The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Who Truly Imperils Our Free Society?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“The Barbarian cannot make … he can befog and destroy but … he cannot sustain; and of every Barbarian in the decline or peril of every civilization exactly that has been true.”

Hilaire Belloc’s depiction of the barbarian is recalled to mind as the statues honoring the history and heroes of the Republic and of the West continue to be vandalized and smashed.

A week ago, the statue of missionary and Catholic Saint Fr. Junipero Serra was beheaded at the Santa Barbara Mission he founded. A century-old Columbus statue in Central Park was defaced and spray-painted with: “Hate will not be tolerated.”

Baltimore’s monument to Francis Scott Key, who observed the bombardment of Fort McHenry on a British warship late in the War of 1812 and was inspired to write “The Star-Spangled Banner,” was covered in red paint. “Racist anthem” was written across it.

In Berkeley, home of the Free Speech Movement, the university last week had to spend $600,000 to protect an invited speaker of the college Republicans from being assaulted.

But St. Louis was where the real action was. Friday, a mob hurled rocks and bottles injuring 11 cops, leaving one with a broken jaw. They smashed windows at the mayor’s residence and marched miles to the Central West End to berate diners on patios of restaurants with the menacing chant: “Off the sidewalk. Into the street.”

Saturday, the mob invaded and shut down a suburban mall, and then smashed windows across a nightlife district.

The protesters rationale: rage at a not-guilty verdict in the murder trial of ex-cop Jason Stockley in the death of Anthony Lamar Smith — in 2011.

Stockley’s police van had been struck by Smith’s car, who had been nabbed in an alleged drug deal and led police on an 80-mile-an-hour chase, at the end of which Stockley emptied his gun in Smith.

Yet even Attorney General Eric Holder declined to investigate.

On Sunday, Black Lives Matter showed up at the St. Louis’ police headquarters chanting, “Stop killing us!” But if the killing of black folks is a legitimate grievance, we need to ask: Who is killing them?

Last year, there were 4,300 victims of shootings in Chicago and 762 deaths. How many of those shootings were by cops?

How many of those shootings, mostly of blacks, were acts of “terrorism by White supremacists, White nationalists, neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan,” all of whom our ever-heroic Congress demanded that President Trump, in a joint resolution after Charlottesville, denounce.

Nowhere in the resolution was there any mention of Antifa, the “anti-fascist” fighters on the other side of the Charlottesville brawl, where a protester was run down and killed by a Nazi sympathizer.

What is it in their DNA that causes Republicans reflexively to sign on to a one-sided Democratic denunciation of President Trump for the sin of suggesting there were two parties to the Charlottesville brawl?

And are neo-Nazis really a threat to the republic?

In 1963, this writer was at Dr. King’s March on Washington, which began on the Monument grounds where George Lincoln Rockwell’s Nazis were yelling slurs. On the site where Rockwell’s Nazis stood, there stands today the African-American Museum.

When my father was a 21-year-old Al Smith Democrat in D.C. in the Calvin Coolidge era, scores of thousands of anti-Catholic Klansmen strode up Pennsylvania Avenue, and the national Klan numbered in the millions.

But is the KKK of today a serious threat to civil rights?

Lately, St. Louis and East St. Louis have boasted the highest murder rates in America. Is that the doing of white supremacists?

This morning we read there have been so many smashed and stolen bicycles that Baltimore is canceling its Bike Share program.

Did David Duke and his Klan friends steal all those bikes?

ORDER IT NOW

Who are the ones shouting down speakers? Who violently disrupts political rallies, on campuses and off? Who engages in mob violence after almost every police shooting of a black suspect? As for interracial assaults, rapes and murders, according to FBI crime statistics, these are primarily the work of black criminals against white victims.

The Justice Department should report on hate crimes by white racists. But from the stats, anti-white racism is far more common and far more manifest in crimes of violence. Who reports that truth?

Are Christian supremacists murdering Muslims in Europe, or are Muslim supremacists committing acts of terrorism in Europe and conducting genocide against Christians in the Middle East?

The left has been marinated in an ideology where the enemy is always to the right. People blinded by ideology, unable to see the true enemies of their civilization, end up losing it, and their lives as well.

“We sit by and watch the Barbarian,” wrote Belloc, “We tolerate him … We are tickled by his irreverence; his comic inversion of our old certitudes and our fixed creed refreshes us; we laugh. But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond; and on those faces there are no smiles.”

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2017 Creators.com.

 
Hide 52 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Escher says:

    America (and the West) is at a crossroads. Either the founding culture takes a stand against this nihilism and self-destructiveness, or it goes down in flames, with the young slouching towards Gomorrah, tapping away on their devices.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pbuchanan/who-truly-imperils-our-free-society/#comment-2012381
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Very good article, but I think Pat should have gone ahead and answered some of own rhetorical questions in it, at least the “who” ones. Steve Sailer would have answered the “who”s and the “how many”s, as he loves the stats. Pat is not a numbers guy but he does obviously know the score regarding the “barbarians”.

    This may be part of the explanation of why Mr. Buchanan has columns syndicated on thousands of web sites, while Steve Sailer does not. Of course, I know that Pat Buchanan was a fairly big-shot politician and even won a primary for R-presidential candidate.

    I like that last paragraph taken from Mr. Belloc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Another explanation for Mr. Sailer's relatively low exposure is that Mr. Buchanan can usually be counted on to carry a cup or two of Establishment water. A couple weeks back, he was endorsing the notion of Russian "hacking" of the election. Today, note the last, needless clause in this sentence:

    "Nowhere in the resolution was there any mention of Antifa, the “anti-fascist” fighters on the other side of the Charlottesville brawl, where a protester was run down and killed by a Nazi sympathizer."

    Couldn't the sentence just as well have ended at "brawl"?

    Once again, we see the Buchanan rhetoric constrained to and compromised by an unquestioning acceptance of the Establishment narrative. Does he read a blinking thing that anyone else - author or commenter - writes for this website?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. utu says:

    Yet even Attorney General Eric Holder declined to investigate.

    Because it was no brainer or so he thought as any rational human being that Stockley would be convicted by good people of Missouri. Apparently the trial was decided by judge. You do not waive the right to a jury trial unless you have a great confidence in the judge.

    In Judge Timothy J. Wilson’s 30-page ruling you can see the mental gymnastics that went into acquitting a man who said to his partner of Smith, “we’re killing this motherfucker, don’t you know,” minutes before killing him.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/09/15/this_judge_s_excuses_for_acquitting_jason_stockley_of_murder_are_pathetic.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Apparently the trial was decided by judge. You do not waive the right to a jury trial unless you have a great confidence in the judge.
     
    Or unless you doubt the likelihood of a fair trial by an indoctrinated antiracist jury believing all the lies about white policemen shooting black men for supposed racist reasons, when the reality is that while there certainly is a problem with trigger-happy US cops shooting people, the larger numbers of blacks shot as a percentage of their population is mostly because of their far greater propensity to be involved in crime, especially violent crime.

    In Judge Timothy J. Wilson’s 30-page ruling you can see the mental gymnastics that went into acquitting a man who said to his partner of Smith, “we’re killing this motherfucker, don’t you know,” minutes before killing him.
     
    In fact, what you can see is a perfectly reasonable application of the "beyond reasonable doubt" principle.

    The Slate writer's credibility on the topic is reduced to zero by his own assertion of the prevailing antiracist lies: " And like in other cases, it showed how difficult it is to hold police accountable in shooting deaths of black men, no matter what the evidence......the flawed logic, acceptance of hearsay as fact, and ugly ex post facto justifications that go into exonerating white men in uniform when there’s evidence that they have assassinated black motorists"

    It's almost impossible to convict policemen anywhere, certainly in the US or in Britain, for shooting people whether they are white or black. But in this particular case (and indeed in many of the celebrated cases involving obvious thugs used by the antiracist mob to justify their violence) there are good reasons to accept the shooting as more legitimate than most. Smith was a convicted drug dealer who, as the judge pointed out, would almost certainly have had a gun on him if, as seems to have been the case, he was dealing drugs. If he had no gun and was not dealing drugs, then why did he reverse his car into a police car and try an almost inevitably doomed escape, rather than just endure a stop and search?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. TheOldOne says:

    Blacks don’t admire Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. With few exceptions, blacks aren’t really “Western”.

    Our ancestors brought them here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Blacks' ancestors sold them so they could come here.

    Slavery would not have happened without blacks selling blacks.

    fact:
    blacks also owned slaves in the US south
    fact:
    Africans had massive slavery, it was black Africans who sold black African slaves to the slave traders
    fact:
    slavery of black Africans would have never happened without black Africans selling black African slaves

    African chiefs urged to apologise for slave trade
    Nigerian civil rights group says tribal leaders' ancestors sold people to slavers and should say sorry

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/18/africans-apologise-slave-trade
    "African chiefs were the ones waging war on each other and capturing their own people and selling them. If anyone should apologise it should be the African chiefs. We still have those traitors here even today."


    Black researcher, Dr. Tony Martin, let's us know who the prime sellers & owners of slaves really were, Jews.

    Dr. Tony Martin - The Jewish Role in the African Slave Trade
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut7I75Q_-zA

    "Prof. Martin was indeed correct when he said “75% of Jewish households owned slaves” or “more than twice as many Jews owned slaves as compared to whites (36%),” as these statistics were drawn from Ira Rosenwaike’s analysis that attempted to do an apples-to-apples comparison with Lee Soltow’s study, which focused on the 14 Southern slave states. It should be noted that it was these two Jewish scholars that decided to base their comparisons on the 14 Southern slave states and not Prof. Martin, who was merely relaying the results of these two studies.?"

    JEWS AND THE SLAVE TRADE
    http://wethoughttheywerewhite.weebly.com/jews--the-slave-trade.html

    http://wethoughttheywerewhite.weebly.com/uploads/5/3/4/9/53499197/6585841.jpg?296
    http://wethoughttheywerewhite.weebly.com/uploads/5/3/4/9/53499197/8785931.jpg?277
    http://wethoughttheywerewhite.weebly.com/uploads/5/3/4/9/53499197/3328022_orig.jpg
    http://wethoughttheywerewhite.weebly.com/uploads/5/3/4/9/53499197/892816_orig.jpg
    http://wethoughttheywerewhite.weebly.com/uploads/5/3/4/9/53499197/1507471.jpg?717
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Hmmm, Hillaire Belloc is the we-got-the-Maxim-gun-and-they-don’t guy. Just sayin’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. The Zionists are the true barbarians and are destroying America just as a PARASITE destroys its host so will the Zionist aka Bolsheviks destroy America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. When will people stop using ‘racist’ in the wrong way?

    Ism means belief and race-ism should mean belief in reality of race and racial differences.

    Race-ism is truth and explains so much of the violence. Blacks act like that because they are (1) more muscular (2) more aggressive (3) have lower IQ and lower impulse control.

    Blacks feel contempt for weaker races. So, when a ‘whitey’ resists black thuggery by gunning down a Negro, blacks think it’s a great injustice. The black mind thinks, ‘we be cool and badass and we be kangs and shi*, so we can do as we likes’. It’s like a powerful animal in the wild feels it has the right to rampage around and take whatever it wants. Negroes are into Jungle Justice. Not by Rule of Law but Rule of Claw.
    Only race-ism can explain this fact and why blacks act the way they do.

    Of course, all of this is compounded by the sacralization of the Negro. The Civil Rights Narrative and MLK myth have filled blacks with the notion that they be the christ-race who been ‘crucified’ by evil whitey. Also, all those Jewish-financed movies with Magic Negroes have Negroes and cucky whites thinking there is something ‘sacred’ about the Negro. To be godly means to be above human and to demand worship. And the sacralization of the Negro has made Negroes want to be worshiped. This is made worse by black racial personality that is un-reflective, self-centered, and egotistical(or negrotistical).

    As for Antifanissary and such scum, they are either nasty Jews wearing masks or cucky white punk culture bottom feeders fed on PC and pop culture. Since they suck at sports and don’t have much sex appeal, they try to score points in the manhood game by hunting ‘nazis’. The fact that they go after the favored target of the Establishment(Jewish controlled) goes to show they don’t have an independent brain cell in their heads. Anyway, PC has to be understood as the mental virus of Jews and their cucky-wuck white gentiles who are addicted to vaping on delusional ‘virtue’ of Negrotine. By sucking up to blacks(and the Other), they feel so holier-than-thou, at least in relation to other whites.

