Guest Post by The Zman
The reason that Buckley Conservatism completely failed to halt the advance of Progressivism is that the Buckleyites eventually came to accept the moral framework of the Left. Libertarians have gone down the same road, embracing the morality of Progressives, while trying to find a way to carve out a place for individual liberty within that moral framework. It’s why the differences between libertarianism and what passes for conservatism are trivial now. They both operate in the same narrow space.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
A good way to illustrate this is with this interview Carl Benjamin conducted with Jared Taylor. Benjamin is a British provocateur who goes by the handle Sargon of Akkad on social media. He describes himself as a liberal, but to Americans that should be understood as libertarian. His views are consistent with what you see from the Reason Magazine types. That means he embraces the libertine social polices of the Progressives, but he likes getting cheap stuff from Amazon without paying sales tax.
He is also an incandescently obnoxious troll, who goes out of his way to pick fights with people on-line. His go-to move for years was to post gay porn into the twitter feed of people he was trying to provoke. He used to spend his days attacking alt-right people on twitter with this tactic, but they largely ignored him. He’s also made a habit of going after feminists, who always take the bait. He styles himself as an intellectual, but he is just another shallow end of the pool libertarian, afraid to venture into deeper water.
In the video, Jared Taylor makes the reasonable point that race relations in America are at a standstill because blacks are fundamentally different from whites. Compulsory integration over the last 40 years has done nothing to improve the lives of blacks and nothing to improve relations between the races. If anything, relations are worse now. The logical solution is to junk the compulsory integration and let people do what they do naturally, which is self-segregate. At some point, a peaceful divorce will be arranged.
In theory, libertarians like Benjamin should embrace freedom of association. After all, what can be more basic to personal liberty than the right of association? If you can stuff your body with illicit drugs, because you own it, you should have the right to put your body near whomever you like. That means having the right to not be around people you don’t like, for any reason or no reason at all. Places where you need to get permission from authorities to be around other people are called prisons.
But, there are no modern libertarians who embrace this as it runs afoul of official orthodoxy on race. Progressives have declared private discrimination to be a mortal sin. You see this in the interview at about the 10 minute mark. Benjamin starts spinning around like a top, trying to re-frame Taylor’s point as compulsory segregation. When that does not work, he then says that everyone he knows loves diversity and they want to forget about the whole race and ethnicity stuff. In other words, there is no need fro freedom of association.
This is why libertarians have been forced to embrace egalitarianism. This let’s them wriggle free from vice of freedom and anti-racism, by claiming that systematic social inequity is the cause of racial differences. Therefore, fixing the social problems will let everyone be treated the same and the gaps between the races will close. Everyone will embrace diversity and multiculturalism. This is now orthodoxy with “conservatives” like Ben Sasse, as well as most libertarians.
At about the 20 minutes mark, Benjamin gives the game away entirely by trying to tie the bogeyman of Richard Spencer to the reasonable arguments in favor of freedom of association made by Jared Taylor. You can see the wheels turning as he tries to square his own self-righteous disdain for guys like Spencer with the reality that Spencer is to the right of him on the issue of personal liberty. Benjamin rattles on a few minutes trying to square that circle, but then gives up and changes the subject.
That’s where is gets a bit amusing as he makes the ridiculous claim the Islam has somehow managed to overcome tribalism. This would be quite shocking to the practitioners of Islam in the Arab world, who have been in waging tribal warfare since the birth of Islam. Sure, Islam has no racial component, but the practitioners certainly do. This is the same with Christianity and Judaism. The same is true of sports and gardening. Just because tribes can have much in common, does not make them any less tribal.
Libertarians and conservatives have the same problem. They have been forced to embrace the moral framework of Progressives. Benjamin starts from the bedrock assumption that racism is evil and that race is an artifact of a prior age. From there he tries to reach classical liberal conclusions, but that is an impossibility as classical liberalism inevitably runs afoul of Progressive morality. This is why Progressives have been able to roll the opposition. They set the rules so the results are inevitable.
Benjamin lacks the intellect to grasp this reality, so he flounders around trying to self-righteously condemn race realism, while smugly pretending to be outside of Progressive orthodoxy. He is a big admirer of himself. Because there is no way to make his brand of libertarianism work while embracing things like anti-racism, he’s reduced to having personal squabbles with heretics. He was unable to do that with Taylor so he just came off as a smug blockhead, which is a pretty good description of the modern libertarian.
Good piece.
Sargon should spend some time in our region.
