Wednesday, February 27, 2019

Asking for Trouble

Part Two of Storey’s book is entitled “Socio-Biology.”  Mmmm…socio-biology in a book about the uniqueness of Western Law…what could go wrong?

This may sound mean-spirited, but my concern with the data is not to denigrate others so much as to better understand my own civilization’s place.

Good luck with that, Richard.  Of course, I guess I won’t get off scot-free either.  And before any of you highlanders get up in arms about my use of this phrase, it has nothing to do with Scotland, scotch, Scots, or any other derivative of the land of peat and bogs…I actually have many friends who are Scotch: Johnnie Walker and his brothers Blackie and Red…oh wait, that last part was probably a mistake.

Not to say peat and bogs are exclusive to Scotland, or that I have any negative feelings about any other part of the world with peat and bogs…and I don’t just drink Scotch Whisky; Irish, Japanese, Kentucky…I am very multi-cultural on this matter…and not that I have something against lowlanders or anything…man…this is going to be a tough post to get through.

There really is no way to ease into this.  What do you do with chapter titles like “In Search of Non-White Philosophers” and “Why There Are no Successful Black Nations…Yet!”?

Philosophy: One can search Africa, Asia, and China for philosophers and one might find a few; but all of these regions combined could not fill a one semester course for a serious student of philosophy.  One really can’t count Augustine.  Even though he was from Africa, he had an upper-class father (white) and a mother who was a Berber.

If you want a course on mysticism and primitive religions, the world is your oyster.

Of course, nothing against clams or any other member of the mussel family.

Nigerian professor Chigozie Obioma has written an article entitled “There Are No Successful Black Nations.” 

“As long as we continue to ignore our own self-assessment…we will remain the undignified race.”

Black elites and activists across the world have adopted a culture of verbal tyranny in which they shut down any effort to reason or criticize us or black-majority nations by labeling such attempts as “racism” or “hate speech.”

Not a concern of mine after this post, but who knows?

Nigeria, the most populous black nation on Earth, is on the brink of collapse. … A culture of incompetence, endemic corruption, dignified ineptitude, and, chief among all, destructive selfishness and greed has played a major role in its unravelling.  The same, sadly, can be said for most other African nations.

Look, I didn’t say it and Storey didn’t say it.

Storey asks why libertarianism is unique to the west.  This, of course, is undeniable – just as classical liberalism is unique to the west and just as the 1000 years of decentralized liberty is unique to the west.  Why?

It isn’t competition, science, property rights or consumerism that made the west; it was a cultural tradition that offered the foundation for these achievements.  One cannot parrot the achievements without owning the foundation.

What follows is a discussion of IQs (higher in East Asia, lower in Africa, in-between – but closer to higher) in Europeans); an ethos of libertarian aristocracies (consider the Middle Ages); a rational desire to systematize all enterprises; the ability to defer gratification.  These – in the combination as presented – have provided the soil in which libertarianism would grow in the west and only in the west.

Immigrating non-westerners will not result in their adopting these western traits; it will instead dilute these traits in society:

Professor Haidt has predicted that an increasingly ‘diverse’ society will so reduce trust as to make it unsustainable and dangerous:

“It’s the most intractable world we can inhabit, and it’s the one that will lead to the ugliest outcome.”

Look, I didn’t say it and Storey didn’t say it.


Here is a quote from Noel Ignatiev of Harvard University: “The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.”

Noel is Jewish.  He can say this about whites.  Actually, anyone can say this about whites.  And whites are supposed to help this project along – and many are eagerly complying.

It’s a white thing.


  1. Why was there only a (kind of) libertarianism in the west?
    I'd suggest reading "At our Wits end".

    No successful African nation? well... the word 'nation' for example did not have any meaning in Africa before the colonisation. There were very successful tribes, but nation's? no that is western concept. Btw: what is successful? for sure not the (narrow) definition of the westerners?

    I am reading "Die Untergang des Abendlandes" (The decline of the west) in the original german language from Spengler. And man, that is a tough piece of 'literature'. Still it is very useful in instilling a kind of culture relativism. In fact culture as seen by Spenger seems wholly derived from traditions that formed due to the local environment. Had he known about DNA, I do not doubt that he would would have identified culture as a phenotype of DNA. All this is a very circumspect way of saying: there have no doubt been (and are?) very successful African cultures. Its just that their form of success is quite different from ours. (And it goes almost without saying that forcing the two together, either here or in Africa is a sure fire way to disaster)

    1. Perhaps a read of the professor's article will offer clarification of his definition of success. I haven't read it thoroughly, so I cannot say either way.

    2. Actually, Rien, I make that same argument in the book -- we measure in Western concepts of success and Africa should forget it and do their own thing.

  2. “As long as we continue to ignore our own self-assessment…we will remain the undignified race.”