    As for Muslims and foreign masses, this whole ‘Diversity’ craze has been pushed by Jewish globalists because divide-and-rule is useful to the ruling minority elites. Also, those Muslims are in the West due to Invade-Invite. For the West to keep Invading, it has to portray itself as helpful friend of the Muslims… and that means Inviting.
    At any rate, even though Muslim violence in the West is pretty awful, it’s nothing compared to all the killings done by Zionist-led Western Imperialists who have killed close to a million. And just look at photos of Iraq, Syria, and Libya. They are hellholes due to either Zio-Western invasion/bombing or Zio-Western aid to Jihadis used as proxy against modern secular regimes.

    Finally, the problem isn’t barbarism. If anything, this is happening because whites have forgotten how to be barbarians. A healthy order has civilization protected by barbarians against savages and radicals. Rule of Law and Values alone cannot do the trick. There has to be a barbarian force to use brute power and threats to keep the savages and radicals at bay.
    Blacks are savages whose mode of conduct is hollering, walloping, and acting like baboons. Radicals are dogmatic ideologues addicted to false utopian visions. They think they are SO RIGHT that any means are justified in bringing about The Future. They are different from reformers who do good work. Radicals are arrogant and blinded by hubris. Now, it’d be nice if civilization alone could hold off the savages and radicals. But civilization is too abstract, legalistic, and gentle to fend off savages and radicals. Bill Buckley was a civilized guy and so was Gore Vidal. They had good manners and sophisticated way of speaking. Such people would be helpless when confronted with savages and radicals. (Vidal pretended to be radical but was too elitist to fit in.) Such people need an army of barbarians to fight off the savages and radicals. Barbarians maybe crude but they have vitality, a soulful connection to the natural and instinctive. They are not afraid to rumble.

    In a way, the US military, US police, and such types are barbarian forces. They are trained to use violence against the enemy. Also, vigilante and militia groups are barbarian-in-nature. In the past, whites had such barbarian forces to fight the Indians and Negro savages. When the red savages came to raid a white community, whites couldn’t call the police. They had to use guns and fight like barbarians against the savages. And in the South, if a Negro savage raped a white woman, the white barbarian gangs tracked him down and hung him from a tree to send a message to other Negro savages. And that kept the peace. Sure, it was ugly and unpleasant, but nothing’s worse than rule of savagery, and blacks are the savage race. Also, unless whites unite as barbarians against the Negro, the Negro will win. One-on-one, the Negro will whup and humiliate the white male. And then white female will have the hots for the Negro, esp as all of our culture tells white girls, “Negroes got bigger genitalia.” It’s in FAMILY GUY and SEX AND THE CITY and every other rap song that white girls grow up dancing to.

    [MORE]

    So, the demise of white community owes to the loss of barbarian virility among whites. White America wasn’t built ONLY BY civility and rule of law. White man prevailed over the Indian savages with barbarian force. It’s like in THE SEARCHERS and RED RIVER. John Wayne played neo-barbarian characters fighting red childish savages. Without such people, the West would never have been tamed. And if not for white barbarianism during the ‘Jimmy Crow’ era, your average person in the South today would be a mulatto. If Negroes had been given free rein after the Civil War, they would have beaten up white boys(like Jack Johnson did later) and colonized every white womb. Now, that is happening all over the South due to demise of white barbarianism against black savagery that is sensationalized by sports, rap, and a pornified culture(even for kids).

    Neo-Fascism understands this. It defends civilization and order BUT also harnesses the barbarian warrior soul. Neo-Fascism understands that while civilization is impressive and awesome, it can lead to atomization, decadence, laxity, solipsism, narcissism, and etc. Look how Roman elites turned all gross and piggish like in FELLINI SATYRICON. Look how the Chinese elites grew sickly with long fingernails and effete ways like James Mason character in GENGHIS KHAN. Look how Ottoman Sultans got to living in luxury and bonking concubines. And look how today’s Western elites are turning all cucky-gay with homomania, tranny-mania, 50 genders, and excess. It’s like the elites in HUNGER GAMES. Tootish.

    Civilization leads to excessive privilege and luxury and status obsession among the elites who lose their way and lose their connection to the masses. Now, barbarianism as mere barbarianism is dangerous too. If a society were entirely barbarian, it’d be filled with Cossack-like ruffians dancing on tables, swilling vodka, and acting rowdy like the Ukrainians in QUIET FLOWS THE DON. Or, it’s like Uther in the first part of EXCALIBUR. Strong and tough but unable to hold an order together. It takes Arthur to combine barbarian virility with inspired moral leadership.

    So, there has to be meaningful unity between the elites and barbarians. Civilized elites must lead, inspire, and uphold the highest achievements of mankind. And barbarians, in allegiance to the elites, must serve as its muscle. But when elites become decadent and gross, the barbarians lose sight of things and lose their way. And this is why the Roman Empire had to fall. The barbarian destruction of Rome was most necessary because the elites had lost their ways. In destroying that civilization grown sick, the barbarians made way for something new. Also, as the barbarians were European, they saved Italy from non-Europeans who were being welcomed into Rome proper by decadent Roman elites.

    Today, we need a neo-fascist barbarian rebellion against the Jewish globalists, decadent white comprador elites, the black savages, and rabid radicals addicted to utopian delusions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Yes, blacks have (1) lower IQs than whites, (2) much lower impulse control than whites; (3) much higher time preferences than whites; and (4) uglier physiognomies than whites.

    However, blacks are neither more muscular nor more athletic than whites.
    , @anonymous
    hey Priss Factor,
    You write a lot about black men but what's your take on black females?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Randal says:
    @utu
    Yet even Attorney General Eric Holder declined to investigate.

    Because it was no brainer or so he thought as any rational human being that Stockley would be convicted by good people of Missouri. Apparently the trial was decided by judge. You do not waive the right to a jury trial unless you have a great confidence in the judge.

    In Judge Timothy J. Wilson’s 30-page ruling you can see the mental gymnastics that went into acquitting a man who said to his partner of Smith, “we’re killing this motherfucker, don’t you know,” minutes before killing him.
     
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/09/15/this_judge_s_excuses_for_acquitting_jason_stockley_of_murder_are_pathetic.html

    Apparently the trial was decided by judge. You do not waive the right to a jury trial unless you have a great confidence in the judge.

    Or unless you doubt the likelihood of a fair trial by an indoctrinated antiracist jury believing all the lies about white policemen shooting black men for supposed racist reasons, when the reality is that while there certainly is a problem with trigger-happy US cops shooting people, the larger numbers of blacks shot as a percentage of their population is mostly because of their far greater propensity to be involved in crime, especially violent crime.

    In Judge Timothy J. Wilson’s 30-page ruling you can see the mental gymnastics that went into acquitting a man who said to his partner of Smith, “we’re killing this motherfucker, don’t you know,” minutes before killing him.

    In fact, what you can see is a perfectly reasonable application of the “beyond reasonable doubt” principle.

    The Slate writer’s credibility on the topic is reduced to zero by his own assertion of the prevailing antiracist lies: “ And like in other cases, it showed how difficult it is to hold police accountable in shooting deaths of black men, no matter what the evidence……the flawed logic, acceptance of hearsay as fact, and ugly ex post facto justifications that go into exonerating white men in uniform when there’s evidence that they have assassinated black motorists

    It’s almost impossible to convict policemen anywhere, certainly in the US or in Britain, for shooting people whether they are white or black. But in this particular case (and indeed in many of the celebrated cases involving obvious thugs used by the antiracist mob to justify their violence) there are good reasons to accept the shooting as more legitimate than most. Smith was a convicted drug dealer who, as the judge pointed out, would almost certainly have had a gun on him if, as seems to have been the case, he was dealing drugs. If he had no gun and was not dealing drugs, then why did he reverse his car into a police car and try an almost inevitably doomed escape, rather than just endure a stop and search?

    Read More
    • Disagree: utu
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    In a free society, one does not have to accept being detained by one of the state's privileged purveyors of violence.

    Thus, your question as to why the deceased negro refused to endure a stop is misplaced to the extent that it permits an inference that the negro was wrong to refuse to submit to a parasite in the clown costume (by the way, what decent, honorable man would want to wear the state's uniform with the imprimatur of Caesar on his chest - can you spell loser?).

    Why should we question why a man, whether he be white or black, refused to be detained?

    Why should we, without any hard, incontrovertible evidence, infer that the negro was up to no good?

    Why should a free man be subjected to being accosted by a uniformed member of a public employee union?
    , @Chris Mallory
    Yep, Smith had a stainless steel gun that he had wiped of all his prints before he hid it in his car, a gun that only had the prints of the cop on it. Did the cop forget to use gloves when he picked it up?

    Oh and the cop did get caught on tape expressing the intent to kill Smith. This cop should have been convicted of pre-meditated murder.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. @Randal

    Apparently the trial was decided by judge. You do not waive the right to a jury trial unless you have a great confidence in the judge.
     
    Or unless you doubt the likelihood of a fair trial by an indoctrinated antiracist jury believing all the lies about white policemen shooting black men for supposed racist reasons, when the reality is that while there certainly is a problem with trigger-happy US cops shooting people, the larger numbers of blacks shot as a percentage of their population is mostly because of their far greater propensity to be involved in crime, especially violent crime.

    In Judge Timothy J. Wilson’s 30-page ruling you can see the mental gymnastics that went into acquitting a man who said to his partner of Smith, “we’re killing this motherfucker, don’t you know,” minutes before killing him.
     
    In fact, what you can see is a perfectly reasonable application of the "beyond reasonable doubt" principle.

    The Slate writer's credibility on the topic is reduced to zero by his own assertion of the prevailing antiracist lies: " And like in other cases, it showed how difficult it is to hold police accountable in shooting deaths of black men, no matter what the evidence......the flawed logic, acceptance of hearsay as fact, and ugly ex post facto justifications that go into exonerating white men in uniform when there’s evidence that they have assassinated black motorists"

    It's almost impossible to convict policemen anywhere, certainly in the US or in Britain, for shooting people whether they are white or black. But in this particular case (and indeed in many of the celebrated cases involving obvious thugs used by the antiracist mob to justify their violence) there are good reasons to accept the shooting as more legitimate than most. Smith was a convicted drug dealer who, as the judge pointed out, would almost certainly have had a gun on him if, as seems to have been the case, he was dealing drugs. If he had no gun and was not dealing drugs, then why did he reverse his car into a police car and try an almost inevitably doomed escape, rather than just endure a stop and search?

    In a free society, one does not have to accept being detained by one of the state’s privileged purveyors of violence.

    Thus, your question as to why the deceased negro refused to endure a stop is misplaced to the extent that it permits an inference that the negro was wrong to refuse to submit to a parasite in the clown costume (by the way, what decent, honorable man would want to wear the state’s uniform with the imprimatur of Caesar on his chest – can you spell loser?).

    Why should we question why a man, whether he be white or black, refused to be detained?

    Why should we, without any hard, incontrovertible evidence, infer that the negro was up to no good?

    Why should a free man be subjected to being accosted by a uniformed member of a public employee union?

    Read More
    • Agree: Bill Jones
    • Replies: @Randal

    In a free society, one does not have to accept being detained by one of the state’s privileged purveyors of violence.

    Thus, your question as to why the deceased negro refused to endure a stop is misplaced to the extent that it permits an inference that the negro was wrong to refuse to submit to a parasite in the clown costume
     
    Indeed, but I was discussing the real world, not the libertarian theory-crafted one you seem to want to discuss, whether with satirical intent or not.
    , @dc.sunsets
    I used to think like you. I was an anarchist of the libertarian variety (opposite of socialist-anarchist.)

    Then I realized something. Some people do not behave. Most people will herd. All people are animated by emotion. What this means is that a libertarian Utopia is just that, Utopian.

    We're stuck with a state. It is a painful reality, Humanity's original sin (politics.) It is the embodiment of trying to get something for nothing, and if you think it can be eliminated, I have a bridge to sell you.

    The best we hope for is that the state is constructed such that it is relatively benign. It will never NOT be parasitic, but Hans Hermann Hoppe has presented the realities of democracy in his essay "The Democratic Leviathan."

    tl;dr The cops represent the state to which your neighbors consent. They are its enforcement arm. Love it or hate it, that is reality. There is no such thing as fighting the law and winning. The law is the embodiment of whatever your neighbors consent to, or to what they acquiesce. Etienne de la Boetie shows us this 500 years ago.

    So get with the program. If the cops are unusually problematic where you live, move where they're not so bad. Where I live the cops vary from okay to outstanding. Find a place like that. And if the cops give you an order, follow it like your life depends on it. It does.

    This condition isn't going to get better. The peaceful country I lived in when I was young is gone, replaced by a debt-addicted Idiocracy. If you think for one moment that its decline won't be reflected in the mirrored sunglasses of the street cop, you're nuts.

    This isn't Kansas any more, Toto.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @Priss Factor
    When will people stop using 'racist' in the wrong way?

    Ism means belief and race-ism should mean belief in reality of race and racial differences.

