Posts
Preamble
The longbeards, as they were to be known, was a tribe of the
very early Middle Ages. What we know of
their fifth-century origins comes from the Origo Gentis Langobardorum, a short
7th-century, Latin account offering the founding myth.
Regarding the Winnili: their ruler was a woman called
Gambara; they were about to enter battle against the Vandals; they went to Odin
and his wife Frea for help; Frea suggested that the women of Winnili tie their
long hair in front of their faces such that they pass as men with beards in the
battle.
At sunrise, Frea turned her
husband's bed so that he was facing east, and woke him. Godan [Odin] saw the
women of the Winnili, their hair tied in front of their faces, and asked
"Who are these longbeards?", and Frea replied, since you named them,
give them victory, and he did. From this day, the Winnili were called Langobardi, "longbeards".
And these are known to us as the Lombards.
No Longer Anonymous
Anonimo Lombardo (no longer to be an anonymous Lombard: from now on to be known as Gambara, a woman of
the Winnili), posting as Anonymous October 21, 2017 at 8:57 AM in the comments
for my post regarding Hoppe. I tried ignoring it…but, well you can read
the comments to see why and how I changed my mind (more like changed my mood; if it is important for you to
understand what I mean, take a look).
If I am going to spend energy on her comments, I felt I
should at least both learn and offer to the readers something of the history.
Gambara doesn’t like Hoppe; that’s fine with me and I
suspect fine with Hoppe (like Gambara would be the first in line for this!).
But this isn’t really the issue.
Gambara doesn’t like Hoppe for things Hoppe hasn’t written (or at least
nothing cited in my post) and doesn’t like Hoppe for reasons that fly in the
face of reality.
Bear with me; I don’t like this any more than you do.
Hoppe is a mess...
Now…you tell me…would you keep reading this comment – the
very opening sentence – after you just wrote 2000 words for a post labeled “I
Love Hans Hoppe”? I need more
mood-changing liquid….
- about gays/women / blacks /
minorities... rights: you do not have to be of those categories to advocate for
special rights. In addition, not every gays/women/blacks/etc…
advocates for those kind of fake rights.
True.
Hoppe, in confusing gay people and
gay rights advocates, rises animosity against the wrong targets.
Has Hoppe limited himself to these targets? Does Hoppe ignore the abuses of other groups,
include white males? Gambara would know
that the answer is a resounding “no” if she would read what was written.
Do You Promise to Tell
the Truth, the Whole Truth…? Even
though Gambara’s statements are true, they are not the whole truth. Four things are quite true: first, these
groups all successfully demand fake
rights; second, white males are the only group not only disallowed from
demanding special rights but forced to accept special abuses; third, anyone who
denounces this (even on libertarian grounds) is labeled a racist, a homophobe, or
a white supremacist (just ask Gambara, she will do this shortly); fourth, the
state uses all of this to its advantage.
- there are not only people who
advocate for gays/blacks/women/ minorities/etc… special fake rights, but also a
lot of people who advocates for special fake rights for white, hetero,
Christians, men, and families… those people are often part of the Alt-right,
isn’t that a problem for Hoppe? mumble… mumble…
I am having a hard time finding any laws on the books that
give fake rights to “white, hetero, Christians, men, and families…” Are there laws on the books that give rights
to whites because they are white;
heteros because they are hetero;
Christians because they are Christian;
men because they are men; or families
because they are families?
OK…I will allow for three such laws…but not more. This in comparison to 2,438,745,666 laws in
favor of these other “groups.” That
Gambara is a stickler for the trivial – you will never hide a needle in
ten-dozen haystacks that is outside of her vision. But…well, she did walk with the gods.
- Immigrants don’t have to be
productive, they only have to live without violating the NAP, in so far as
libertarianism is concern.
There are two groups of non-productive people that I know
who are not violating the NAP…actually, one.
I was going to include the bums who sleep over the subway grates for
warmth, but they are trespassing. So,
only those who live in totally voluntarily funded shelters qualify. We will examine this shortly.
Many people are unproductive in
society. But if other people voluntary pay for them, there are no NAP
violations.
I find about 400,000 live in
homeless shelters in the United States.
While I am certain that many of these live in shelters that are
partially or wholly government funded, I will give Gambara the benefit of the
doubt. Meanwhile, there are 46
million on food stamps.
Everyone can think numerous
examples.
