The organizer knows that the real
action is in the reaction of the opposition. To realistically appraise and
anticipate the probable reactions of the enemy, he must be able to identify
with them, too, in his imagination, and foresee their reactions to his
actions....
From Rules for Radicals, by Saul Alinsky
Chaos
and Violence: How New Year's Eve in Cologne Has Changed Germany
This is the title of the article at Spiegel Online. At the moment of this writing, the first four
articles at the site are regarding this same event:
New Year's Eve in Cologne rapidly
descended into a chaotic free-for-all involving sexual assault and theft, most
of it apparently committed by foreigners.
Not just any foreigners.
Much of the blame – rightly or wrongly – is being placed at the feet of
some subset of the recent immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa, the
fruit of a) the west’s perpetual wars in the region, and b) Merkel’s open
borders policy.
A lot happened on New Year's Eve in
Cologne, much of it contradictory, much of it real, much of it imagined. Some
was happenstance, some was exaggerated and much of it was horrifying. In its
entirety, the events of Cologne on New Year's Eve and in the days that followed
adhered to a script that many had feared would come true even before it
actually did.
Their behavior, and the subsequent
discussion of their behavior in the halls of political power in Berlin, in the
media and on the Internet, could easily trigger a radical shift in Germany's
refugee and immigration policies. The pressure built up by the images and
stories from Cologne make it virtually impossible to continue on as before.
That, too, is a paradox: The pressure
would be no less intense even if not a single one of the refugees and migrants
who arrived in 2015 were among the perpetrators. (Emphasis added)
The truth of the matter is irrelevant to my point in this
post, and it is irrelevant to the events to come in Germany and elsewhere.
I
have written quite a bit about culture and open borders, applying the
non-aggression principle in the world we
currently live in – not in some future libertarian world; in that future
world there would be no such thing as open borders, because there is no state
in libertarian theory. And the borders
of private property are not open – they are managed.
From an earlier post, Why
Culture Matters, I offered the following:
So what does culture have to do
with maintaining a libertarian order?
This, to me, is quite simple: the less conflict, the less chance that
some self-proclaimed and self-pitying disadvantaged group will look to a savior
to deliver them from their perceived suffering.
The less conflict the less chance
that people will look for someone to do something about it. The “someone” will ultimately be the monopoly
provider of fixing all things for all people.
And there goes the libertarian
order – or even the possibility of moving closer to one.
And this gets to the point of this post. But first, the story:
On New Year's Eve in Cologne, it
was -- according to numerous witness reports -- drunk young men from North
Africa who formed gangs to go after defenseless individuals. They humiliated
and robbed -- and they sexually assaulted women.
This isn’t the real action.
This is:
New Year's Eve marks a shift
because it crystallized a widespread unease with state inaction.
And this:
What is clear, however, is that the
police were unprepared and that they failed.
And this:
…it was also about the quality of
the work done by the police and about a state being unequal to the task facing
it.
And this:
Some 80 riot police from the 14th
Company were on duty that night, which was twice as many as had been patrolling
the streets the previous year -- an increase that was largely due to fears of terrorist
attacks. The Cologne police station had requested the full complement of 124
riot police, but the state police headquarters denied the request.
And this:
…[Merkel] has already responded to
the violence in Cologne by saying that it deserved a "tough response by
the state"…
And this:
Merkel is suddenly calling for a
"tough response,"…
And this:
In the case of violence against
police officers and other emergency personnel, a new designation will be
created that will come with "significantly higher prison sentences."
“…unease with state inaction,”…“the police were unprepared
and…they failed”…“a state being unequal to the task”…“full complement of…riot
police”…“’a tough response by the state’”…“’significantly higher prison
sentences.’”
More police, more state, more penalties.
The real action is in the reaction. I return to my earlier post and the point of this post (and forgive the repetition):
So what does culture have to do
with maintaining a libertarian order?
This, to me, is quite simple: the less conflict, the less chance that
some self-proclaimed and self-pitying disadvantaged group will look to a savior
to deliver them from their perceived suffering.
The less conflict the less chance
that people will look for someone to do something about it. The “someone” will ultimately be the monopoly
provider of fixing all things for all people.
And there goes the libertarian order
– or even the possibility of moving closer to one.
No matter the pleasant thoughts of open-borders
libertarians, in this world we have an open borders example turning into a call
for more state action. Just as I wrote.
Summary
The entire statement, again, from Alinsky:
The organizer knows that the real
action is in the reaction of the opposition. To realistically appraise and
anticipate the probable reactions of the enemy, he must be able to identify
with them, too, in his imagination, and foresee their reactions to his
actions....
Ask yourself: who is the “opposition” in this drama? Who is the “enemy”?