    Race-ism is truth and explains so much of the violence. Blacks act like that because they are (1) more muscular (2) more aggressive (3) have lower IQ and lower impulse control.

    Blacks feel contempt for weaker races. So, when a 'whitey' resists black thuggery by gunning down a Negro, blacks think it's a great injustice. The black mind thinks, 'we be cool and badass and we be kangs and shi*, so we can do as we likes'. It's like a powerful animal in the wild feels it has the right to rampage around and take whatever it wants. Negroes are into Jungle Justice. Not by Rule of Law but Rule of Claw.
    Only race-ism can explain this fact and why blacks act the way they do.

    Of course, all of this is compounded by the sacralization of the Negro. The Civil Rights Narrative and MLK myth have filled blacks with the notion that they be the christ-race who been 'crucified' by evil whitey. Also, all those Jewish-financed movies with Magic Negroes have Negroes and cucky whites thinking there is something 'sacred' about the Negro. To be godly means to be above human and to demand worship. And the sacralization of the Negro has made Negroes want to be worshiped. This is made worse by black racial personality that is un-reflective, self-centered, and egotistical(or negrotistical).

    As for Antifanissary and such scum, they are either nasty Jews wearing masks or cucky white punk culture bottom feeders fed on PC and pop culture. Since they suck at sports and don't have much sex appeal, they try to score points in the manhood game by hunting 'nazis'. The fact that they go after the favored target of the Establishment(Jewish controlled) goes to show they don't have an independent brain cell in their heads. Anyway, PC has to be understood as the mental virus of Jews and their cucky-wuck white gentiles who are addicted to vaping on delusional 'virtue' of Negrotine. By sucking up to blacks(and the Other), they feel so holier-than-thou, at least in relation to other whites.

    As for Muslims and foreign masses, this whole 'Diversity' craze has been pushed by Jewish globalists because divide-and-rule is useful to the ruling minority elites. Also, those Muslims are in the West due to Invade-Invite. For the West to keep Invading, it has to portray itself as helpful friend of the Muslims... and that means Inviting.
    At any rate, even though Muslim violence in the West is pretty awful, it's nothing compared to all the killings done by Zionist-led Western Imperialists who have killed close to a million. And just look at photos of Iraq, Syria, and Libya. They are hellholes due to either Zio-Western invasion/bombing or Zio-Western aid to Jihadis used as proxy against modern secular regimes.

    Finally, the problem isn't barbarism. If anything, this is happening because whites have forgotten how to be barbarians. A healthy order has civilization protected by barbarians against savages and radicals. Rule of Law and Values alone cannot do the trick. There has to be a barbarian force to use brute power and threats to keep the savages and radicals at bay.
    Blacks are savages whose mode of conduct is hollering, walloping, and acting like baboons. Radicals are dogmatic ideologues addicted to false utopian visions. They think they are SO RIGHT that any means are justified in bringing about The Future. They are different from reformers who do good work. Radicals are arrogant and blinded by hubris. Now, it'd be nice if civilization alone could hold off the savages and radicals. But civilization is too abstract, legalistic, and gentle to fend off savages and radicals. Bill Buckley was a civilized guy and so was Gore Vidal. They had good manners and sophisticated way of speaking. Such people would be helpless when confronted with savages and radicals. (Vidal pretended to be radical but was too elitist to fit in.) Such people need an army of barbarians to fight off the savages and radicals. Barbarians maybe crude but they have vitality, a soulful connection to the natural and instinctive. They are not afraid to rumble.

    In a way, the US military, US police, and such types are barbarian forces. They are trained to use violence against the enemy. Also, vigilante and militia groups are barbarian-in-nature. In the past, whites had such barbarian forces to fight the Indians and Negro savages. When the red savages came to raid a white community, whites couldn't call the police. They had to use guns and fight like barbarians against the savages. And in the South, if a Negro savage raped a white woman, the white barbarian gangs tracked him down and hung him from a tree to send a message to other Negro savages. And that kept the peace. Sure, it was ugly and unpleasant, but nothing's worse than rule of savagery, and blacks are the savage race. Also, unless whites unite as barbarians against the Negro, the Negro will win. One-on-one, the Negro will whup and humiliate the white male. And then white female will have the hots for the Negro, esp as all of our culture tells white girls, "Negroes got bigger genitalia." It's in FAMILY GUY and SEX AND THE CITY and every other rap song that white girls grow up dancing to.

    So, the demise of white community owes to the loss of barbarian virility among whites. White America wasn't built ONLY BY civility and rule of law. White man prevailed over the Indian savages with barbarian force. It's like in THE SEARCHERS and RED RIVER. John Wayne played neo-barbarian characters fighting red childish savages. Without such people, the West would never have been tamed. And if not for white barbarianism during the 'Jimmy Crow' era, your average person in the South today would be a mulatto. If Negroes had been given free rein after the Civil War, they would have beaten up white boys(like Jack Johnson did later) and colonized every white womb. Now, that is happening all over the South due to demise of white barbarianism against black savagery that is sensationalized by sports, rap, and a pornified culture(even for kids).

    Neo-Fascism understands this. It defends civilization and order BUT also harnesses the barbarian warrior soul. Neo-Fascism understands that while civilization is impressive and awesome, it can lead to atomization, decadence, laxity, solipsism, narcissism, and etc. Look how Roman elites turned all gross and piggish like in FELLINI SATYRICON. Look how the Chinese elites grew sickly with long fingernails and effete ways like James Mason character in GENGHIS KHAN. Look how Ottoman Sultans got to living in luxury and bonking concubines. And look how today's Western elites are turning all cucky-gay with homomania, tranny-mania, 50 genders, and excess. It's like the elites in HUNGER GAMES. Tootish.

    Civilization leads to excessive privilege and luxury and status obsession among the elites who lose their way and lose their connection to the masses. Now, barbarianism as mere barbarianism is dangerous too. If a society were entirely barbarian, it'd be filled with Cossack-like ruffians dancing on tables, swilling vodka, and acting rowdy like the Ukrainians in QUIET FLOWS THE DON. Or, it's like Uther in the first part of EXCALIBUR. Strong and tough but unable to hold an order together. It takes Arthur to combine barbarian virility with inspired moral leadership.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC_TFoGhqUU&t=81s

    So, there has to be meaningful unity between the elites and barbarians. Civilized elites must lead, inspire, and uphold the highest achievements of mankind. And barbarians, in allegiance to the elites, must serve as its muscle. But when elites become decadent and gross, the barbarians lose sight of things and lose their way. And this is why the Roman Empire had to fall. The barbarian destruction of Rome was most necessary because the elites had lost their ways. In destroying that civilization grown sick, the barbarians made way for something new. Also, as the barbarians were European, they saved Italy from non-Europeans who were being welcomed into Rome proper by decadent Roman elites.

    Today, we need a neo-fascist barbarian rebellion against the Jewish globalists, decadent white comprador elites, the black savages, and rabid radicals addicted to utopian delusions.

    Yes, blacks have (1) lower IQs than whites, (2) much lower impulse control than whites; (3) much higher time preferences than whites; and (4) uglier physiognomies than whites.

    However, blacks are neither more muscular nor more athletic than whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    However, blacks are neither more muscular nor more athletic than whites.

    100 and 200 sprints and NFL never got that message.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Randal says:
    @Liberty Mike
    In a free society, one does not have to accept being detained by one of the state's privileged purveyors of violence.

    Thus, your question as to why the deceased negro refused to endure a stop is misplaced to the extent that it permits an inference that the negro was wrong to refuse to submit to a parasite in the clown costume (by the way, what decent, honorable man would want to wear the state's uniform with the imprimatur of Caesar on his chest - can you spell loser?).

    Why should we question why a man, whether he be white or black, refused to be detained?

    Why should we, without any hard, incontrovertible evidence, infer that the negro was up to no good?

    Why should a free man be subjected to being accosted by a uniformed member of a public employee union?

    In a free society, one does not have to accept being detained by one of the state’s privileged purveyors of violence.

    Thus, your question as to why the deceased negro refused to endure a stop is misplaced to the extent that it permits an inference that the negro was wrong to refuse to submit to a parasite in the clown costume

    Indeed, but I was discussing the real world, not the libertarian theory-crafted one you seem to want to discuss, whether with satirical intent or not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    We are both discussing the real world.

    After all, you raised the question of the victim's state of mind, a real world issue relevant in so many cases, civil and criminal, and I replied that in the real world one does not have to genuflect to totalitarian constructs such as if an individual has nothing to hide he should not try to evade the storm troopers attempting to interfere with his right to travel.

    In the real world, by the way, I am not the only person who regards public employees as losers and parasites who, as they bankrupt us, are destroying civilization.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Randal

    Apparently the trial was decided by judge. You do not waive the right to a jury trial unless you have a great confidence in the judge.
     
    Or unless you doubt the likelihood of a fair trial by an indoctrinated antiracist jury believing all the lies about white policemen shooting black men for supposed racist reasons, when the reality is that while there certainly is a problem with trigger-happy US cops shooting people, the larger numbers of blacks shot as a percentage of their population is mostly because of their far greater propensity to be involved in crime, especially violent crime.

    In Judge Timothy J. Wilson’s 30-page ruling you can see the mental gymnastics that went into acquitting a man who said to his partner of Smith, “we’re killing this motherfucker, don’t you know,” minutes before killing him.
     
    In fact, what you can see is a perfectly reasonable application of the "beyond reasonable doubt" principle.

    The Slate writer's credibility on the topic is reduced to zero by his own assertion of the prevailing antiracist lies: " And like in other cases, it showed how difficult it is to hold police accountable in shooting deaths of black men, no matter what the evidence......the flawed logic, acceptance of hearsay as fact, and ugly ex post facto justifications that go into exonerating white men in uniform when there’s evidence that they have assassinated black motorists"

    It's almost impossible to convict policemen anywhere, certainly in the US or in Britain, for shooting people whether they are white or black. But in this particular case (and indeed in many of the celebrated cases involving obvious thugs used by the antiracist mob to justify their violence) there are good reasons to accept the shooting as more legitimate than most. Smith was a convicted drug dealer who, as the judge pointed out, would almost certainly have had a gun on him if, as seems to have been the case, he was dealing drugs. If he had no gun and was not dealing drugs, then why did he reverse his car into a police car and try an almost inevitably doomed escape, rather than just endure a stop and search?

    Yep, Smith had a stainless steel gun that he had wiped of all his prints before he hid it in his car, a gun that only had the prints of the cop on it. Did the cop forget to use gloves when he picked it up?

    Oh and the cop did get caught on tape expressing the intent to kill Smith. This cop should have been convicted of pre-meditated murder.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    A professional criminal who takes care to keep his gun clean of prints? Who'd have thought of such a thing, eh?

    Did the cop forget to use gloves when he picked it up?
     
    According to the evidence as reported, seemingly yes.

    Oh and the cop did get caught on tape expressing the intent to kill Smith. This cop should have been convicted of pre-meditated murder.
     
    Funny, I've said "I'll kill the bastard!" before now about more than one individual whom I did not actually kill, and nor did I ever have any real intent to kill, and in far less stressful and aggravating circumstances than this.

    But the judge shouldn't apply that kind of doubt in this case when considering "beyond reasonable doubt"? Why not? Should special rules apply for some reason when a policeman kills a black thug?

    There are many, many case of genuinely inexplicable exonerations and acquittals of police officers for killing people in both Britain and the US, but this is not one of them.

    , @Randal
    PS Fwiw, I can certainly believe that this man might well have been guilty, and that this could have been premeditated murder, albeit under severe provocation. But that doesn't mean the acquittal wasn't perfectly reasonable and correct.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @Randal

    In a free society, one does not have to accept being detained by one of the state’s privileged purveyors of violence.

    Thus, your question as to why the deceased negro refused to endure a stop is misplaced to the extent that it permits an inference that the negro was wrong to refuse to submit to a parasite in the clown costume
     
    Indeed, but I was discussing the real world, not the libertarian theory-crafted one you seem to want to discuss, whether with satirical intent or not.

    We are both discussing the real world.

    After all, you raised the question of the victim’s state of mind, a real world issue relevant in so many cases, civil and criminal, and I replied that in the real world one does not have to genuflect to totalitarian constructs such as if an individual has nothing to hide he should not try to evade the storm troopers attempting to interfere with his right to travel.

    In the real world, by the way, I am not the only person who regards public employees as losers and parasites who, as they bankrupt us, are destroying civilization.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Randal says:
    @Chris Mallory
    Yep, Smith had a stainless steel gun that he had wiped of all his prints before he hid it in his car, a gun that only had the prints of the cop on it. Did the cop forget to use gloves when he picked it up?