    This one reason why the movie "Black Panther" was so awful. According to its narrative, Black nations don't need philosophy or truth; they don't need to assess how their culture needs to change to build healthy and moral communities that support a prudential political order that protects private property rights and the freedom of entrepreneurship and exchange. Oh no; all they need is to find some precious rock in the dirt, and then... technology, civilization, enlightenment, and material abundance (all without Christ mind you)! Even if they don't trade it with anyone else or have any contact with the Western world (or its God)! Wealth is only an accident; it is never earned. Social justice is all!

    This narrative is nearly the reverse in real life. Africa has some of the most resource rich nations in the world, and yet there is still real poverty, rape, theft, murder, and political instability on a scale incomprehensible to the West. Any semblance of modern civilization has come as a result of influence... sorry, 'contamination' from the West, and it promptly leaves as the main representatives of it (mostly whites) are persecuted and purged from it by a majority black population under the cold calculus of democracy + envy.

    To be fair, Western foreign aid (not to speak of military intervention) programs have not helped this region to get on their feet. Instead it has served to destroy burgeoning industries and lock in place powerful and corrupt leadership. Paraphrasing Ron Paul, foreign aid is taking money from poor people in America and giving it to rich and politically connected people in foreign countries.

    "And whites are supposed to help this project along – and many are eagerly complying."

    The left definitely has a suicidal impulse, along with its obvious blood lust for destruction and disdain for tradition (hallmarks of its 'clean slate' mentality). Kuehnelt-Leddihn documents this in "Leftism" wherein he points to the historical fact that most if not all revolutionary movements (and remember leftists revolt, rightists secede) originate in a disaffected (or self hating) portion of the ruling or upper class. The French Revolution was led by a few nobles and I believe several former monks and friars of the Catholic church.

    Marx is probably the best example of this particular pathology of the leftist mindset, since he was a self-hating bourgeois Jew from a line of rabbis who was dependent nearly his whole life on patronage from his rich (noble, I believe) in-laws and his capitalist friend Engels.

    "It’s a white thing."

    Yup, and this is why white nationalism will nearly always be a mistake. A lot of whites (half or more) are retarded, socially and politically, and are firmly and resolutely part of the problem. It would also be the classic mistake of ingesting poison to cure yourself of a poisoning. Identitarian nationalism is a leftist phenomenon, and it will most likely produce leftist results despite the original intentions. Richard Spencer should be illustrative of this point.

    1. ATL: "To be fair, Western foreign aid ... programs have not helped this region to get on their feet."

      Indeed, western 'aid' has doomed Africa. It "saved" people from hunger and disease, triggered a population explosion, which made their way of living obsolete, imposed a nation structure, which they cannot handle, and then gave them modern weapons to enslave them economically.

      If the west goofed anywhere, look at Africa. This is how it ends when we try to 'create civilization'.

      Want to know how this concept of creating a more 'modern, inclusive, diverse, civilization' is going to end here? ...

    2. ATL, a couple of thoughts: regarding foreign aid (along with war, colonization, etc.) to Africa, of course, the West has cursed not only Africa with such "assistance." Yet many of the other similarly-affected regions have somehow pulled it together.

      I know it says something about my definition of "success," but China, India, Japan, South Korea, offer a contrast to most African societies.

      As to white nationalism, yes a failing strategy. There is a role for Christian churches to play, one at which many are not only failing at but are doing exactly the opposite of what is necessary.

  3. "The poor will always be with you"
    (so to the envious and jealous)

  4. I don't understand the transition from "libertarianism is a white thing" to "kill whitey". It sounds like a recruiting rally for the KKK, but I trust the messenger isn't saying that.

    The question about successful African nations is a bit disingenuous like Rien says. Africa had a tribal society that functioned in a more peaceful way than Europe did. Then European states started disassembling those tribal societies so that they could build colonies. Then they left those colonies as some kind of ill formed nation-state.

    Therefore, I don't believe that is a question anyone should honestly ask at this point. Who knows what Africa would look like without the period of colonization. Would it be successful? Who gets to decide the definition? But at this point I think scholars should give the continent at least a century or two of disentangling from colonization before they start making judgments about how successful African nations are.

    1. See my above comment RMB, I say in the book that Africa should stop adopting Western concepts of success and do their own thing.

    2. Yeah. I was writing from a very limited perspective. Thanks for your reply.

  5. If we are incapable of deciding what success is, then what is the point of any of this discussion? Why should libertarianism be preferred to totalitarianism? How can I even begin to choose whether or not tribalism or nationalism is preferable?

    I can't name them off the top of my head but I know that there have been cultures that define success by how many people they can subjugate or kill.

    Perhaps success is not as subjective as we believe it to be.