Look in the mirror.
This is the fruit of “open borders” in this world.
I'm a new reader to your site. Very well thought out and said, my friend.
ReplyDeleteWho is the Enemy?
ReplyDeleteThe descendants of Cain called the Cainites who trace their roots to Babylon, the city founded with the intention of drawing men together into one place (City or Federal occupation zone) to enable the false security of total religions, political and economic control. The civil law is a system of law fashioned to meet bureaucratic expediency demanded by urban populations to the duties of one’s mandatory relationship to the state or city-state which erode the individual’s freedoms, rights in property and public liberties. – Brent Winters p. 560, Excellence of the Common Law
The book Demian, by Hermann Hesse, extensively draws upon the beliefs of the Cainite sect. The eponymous character Max Demian even convinces the protagonist Emil Sinclair that Christianity had misunderstood Cain's virtue over Abel's. – Wikipedia. The Supreme Court decisions comes to mind.
Americans are correct to say that our civil law is Anti-christ , in opposition and defiance of our Creator’s order or our founder’s common law precepts of ordered liberty. The law of the city-state, the civil law system is anathema to due process.
The Cainites, led by Tubcal-Cain, are the main antagonists of Noah (2014 film).
In Assassin's Creed, Cain was the first Templar, making the Templars his spiritual successors if not genetically Cainite, and the Mark of Cain is actually the Templar Cross. From the Wikipedia entry for Cainites in popular culture.
Restoring our common law system, rooted in the first principles of the laws of nature and Nature’s God will restore order, prosperity and peace. A republic, if you can keep it, is preserving our common law system of law; i.e. due processes that protect property rights, inalienable rights, fundamental rights, natural rights. The common law protects rights coming from our humanity, as Judge Napolitano describes them. We believe men are born equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights (and due process) from our Creator (the Triune God), and among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Civil-law authoritarians bent and twisted the English language to exert control in an anti-christ, anti-human law system. The solution in reaction to the open-border chaos is to pass more laws protecting the state should anyone complain. The civil-law is that self-licking ice-cream cone of its own making; Problem. Reaction. Solution.
Nice analysis again.
ReplyDeleteWould that mirror be in the Spook House or Beauty Parlor?
You write about borders as if the borders were somehow yours to control, or under control of the magical collective "we." They aren't. The borders are controlled by human individuals presumed to have authority. Further, those individuals are actually incentivized, politically and economically, to exacerbate the problems they are supposed to be authorized to mitigate in order to produce more conflict, over which they have been given monopoly power to resolve, and so so in favor of other state agents, departments, or themselves personally.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that whining about "open immigration" is hacking at the leaves and focusing on a negative. It is not the problem and not the issue and even if it were, the idea that one can "fix the state" is a fallacy. If it were not, then all of the authoritarians would have been vindicated in their prescriptions.
Perhaps you should read what I have written, take my comments in context, and address these one by one. Be specific.
DeleteAnything short of this and you are "whining."
Start here - this captures my several posts on the topic:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-silence-is-deafening.html
I followed the link. I followed it back to the link you made to Richman and followed his link back to his original essay on the topic. Thanks. That was informative.
DeleteThe thing is, I'm questioning what your point is. I am saying that you are advocating "making peace" with the State management of borders and I am pointing out that the human beings, and organizations of same, who supposedly act with the authority of the state, are politically and economically incentivized NOT to solve the problem, and are, in fact, incentivized to make problems worse and create more of them. (I know you know what I mean, given that you're reading Hoppe) I agree that the "open borders libertarians" are essentially advocating for "socialized, unmanaged borders" but that says nothing about what to DO about the problems you raise in your article...unless your point is merely summarized as being: "The State: it's bad, m-kay?" Maybe you're not saying that? Let me ask: when you say that we should "make peace" with the idea that the state, as it now exists, ought to at least "manage the boarders," I'm asking how in the heck you intend that anybody get it to DO that, when clearly, its agents and functionaries are incentivized to do just the opposite, and exacerbate the problem by making more war on top of this?
I have since clarified the "making peace" statement with something like "being resigned to..."
DeleteOne point is that there is no pure libertarian answer to this question in this world. An individual can grant agency to that which he has the right to do (unfortunately, the only choice one has today for the agent is the state). Granting agency is perfectly libertarian, yet contradicts the open borders position. So which position wins?
Another point is the value of culture, and the value of culture in achieving and maintaining a libertarian society.
Another point is libertarian purity - every supposedly pure libertarian makes compromises with the state every day; we live in this world, after all. Where do you draw the line? On what NAP-derived & consistent basis?
There are other points, but these suffice for a brief comment.
(aka) 3000 years and still ticking!
ReplyDelete