    Oh and the cop did get caught on tape expressing the intent to kill Smith. This cop should have been convicted of pre-meditated murder.

    A professional criminal who takes care to keep his gun clean of prints? Who’d have thought of such a thing, eh?

    Did the cop forget to use gloves when he picked it up?

    According to the evidence as reported, seemingly yes.

    Oh and the cop did get caught on tape expressing the intent to kill Smith. This cop should have been convicted of pre-meditated murder.

    Funny, I’ve said “I’ll kill the bastard!” before now about more than one individual whom I did not actually kill, and nor did I ever have any real intent to kill, and in far less stressful and aggravating circumstances than this.

    But the judge shouldn’t apply that kind of doubt in this case when considering “beyond reasonable doubt”? Why not? Should special rules apply for some reason when a policeman kills a black thug?

    There are many, many case of genuinely inexplicable exonerations and acquittals of police officers for killing people in both Britain and the US, but this is not one of them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    An armed government employee who says " I am gonna kill this fxxxer" and then shoots the person without a threat being evident should be found guilty, I don't care what color the victim is. Government employees should be held to higher standards than citizens. This was the judge playing to his cop buddies and nothing else.

    The victim was supposedly holding the weapon in his hand as he was doing the multi-point turn to escape. But he did not leave any prints or DNA on it? BS!!!!

    This is just another example of why cops should lose the privilege to be armed while on duty.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Randal says:
    @Chris Mallory
    Yep, Smith had a stainless steel gun that he had wiped of all his prints before he hid it in his car, a gun that only had the prints of the cop on it. Did the cop forget to use gloves when he picked it up?

    Oh and the cop did get caught on tape expressing the intent to kill Smith. This cop should have been convicted of pre-meditated murder.

    PS Fwiw, I can certainly believe that this man might well have been guilty, and that this could have been premeditated murder, albeit under severe provocation. But that doesn’t mean the acquittal wasn’t perfectly reasonable and correct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets

    PS Fwiw, I can certainly believe that this man might well have been guilty, and that this could have been premeditated murder, albeit under severe provocation. But that doesn’t mean the acquittal wasn’t perfectly reasonable and correct.
     
    And if that clown in Minneapolis who shot the woman in her pajamas is prosecuted, look for him to whine about how unfair it is that he isn't given the same benefit of the doubt.

    (Sigh.)

    Affirmative Action kills.
    , @Chris Mallory
    It was a case of the government protecting it's own.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Nothing changes until it’s no longer heresy to call a spade a spade (AKA commit Mr. Sailer’s crime of “noticing.”)

    Goodwhites are down with treating blacks like spoiled children incapable of keeping up or helping themselves because we live in a time where people believe in the Magic of Unlimited Resources.

    In that light, who cares if black mobs destroy a mall. We have an unlimited supply, and can indulge their misbehavior so we can feel magnanimous.

    Wait until this nearly 4 decade lurch into debt-fueled addiction ends. Tolerance for destruction then will be ZERO, and all this Leftist cult religion will be a fading memory of a nightmare (albeit replaced with a waking nightmare, one of economic depression.)

    As the blogger MG notes on his/her Thosewhocansee blog, it is Goodwhites who are the real racists. They act on the basis of, but for uplift by Goodwhites, blacks would be destitute forever.

    I still say, however, that these episodes of unrest are 1) just beginning and 2) may continue to stay out of the suburbs. Home field advantage, plus more than enough whites AND blacks in the suburbs are likely willing to shoot those threatening their property. Invaders should fare poorly.

    Also, keep in mind that the cities where this stuff occurs are part of Hillary’s Blue Archipelago.

    Let ‘em BURN.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. @Randal
    PS Fwiw, I can certainly believe that this man might well have been guilty, and that this could have been premeditated murder, albeit under severe provocation. But that doesn't mean the acquittal wasn't perfectly reasonable and correct.

    PS Fwiw, I can certainly believe that this man might well have been guilty, and that this could have been premeditated murder, albeit under severe provocation. But that doesn’t mean the acquittal wasn’t perfectly reasonable and correct.

    And if that clown in Minneapolis who shot the woman in her pajamas is prosecuted, look for him to whine about how unfair it is that he isn’t given the same benefit of the doubt.

    (Sigh.)

    Affirmative Action kills.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Liberty Mike
    In a free society, one does not have to accept being detained by one of the state's privileged purveyors of violence.

    Thus, your question as to why the deceased negro refused to endure a stop is misplaced to the extent that it permits an inference that the negro was wrong to refuse to submit to a parasite in the clown costume (by the way, what decent, honorable man would want to wear the state's uniform with the imprimatur of Caesar on his chest - can you spell loser?).

    Why should we question why a man, whether he be white or black, refused to be detained?

    Why should we, without any hard, incontrovertible evidence, infer that the negro was up to no good?

    Why should a free man be subjected to being accosted by a uniformed member of a public employee union?

    I used to think like you. I was an anarchist of the libertarian variety (opposite of socialist-anarchist.)

    Then I realized something. Some people do not behave. Most people will herd. All people are animated by emotion. What this means is that a libertarian Utopia is just that, Utopian.

    We’re stuck with a state. It is a painful reality, Humanity’s original sin (politics.) It is the embodiment of trying to get something for nothing, and if you think it can be eliminated, I have a bridge to sell you.

    The best we hope for is that the state is constructed such that it is relatively benign. It will never NOT be parasitic, but Hans Hermann Hoppe has presented the realities of democracy in his essay “The Democratic Leviathan.”

    tl;dr The cops represent the state to which your neighbors consent. They are its enforcement arm. Love it or hate it, that is reality. There is no such thing as fighting the law and winning. The law is the embodiment of whatever your neighbors consent to, or to what they acquiesce. Etienne de la Boetie shows us this 500 years ago.

    So get with the program. If the cops are unusually problematic where you live, move where they’re not so bad. Where I live the cops vary from okay to outstanding. Find a place like that. And if the cops give you an order, follow it like your life depends on it. It does.

    This condition isn’t going to get better. The peaceful country I lived in when I was young is gone, replaced by a debt-addicted Idiocracy. If you think for one moment that its decline won’t be reflected in the mirrored sunglasses of the street cop, you’re nuts.

    This isn’t Kansas any more, Toto.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Anarcho-libertarians tend to be, in my view and experience, far more in touch with human nature than others. We know that, given human nature, people with power abuse it and that the worst of humanity aspires to hold and wield power. Hoppe would agree.

    You appear to have a very good grasp of this phenomenon. In fact, I would say that you absolutely have a very good grasp of this given your comments here and elsewhere.

    I do not believe in some kind of utopia, libertarian or otherwise. Many of my alt-right acquaintances and friends tend to view anarcho-libertarians as utopians. In many instances, I chalk it up to intellectual laziness - not in your case, but, nonetheless, it is an easy out for many of them.

    We know the types of individuals who are attracted to government work, particularly the uniformed variety. We know that cops are not the best and the brightest. We know that they tend to have been second string on the football team in high school, at least they did not tend to excel; they tend to have been bullies although, individually, they were, more often than not, pussies; they tend to have not been the guy to get the prettiest chicks; they tend to have been intellectually less than and they tend to have parents and other family members who were public sector patriots.

    We know that cops, as a whole, tend to prevaricate far more than the average bloke. We know that cops, like negroes, are far more likely to engage in pack violence. We know that cops are not exactly intellectual powerhouses. We know that cops are not entrepreneurial dynamos and that they tend not to be great engineers, inventors, or innovators.

    Most of all, we know that cops are not very interested in championing peaceful and voluntary exchange.

    However, more important than all of the above, we know that those higher up the public sector food chain call the shots, including the judiciary. If I were to quibble with anything you wrote, it might be the extent to which we have the government we do - yes, ultimately, the people must accept, acquiesce or tolerate it - but, in my view, it is also the ruthless who impose the warfare / welfare state.

    That man wants dominion and control over other men is not in dispute. That, for now, we have this Empire, is not in dispute. That it will crumble, is not in dispute, either.

    Yes, your advice regarding interaction with law enforcement is well taken. I try to avoid encounters with them. Nonetheless, there have been a few times in my life when circumstances required that I took your counsel, and that of my dearly beloved father: yes sir, no sir.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Who Truly Imperils Our Free Society?

    I assume you mean what little remains of what once was a (relatively) free society.

    The answer of course – Imperial Washington.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. @dc.sunsets
    I used to think like you. I was an anarchist of the libertarian variety (opposite of socialist-anarchist.)

    Then I realized something. Some people do not behave. Most people will herd. All people are animated by emotion. What this means is that a libertarian Utopia is just that, Utopian.

    We're stuck with a state. It is a painful reality, Humanity's original sin (politics.) It is the embodiment of trying to get something for nothing, and if you think it can be eliminated, I have a bridge to sell you.

    The best we hope for is that the state is constructed such that it is relatively benign. It will never NOT be parasitic, but Hans Hermann Hoppe has presented the realities of democracy in his essay "The Democratic Leviathan."

    tl;dr The cops represent the state to which your neighbors consent. They are its enforcement arm. Love it or hate it, that is reality. There is no such thing as fighting the law and winning. The law is the embodiment of whatever your neighbors consent to, or to what they acquiesce. Etienne de la Boetie shows us this 500 years ago.

    So get with the program. If the cops are unusually problematic where you live, move where they're not so bad. Where I live the cops vary from okay to outstanding. Find a place like that. And if the cops give you an order, follow it like your life depends on it. It does.

    This condition isn't going to get better. The peaceful country I lived in when I was young is gone, replaced by a debt-addicted Idiocracy. If you think for one moment that its decline won't be reflected in the mirrored sunglasses of the street cop, you're nuts.

    This isn't Kansas any more, Toto.

    Anarcho-libertarians tend to be, in my view and experience, far more in touch with human nature than others. We know that, given human nature, people with power abuse it and that the worst of humanity aspires to hold and wield power. Hoppe would agree.

    You appear to have a very good grasp of this phenomenon. In fact, I would say that you absolutely have a very good grasp of this given your comments here and elsewhere.

    I do not believe in some kind of utopia, libertarian or otherwise. Many of my alt-right acquaintances and friends tend to view anarcho-libertarians as utopians. In many instances, I chalk it up to intellectual laziness – not in your case, but, nonetheless, it is an easy out for many of them.

    We know the types of individuals who are attracted to government work, particularly the uniformed variety. We know that cops are not the best and the brightest. We know that they tend to have been second string on the football team in high school, at least they did not tend to excel; they tend to have been bullies although, individually, they were, more often than not, pussies; they tend to have not been the guy to get the prettiest chicks; they tend to have been intellectually less than and they tend to have parents and other family members who were public sector patriots.

    We know that cops, as a whole, tend to prevaricate far more than the average bloke. We know that cops, like negroes, are far more likely to engage in pack violence. We know that cops are not exactly intellectual powerhouses. We know that cops are not entrepreneurial dynamos and that they tend not to be great engineers, inventors, or innovators.

    Most of all, we know that cops are not very interested in championing peaceful and voluntary exchange.

    However, more important than all of the above, we know that those higher up the public sector food chain call the shots, including the judiciary. If I were to quibble with anything you wrote, it might be the extent to which we have the government we do – yes, ultimately, the people must accept, acquiesce or tolerate it – but, in my view, it is also the ruthless who impose the warfare / welfare state.

    That man wants dominion and control over other men is not in dispute. That, for now, we have this Empire, is not in dispute. That it will crumble, is not in dispute, either.

    Yes, your advice regarding interaction with law enforcement is well taken. I try to avoid encounters with them. Nonetheless, there have been a few times in my life when circumstances required that I took your counsel, and that of my dearly beloved father: yes sir, no sir.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    You're ignoring the fundamental point made: lots of people are incapable of self-governance, and any society of more than one individual will have a commons that must be administered. Libertarianism depends on exit rights, such that when others impinge on your individual conception of liberty, you can just strike out for the frontier and start over. That's why Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' ends up with a silly contrivance called 'Galt's Gulch' where all the geniuses withdraw to sell hamburgers and steel to each other. (Do they have kids? Do they allow Pride Parades? Can I import a thousand coolies to provide the labor? How do they decide where the refineries and abattoirs get built?) It really is applied autism.

    Imagine your ideal libertarian society composed exclusively of at least 105-IQ non-violent individuals. It would still have to be ringed with barbed wire and policed to keep out bolsheviks and throw out freeloaders, people with families would want certain standards of public decency enforced, and thus ends your idealistic individualism.

    Police are a necessity of complex, populous society. There is no way around this.

    , @utu
    We know that cops, as a whole, tend to prevaricate far more than the average bloke. We know that cops, like negroes, are far more likely to engage in pack violence. We know that cops are not exactly intellectual powerhouses. We know that cops are not entrepreneurial dynamos and that they tend not to be great engineers, inventors, or innovators.