    1. Woody, the key word in your opening question is "we." To which "we" do you refer?

      It is the word that causes me to pause when certain libertarians claim that libertarianism is for everyone.

    2. Bionic, I was referring to Rein's comments on the subjectivity of success and additional subsequent comments by others. The "we" in my statement refers to all of us here at your blog. My point is that supporters of libertarianism must have certain things in common and one of them is a common goal. Many ideas of success are incompatible and exclusionary. The means and end goals of a libertarian are incompatible with the means and goals of a totalitarian. If we (as libertarians) can't even agree on what success is, then our detractors have the right of it when they equate libertarianism to the herding of cats.

      Wouldn't it be sad to discover that totalitarianism is more prevalent (more successful) because man, as a whole, is incapable of self-discipline? And, by discipline, I mean the sacrifice of our selfish wants towards a common good? And make no mistake - the reduction of government meddling is in all our best interests and should be our common and main goal.

    3. "My point is that supporters of libertarianism must have certain things in common and one of them is a common goal."

      Don't hit first; don't take my stuff. Beyond this, libertarians don't have a common goal because we can't have a common goal.

      The NAP is a poor facsimile for a common goal. There is nothing under it, no foundation. Consider the "goals" of left-libertarians and right-libertarians. I suggest that each of these camps has more in common with the larger "left" and "right" (respectively) than they do with each other, and what they have in common with these larger camps is more important to individual libertarians than is their libertarianism.

      As I have mentioned very often, I would rather live in a neighborhood made up of non-libertarian Pat Buchanans and Thomas Sowells than live among pretty much any set of left-libertarians you can name.

    4. If, as you say, we can have no common goal beyond the NAP, our detractors are correct - you may as well try to herd cats. However, It is well understood by readers of your blog that the NAP is insufficient to the establishment of a free and thriving people. Therefore, common goals must exist over and above the NAP and it is our purpose to discover what those goals are.

      You raise a rather interesting point - why WOULD it be better to live in a neighborhood of conservatives then in a neighborhood full of more left- leaning folk? This is a pertinent question for our discussion.

    5. Pertinent to this discussion about desired common goals is a quote from ATL which resonated strongly with me (so much so I saved it elsewhere): "As libertarians, we spend a good deal of our time learning, discussing, and arguing over why and how a stateless society will work. If we weren't utilitarians, we wouldn't care if it would 'work' or not." I surmise both Sowell and Buchanan are sensible utilitarians. Peg

    6. Woody, I think it is some combination of Natural Law, Christianity, and the non-aggression principle. These are the things that will move us toward a sustainable liberty.

      Obviously the model will not be the same as in medieval times. Today the role that is fundamentally missing is that of the various churches preaching a proper message. Perhaps they could start by reading a Laurence Vance column each Sunday as the homily.

    7. It's funny. I had never heard of Vance and then there is an article on about him too. From my brief research, it looks like he is good on libertarianism, politics, war. Not sure I will agree with him much on theology and bibliology.

    8. BM: "I think it is some combination of Natural Law, Christianity, and the NAP"

      Maybe. Personally I think it is a matter of carefully choosing from Natural Law only. We probably want to look at the set of natural laws and amplify those we want and neglect those we don't want.

      It is entirely possible (maybe even probable?) that this set will equal what you quoted/intended. As of yet, am I unsure though. Especially concerning NAP. (Btw Christianity and NAP do overlap but are not subsets of one another!)

    9. Bionic wrote: "Woody, I think it is some combination of Natural Law, Christianity, and the non-aggression principle..."

      I believe that a religion / belief system that emanated from a higher being would encompass all of natural law, since these laws would be co-eternal with such a being and, being natural laws, unhappiness and failure would come from their disobedience. Such a religion would both codify known natural laws and teach of less obvious laws that would become evident as you lived them or, as John 7:17 says: "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine ..."

      Bionic, your analysis of history gives strong indications that there exists a non-subjective set of laws / beliefs / goals that promote a free and peaceful society.

    10. RMB, my suggestion about churches reading Vance's columns was geared toward the writing he does regarding war, militarism, state-worship, etc. It is this lesson that Christians must wake up to, I believe.

      His theology? Ever since Luther, we are each allowed to have our own!


    11. Rien / Woody

      The reason I included the three aspects was to help give some clarification of the disciplines that I believe are necessary to bring to the study, weighing each against the others.

      For example, from Rien: “We probably want to look at the set of natural laws and amplify those we want and neglect those we don't want.”

      Fair enough, but on what basis do we “amplify” or “neglect”? It seems to me that well-grounded Christianity and well-grounded libertarianism might be good filters – or at least good “definition-providers” (if you know what I mean).

      Woody, your point about my analysis of history is a good one – it is another filter to test out if our conclusions based on the three factors I raised are appropriate.