So…less than 1% lives within your reality. You call this “numerous examples”? Do you believe the data is significantly
different for the immigrant population? Like
in Germany today, for example?
- Sociology and psychology are good
fields of research, and can give us a more realistic prospective on things. For
example, theoretically you can be a racist, a homophobic, a white supremacist,
and a libertarian. But reality teach us (but someone doesn’t want to learn)
that very often those people – coincidence! – become violent, and – so strange!
– aggressive against the categories of people they despise.
I should have begun here and if I had half a brain I would
end here. Actually, I am going to end it
here.
Racist: the single-most important relationship anyone enters
into is that of marriage. Ninety percent of marriages are within the
same race, and eighty-three percent of newlyweds are within the same race.
Homophobic: a grand total of 3.8% of the population
identifies as LGBT, which means 96.2% do not.
Gambara – are you as shocked as I am that the entire United
States has not spontaneously self-combusted?
After all, well over 90% of Americans, on average, in their most important relationships in life act on views that you
believe are “violent, and – so strange! – aggressive against the categories of
people they despise.”
As to white supremacists: nine
percent of Americans hold such views (and for some reason I doubt the
number is this high. This means 91% do not.
The media has blown up this “:white supremacist” thing beyond all
reality, in order to stoke confrontation and fear of Trump and those who
support him.
Part II
OK, I didn’t end it there.
Gambara has added a couple more comments:
Anonymous October 22,
2017 at 1:22 AM
But I’ m glad to read unhappy
answer.. with his opinions about gays and Aryans, becouse it is so clear in
reading is his words that libertarians that serch for an alliance with those
people are out of their minds and are proposing the complete derailment of
libertarianism.
I guess it depends what you mean by “alliance” and what you
believe to be important. To the extent I
find people who value western civilization, patriarchal family governance,
Christian tradition and morals…I will find reason to ally. I have said more than once: I would rather
have Pat Buchanan as a neighbor than many “libertarians.”
I am happy to form an alliance with anyone who is against
the foreign interventions of the United States government. This makes me an ally of many people who hold
what I consider to be horrible views on economics: for example, The Saker. Frankly, if we can realize the taming of the
Anglo-empire to even some degree in my lifetime this would be enough for me – I
will live with municipal trash service.
Childish libertarians believe the world begins and ends with
the NAP: as long as we believe in the NAP, all else will resolve itself. Not me.
Right libertarianism is libertarian
in name only. Every time I read here I become more sure of this.
“Libertarian in name only,” in other words, pure NAP, is a
world that will never exist in a world of imperfect humans. Every time I read a comment by someone who
promotes such an idea I become more sure of the childish thought process behind
such a sentiment.
Anonymous October 22,
2017 at 2:08 AM
I will put things in another way:
libertarianism is a procedural theory of justice, it does not imply a defined
state of things to reach and maintain but a procedure to follow.
Do you believe this “procedure to follow” is achievable for
anyone, anywhere, regardless of the cultural soil upon which he was
raised? Do you believe this “procedure
to follow” can survive in any cultural soil?
Childish.
Right libertarians call themselves
realists, but in reality the big majority of people, think that the criteria
Hoppe is proposing are repulsive, so it must be possible to be libertarian and
very far from Hoppe’s view, or libertarianism is doomed. So much for realism.
You believe patriarchal family, tradition, Christian values,
and western civilization to be repulsive?
Curious.
In reality the “big majority of people” think that “pure”
libertarians are repulsive: stand in a town square and read aloud all of Walter
Block’s “Defending the Undefendable.”
There is pure NAP for you. Tell
them that this is the perfect world. In
any town other than the completely libertine, you will be lucky to get out
alive.
Conclusion
Gambara, you are silly and out-of-touch with reality; you
have no comprehension of the value of society and culture – and the value of
these to a libertarian world. Or, as
Hoppe has identified those such as you:
Stupids for Liberty, or a Liberallala-Libertarian.
"Childish libertarians believe the world begins and ends with the NAP: as long as we believe in the NAP, all else will resolve itself. Not me."
ReplyDeleteI must be childish. I keep thinking that Libertarianism is a political philosophy and that, as such, it merely addresses the proper uses of force and thus prescribes liberty and property rights (NAP). Those are both negatives (don't interfere; don't steal).
I think society and culture thrive in the NAP environment and that society and culture don't need to be prescribed but can be left to market forces - which means left to the choices of the individuals involved and that all those individual choices add up to "society and culture".