    There are lots of problems with American police. But libertarianism is not the solution to this problem. Actually libertarianism is not a solution to any real life problem.

    American police kills at rate 50-70 times higher than European police. Virtually all killing (99.7%) go unpunished. Retraining, redefining the rules of engagement, deescalation technique and change in American police obnoxious attitude that my way or no way, i.e., you are dead can fix the problem. The reason it is not fixed is because of the racial divide. Yes more blacks are killed per capita than whites however in absolute numbers almost twice as many whites are killed than blacks. We seldom hear about white victims. Perhaps if we did we would not be as dismissive of blacks who are the only ones who righteously protest grave in injustice.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Achmed E. Newman
    Very good article, but I think Pat should have gone ahead and answered some of own rhetorical questions in it, at least the "who" ones. Steve Sailer would have answered the "who"s and the "how many"s, as he loves the stats. Pat is not a numbers guy but he does obviously know the score regarding the "barbarians".

    This may be part of the explanation of why Mr. Buchanan has columns syndicated on thousands of web sites, while Steve Sailer does not. Of course, I know that Pat Buchanan was a fairly big-shot politician and even won a primary for R-presidential candidate.

    I like that last paragraph taken from Mr. Belloc.

    Another explanation for Mr. Sailer’s relatively low exposure is that Mr. Buchanan can usually be counted on to carry a cup or two of Establishment water. A couple weeks back, he was endorsing the notion of Russian “hacking” of the election. Today, note the last, needless clause in this sentence:

    “Nowhere in the resolution was there any mention of Antifa, the “anti-fascist” fighters on the other side of the Charlottesville brawl, where a protester was run down and killed by a Nazi sympathizer.”

    Couldn’t the sentence just as well have ended at “brawl”?

    Once again, we see the Buchanan rhetoric constrained to and compromised by an unquestioning acceptance of the Establishment narrative. Does he read a blinking thing that anyone else – author or commenter – writes for this website?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Another explanation for Mr. Sailer’s relatively low exposure is that Mr. Buchanan can usually be counted on to carry a cup or two of Establishment water.
     
    ....

    Once again, we see the Buchanan rhetoric constrained to and compromised by an unquestioning acceptance of the Establishment narrative.
     
    You're right Mr. Anonymous, but you should understand something about Pat Buchanan and this country. Pat Buchanan has been involved in US politics in various ways for over 1/2 a century. For most of that time, let's say up through 2000 (max, I'd say), a few things were different. Politics were much more civil in general, the left was not the looney left of today (Jimmy Carter, for example, was seen as not "out there", but definitely a left-winger, yet he'd be considered a stodgy conservative now) but a reasonable bunch that were just more in favor of big government, and the American people were MUCH more united due to lack of diversity.

    I think Pat is still in a mode that would have been fine in 1965, 1975, 1985, 1995, and maybe 2000. It's hard for an old guy to change. People like him are read by us and other conservatives of various types, but this civil language and calm demeanor really won't cut it in the pretty short run with the sick bunch we are up against.

    Does he read a blinking thing that anyone else – author or commenter – writes for this website?
     
    As I wrote earlier, this guy probably has thousands of place his columns appear, and lots of 'em have comments. He couldn't address 1 % of them, but, yes, I'd think it great if I knew he read us, and especially if he wrote in. It's not likely.

    Fred Reed, I noticed, wrote back, but then, he's rightfully gotten a lot of flak lately for his complete BS on Mexicans. He's not a big shot like Pat Buchanan was, and still is, somewhat. Fred Reed probably has a lot of time on his hands between the siestas and the cerveza breaks from his retirement. Good on him for writing anyway - he was just wrong though, even in his reply. Some people, ya just cain't reach ....

    Have a good night, anonymous.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @anonymous
    Another explanation for Mr. Sailer's relatively low exposure is that Mr. Buchanan can usually be counted on to carry a cup or two of Establishment water. A couple weeks back, he was endorsing the notion of Russian "hacking" of the election. Today, note the last, needless clause in this sentence:

    "Nowhere in the resolution was there any mention of Antifa, the “anti-fascist” fighters on the other side of the Charlottesville brawl, where a protester was run down and killed by a Nazi sympathizer."

    Couldn't the sentence just as well have ended at "brawl"?

    Once again, we see the Buchanan rhetoric constrained to and compromised by an unquestioning acceptance of the Establishment narrative. Does he read a blinking thing that anyone else - author or commenter - writes for this website?

    Another explanation for Mr. Sailer’s relatively low exposure is that Mr. Buchanan can usually be counted on to carry a cup or two of Establishment water.

    ….

    Once again, we see the Buchanan rhetoric constrained to and compromised by an unquestioning acceptance of the Establishment narrative.

    You’re right Mr. Anonymous, but you should understand something about Pat Buchanan and this country. Pat Buchanan has been involved in US politics in various ways for over 1/2 a century. For most of that time, let’s say up through 2000 (max, I’d say), a few things were different. Politics were much more civil in general, the left was not the looney left of today (Jimmy Carter, for example, was seen as not “out there”, but definitely a left-winger, yet he’d be considered a stodgy conservative now) but a reasonable bunch that were just more in favor of big government, and the American people were MUCH more united due to lack of diversity.

    I think Pat is still in a mode that would have been fine in 1965, 1975, 1985, 1995, and maybe 2000. It’s hard for an old guy to change. People like him are read by us and other conservatives of various types, but this civil language and calm demeanor really won’t cut it in the pretty short run with the sick bunch we are up against.

    Does he read a blinking thing that anyone else – author or commenter – writes for this website?

    As I wrote earlier, this guy probably has thousands of place his columns appear, and lots of ‘em have comments. He couldn’t address 1 % of them, but, yes, I’d think it great if I knew he read us, and especially if he wrote in. It’s not likely.

    Fred Reed, I noticed, wrote back, but then, he’s rightfully gotten a lot of flak lately for his complete BS on Mexicans. He’s not a big shot like Pat Buchanan was, and still is, somewhat. Fred Reed probably has a lot of time on his hands between the siestas and the cerveza breaks from his retirement. Good on him for writing anyway – he was just wrong though, even in his reply. Some people, ya just cain’t reach ….

    Have a good night, anonymous.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Wally says:
    @TheOldOne
    Blacks don't admire Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. With few exceptions, blacks aren't really "Western".

    Our ancestors brought them here.

    Blacks’ ancestors sold them so they could come here.

    Slavery would not have happened without blacks selling blacks.

    fact:
    blacks also owned slaves in the US south
    fact:
    Africans had massive slavery, it was black Africans who sold black African slaves to the slave traders
    fact:
    slavery of black Africans would have never happened without black Africans selling black African slaves

    African chiefs urged to apologise for slave trade
    Nigerian civil rights group says tribal leaders’ ancestors sold people to slavers and should say sorry

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/18/africans-apologise-slave-trade

    “African chiefs were the ones waging war on each other and capturing their own people and selling them. If anyone should apologise it should be the African chiefs. We still have those traitors here even today.”

    Black researcher, Dr. Tony Martin, let’s us know who the prime sellers & owners of slaves really were, Jews.

    Dr. Tony Martin – The Jewish Role in the African Slave Trade

    “Prof. Martin was indeed correct when he said “75% of Jewish households owned slaves” or “more than twice as many Jews owned slaves as compared to whites (36%),” as these statistics were drawn from Ira Rosenwaike’s analysis that attempted to do an apples-to-apples comparison with Lee Soltow’s study, which focused on the 14 Southern slave states. It should be noted that it was these two Jewish scholars that decided to base their comparisons on the 14 Southern slave states and not Prof. Martin, who was merely relaying the results of these two studies.?”

    JEWS AND THE SLAVE TRADE

    http://wethoughttheywerewhite.weebly.com/jews–the-slave-trade.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Randal
    A professional criminal who takes care to keep his gun clean of prints? Who'd have thought of such a thing, eh?

    Did the cop forget to use gloves when he picked it up?
     
    According to the evidence as reported, seemingly yes.

    Oh and the cop did get caught on tape expressing the intent to kill Smith. This cop should have been convicted of pre-meditated murder.
     
    Funny, I've said "I'll kill the bastard!" before now about more than one individual whom I did not actually kill, and nor did I ever have any real intent to kill, and in far less stressful and aggravating circumstances than this.

    But the judge shouldn't apply that kind of doubt in this case when considering "beyond reasonable doubt"? Why not? Should special rules apply for some reason when a policeman kills a black thug?

    There are many, many case of genuinely inexplicable exonerations and acquittals of police officers for killing people in both Britain and the US, but this is not one of them.

    An armed government employee who says ” I am gonna kill this fxxxer” and then shoots the person without a threat being evident should be found guilty, I don’t care what color the victim is. Government employees should be held to higher standards than citizens. This was the judge playing to his cop buddies and nothing else.

    The victim was supposedly holding the weapon in his hand as he was doing the multi-point turn to escape. But he did not leave any prints or DNA on it? BS!!!!

    This is just another example of why cops should lose the privilege to be armed while on duty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Randal
    PS Fwiw, I can certainly believe that this man might well have been guilty, and that this could have been premeditated murder, albeit under severe provocation. But that doesn't mean the acquittal wasn't perfectly reasonable and correct.

    It was a case of the government protecting it’s own.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. KenH says:

    The Justice Department should report on hate crimes by white racists. But from the stats, anti-white racism is far more common and far more manifest in crimes of violence. Who reports that truth?

    The DOJ should report on hate crimes by all groups. There are websites who report on the disproportionate black and white crime and instances of black on white racist hate, but those sites have now been deemed “white supremacist” and an increasing number have been deplatformed and demonetized or currently being threatened with loss of service.

    Jewish control freaks simply will not permit any real facts to contradict their false narratives about race and they’ve persuaded/imtimidated their co-ethnics and deracinated gentiles in private industry to act as commissars over the first amendment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. If we really wanted to end the opiod crisis in America, we would support the summary executions of all heroin dealers. #Duterte2020

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    The opiod crisis is nothing but a big government scare tactic to keep the sheep baaaing for more "protection" from the government. See the scare campaigns over marijuana, cocaine, crack, meth, bath salts, and toad licking. They all roll around about every 5-8 years.

    Legalize it all .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. I do also wince at Buchanan’s acceptance of the lies about Heather Heyer’s death. I’m looking forward to an UNZ writer doing a full dissection of what’s known now versus what was peddled by the mainstream media at the time. Details which have emerged since the incident reveal that the woman was morbidly obese and may have died from a heart attack after engaging in civil disobedience (blocking the street). The much younger picture of Heyer the media kept showing must have been when she was at least 100 pounds lighter than what she looked like on the day she died. It reminds me of the media continually showing the picture of a prepubescent Trayvon Martin instead of the grown man he was when he violently attacked George Zimmerman.

    It also appears that James Field’s car barely came into contact with her, if at all, and that Fields was simply fleeing a violent mob when he accidentally crashed into rioters blocking a busy street. Still, we need to review all the evidence before rushing to judgment especially considering the intentional disinformation reported by the MSM.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. @Liberty Mike
    Anarcho-libertarians tend to be, in my view and experience, far more in touch with human nature than others. We know that, given human nature, people with power abuse it and that the worst of humanity aspires to hold and wield power. Hoppe would agree.

    You appear to have a very good grasp of this phenomenon. In fact, I would say that you absolutely have a very good grasp of this given your comments here and elsewhere.

    I do not believe in some kind of utopia, libertarian or otherwise. Many of my alt-right acquaintances and friends tend to view anarcho-libertarians as utopians. In many instances, I chalk it up to intellectual laziness - not in your case, but, nonetheless, it is an easy out for many of them.

    We know the types of individuals who are attracted to government work, particularly the uniformed variety. We know that cops are not the best and the brightest. We know that they tend to have been second string on the football team in high school, at least they did not tend to excel; they tend to have been bullies although, individually, they were, more often than not, pussies; they tend to have not been the guy to get the prettiest chicks; they tend to have been intellectually less than and they tend to have parents and other family members who were public sector patriots.

    We know that cops, as a whole, tend to prevaricate far more than the average bloke. We know that cops, like negroes, are far more likely to engage in pack violence. We know that cops are not exactly intellectual powerhouses. We know that cops are not entrepreneurial dynamos and that they tend not to be great engineers, inventors, or innovators.

    Most of all, we know that cops are not very interested in championing peaceful and voluntary exchange.

    However, more important than all of the above, we know that those higher up the public sector food chain call the shots, including the judiciary. If I were to quibble with anything you wrote, it might be the extent to which we have the government we do - yes, ultimately, the people must accept, acquiesce or tolerate it - but, in my view, it is also the ruthless who impose the warfare / welfare state.