The area is basically split into three people – whites of European descent, Indians (imported not domestic) and the Chinese with a smattering of others in between.
All three races/ethnicities share some cultural traits in common: industriousness, respect for rule of law by and large – at least in the middle class – and a desire for some sort of order.
Interstingly though, although we live near one another and do well living as neigbours and in business, we seem to segregate ourselves racially. Some communities are primarily Asian, others are primarily Indian and others are primarily European. There is mixing but the _trend is towards_ self imposed racial segregation even among deiiferent peoples of similar intelligence with some fundamental shared values like the ones listed above.
The question is – if race doesn’t matter – why do we do this of our own free will even when we generally get along?
I wonder what Freud would say?
Moooo? 🙂
The answer has been known forever, “Birds of a feather flock together” being one of the more well know ways of expressing it.
Francis, you answered your own question, it works, because…. “All three races/ethnicities share some cultural traits in common: industriousness, respect for rule of law by and large – at least in the middle class – and a desire for some sort of order.” That’s the world I grew up in. What’s missing in this piece, and what Jared Taylor has wrong is, work. When you send our blue collar jobs overseas, and there is no work that can support a family for the average man, he has way too much time and energy on his hands. So black lives matter starts to matter to him. If you put in 10 hours somewhere, you’re tired. You go home and rest for the next day, when you have to do it again. It’s the same thing for women when they start hitting their 30’s with no children. All that emotion, all that energy, has no natural channel. So they turn into crazies. Hardscrabble has a great piece today about the nature of herds, and how they sort themselves out, if left naturally to do it. Muck starts his piece today by rightfully identifying Citizens United as the pox on our house. Every conservative and libertarian rag spun that as a great victory for freedom. Bullshit. Easy to tell when somebody’s a non-thinking doctrinaire conservative or liberaltarian just by how they view Citizens United. Cheering on their own slavery. Fucking dolts.Lots of little pieces, they all make sense
Buckley embraced Zionism and thus ceased to be a conservative (if Mr. CIA ever really was one).
The issue isn’t just that people have the right to associate with whom they please – it’s about the means they have to employ to keep other people out. It seems clear that public spaces and institutions can’t discriminate based upon race. Being able to run a small whites-only (or blacks-only) cafe seems fine to Zman, but what about when the commercial interest in question becomes so dominant that it’s effectively a public utility? If all of the social media companies banned white people, would he be OK with that?
Yes, so long as the freedom was equally available. If (demographic X) is told it cannot hire only demographic X but demographic Y is allowed to, then there is a problem.
For you see, if social media companies banned all white people, a white people social media company would emerge. The same is true in reverse, to a degree. If social media companies banned women, a social media company built by women for women would emerge.
Some *other* group… seeking to have both male and female users and dominate the field, would pursue a functional approach to employing and serving both male and female social media talents and customers.
In theory that would be true. But if the theory worked blacks would not always be on the caboose of mankind. Now some might suggest that things have changed since the last time there was de jure segregation, that blacks have been given preferred access to our best schools for two plus generations so there is a large contingent of highly educated blacks ready to move in where white business moves out under a return to voluntary segregation. Oh…. then why the food deserts in black neighborhoods? Negroes, even poor ones buy groceries. Why no black Oracles, Microsofts or Apples. Its not like whites/Asians had a head start on software, PCs or cellphones in 1965. The stuff did not exist.
The reality is if we returned to a race neutral much less a Jim Crow world public and private organizations would be free to administer aptitude or competency examinations to fill jobs and where would that leave the negro- even the negro with a Harvard degree?
In the pre Civil Rights world negroes could at least sell their labor. Now, because of the heavy hispanic immigration over the past 50 years people no longer want blacks around even for manual labor work. Hispanics are superior and have not been conditioned to be surly and antagonistic towards authority. In short the negro has less market value today than he did in 1960.
The negro, forced to profit only via good deeds with their alien neighbors, would do just fine. But they must given no option but starve or be a good neighbor in order for this to happen.
Clearly, what is needed are separate countries for separate races.
Full disclosure: I am a fan of Carl Benjamin. I’ve watched several of his videos, and for a self-described “liberal,” he sure opposed Hillary Clinton (one of his best videos on the 2016 election was “Hillary Must Lose,” in which he skillfully explained why a Hillary victory would have been a disaster). I also like his videos criticizing feminism, mocking the people who forecast an epidemic of lynchings after Trump won (this never happened), opposing the European Union, and attacking Antifa.
