Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Cleaning Up Some Loose Ends



Watching, reading, listening, thinking further on the talk given last week by Jeff Deist and the reaction it has generated and my corresponding journey so far on the intersection of libertarianism and culture.  Not that these will be the last loose ends on this topic….

Coincidently, I watched a new (for me) video by Jordan Peterson, the third one in his continuing Biblical Series, this one entitled “God and the Hierarchy of Authority.”  His presentation is about two hours long, with another 30 minutes or so for Q&A.  He is so early in Genesis that even in this third two-hour lecture he still hasn’t introduced Adam and Eve.

As suggested in the title of the lecture, Peterson is developing the basis for the hierarchy of authority – a topic clearly on point when it comes to understanding libertarianism and culture.

Now, before some of my atheist readers get up in arms, I will clarify: Peterson does not present his thoughts in the framework of “God said it, so it must be so.”  He doesn’t believe this.  Instead, he offers: the Bible – and in this case, the earliest verses in the Bible – merely capture the stories passed down from generation to generation since man was first able to both develop and pass down a story.  You are free to decide on your own how long ago that might have been and under what circumstances.

That these stories survived out of the countless and unknown stories from time immemorial is a testament to the importance of these stories to man’s understanding of how must act in order to survive.

What is Peterson’s point?  Man has survived because he has developed this hierarchy of authority; to think that man can survive without such a hierarchy is not only naïve, it is dangerously foolish if not destructive.  He explains why he believes this to be true; he describes examples in the animal world that also demonstrate this to be true.

Which is what makes the belief of communists and many left-libertarians laughable.  Both want to create a new man – one that, if he ever existed, did not survive even one generation; a man for whom hierarchy and authority are irrelevant.

And this is what makes critics like Steve Horwitz worthy of both derision and mockery when they suggest that Jeff Deist’s words such as family, religion, tradition, culture, civic or social institutions make him a Nazi fascist.

Speaking of Steve Horwitz, I thought I would look up something of his work.  I have found enough to understand that he is pro-immigration and pro-open borders.  I also found an interesting piece: “Anti-State” or “Pro-Liberty”? Some Thoughts on Israel.  Up front, I will say that I do not disagree with all of what he writes.  I merely want to focus on one item – germane to this cry for the “universalism” of western liberal values.

Beyond the obligatory (by him) smashing of Rothbard (you have to wonder why the obsession; jealousy?  Guilt?), to make a long story short, the government in Israel might be bad but compared to what?  Look at the other governments in the neighborhood. 

Fair enough…from his western, liberal point of view.  Why do I say this?  From Horwitz:

Let me be blunt:  there is one and only one state in the region that rests on broadly classical liberal values and that is Israel.

Who cares?  Who says this is the standard that those who live there must accept?  Unfortunately, I must go back to a time before the United States destroyed both Iraq and Syria…

I have talked to many people who live in (or, more often, used to live in) these two countries – too many people to count.  To a person, they enjoyed the life they had in Aleppo, Damascus, and Bagdad.  They felt safe; they owned businesses; they could practice their religion freely; their children went to school; they were able to travel.

They knew that as long as they didn’t directly challenge the government, their life would continue in this manner (as if this caveat is unnecessary in Israel or the United States).  They appreciated and believed that their government was no western liberal democracy but it workedand was necessary – for the society over-which it governed.


Which offers one more example of why this idea of the universalism of western liberal values is dangerous – and ignorant.  The universe doesn’t want these values; they are (or, sadly, in the case of Syrians and Iraqis, were) quite happy under their previous scheme.

Iraq has held several elections since 2005.  Do you think the people of Iraq feel better about life today because they now enjoy western liberal democracy?  Why haven’t the elections brought peace and stability?  Don’t tell me about the war; all of the factions kept in check by Hussein and Assad never cared about the outcome of elections.

As an aside, Horwitz listed the many liberal characteristics of Israel as compared to its neighbors:

It has the rule of law, an independent judiciary, a more or less market economy that protects private property, not to mention a higher degree of ethnic/religious inclusiveness in its political institutions. 

While I disagree with portions of this list when compared to the pre-war Syria and Iraq, notice what isn’t on the list? 

Open borders. 

Has Horwitz ever advocated for open borders for Israel?  I don’t know.  If he has, it offers an extreme example of the liberty-robbing insanity of this idea.  If he hasn’t, is it fair to ask: why not?

Finally, Horwitz has penned a reply to all of the criticism he has received for his comments on Deist’s speech.  Almost all of the highest rated comments take issue (or worse) with Horwitz’ view.  As to Horwitz’ comments, he clarifies that doesn’t think Deist is a Nazi.  Further:

…the problem with Deist’s talk, and the Mises Institute more generally, is not that they are Nazis, but that they appear to have no problem with making arguments that are appealing to neo-Nazis and the rest of the unsavory elements of the right.