    That man wants dominion and control over other men is not in dispute. That, for now, we have this Empire, is not in dispute. That it will crumble, is not in dispute, either.

    Yes, your advice regarding interaction with law enforcement is well taken. I try to avoid encounters with them. Nonetheless, there have been a few times in my life when circumstances required that I took your counsel, and that of my dearly beloved father: yes sir, no sir.

    You’re ignoring the fundamental point made: lots of people are incapable of self-governance, and any society of more than one individual will have a commons that must be administered. Libertarianism depends on exit rights, such that when others impinge on your individual conception of liberty, you can just strike out for the frontier and start over. That’s why Ayn Rand’s ‘Atlas Shrugged’ ends up with a silly contrivance called ‘Galt’s Gulch’ where all the geniuses withdraw to sell hamburgers and steel to each other. (Do they have kids? Do they allow Pride Parades? Can I import a thousand coolies to provide the labor? How do they decide where the refineries and abattoirs get built?) It really is applied autism.

    Imagine your ideal libertarian society composed exclusively of at least 105-IQ non-violent individuals. It would still have to be ringed with barbed wire and policed to keep out bolsheviks and throw out freeloaders, people with families would want certain standards of public decency enforced, and thus ends your idealistic individualism.

    Police are a necessity of complex, populous society. There is no way around this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident
    Excellent rejoinder.

    I also would be very surprised if any of these self-professed libertarians would not, if they were to ever feel threatened beyond their ability to defend themselves, call/rely-upon the police.
    , @Liberty Mike
    You write that "[I] [am] ignoring the fundamental point made: lots of people are incapable of self-governance, and any society of more than one individual will have a commons that must be administered."

    You will, I am sure, concede that I was responding to the post penned by d.c. sunsets. You will, upon reflection, I am sure, concede that he did not explicitly asseverate that lots of people are incapable of self-governance and that any society greater than one will REQUIRE a policing monopoly to administer the commons.

    The primary thrust of d.c.'s post is that anarcho-libertarians are utopians and that we better get used to the state. He referred to the state as "humanity's original sin" and that "it (the state) is the embodiment of getting something for nothing."

    He did not write of a commons HAVING TO BE controlled by one entity with a monopoly on the use of force. To be sure, he wrote of man's desire to get something for nothing and that the state and its enforcement factions are a reality of life.

    Thus, my comments centered upon the fact that anarcho-libertarians are not utopians as we, more than most, are fully cognizant of human nature and that one manifestation of human nature is the drive to control others and the thirst for power in order to do so.

    Policing the commons is just another moniker for communism, progressivism, socialism, and totalitarianism used by adolescent utopians who think that somehow, someway, a monopoly will solve the problem. It is jejune, it is puerile, and it is vacuous.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Priss Factor
    When will people stop using 'racist' in the wrong way?

    Ism means belief and race-ism should mean belief in reality of race and racial differences.

    Race-ism is truth and explains so much of the violence. Blacks act like that because they are (1) more muscular (2) more aggressive (3) have lower IQ and lower impulse control.

    Blacks feel contempt for weaker races. So, when a 'whitey' resists black thuggery by gunning down a Negro, blacks think it's a great injustice. The black mind thinks, 'we be cool and badass and we be kangs and shi*, so we can do as we likes'. It's like a powerful animal in the wild feels it has the right to rampage around and take whatever it wants. Negroes are into Jungle Justice. Not by Rule of Law but Rule of Claw.
    Only race-ism can explain this fact and why blacks act the way they do.

    Of course, all of this is compounded by the sacralization of the Negro. The Civil Rights Narrative and MLK myth have filled blacks with the notion that they be the christ-race who been 'crucified' by evil whitey. Also, all those Jewish-financed movies with Magic Negroes have Negroes and cucky whites thinking there is something 'sacred' about the Negro. To be godly means to be above human and to demand worship. And the sacralization of the Negro has made Negroes want to be worshiped. This is made worse by black racial personality that is un-reflective, self-centered, and egotistical(or negrotistical).

    As for Antifanissary and such scum, they are either nasty Jews wearing masks or cucky white punk culture bottom feeders fed on PC and pop culture. Since they suck at sports and don't have much sex appeal, they try to score points in the manhood game by hunting 'nazis'. The fact that they go after the favored target of the Establishment(Jewish controlled) goes to show they don't have an independent brain cell in their heads. Anyway, PC has to be understood as the mental virus of Jews and their cucky-wuck white gentiles who are addicted to vaping on delusional 'virtue' of Negrotine. By sucking up to blacks(and the Other), they feel so holier-than-thou, at least in relation to other whites.

    As for Muslims and foreign masses, this whole 'Diversity' craze has been pushed by Jewish globalists because divide-and-rule is useful to the ruling minority elites. Also, those Muslims are in the West due to Invade-Invite. For the West to keep Invading, it has to portray itself as helpful friend of the Muslims... and that means Inviting.
    At any rate, even though Muslim violence in the West is pretty awful, it's nothing compared to all the killings done by Zionist-led Western Imperialists who have killed close to a million. And just look at photos of Iraq, Syria, and Libya. They are hellholes due to either Zio-Western invasion/bombing or Zio-Western aid to Jihadis used as proxy against modern secular regimes.

    Finally, the problem isn't barbarism. If anything, this is happening because whites have forgotten how to be barbarians. A healthy order has civilization protected by barbarians against savages and radicals. Rule of Law and Values alone cannot do the trick. There has to be a barbarian force to use brute power and threats to keep the savages and radicals at bay.
    Blacks are savages whose mode of conduct is hollering, walloping, and acting like baboons. Radicals are dogmatic ideologues addicted to false utopian visions. They think they are SO RIGHT that any means are justified in bringing about The Future. They are different from reformers who do good work. Radicals are arrogant and blinded by hubris. Now, it'd be nice if civilization alone could hold off the savages and radicals. But civilization is too abstract, legalistic, and gentle to fend off savages and radicals. Bill Buckley was a civilized guy and so was Gore Vidal. They had good manners and sophisticated way of speaking. Such people would be helpless when confronted with savages and radicals. (Vidal pretended to be radical but was too elitist to fit in.) Such people need an army of barbarians to fight off the savages and radicals. Barbarians maybe crude but they have vitality, a soulful connection to the natural and instinctive. They are not afraid to rumble.

    In a way, the US military, US police, and such types are barbarian forces. They are trained to use violence against the enemy. Also, vigilante and militia groups are barbarian-in-nature. In the past, whites had such barbarian forces to fight the Indians and Negro savages. When the red savages came to raid a white community, whites couldn't call the police. They had to use guns and fight like barbarians against the savages. And in the South, if a Negro savage raped a white woman, the white barbarian gangs tracked him down and hung him from a tree to send a message to other Negro savages. And that kept the peace. Sure, it was ugly and unpleasant, but nothing's worse than rule of savagery, and blacks are the savage race. Also, unless whites unite as barbarians against the Negro, the Negro will win. One-on-one, the Negro will whup and humiliate the white male. And then white female will have the hots for the Negro, esp as all of our culture tells white girls, "Negroes got bigger genitalia." It's in FAMILY GUY and SEX AND THE CITY and every other rap song that white girls grow up dancing to.

    So, the demise of white community owes to the loss of barbarian virility among whites. White America wasn't built ONLY BY civility and rule of law. White man prevailed over the Indian savages with barbarian force. It's like in THE SEARCHERS and RED RIVER. John Wayne played neo-barbarian characters fighting red childish savages. Without such people, the West would never have been tamed. And if not for white barbarianism during the 'Jimmy Crow' era, your average person in the South today would be a mulatto. If Negroes had been given free rein after the Civil War, they would have beaten up white boys(like Jack Johnson did later) and colonized every white womb. Now, that is happening all over the South due to demise of white barbarianism against black savagery that is sensationalized by sports, rap, and a pornified culture(even for kids).

    Neo-Fascism understands this. It defends civilization and order BUT also harnesses the barbarian warrior soul. Neo-Fascism understands that while civilization is impressive and awesome, it can lead to atomization, decadence, laxity, solipsism, narcissism, and etc. Look how Roman elites turned all gross and piggish like in FELLINI SATYRICON. Look how the Chinese elites grew sickly with long fingernails and effete ways like James Mason character in GENGHIS KHAN. Look how Ottoman Sultans got to living in luxury and bonking concubines. And look how today's Western elites are turning all cucky-gay with homomania, tranny-mania, 50 genders, and excess. It's like the elites in HUNGER GAMES. Tootish.

    Civilization leads to excessive privilege and luxury and status obsession among the elites who lose their way and lose their connection to the masses. Now, barbarianism as mere barbarianism is dangerous too. If a society were entirely barbarian, it'd be filled with Cossack-like ruffians dancing on tables, swilling vodka, and acting rowdy like the Ukrainians in QUIET FLOWS THE DON. Or, it's like Uther in the first part of EXCALIBUR. Strong and tough but unable to hold an order together. It takes Arthur to combine barbarian virility with inspired moral leadership.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC_TFoGhqUU&t=81s

    So, there has to be meaningful unity between the elites and barbarians. Civilized elites must lead, inspire, and uphold the highest achievements of mankind. And barbarians, in allegiance to the elites, must serve as its muscle. But when elites become decadent and gross, the barbarians lose sight of things and lose their way. And this is why the Roman Empire had to fall. The barbarian destruction of Rome was most necessary because the elites had lost their ways. In destroying that civilization grown sick, the barbarians made way for something new. Also, as the barbarians were European, they saved Italy from non-Europeans who were being welcomed into Rome proper by decadent Roman elites.

    Today, we need a neo-fascist barbarian rebellion against the Jewish globalists, decadent white comprador elites, the black savages, and rabid radicals addicted to utopian delusions.

    hey Priss Factor,
    You write a lot about black men but what’s your take on black females?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Their booties are going wild and butt-bombing the world as part of globalist cultural imperialism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Rurik says:

    Are Christian supremacists murdering Muslims in Europe,

    not in Europe, but they’re sure murdering Muslims in Muslim lands

    only they’re not so much Christian supremacists as ‘Christians’ who’re Jewish supremacists

    think Ted Cruz

    Lindsey Graham

    John McCain

    Paul Ryan

    Mitch McConnell

    et al

    and not only are they always clamoring for more wars to benefit Israel, but to a man they’re parroting the Jewish talking points about how evil and racist anyone is who wants to protect the heritage and dignity of the South in particular and Western culture and traditions in general.

    this is what Paul Ryan had to say about those protesters who wanted to protect the Confederate statue:

    “It doesn’t matter if you’re a Republican or Democrat… Every single one of us needs to unify against this repugnant vile bigotry,” Ryan said. “We all have to stand up and speak out against this kind of bigotry.”

    defending America’s heritage and heroes as they’re being torn down and demonized by the leftist, anti-white racist hoards amounts to “repugnant vile bigotry” according to Paul Ryan.

    I would expect that from Maxine Waters, but she isn’t the Republican Speaker of the House.

    “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

    ~Marcus Tullius Cicero

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. Dissident says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    You're ignoring the fundamental point made: lots of people are incapable of self-governance, and any society of more than one individual will have a commons that must be administered. Libertarianism depends on exit rights, such that when others impinge on your individual conception of liberty, you can just strike out for the frontier and start over. That's why Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' ends up with a silly contrivance called 'Galt's Gulch' where all the geniuses withdraw to sell hamburgers and steel to each other. (Do they have kids? Do they allow Pride Parades? Can I import a thousand coolies to provide the labor? How do they decide where the refineries and abattoirs get built?) It really is applied autism.

    Imagine your ideal libertarian society composed exclusively of at least 105-IQ non-violent individuals. It would still have to be ringed with barbed wire and policed to keep out bolsheviks and throw out freeloaders, people with families would want certain standards of public decency enforced, and thus ends your idealistic individualism.

    Police are a necessity of complex, populous society. There is no way around this.

    Excellent rejoinder.

    I also would be very surprised if any of these self-professed libertarians would not, if they were to ever feel threatened beyond their ability to defend themselves, call/rely-upon the police.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    This one never has.

    As a practical matter, what good results from calling the cops? Maybe you utopians think it is a good idea, but not those of us who live in the real world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @anonymous
    hey Priss Factor,
    You write a lot about black men but what's your take on black females?

    Their booties are going wild and butt-bombing the world as part of globalist cultural imperialism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Liberty Mike
    Yes, blacks have (1) lower IQs than whites, (2) much lower impulse control than whites; (3) much higher time preferences than whites; and (4) uglier physiognomies than whites.

    However, blacks are neither more muscular nor more athletic than whites.

    However, blacks are neither more muscular nor more athletic than whites.