I never thought this needed to be made an issue of, since society and culture will never disappear, but will always mold themselves to their political environment. Free people become responsible people because they cannot be parasitic and must make choices. Unfree people are irresponsible because they cannot make choices and must be taken care of by those in power.
I guess I should grow up and stop being childish.
In choices that lead up to the future in my opinion there are three kinds. One is the natural one, the other two being revolutionary or mutation.
DeleteIn natural choice they largely following the previous pattern by their predecessor i.e bird migration used the same routes due to the elements and weather setting it up as the more optimal one than another.
The revolutionary being a choice largely different than the regular pattern in that they break an aspect of it yet they still proceeded into a same or better result i.e sail into steam engine
Lastly the mutation being similar that it break an aspect yet it may not produced result or declined over the regular pattern thus eliminated the idea from succession. I.e albino tiger will have a harder time to hunt due to it's contrasting coat colors to their habitats.
John
DeleteCan you envision any societies in the world today where if you were to remove all current government / state structures, where the cultural structures are so dysfunctional to the point that government by force will be the result?
I can.
Conversely, can you envision any societies in the world today where if you were to remove all current government / state structures, where the cultural structures are healthy and robust enough that something close to a libertarian society will result?
I can.
What is the difference? Why wasn’t the NAP “soil” enough to bring about an NAP society in both situations?
Please take some time and think about this. And then don’t just run away; provide a thoughtful response.
Societies don't suddenly change only one huge variable as in a thought experiment. They evolve slowly through gradual steps as the thinking of the individuals in the society evolves.
DeleteThe NAP will not prevail until enough individuals making up the society recognize its value as a fundamental principle.
As for culture, it - like markets - is the unguided result of many individual choices.
Please take some time and think about this. And then don’t just run away; provide a thoughtful response.
John, answer the question...because it matters.
DeleteThe NAP will not arise in just any soil; "enough individuals making up the society" will NOT "recognize its value as a fundamental principle" in any soil.
The cultural soil matters; answer the question.
I am not running away from anything.
I did answer the question. It is an unrealistic thought experiment.
DeleteObviously - as I said clearly - things will only change when enough individuals recognize the need for that change. I did not specify when or why they might change their minds. It seems obvious that they will need to be introduced to better ideas and persuaded to adopt them. I assume that, by "soil", you mean the consensus views.
Warning me not to run away and then demanding twice that I answer your questions has me worried that I might get into trouble. You can imagine my anxiety.
Let's try further: you have asked if I can envision a society where - if bad government were suddenly removed, the culture would immediately re-invent a new bad government.
DeleteOf course: America, where most people seem to be statists and authoritarian collectivists. But if they were to adopt the NAP, then they would not be so. They would have a different culture as of that adoption. Why is that a childish notion?
John,
DeleteWest Texas or South Side Chicago. In which cultural environment is there a higher probability that self- and voluntary governance structures will suffice?
This isn't that difficult. Answer the question.
If you are unable to deal with this, you will not get in "trouble"; I will merely conclude that you were correct with your first four words in this thread.
"The NAP will not prevail until enough individuals making up the society recognize its value as a fundamental principle. "
DeleteThis is where you're arguing against your point more than you argue for it.
Two parties need to agree to the definition of aggression and property. (We can call this contract if you want, but people of a similar culture might have these as unspoken rules) When the biggest, broadest and most loosely defined tent of Libertarianism can't agree on these definitions, what happens when we add individuals with no love for the NAP (we can call them Statists) to this society based solely on the NAP?
These individuals might be grateful you're not following the same playbook as they are.
This is where Libertopia falls on it's face, leaving everyone that recites the NAP as hymn to wonder how their utopian fantasy pipe dreams could have possibly gone so wrong.
BioMos, I have already agreed that first the individuals must think a certain way before adopting the NAP. So, my guess is that West Texas would get there sooner, but it's only a guess and I can think of counter arguments.
DeleteBlack Flag, you are assuming that a libertarian just goes about saying "NAP" and not furnishing any specific details. That's a silly assumption. English common law is well established over centuries. The details are not the problem. The problem is collectivism and the rejection of the principle of private property. Even the people of West Texas have little respect for property. Asset Forfeiture is up in that area.