Because terms like family, religion, tradition, culture, civic or social institutions appeal to “the unsavory elements of the right”?  I don’t get it.  Because, to normal people, these all sound pretty savory.

No, no, no – Horwitz clarifies; this is not what he means:

…name a libertarian who has written more about the family and its importance for a free society than I have. …for the kind of libertarian who supposedly doesn’t care about religion or civil society, I sure do spend a lot of time doing volunteer work for synagogues and schools.

So, it was just the “blood and soil” term that got Horwitz spun up?  All words affiliated to anything any Nazi ever said are now off limits?  Do they use different words for “blood and soil” in Jerusalem?  Should Deist have said “the Promised Land” instead?

Or is it OK to support synagogues, but not a church?  Is that Horwitz’ point?

In any case, I have a thought for libertarians who mock those who support family, religion, tradition, culture, civic or social institutions, to borrow from and paraphrase Horwitz’ above-cited statement:

…the problem with Horwitz’ comments, and the left, bleeding heart libertarians more generally, is not that they are communists, but that they appear to have no problem with making arguments that are appealing to communists and the rest of the unsavory elements of the left.

As Horwitz offers:

Our history is one of liberal tolerance, universalism, and cosmopolitanism, putting the freedom and harmony of all people ahead of the supposed interests of any parochial sub-group, and especially ones defined by the artificial boundaries of nation-states and their subsets. Libertarians ignore this at the risk of irrelevance.

Libertarianism is not this complicated or obtuse.  It is respect for private property rights and the abstention from initiating aggression.  Nothing more.

Tolerance is the objective of Herbert Marcuse and the Frankfurt School; there is no universalism when it comes to man’s subjective values; cosmopolitanism means rootless, easily rounded up into herds; there will always be parochial sub-groups (start with family and let your mind wander from there) unless they are destroyed by force; while boundaries of nation-states are often artificial, boundaries of nations are most certainly not.  Ask Tel Aviv.

There are many nations (whose political boundaries correspond accordingly) who will not survive the “tolerance,” “universalism,” and “cosmopolitanism,” required of Horwitz’ version of libertarianism.  I belong to one of these; Horwitz, presumably, does as well (not mine!).  Horwitz might want to destroy these nations, but the people who live in these most certainly do not feel the same way. 

Horwitz can be confused with Antonio Gramsci.  Horwitz offers world government; he is doing the bidding of communists.  It is most certainly not the language of Ludwig von Mises; he knew better…firsthand.  Mises’ views on this topic were much more nuanced than Horwitz would like you to believe.

And this is the bidding that Horwitz is doing.  I know he will protest: “this is not my objective.”  I am certain that Horwitz’ ends and Gramsci’s ends are different; yet their means are identical – and once these means have done their work, it is simply a matter of which side will win.  Which side do you think will win if that day comes?

Conclusion

One cannot say the same about the means of the Mises Institute or Jeff Deist corresponding with the means of Nazi fascists.  Certainly, the hoped-for ends are virtually polar opposites.

In his talk, Jeff Deist’s point was so simple and obvious; it is unbelievable that it can be so misconstrued and lost: family, culture, and homeland – these all matter to people and always will.  Bleeding heart libertarians, at least those like Horwitz, are irrelevant to those who desire a reasonably free world because they mock this.

14 comments:

  1. These two quotes lead me to think that Horwitz is not a practicing Jew or he thinks that Israel's covenant with God is subject to the Jews' whims.

    "Let me be blunt: there is one and only one state in the region that rests on broadly classical liberal values and that is Israel."

    and

    "Our history is one of liberal tolerance, universalism, and cosmopolitanism, putting the freedom and harmony of all people ahead of the supposed interests of any parochial sub-group, and especially ones defined by the artificial boundaries of nation-states and their subsets. Libertarians ignore this at the risk of irrelevance."

    His "our history" must not include Moses, the prophets, Baal worship, Jezebel, etc.

    Nor his "our history" does not include the Elders of Israel demanding a king. If the land is theirs because of the covenant, their possession is also conditional according to the covenant.

    Where is Horwitz' king? Where is Horwitz' sacrifices?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "In his talk, Jeff Deist’s point was so simple and obvious; it is unbelievable that it can be so misconstrued and lost: family, culture, and homeland – these all matter to people and always will. Bleeding heart libertarians, at least those like Horwitz, are irrelevant to those who desire a reasonably free world because they mock this."