    100 and 200 sprints and NFL never got that message.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. utu says:
    @Liberty Mike
    Anarcho-libertarians tend to be, in my view and experience, far more in touch with human nature than others. We know that, given human nature, people with power abuse it and that the worst of humanity aspires to hold and wield power. Hoppe would agree.

    You appear to have a very good grasp of this phenomenon. In fact, I would say that you absolutely have a very good grasp of this given your comments here and elsewhere.

    I do not believe in some kind of utopia, libertarian or otherwise. Many of my alt-right acquaintances and friends tend to view anarcho-libertarians as utopians. In many instances, I chalk it up to intellectual laziness - not in your case, but, nonetheless, it is an easy out for many of them.

    We know the types of individuals who are attracted to government work, particularly the uniformed variety. We know that cops are not the best and the brightest. We know that they tend to have been second string on the football team in high school, at least they did not tend to excel; they tend to have been bullies although, individually, they were, more often than not, pussies; they tend to have not been the guy to get the prettiest chicks; they tend to have been intellectually less than and they tend to have parents and other family members who were public sector patriots.

    We know that cops, as a whole, tend to prevaricate far more than the average bloke. We know that cops, like negroes, are far more likely to engage in pack violence. We know that cops are not exactly intellectual powerhouses. We know that cops are not entrepreneurial dynamos and that they tend not to be great engineers, inventors, or innovators.

    Most of all, we know that cops are not very interested in championing peaceful and voluntary exchange.

    However, more important than all of the above, we know that those higher up the public sector food chain call the shots, including the judiciary. If I were to quibble with anything you wrote, it might be the extent to which we have the government we do - yes, ultimately, the people must accept, acquiesce or tolerate it - but, in my view, it is also the ruthless who impose the warfare / welfare state.

    That man wants dominion and control over other men is not in dispute. That, for now, we have this Empire, is not in dispute. That it will crumble, is not in dispute, either.

    Yes, your advice regarding interaction with law enforcement is well taken. I try to avoid encounters with them. Nonetheless, there have been a few times in my life when circumstances required that I took your counsel, and that of my dearly beloved father: yes sir, no sir.

    We know that cops, as a whole, tend to prevaricate far more than the average bloke. We know that cops, like negroes, are far more likely to engage in pack violence. We know that cops are not exactly intellectual powerhouses. We know that cops are not entrepreneurial dynamos and that they tend not to be great engineers, inventors, or innovators.

    There are lots of problems with American police. But libertarianism is not the solution to this problem. Actually libertarianism is not a solution to any real life problem.

    American police kills at rate 50-70 times higher than European police. Virtually all killing (99.7%) go unpunished. Retraining, redefining the rules of engagement, deescalation technique and change in American police obnoxious attitude that my way or no way, i.e., you are dead can fix the problem. The reason it is not fixed is because of the racial divide. Yes more blacks are killed per capita than whites however in absolute numbers almost twice as many whites are killed than blacks. We seldom hear about white victims. Perhaps if we did we would not be as dismissive of blacks who are the only ones who righteously protest grave in injustice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. utu says:

    Pictured: Campus police officer who shot barefoot LGBT activist, 21, in suicide-by-cop killing as the 911 call the student made to lure him there is heard for the first time

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4900748/Pictured-Cop-shot-dead-Georgia-Tech-activist.html#ixzz4tHURPhBf

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. @The Anti-Gnostic
    You're ignoring the fundamental point made: lots of people are incapable of self-governance, and any society of more than one individual will have a commons that must be administered. Libertarianism depends on exit rights, such that when others impinge on your individual conception of liberty, you can just strike out for the frontier and start over. That's why Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' ends up with a silly contrivance called 'Galt's Gulch' where all the geniuses withdraw to sell hamburgers and steel to each other. (Do they have kids? Do they allow Pride Parades? Can I import a thousand coolies to provide the labor? How do they decide where the refineries and abattoirs get built?) It really is applied autism.

    Imagine your ideal libertarian society composed exclusively of at least 105-IQ non-violent individuals. It would still have to be ringed with barbed wire and policed to keep out bolsheviks and throw out freeloaders, people with families would want certain standards of public decency enforced, and thus ends your idealistic individualism.

    Police are a necessity of complex, populous society. There is no way around this.

    You write that “[I] [am] ignoring the fundamental point made: lots of people are incapable of self-governance, and any society of more than one individual will have a commons that must be administered.”

    You will, I am sure, concede that I was responding to the post penned by d.c. sunsets. You will, upon reflection, I am sure, concede that he did not explicitly asseverate that lots of people are incapable of self-governance and that any society greater than one will REQUIRE a policing monopoly to administer the commons.

    The primary thrust of d.c.’s post is that anarcho-libertarians are utopians and that we better get used to the state. He referred to the state as “humanity’s original sin” and that “it (the state) is the embodiment of getting something for nothing.”

    He did not write of a commons HAVING TO BE controlled by one entity with a monopoly on the use of force. To be sure, he wrote of man’s desire to get something for nothing and that the state and its enforcement factions are a reality of life.

    Thus, my comments centered upon the fact that anarcho-libertarians are not utopians as we, more than most, are fully cognizant of human nature and that one manifestation of human nature is the drive to control others and the thirst for power in order to do so.

    Policing the commons is just another moniker for communism, progressivism, socialism, and totalitarianism used by adolescent utopians who think that somehow, someway, a monopoly will solve the problem. It is jejune, it is puerile, and it is vacuous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    You're still evading the point: substantial numbers of people lack the intelligence and impulse control for self-governance. You probably need at least 100 IQ to do things like appreciate opposing perspectives and construct syllogisms. Once you get below 90 IQ points, you're living mostly by impulse. Of course, intelligent people can be sociopathic too, which is why we write rules and empower an executive to enforce them. And, to complete the point, an executive agency which doesn't have a monopoly on enforcement over the commons (the roads, the sewer pipes, civil and criminal arbitration, etc.) has nothing marketable to offer. Why would I hire Liberty Mike's Protection and Arbitration Agency when the better-armed and more ruthless DC.Sunset's Protection and Arbitration Agency can just evict them and settle disputes by their rules?

    This scenario has unfolded throughout history and currently in the Middle East, where monopolistic government control disappeared from territories in Syria and Iraq. "Libertarianism" didn't break out in a particular region--another monopoly did.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Dissident
    Excellent rejoinder.

    I also would be very surprised if any of these self-professed libertarians would not, if they were to ever feel threatened beyond their ability to defend themselves, call/rely-upon the police.

    This one never has.

    As a practical matter, what good results from calling the cops? Maybe you utopians think it is a good idea, but not those of us who live in the real world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    As a practical matter, what good results from calling the cops?
     
    If I wanted my dog shot, daughter molested, wife tazed, possessions confiscated, property destroyed all while a government thug looked for a reason to put me in jail, a cop would be the first person I called. But since I don't need any of those, the wife tazing does sound tempting though, I won't ever be calling a cop.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Clay Bishop
    If we really wanted to end the opiod crisis in America, we would support the summary executions of all heroin dealers. #Duterte2020

    The opiod crisis is nothing but a big government scare tactic to keep the sheep baaaing for more “protection” from the government. See the scare campaigns over marijuana, cocaine, crack, meth, bath salts, and toad licking. They all roll around about every 5-8 years.

    Legalize it all .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clay Bishop

    The opiod crisis is nothing but a big government scare tactic to keep the sheep baaaing for more “protection” from the government. See the scare campaigns over marijuana, cocaine, crack, meth, bath salts, and toad licking. They all roll around about every 5-8 years.
    Legalize it all .
     
    I remember back when I was a libertarian and made statements like this because I let my ideology cloud my judgment of reality.

    What do you mean when you say the opiod crisis is "a big government scare tactic"? Are you denying there are skyrocketing heroin addiction rates and related deaths of mostly working-class whites?

    https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Liberty Mike
    This one never has.

    As a practical matter, what good results from calling the cops? Maybe you utopians think it is a good idea, but not those of us who live in the real world.

    As a practical matter, what good results from calling the cops?

    If I wanted my dog shot, daughter molested, wife tazed, possessions confiscated, property destroyed all while a government thug looked for a reason to put me in jail, a cop would be the first person I called. But since I don’t need any of those, the wife tazing does sound tempting though, I won’t ever be calling a cop.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Liberty Mike
    You write that "[I] [am] ignoring the fundamental point made: lots of people are incapable of self-governance, and any society of more than one individual will have a commons that must be administered."

    You will, I am sure, concede that I was responding to the post penned by d.c. sunsets. You will, upon reflection, I am sure, concede that he did not explicitly asseverate that lots of people are incapable of self-governance and that any society greater than one will REQUIRE a policing monopoly to administer the commons.

    The primary thrust of d.c.'s post is that anarcho-libertarians are utopians and that we better get used to the state. He referred to the state as "humanity's original sin" and that "it (the state) is the embodiment of getting something for nothing."

    He did not write of a commons HAVING TO BE controlled by one entity with a monopoly on the use of force. To be sure, he wrote of man's desire to get something for nothing and that the state and its enforcement factions are a reality of life.

    Thus, my comments centered upon the fact that anarcho-libertarians are not utopians as we, more than most, are fully cognizant of human nature and that one manifestation of human nature is the drive to control others and the thirst for power in order to do so.

    Policing the commons is just another moniker for communism, progressivism, socialism, and totalitarianism used by adolescent utopians who think that somehow, someway, a monopoly will solve the problem. It is jejune, it is puerile, and it is vacuous.

    You’re still evading the point: substantial numbers of people lack the intelligence and impulse control for self-governance. You probably need at least 100 IQ to do things like appreciate opposing perspectives and construct syllogisms. Once you get below 90 IQ points, you’re living mostly by impulse. Of course, intelligent people can be sociopathic too, which is why we write rules and empower an executive to enforce them. And, to complete the point, an executive agency which doesn’t have a monopoly on enforcement over the commons (the roads, the sewer pipes, civil and criminal arbitration, etc.) has nothing marketable to offer. Why would I hire Liberty Mike’s Protection and Arbitration Agency when the better-armed and more ruthless DC.Sunset’s Protection and Arbitration Agency can just evict them and settle disputes by their rules?

    This scenario has unfolded throughout history and currently in the Middle East, where monopolistic government control disappeared from territories in Syria and Iraq. “Libertarianism” didn’t break out in a particular region–another monopoly did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Lest you think I am avoiding your point, I agree that substantial numbers of people lack the requisite intelligence and impulse control for self-governance.

    We differ on what is a better, more practical mechanism to address that reality. A monopoly on the administration of justice, on the use of force, and upon self-defense inevitably results in tyranny and mass murder.

    Witness the modern nation state and its demonstrated capacity to engage in mass murder, forced expatriation, deficit spending, looting, taxing, confiscation of property, spectacular misallocation of resources, war, and fiscal mischief. Since Saint Abe, i.e., the last 150-160 years, the state has managed to kill, murder, and forcibly expatriate hundreds of millions of people.

    Would this have transpired in the absence of a monopoly on the administration of justice, use of force, and self-defense?

    We know that the modern nation state has produced it; we have no evidence that such death and disaster would have transpired if there had been vigorous competition for the provision of services such as the administration of justice and defense that monopolists like you insist that the state is better able to provide.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Chris Mallory
    The opiod crisis is nothing but a big government scare tactic to keep the sheep baaaing for more "protection" from the government. See the scare campaigns over marijuana, cocaine, crack, meth, bath salts, and toad licking. They all roll around about every 5-8 years.

    Legalize it all .

    The opiod crisis is nothing but a big government scare tactic to keep the sheep baaaing for more “protection” from the government. See the scare campaigns over marijuana, cocaine, crack, meth, bath salts, and toad licking. They all roll around about every 5-8 years.
    Legalize it all .

    I remember back when I was a libertarian and made statements like this because I let my ideology cloud my judgment of reality.

    What do you mean when you say the opiod crisis is “a big government scare tactic”? Are you denying there are skyrocketing heroin addiction rates and related deaths of mostly working-class whites?

    https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Why would you rely upon the CDC as some kind of citadel of reliability and truth?

    No, you are allowing your big government will save us all and make life the best it can be ideology cloud your judgment.
    , @dc.sunsets
    I used to SELL a pharmaceutical that is classified as a Schedule 2 narcotic.

    Despite it being quite different (it's NOT a derivative, synthetic or otherwise of poppies), the FDA classified it the same as direct derivatives of morphine, despite there being ample evidence that addicts don't like it (because it simply doesn't work very well for euphoria.)

    Here was a nice, potential "fix" for the "crisis."

    Ignored by our "ruling experts." Lest you think I'm full of it, I actually was prescribed the drug once when I had excruciating back pain. It was great: It cut my pain by a mile, and unlike while taking Vicodin's cousins, I could still THINK.