Your snide references to libertopia, hymns, utopian fantasy pipe dreams, bla bla bla are all intellectually insulting, but without substance. Are you seriously claiming that no one can agree on what aggression or property mean? Why do you bother writing in to a forum since no one knows what your words mean? My guess: you don't agree with liberty, but know you can't win a debate. Just guessing.
John, you are turning this into a personal attack. Time to stop.
DeleteJohn Howard
Delete"...society and culture will never disappear, but will always mold themselves to their political environment."
What if the reverse is true? It seems to me, and many others, that politics is downstream of culture.
John Howard
Delete"...West Texas would get there sooner, but it's only a guess and I can think of counter arguments."
Are you willing to share these counter arguments?
"English common law is well established over centuries."
Bringing up English common law helps prove the validity of BM's (and Hoppe's) views on culture.
I've once commented that the Christian aspect of west that much used by the racists towards the African and Arab is false since fact are there's no civilization or culture as anti religion as the west. I revised that now and I think this libertarianism is the major issue as to why our morality red lines or taboo keep knocked down one after another.
ReplyDeleteChristians often emphasize that "morality" means upholding religious sexual taboos.
DeleteI think morality starts with property rights, which start with self-ownership.
One of the keys to taboo defense is that those questioning the taboo are then accused of violating that taboo.
This results in libertarians often being accused of perversion simply for defending freedom of choice.
Morality start with the norm. The mass which benefit mutually in their adoption. But yes let's say that morality and religious taboos is the thing of the past and in exchange we based ourselves on science and logical thinking of common man.
DeleteWhat justify a marriage between same sex ? On what basis such idea is pursued ? Or is it only because it's the freedom of choice ?
My opinion here
The marriage between same sex is unnecessary. I'll explain why later.
No, morality does not start with normalcy. It starts with a simple rule: do not harm the harmless.
DeleteOn what basis is it objectively immoral to harm the harmless?
DeleteThe Golden, Silver, and Platinum Rules, common sense, all the major religions, good manners, etc.
Delete-- Rick [Freedom_First (at) verizon (dot) net]
On what basis are any of those things objectively true?
DeleteI found this: "Gambara – are you as shocked as I am that the entire United States has not spontaneously self-combusted? After all, well over 90% of Americans, on average, in their most important relationships in life act on views that you believe are “violent, and – so strange! – aggressive against the categories of people they despise."
ReplyDeleteAnd this "GYou believe patriarchal family, tradition, Christian values, and western civilization to be repulsive? Curious."
completely absurd, and not based od my writings. I don't belive anything of taht sort, and I never write something that sounds like I believe this. You are not reading my words. Also I know Hoppe's work very well, and my comment was based on Hoppe's work, not only on your post.
Anonimo Lombardo alias Gambara
Perhaps we just don't speak the same language.
DeleteSo you can't remember laws against blacks and gays? you can't remember that homosexuality was criminalized? that there was segregation? and laws against women work? and laws against sexual freedom of all, also heterosexuals? and laws against divorce? and so on... And you don't know what that have to do with positive discrimination, and fake rights today? maybe those laws come to us from Marte. No history, no sociology, no psychology, I feel that Marte is your answer. And if democracy is the rule of the mob, as Hoppe love to say, and I believe too, who was in that mob who used violence against those people? maybe Matt, Hoppe and the rest of the Alt right, or their alter ego of the time. But now, that the state is in the hand of the people that were once the target, that the common mentality has shift, and that the parts are reversed... racial violence by law is so bad, so bad, you can't believe how bad it is.. and the far Right is so libertarian, so libertarian...? ridiculous. You can't or don't want to recognize them, but I can and I want. I know history, and I know how far right and far left go together, how one prepare the ground for the other. So I will not label racist or homophobic who oppose positive discrimination and fake rights, as I do, but I will call homophobic and racist all the people who are so, also if they are now opposing positive discrimination and fake rights. Their point is not "don't make laws against a particular group", their point is "hey the targets are wrong, we are white, hetero, blablabla, we should be the one to use violence against blacks, gays, etc... not the other way around!". How clearly the comments on this same blog exemplified that!
DeleteDo you want some more realistic solution than the alliance with neonazi? let America go, secede, separate your way from the lunatic of both sides. Liberland and Liberstad are more realistic than America (not so realistic, but much more than America).
Anonimo Lombardo Gambara stupid Liberalallalero libertarian
Matt, remind me never to listen to you again.