    We all know there was no misunderstanding on the part of Deist's critics as to what he said or meant. They knew exactly what he meant, and they hated the message through and through because it threatens their preconceived notion of what a libertarian should be.

    However, they're not going to openly admit that they consider the family, heritage, nation, and religion to be their true enemy. So they lied, even when it was apparent to all reasonable people the absurdity of it all.

    There is such thing as a noble opponent who fights you honorably and without deceit as to their intent, but these cretins are not of that caliber. They can't even be honest about what it is they stand for or what they oppose, nor that of their enemies.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great stuff. I am sure Deist will happy to read a defense like this.

    One thing I have found with decent people is that their enemies tend to know them better than they know themselves.

    Permit me an analogy. Let's say an honest man is playing cards with a man who, unbeknownst to him, is a cheater and the cheater keeps accusing him of being violent and prone to making wild accusations. This puzzles the honest man at first, he has no particular urge to violence and certainly has not accused anyone of anything. That is until he notices the cards in the other mans sleave, calls him a cheater, and beats him to death.

    While most of you do not see yourselves as nazifascistkkk, pushed far enough many of you will defend what matters most to you (Deist's point) and as such you *are* a nazifascistkkk because to *them* there is no distinction to be found, and in my view they are right. If you read the memoirs of the heroes of the Waffen SS like Leon Degrelle you will see that his motivation really was that of a decent man who saw his people under siege from a horrible foe.

    It should be revealing that nation wreckers like Horwitz make no attempt to explain why we should submit to what is being done to us (Horwitz's Zionism should make clear that he is fully aware of the dynamics at play) and worse yet- they don't even attempt to argue it's not happening! Instead they hope they can shut it down by calling you nazi. However as the results of the postwar liberal imperium become harder and harder to ignore, nazi increasingly becomes "a non-jew who resists destruction of their volk and faith."

    Never apologize, never back down, when they call you nazi call them commie. If you oppose these people you *are* a nazi because that is what they have defined it to mean. We are all in this together.

    Heil Victory

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am looking forward to reviewing Jordan's Biblical series.

    By the way, I have heard no one say this, but the now famous Google Anti-PC 10 page memo was clearly influenced by Jordan Peterson's arguments on the subject. Much of it was 'pure' Peterson.

    Peterson certainly came into public awareness suddenly. First, nobody ever heard of him, then suddenly: boom! He is everywhere. He was the right guy with the right argument at the right time, saying the opposite of mainstream.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peterson is an example of the power and influence that on person can have.

      Addressing the issue of the potential cost to him of speaking up, he said he is more concerned about the cost of not speaking up.

      Delete
    2. gpond, you are brilliant!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU&feature=youtu.be

      Delete
    3. Thanks. I was pleased that at the end of the interview, James Damore admitted that he is a "big fan" of Peterson.

      Delete
  5. 7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?

    8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

    Is this Jordan Peterson?


    Owyhee Cowboy

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Let me be blunt: there is one and only one state in the region that rests on broadly classical liberal values and that is Israel." ~Steve Horwitz

    By "classical liberal values," does Horwitz mean free speech? He should try questioning the Official Holocaust Account next time he visits Israel. A warmer reception awaits him sketching cartoons of the Prophet in Riyadh.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve Horwitz thinks non-Jewish white families are an explicit threat to him and his people. In his worldview non-Jewish white people are violating the NAP by existing.

    Forget antisemitism. All I have heard about all my life is the so-called irrational antisemitism of non-Jews. Whenever there is an ethnic conflict between Jew and non-Jews it is always the fault of the non-Jew. Do you know of any mainstream history book that faults Jews for ethnic conflict with non-Jews? Neither do I!

    Let's ask Murray Rothbard: "It is not Christian anti-semitism, but, Jewish goy-bashing which has become the characteristic act of tastelessness in our time".

    When you talk to Jews about the unprincipled except accorded to Jews (by Jews) their reaction is usually genuine puzzlement, as if they cannot imagine that they could be held to the same standards as non-Jews. This blind-spot is probably something deeply embedded in Jewish culture or possibly even genetic. It keeps Jews on a basis of constantly attacking the other, while remaining blissfully unaware of their own faults. Jesus came across this often when encountering Jews, leading to his injunction against pointing out the speck in the eyes of others when there is a plank in your own eye.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This has ventured a little away from the original topic but I believe it was Joe Sobran who once said that an anti-Semite is someone the Jews hate.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Not all Jews, but certainly more than a few, favor open borders for the U.S. and Europe. Not all Jews, but more than a few, favor closed borders for Israel. The double standards are mind-boggling.

    ReplyDelete