One of his best and most recent videos was one where he deconstructed and debunked every single claim by Emma Sulkowicz, the now former Columbia U. student who accused a male student of rape and who then proceeded to carry a mattress around campus in protest of Columbia’s non-expulsion of the accused rapist – who was actually someone Sulkowicz fell in love with, had consensual sex with, and then became bitter against.
Having said that, I think Benjamin, by virtue of being a Brit, isn’t aware of the dynamics of race relations here in the United States, and I don’t think he studied the race realism angle thoroughly enough before engaging Jared Taylor. This is surprising because Benjamin had produced an insightful video on the alt-right, and he tends to be a detail-oriented student of topics he has worked on in the past.
Benjamin is quite intelligent, but I would say he met an even more intelligent individual in Taylor, and whatever one thinks of Taylor’s views, one cannot disagree that Taylor is a consistent and logical thinker.
This time stamp starts early and lets Carl make his point. However, Jared’s response really gets to the heart of the matter.
In the leftist mentality, if it is proven factually true, that certain ethnic groups are genetically predisposed to having a lower IQ, then we should exterminate them.
This is why socialism leads to communism leads to mass deaths. Because the people who support these ideas have a boundary beyond which “all must die”. If you can’t match the metrics I have set for you, then you must be eliminated is… quite genuinely… their natural reaction.
This is why they project death camps on anyone to the right of Ben Shapiro, because if what Ben Shapiro says is true… then those people should DIE according to progressive amygdala. Trying to debate with this is a mostly futile effort, but still must happen so that the record can be kept.
When you hear someone declaring their fear of right wing death camps… know that they are in fact the ones who if the winds change enough… will instill right wing death camps.
Correct.
Libertarians & anarcho capitalist types have been pandering for approval from the left for a long time now… Conservatism has turned to corporatist & neocon ideology, and is antithetical to paleocon traditionalist.
But what makes the libertarians, and anarchos, worse is they believe in utopian ideas, just as socialist/communist do. No govt is as fanciful as collectivism. Neither has successfully worked long term in history, beyond Dumbar’s number. And even at Dumbar’s number, how many successful communes exist today from the 1960’s (answer is probably none).
And both groups cannot pander to afro americans enough, where the collectivist claim that the afros would be perfected by more govt, and libertarians say that the afros would be perfected by no govt. Both positions are just more utopian drivel.
What makes the paleocon traditionalist successful is that their ideas are rooted from empirical experience, and are allergic to utopian solutions. Collectivism eventually failed everywhere is was tried. Anarcho capitalism defies the Hobbesian truths about human nature.
The reason that most libertarians do not understand this is because they lived sheltered lives, in cupcake land. If they lived in rougher urban neighborhoods, they would realize the folly of their opinions. The idea that in a free market paradise, no one would harm each other (and that antisocial behavior can be corrected by simply shunning the offender) is pathologically naive at best. If it was true, then that would already be spontaneously occurring, regardless of govt.
That is why it is laughable when Cato comes up with articles that Detroit, and Somalia, are proving that libertarianism works. Really? If its so good, why are they not living there? Only a bookish academic idiot in a think tank, devoid of real world experiences, could come up with such silly nonsense.
In the end it should be no surprise that the New Left has corrupted the morals of conservatives, and libertarians. Before them, the New Left progressives corrupted the old Democrat Liberals, who mainly wanted to help the working poor, not culturally transform a nation to communism (many of them were in fact anti communist and religious). Many ended up becoming Reagan Democrats, but now the Paleocon position is the last hold out against immoral progressivism.
Libertarianism is a great philosophy for inside well defended gates.
Well done. You summed up libertarianism, its strengths, and its flaws, pretty much in one sentence.
Explanations of what razzle and Francis Marion are missing, Zman is misrepresenting, and why joe @ 10/1/17 2:12 pm
is almost entirely (he is right about collectivism failing) full of shit:
Brief; Extended; Book [PDF].
And, as a free bonus (also to see how many links I can dump without getting tossed in the bit bucket) three hours of doubleplusungood crimethink condensed to 964 words.
As a recovering libertarian, let me tell you that I admire your ideas, but I respect their reality.
Your ideas will eventually confront their reality. Their reality is not an idea, it just is.
You will never move their reality, but they will definitely move your ideas. I look forward to debating policy once you have had your ideas tested against their reality.