DeleteAL, I am not being flippant when I write " we just don't speak the same language."
DeleteI don't mean the words, I mean we each must have a paradigm that the other doesn't see, for whatever reason. You have been around here long enough such that if it were possible to see the other's paradigm, it would have happened by now.
At least this is the best interpretation I can put on our history of exchanges.
Hey new guys, keep reading this blog. I was a libertine too (when I started reading here.) It took a while for some of these ideas to make sense to me, but when they did, I gained an ability to see many issues much more clearly than I had previously. Once I started making a conscious effort to recognize my erroneous inferences, things fell in place pretty quickly.
ReplyDeleteWalter Block wrote on this topic (of course).
DeleteLibertarianism and Libertinism
https://mises.org/library/libertarianism-and-libertinism
I believe the NAP doesn't long live in a Libertine society, if it ever even germinates. The "soil" is all wrong.
Sherlock, thank you for posting this link. Walter has done a great service with this; I will do something with it.
DeleteI would rather live next door to Walter Block than Pat Buchanan even though I like Pat a lot.
Delete--Rick
Anonimo,
ReplyDeleteAll of the laws pertaining to race and behaviors are laws made by the state. The new laws that grant "rights' to people with specific characteristics are also made by the State. Remove the State and both kinds laws disappear.
Hoppe's major concern is that after a Libertarian society is established, de facto, in some area, that outsiders could move in with the intention of out right disrupting it or of abusing it into dysfunction. This is a VERY important situation in the beginning of a Libertarian society.
When Libertarianism begins there will still be States in the world. Probably weaker than the states we have today but still states with power to guard and exert. It is in the interest of those states that Libertarianism fail. So bad neighbors from this source might need be removed.
Good fences make good neighbors. Just like there are walls inside of every house, there should be walls around every property. If neighbors want to hot tub outdoors naked or raise pigs they should be able too.
Culture includes technology and Anarcho-Capitalism might require sound cancelling, hermetically sealed, and electrically shielded property lines. Remember that the Central Banks, National Governemnts, and assorted NGOs have extracted the equivalent of $1 million from very person alive in the west today, even racial minorities and LGBTs. In other words without the state each person would have about $1 million in 1913 dollars today. There should be several orders of magnitude more disposable income in the economy.
Semicollegiate
A new little libertarian State need to exclude gay people? No. It need to be simply built on the conscious adoption of the nap. If you start from zero you can chose the people based on libertarianism itself. Or do you think Liberland and Liberstad will fail for excess of gays?
DeleteI think a new libertarian State need money, power and guns.
And yes all the laws come from the state, and that’s why everybody learn the statism lesson.. that the state give and take rights. When it was not in power also a part of the left was anti statist and semi anarchic, Rothbard had good words for people like goodman, he feel that they were possible allies for libertarians, and maybe someone was, as today maybe some altrightist is, but the 99% wasn’t.
Anonimo Lomardo
The libertarain society can be a geographical area, it need not be a state. Historically freedom has only advanced by taking advantage of 'benign neglect'. No society has ever fought for a better system, folks have only fought for a system that they already had. Like a new religion, libertarianism would grow as various communities or networks.
DeleteGays have a reputation of being politically minded. Politics is a crime in anarcho-capitalism, which seems to me the only way to be libertarian. If gays were to develop a more individualistic political track record I'm sure they would be welcome more often.
All politics is left. All politics assumes a power over everyone.
The right is political to the extent that politics is traditional. No big changes are welcome to the right. You might consider reading "Our Enemy the State" by Albert Jay Nock. It is a free book to download, not very long, and there is also a free audio version read by Jock Coats
A new libertarian area of geography need not be a state. Libertarians associate with whomever they want to in a way that is voluntary to both parties.
DeleteGays have a reputation of being politically minded. Politics is a crime in anarcho-capitalism, a type of racketeering. If gays were to develop an individualistic track record they could be the sought after neighbors. After all the ancient Greeks thought that homosexuality was an reasonable way to live.
Rothbard was exploring the Left because the Right had become the opposite of itself. He thought that maybe the Left had done the same. It turned out that both the right and the left had become statist.
All politics is statist and on the left. It assumes society can be directed and that political entities can make laws about anything.
The right is political to the extent that politics is traditional. No big fast changes are welcome on the right. Essentially though, the right believes that the natural order should be allowed to evolve society. Man, society, and culture evolved naturally. The force that manifested humanity should be the default method of change. Progressive politics is at best hubristic and most likely a con job.
