart libertarians, and humanitarian-cosmopolitan libertarians.” I think the economic status quo deserves far more criticism than what right-libertarians are usually prepared to give, but I have little patience for the politically correct progressive moralism of the left-libertarians, which tends to bend easily into nanny statism.

Beyond that, I am far more concerned with what I believe should be the principle concern of anarchists and libertarians, and indeed all political radicals of any kind, and that is the unprecedented centralization of political and economic power on a world scale, and with unprecedented weapons and surveillance technology.

Like Hoppe, Kirkpatrick Sale, Alain De Benoist, Troy Southgate, the late Murray Bookchin and other radicals advocating decentralization, I wish to see political and economic power devolved to the lowest level reasonably possible, such as provinces, cantons, city-states, villages, towns and neighborhoods. However, I am infinitely flexible when it comes to the specific makeup or content of such communities. Among libertarian communities, there would no doubt be those with a rightist orientation, and those with a left-libertarian, bleeding heart, humanitarian, or cosmopolitan orientation as well, and realistically speaking, there would probably also be quite a few non-libertarian communities.

By Hans Hermann Hoppe

“Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle. In strict logic, libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations; logically one can be – and indeed most libertarians in fact are: hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular – and still be consistent adherents of libertarian politics. In fact, in strict logic, one can be a consistent devotee of property rights politically and be a moocher, a scamster, and a petty crook and racketeer in practice, as all too many libertarians turn out to be. Strictly logically, one can do these things, but psychologically, sociologically, and in practice, it simply doesn’t work that way.”  [my emphasis, HHH]

Murray Rothbard, “Big-Government Libertarians,” in: L. Rockwell, ed., The Irrepressible Rothbard, Auburn, Al: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000, p. 101

Let me begin with a few remarks on libertarianism as a pure deductive theory.If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts would be impossible. Interpersonal conflicts are always and everywhere conflicts concerning scarce things. I want to do X with a given thing and you want to do Y with the same thing.

Because of such conflicts – and because we are able to communicate and argue with each other – we seek out norms of behavior with the purpose of avoiding these conflicts. The purpose of norms is conflict-avoidance. If we did not want to avoid conflicts, the search for norms of conduct would be senseless. We would simply fight and struggle.

Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, conflicts regarding scarce resources can only be avoided if all scarce resources are assigned as private, exclusive property to some specified individual. Only then can I act independently, with my own things, from you, with your own things, without you and me coming into conflict.

More…

Libertarians and the European Union: A Rejoinder to Petr Mach Reply

“Victory for the Eurosceptic forces would likely be a victory for protectionism, economic nationalism, immigration barriers, and Putin.”

They say that like it’s a bad thing.

I always did think Reason tended to be a bit neoconnish and this illustrates it.

Support for “free trade” (globalization) is definitely an area where I disagree with orthodox libertarians, who apparently do not realize that regional super-states (like the European Union or the apparatus of NAFTA) and a de facto global super-state (in which the American empire is senior partner and military arm) have largely been created in the interests of fostering “free trade.”

Globalization is the primary force that is causing the re-proletarianization of labor in the post-industrial countries, along with neo-liberal domestic economic policies.

Mass immigration is the “reserve army of capital,” as thinkers from Ralph Nader to Alain de Benoist have pointed out, and only serves to hasten the re-proletarianization process.

Also, it’s possible to be neither a Putin-idolator or a Putin-phobe. Contemporary Russia is not the Soviet Union, and while Russia certainly remains an imperialist country,  it is largely a backyard imperialism, comparable to American imperialism as it was during the nineteenth century. Nothing to get worked up about, from an international or geopolitical perspective.

By Dalibor Rohac

Reason.Com

There is much to agree with in Petr Mach’s response to my article about the European Union (EU). As he puts it, my defense of the EU is “utilitarian,” not a principled one, and I fully accept that it is possible to imagine alternatives to the current political arrangements in Europe that would be much friendlier to individual freedom than the status quo.

Unfortunately, Mr. Mach’s text does little to address my main concern, namely that such alternatives might not be on the menu of options available to us at the moment, and that the likely political dynamics of an EU downfall carry a big risk of making the continent, as a whole, less free.

More…

Kevin Mac Donald Attacks the Libertarian Strawman 7

Strawman

Another oldy.

___________

by All-in-All

The Alternative Right (including Third Positioners) has a long history of making ignorant attacks on libertarianism which strikingly parallel those made by the socialists of the 19th century. This should not be surprising since white nationalism and most of the Alt-Right are basically just classical social nationalists. Libertarianism and White Nationalism by Kevin MacDonald is the latest of these sallies into error, and I thought I’d take a minute to bust his balls for talking about things he obviously doesn’t understand.

libertarianism is considered part of the conservative mainstream. It doesn’t ruffle the feathers of the multicultural powers that be.

This is just hysterically and obviously false. Some libertarians, such as Walter Block, are notorious for defending discrimination (racial, sexual, national, religious), defending private, exclusionary communities, and calling bullshit on the claims of racist, sexism and ‘homophobia’ that constantly loom. Some Libertarians, such as Hans Hoppe, are also famous for repudiating democratic and republican governments and stressing that hierarchical and even patriarchal societies are both normal and generally admirable. Finally, there is basically no one who is as open to the idea of human biodiversity, and in particular hereditary intelligence, as the libertarian fringe.

libertarianism is an ideology of national dissolution that would greatly exacerbate problems resulting from immigration.

Libertarianism is an ideology of state dissolution. Like the mainstream left (i.e., Republicans, Democrats and their toadies), MacDonald and his crew frequently make the mistake of confusing the State – a predatory/parasitic agency – with society, a collection of individuals engaged in various relationships commercial and otherwise. MacDonald would do well to re-read his Nietzsche, where the distinction is made clear.

More…

Could America Become Mississippi? Reply

By Jamelle Bouie

Salon.Com

 

The racial polarization of the recent elections—where the large majority of whites voted for Republicans, and majority of minorities voted for Democrats—could continue for decades. Does a dramatic change in your social environment make you more conservative, and if so, what kind of change would it take?

Working at Northwestern University, psychologists Maureen Craig and Jennifer Richeson apply that question to demographic change, and, in particular, to white Americans vis-a-vis the prospect of a United States where the majority of Americans are drawn from today’s minorities. Does a threat to one’s status as the demographic “in-group” increase political conservatism? The answer, in short, is yes.

Using a nationally representative survey of self-identified politically “independent” whites, Craig and Richeson conducted three experiments. In the first, they asked respondents about the racial shift in California—if they had heard the state had become majority-minority. What they found was a significant shift toward Republican identification, which increased for those who lived closest to the West Coast.

More…