Sincerely,
Razzle
Here’s their reality: “They” will never, ever answer the question quis custodiet ipsos custodes? because the only answer that averts infinite regress absurdity is: We must all be guardians. In other words: anarchism. Here’s another question, one I’ve asked “them” innumerable times, and never, ever gotten an answer: How are the flawed (or inherently bad, or fallen, or whatever other vacuous Bible-addled cliché) humans unfit for anarchy nonetheless fit to be rulers – i.e. not bound by the same rules as the ruled?
I look forward to debating policy once you have had your ideas tested against their reality.
I have no interest in debating “policy” – i.e. what a tiny soi-disant elite imposes on everyone else by force. I’m interested in eradicating “policy”. Unless and until that is done, this is THE reality.
Reality is no libertarian or anarchist has made them stop. Because what is required to make them stop would result in the libertarian/anarchist taking their place, otherwise they will sprout right back up in no time at all.
Totally agree Razzle, true Libertarianism could only survive(?) in a state of loose construction/government which is what Hamilton and Jefferson believed/ hoped would be the norm in this country.
That said, you are right that you BETTER HAVE a gun and a fortress.
Both positions are just more utopian drivel.
That’s just more statist concrete-head (in both the literal conceptual and material metaphorical senses of concrete) drivel. As for Zman, some libertarian must have made off with his sweetie. I can’t imagine any other cause for being so vapidly nonsensical about libertarians.
“What makes the paleocon traditionalist successful is that their ideas are rooted from empirical experience, and are allergic to utopian solutions.” Really nice, Joe. That’s about as clear-cut as it gets.
What has Destory the conservative movement is their abondoment of Christ . Without Christ there is no Christian faith . Conservatism just becomes another Godless ,souless ideology .You see this across the board Especially in the churches.Once Christ is gone what is left to conserve ?
Why does only the United States have race relation problems?
Seriously?
You’ve clearly never been to the United States, and are blind about your own problems wherever you are; or you live here in the U.S., and have never looked anywhere else, not even metaphorically.
Nothing but blister-raising ignorance could explain such a farcical question.
Maybe, lacking a basic high school education in literature, google phrases like “white man’s burden”, and then tell the class where and from whom the phrase originated.
Then we can talk about the fullest meaning of the Japanese word “gaijin”.
Common interests, languages, traditions…It is the rare person with the courage to step out of their comfort zone and learn about others.
Also, most people don’t grow up in diverse areas. I grew up in an area where everyone was from somewhere else, U heard what seems like millions of different languages, and I went to a school where they actually had a diverse curriculum, but not the stupid kind in public schools. We were taught about different cultures, not to virtue signal, but because if U wanted to succeed in business and the world, U had to be able to relate to customers and diverse people. U help people by creating industry, companies, products, inventions to further mankind and your brothers. Your brothers were not always people of your “tribe”, but those with common ideals.
The school didn’t pander to blacks, hispanics, and native americans, it uplifted them by teaching them how the system works, how to succeed in it, how to speak, write, and calculate. There was no whining or anything allowed and the richer folks saw that and wanted to give anyone who graduated from this school a deserved job making good money.
There were no unsuccessful graduates because it also taught legit understanding of diverse religions, customs, and how to get along with others. U took economics, psychology, philosophy, debate, government, law, woodworking, mechanics, home ec., cooking, etc.
It was a very Libertarian kind of school. I’d guess most of its graduates are probably Ron Paul fans after seeing the war between Dumbocrats and Republicans has gotten us nowhere. The party of the stupid vs. the party of evil. Pick which 1 U think is which!
Lastly, they didn’t force U to mingle, so most people did so of their own accord. The place wasn’t divisive because no 1 got special favors or better treatment. U didn’t follow the rules, U were kicked out. No time for slackers or bigots. The opinion that some races were smarter was known to be a lie, it was hard work and diligence that put U over the top.
In some ways, it was the most American, free market place I’ve experienced. It’s what the flag stands for, the ideal place where freedom of ideas flow and critical thinking and improvement/enlightenment is the goal. Damn sure ain’t what public schools are about.
Oh, btw, U studied the classics and they threw in classics from other non-European cultures too.
We learned the contributions of different groups, but that didn’t mean denigrating whites nor throwing everything the Europeans did out the window.
Every group has contributed something of value to humanity, but naturally some may have contributed more.
Where was this, Econman?
lala land
An elite Jesuit prep school on the East coast. Don’t want to give the exact location as, as a teacher, many of my comments could get me in hot water in this politically correct environment. I get enough flack as an economics teacher because almost everything I teach is in direct opposition to the standard, liberal bullshit. I predicted Trump would win and everyone laughed. After he won, some people turned on me. They will try to blacklist U. So much for their “diversity” scam.