Saturday, February 10, 2018

Tom Woods on Immigration

Dave Smith interviews Tom Woods.  The interview is available here.  They discuss a wide range of topics in this 90 minute interview; as identified in the title: “Ben Shapiro Attacks Ron Paul, Plus Trump, Immigration, and More.”

There are several interesting points made throughout the interview; I will focus on the immigration topic.  The discussion on this topic begins at about the 52 minute mark and continues for several minutes.  Tom suggests that the topic is too complicated from a libertarian standpoint to be reduced to a soundbite; decentralization is probably the best answer. 

Dave Smith offers that he began as an open borders guy but is no longer so sure.  One of the things that really got him to thinking recently – and he believes he got it from Stefan Molyneux – was something about…what if a million communists wanted to immigrate into your country?


  1. Hi BM,

    A million communists is a good example in a hypothetical situation, but let's try real life.
    Over here, on the other side of the Atlantic, it's not communism but mohammedanism/muslim immigration that poses an existential threat to European nations (once again, as Hilaire Belloc predicted).

    I like Woods, and though he's not very outspoken about it, I think his views on mohammedanism are nowhere near as naive as that of Ron Paul (my one big frustration with dr. Paul), who seems to have no knowledge/opinion at all about this threat to Western Civilization.

    Tom Woods once drew an analogy with communism when I wrote to him that I was both against the phoney but dangerous "War on Terror" and the anti-Western religion of mohammedanism.
    In his answer, Woods reminded me of Rothbard's opposition to communism as well as the Cold War against Russia.

    Kind regs from Amsterdam,

    1. Sagunto, perhaps you could clarify something. Now the impression many have over here is that the US / EU orchestrated the mass Muslim migration: First the US invaded and destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan, then orchestrated murderous ruinous coups in Syria and Libya, all giving rise to millions of war refugees. Next the EU organized the relocation of these refugees to Europe. It was NOT really a case of Muslims acting on some dormant impulse to invade and seize Europe as I understand Beloc to have predicted. In fact one could go further. By the 1960s Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran were more or less Westernized. Noam Chomsky has said that the concept of jihad was revived by the CIA in order to incite a world wide Muslim resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

      Bionic, I'm still thinking about the challenge you put to me a few posts back.

    2. Hi Victor,

      Sorry for the delay. Don't have notification so it was by chance that I noticed your comment.
      Don't know where your over here is located, but my bet would be on North-America, am I right? So here's how I see things.

      First a minor detail about the term "Westernization". Afghanistan etc. were indeed "westernized" or better yet, "americanized," which is diametrically opposed to anything resembling Western Civ. in my opinion.

      Second, in Europe, mohammedanism is the biggest threat to Western Civ, or what's left of it. You're right that the anti-Western (civ.) powers, the US/EU, have been orchestrating the latest influx of mohammedans into our lands. Add that to the weakening of our nations' immune systems by decades long US (tm) diversity speak and multiculturalism and you have a recipe for disaster.

      Even the invasion of the '60s/'70s in e.g. Germany by Turkish migrants was because of US geopolitics. Turkey was of strategic military importance in the Cold War, so when the Turkish generals demanded that the Germans open up their country for Turks, to share in the economic rise of postwar Europe, the Germans were foolish enough to sign the immigration treaties forced upon them by the US.

      So there's the anti Western Civ. powers that shouldn't be, mainly the US, flooding European nations with mohammedans, yes.

      Third, and having said that, all of the US meddling doesn't distract many of us over here from the fact that once there's a sizeable mohammedan presence, we're back to Belloc's prediction. The doctrine/practice of mohammedanism in itself poses an existential threat to Western Civ. To recognize that threat, one would have to become familiar with the doctrine which is a tedious task not many of us are prepared to undertake. So it is perfectly understandable that people, especially in the US but regrettably also in americanized European nations, would rather exclusively focus on Washington's foreign policy (which has indeed been disastrous for more than a century now, on so many levels) than face up to the ugly reality of the cult(ure) that Hilaire Belloc warned us about. Not culture as context or just some other ways of preparing rather exotic meals, but a foreign culture as the arch enemy of Western Civ. Someone like Chomsky is a perfect, and recognizably American, example of what I described. His focus lies exclusively on geopolitics so he has nothing meaningful to say about mohammedanism. He simply lacks the information needed to assess the threat inherent in mohammedanism. Same goes for Ron Paul.

      All the best from Amsterdam,

  2. "A million ..."

    I think that will be described as "a statistic."

  3. which borders and what country?

    1770,1775,1800,1849,2018... 2200?


  4. Anyone who identifies themselves as being anywhere on the left-right political spectrum is too socialistic to be considered a libertarian by the World's Smallest Political Quiz. If they aren't in the upper corner of the Diamond Chart, they would best be written off as socialists.

  5. Hi bionic, Tom Woods talks more immigration with Kevin Gutzman in his most recent episode. Skip to 40:25.

    1. Thanks, SB. Gutzman makes an interesting point - the children of the immigrants will have a favorable competitive position relative to Gutzman's children...forever, generation after generation, due to the preferential programs required by government.