Human society naturally forms an economy that increases wealth for every one over time. Libertarians don't need a state.
You are quite right on everything butvif gays have that kind of reputation... how is the reputation of racists? Suprematists? Altrightists? I've seen gay people asking for special fake rights.. that's a problem. I've seen also gays blacks etc... be the target of terrible violence. I've seen also gays coexist for millenia with families and civilizations, and they are forever a little minority. I've seen the far rigt (far not in a libertarian sense of course) in history, I've seen fascism nazism kkk segregation... Is my memory wrong? This is pure realism.
DeleteAnonimo Lombardo
AL,
DeleteWhite Supremacists built Western Civilization.
Of course they didn’t call themselves that (no one does) because it never occurred to anyone before the 20th century that we would be having this conversation.
Anonimo Lomardo,
ReplyDeleteIf the evil heterosexual cis-gender white males decided that they were unwanted on planet earth and decided to leave and colonize far away star systems, you would would be demanding that their colony ship include homosexuals, minorities, transgenders, and so on.
There are plenty of western countries without any history of "oppression" of ethnic minorities, but the ethnic minorities still get affirmative action and enormous privileges, that come at the expense of white males, mainly.
I will demand no such a thing. But Hoppe isn’t saying “look I hate homo I want to live in a no homo community”. He is saying literally that a libertarian society must ban homo, a very different thing. For what I care you can form a community of people that prefer Mozart to Bach and exclude everyone else. Also Hoppe is not saying “I want to segregate myself with racists suprematists and the like and live in my beautiful oasis”, he is saying “libertarians today must ally with those people”.
DeleteAlso hetero, white, men are not evil per se, they are not racists or suprematists or homophobics by default. The great majority isn’t. I have no problems with hetero white man, and I have no problems with families, religion, Christianity. And never I have written anything else. Alt right is not rapresentative of white, hetero, men. And they are a threat to family, religion, Christianity and morality in general. I stay with the backer that don’t want to bake the cake, It’s a matter of property rights. But one thing is a state that allow private discrimination, that is a state that don’t act to force unwanted integration, and an other thing is a state that discriminate by law.
Now there are groups that want to end present set of discriminatory politics by the state, and put in their place other kinds of discrimination. They want to change the orientation of the State, but are statists too. They feel that the wrong people are in charge of it today. Fascism was a totalitarian regime, his cultural view were hostile to gay and non white, they thought that women must stay at home with babies, that traditional families were to be helped by the state, while libertinism were to be punished. They wanted to promote virtues and punish vices. They despised liberalism emancipation progressivism. Still they built a totalitarian regime. Nazi were far more anti gays, pro aryans, anti Jews, anti roms. And their regime was far more criminal. I as a libertarian don’t want to change colour, flavor, orientation, of the State, I want anarchy. Are People of the Alt and far right anarchists in some ways? Are you an anarchist, do you believe in spontaneous order, in catallaxy, in a procedural kind of justice (the nap)? I absolutely don’t believe so.
Anonimo Lombardo etc...
"But one thing is a state that allow private discrimination, that is a state that don’t act to force unwanted integration, and an other thing is a state that discriminate by law."
DeleteThe the state is discriminating against the heterosexual white males, not the homos, the minorities, or other "protected classes".
"Now there are groups that want to end present set of discriminatory politics by the state, and put in their place other kinds of discrimination."
The Alt-Right is definitely against discrimination against white males. What is the other kinds of discrimination they want for others? Be specific. Since calling for equal rights under the law for white males makes one a neo-nazi I want to be clear.
"They want to change the orientation of the State, but are statists too. They feel that the wrong people are in charge of it today".
Imagine are told to run a restaurant. You are told that you can choose who you want to be chef, but you can't have a restaurant without a chef.
By the same token, you won't have a state without political leadership, and anarchy is not an option on the table for the foreseeable future. When you remove yourself from politics altogether you surrender the political space to bad actors.
"They feel that the wrong people are in charge of it today. Fascism was a totalitarian regime"
The wrong people are in charge. The white males are actually living under a sort of anti-white fascism, even if other people do not.
If you don't like the Alt-Right, then encourage people to stop beating up on the white males. Even the third reich didn't emerge from nowhere, it was a reaction to intolerable degeneracy.