    We are ruled by FOOLS. I'm not sure we wouldn't be better off with a hundred different "schools of thought" competing for the allegiance of citizens. None of us can be expect at everything, but the notion that we can trust our elected and appointed rulers to know what is best is a notion based on hot air.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @The Anti-Gnostic
    You're still evading the point: substantial numbers of people lack the intelligence and impulse control for self-governance. You probably need at least 100 IQ to do things like appreciate opposing perspectives and construct syllogisms. Once you get below 90 IQ points, you're living mostly by impulse. Of course, intelligent people can be sociopathic too, which is why we write rules and empower an executive to enforce them. And, to complete the point, an executive agency which doesn't have a monopoly on enforcement over the commons (the roads, the sewer pipes, civil and criminal arbitration, etc.) has nothing marketable to offer. Why would I hire Liberty Mike's Protection and Arbitration Agency when the better-armed and more ruthless DC.Sunset's Protection and Arbitration Agency can just evict them and settle disputes by their rules?

    This scenario has unfolded throughout history and currently in the Middle East, where monopolistic government control disappeared from territories in Syria and Iraq. "Libertarianism" didn't break out in a particular region--another monopoly did.

    Lest you think I am avoiding your point, I agree that substantial numbers of people lack the requisite intelligence and impulse control for self-governance.

    We differ on what is a better, more practical mechanism to address that reality. A monopoly on the administration of justice, on the use of force, and upon self-defense inevitably results in tyranny and mass murder.

    Witness the modern nation state and its demonstrated capacity to engage in mass murder, forced expatriation, deficit spending, looting, taxing, confiscation of property, spectacular misallocation of resources, war, and fiscal mischief. Since Saint Abe, i.e., the last 150-160 years, the state has managed to kill, murder, and forcibly expatriate hundreds of millions of people.

    Would this have transpired in the absence of a monopoly on the administration of justice, use of force, and self-defense?

    We know that the modern nation state has produced it; we have no evidence that such death and disaster would have transpired if there had been vigorous competition for the provision of services such as the administration of justice and defense that monopolists like you insist that the state is better able to provide.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    I can agree with that. Jurisdictions should have to compete for human and financial capital. I find a lot to agree with in Hans-Herman Hoppe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Clay Bishop

    The opiod crisis is nothing but a big government scare tactic to keep the sheep baaaing for more “protection” from the government. See the scare campaigns over marijuana, cocaine, crack, meth, bath salts, and toad licking. They all roll around about every 5-8 years.
    Legalize it all .
     
    I remember back when I was a libertarian and made statements like this because I let my ideology cloud my judgment of reality.

    What do you mean when you say the opiod crisis is "a big government scare tactic"? Are you denying there are skyrocketing heroin addiction rates and related deaths of mostly working-class whites?

    https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths.html

    Why would you rely upon the CDC as some kind of citadel of reliability and truth?

    No, you are allowing your big government will save us all and make life the best it can be ideology cloud your judgment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clay Bishop
    Okay, let's assume the CDC is faking those numbers. What source do you use to come to your judgments which you deem to be objective? Or do you just discount anything which causes you to question your preconceived notions? Because the latter is what most ideologues do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Liberty Mike
    Lest you think I am avoiding your point, I agree that substantial numbers of people lack the requisite intelligence and impulse control for self-governance.

    We differ on what is a better, more practical mechanism to address that reality. A monopoly on the administration of justice, on the use of force, and upon self-defense inevitably results in tyranny and mass murder.

    Witness the modern nation state and its demonstrated capacity to engage in mass murder, forced expatriation, deficit spending, looting, taxing, confiscation of property, spectacular misallocation of resources, war, and fiscal mischief. Since Saint Abe, i.e., the last 150-160 years, the state has managed to kill, murder, and forcibly expatriate hundreds of millions of people.

    Would this have transpired in the absence of a monopoly on the administration of justice, use of force, and self-defense?

    We know that the modern nation state has produced it; we have no evidence that such death and disaster would have transpired if there had been vigorous competition for the provision of services such as the administration of justice and defense that monopolists like you insist that the state is better able to provide.

    I can agree with that. Jurisdictions should have to compete for human and financial capital. I find a lot to agree with in Hans-Herman Hoppe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Hoppe is great.

    You and d.c. are right that there are many libertarians who are utopian.

    In my view, you should be more, and perhaps you are, bothered by the faux libertarians who are more concerned about diversity, inclusiveness, multiculturalism, and things like anti-racism and tranny quality of life. This crowd includes CATO, Reason writers and the vast majority of their commenters (though not all), people like Fox's Kenedy, Bleeding Heart Libertarians, and others.

    Often times, I have to take the time to point out that there is a huge distinction between paleo-libertarians like Hoppe, Tom Woods, Ron Paul, bionic mosquito et al and the anti-racist libertine libertarians. In my view, the latter are not really libertarians.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Liberty Mike
    Why would you rely upon the CDC as some kind of citadel of reliability and truth?

    No, you are allowing your big government will save us all and make life the best it can be ideology cloud your judgment.

    Okay, let’s assume the CDC is faking those numbers. What source do you use to come to your judgments which you deem to be objective? Or do you just discount anything which causes you to question your preconceived notions? Because the latter is what most ideologues do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    My question remains, why trust the CDC? Why trust what the government tells you? Does not the history of the state's propensity to prevaricate, particularly the United States government, cause you to stop before swallowing the propaganda?

    Yes, I do discount what the government "concludes" "finds" "publishes" and "reports". It is the rational thing to do. That doesn't mean that I think every single statement every single public sector employee makes is false or exaggerated. After all, every dog has its day and the clock does strike 12 twice a day and here, in New England, once in awhile, you can have a June night in December.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @The Anti-Gnostic
    I can agree with that. Jurisdictions should have to compete for human and financial capital. I find a lot to agree with in Hans-Herman Hoppe.

    Hoppe is great.

    You and d.c. are right that there are many libertarians who are utopian.

    In my view, you should be more, and perhaps you are, bothered by the faux libertarians who are more concerned about diversity, inclusiveness, multiculturalism, and things like anti-racism and tranny quality of life. This crowd includes CATO, Reason writers and the vast majority of their commenters (though not all), people like Fox’s Kenedy, Bleeding Heart Libertarians, and others.

    Often times, I have to take the time to point out that there is a huge distinction between paleo-libertarians like Hoppe, Tom Woods, Ron Paul, bionic mosquito et al and the anti-racist libertine libertarians. In my view, the latter are not really libertarians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    In case this thread isn't dead, let me just observe that in my personal opinion most of these arguments are about the poles on various (usually political) spectra, and that in reality, the world (and all its subsets) never actually approaches any of those extremes, and that we're always witnessing a dynamic move along each spectrum, a pendulum-like condition where the "cure" for any extreme is that condition's extremity.

    The end to monopoly systems is a pole. It is unattainable. And end-states are synonymous with dead systems. Nothing living (or made of living things) is static.

    In the end, libertarianism (as I prefer to understand it) is entirely philosophical. It is promotion of human relationships based on cooperation instead of coercion. That's ALL it is, to me.

    Who can argue against the idea that institutionalized coercion should be minimized? Seriously? The notion that we live in a far too coercive society is, I believe, obvious. Much of the genesis of this is today's Pandemic Pursuit of the Gnostic Heresy, the Progressive Cult's insistence on squaring the circle of human heterogeneity under their "equality of outcomes" banner. [That they are dupes, mere pawns of the very powerful who work them like sock puppets is plain to me.]

    My point is this: We will have a state. It will be more tyrannical or less, more free or less, more orderly or less, more conflict-riven or less, more productive or less, more random or less,....you get my point. I'd like to see Freedom of Association (and non-association) revived under a regime that better respects rights in property. I do not think this can occur within anything remotely resembling "democracy." I agree with Hoppe, if we have to have a state, I want it to be a hereditary monarchy where Joe Citizen has absolutely no hope whatsoever of obtaining control of the levers of power. Only then can a proper detente be established between the rights of citizens and the prerogatives of rulers, for that is a perpetual state of war among mankind.

    I don't care who rules. I just want everyone around me to know that they are nothing more than a necessary evil, not a temporary caretaker whose seat can be filled with "our guy" so we can loot "the other guy" just as is being done to us now. (I'm aware there's debate over the reality of a "necessary evil," but as I've said, zero evil is a pole, and poles are not attainable. Maybe "minimum evil" is a better choice.

    Discourses on Voluntary Servitude, indeed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Clay Bishop
    Okay, let's assume the CDC is faking those numbers. What source do you use to come to your judgments which you deem to be objective? Or do you just discount anything which causes you to question your preconceived notions? Because the latter is what most ideologues do.

    My question remains, why trust the CDC? Why trust what the government tells you? Does not the history of the state’s propensity to prevaricate, particularly the United States government, cause you to stop before swallowing the propaganda?

    Yes, I do discount what the government “concludes” “finds” “publishes” and “reports”. It is the rational thing to do. That doesn’t mean that I think every single statement every single public sector employee makes is false or exaggerated. After all, every dog has its day and the clock does strike 12 twice a day and here, in New England, once in awhile, you can have a June night in December.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Liberty Mike
    Hoppe is great.

    You and d.c. are right that there are many libertarians who are utopian.

    In my view, you should be more, and perhaps you are, bothered by the faux libertarians who are more concerned about diversity, inclusiveness, multiculturalism, and things like anti-racism and tranny quality of life. This crowd includes CATO, Reason writers and the vast majority of their commenters (though not all), people like Fox's Kenedy, Bleeding Heart Libertarians, and others.

    Often times, I have to take the time to point out that there is a huge distinction between paleo-libertarians like Hoppe, Tom Woods, Ron Paul, bionic mosquito et al and the anti-racist libertine libertarians. In my view, the latter are not really libertarians.

    In case this thread isn’t dead, let me just observe that in my personal opinion most of these arguments are about the poles on various (usually political) spectra, and that in reality, the world (and all its subsets) never actually approaches any of those extremes, and that we’re always witnessing a dynamic move along each spectrum, a pendulum-like condition where the “cure” for any extreme is that condition’s extremity.

    The end to monopoly systems is a pole. It is unattainable. And end-states are synonymous with dead systems. Nothing living (or made of living things) is static.

    In the end, libertarianism (as I prefer to understand it) is entirely philosophical. It is promotion of human relationships based on cooperation instead of coercion. That’s ALL it is, to me.

    Who can argue against the idea that institutionalized coercion should be minimized? Seriously? The notion that we live in a far too coercive society is, I believe, obvious. Much of the genesis of this is today’s Pandemic Pursuit of the Gnostic Heresy, the Progressive Cult’s insistence on squaring the circle of human heterogeneity under their “equality of outcomes” banner. [That they are dupes, mere pawns of the very powerful who work them like sock puppets is plain to me.]

    My point is this: We will have a state. It will be more tyrannical or less, more free or less, more orderly or less, more conflict-riven or less, more productive or less, more random or less,….you get my point. I’d like to see Freedom of Association (and non-association) revived under a regime that better respects rights in property. I do not think this can occur within anything remotely resembling “democracy.” I agree with Hoppe, if we have to have a state, I want it to be a hereditary monarchy where Joe Citizen has absolutely no hope whatsoever of obtaining control of the levers of power. Only then can a proper detente be established between the rights of citizens and the prerogatives of rulers, for that is a perpetual state of war among mankind.

    I don’t care who rules. I just want everyone around me to know that they are nothing more than a necessary evil, not a temporary caretaker whose seat can be filled with “our guy” so we can loot “the other guy” just as is being done to us now. (I’m aware there’s debate over the reality of a “necessary evil,” but as I’ve said, zero evil is a pole, and poles are not attainable. Maybe “minimum evil” is a better choice.

    Discourses on Voluntary Servitude, indeed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Very good post.

    Essentially, I agree with your assessment of the poles.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Clay Bishop

    The opiod crisis is nothing but a big government scare tactic to keep the sheep baaaing for more “protection” from the government. See the scare campaigns over marijuana, cocaine, crack, meth, bath salts, and toad licking. They all roll around about every 5-8 years.
    Legalize it all .
     
    I remember back when I was a libertarian and made statements like this because I let my ideology cloud my judgment of reality.

    What do you mean when you say the opiod crisis is "a big government scare tactic"? Are you denying there are skyrocketing heroin addiction rates and related deaths of mostly working-class whites?

    https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths.html

    I used to SELL a pharmaceutical that is classified as a Schedule 2 narcotic.

    Despite it being quite different (it’s NOT a derivative, synthetic or otherwise of poppies), the FDA classified it the same as direct derivatives of morphine, despite there being ample evidence that addicts don’t like it (because it simply doesn’t work very well for euphoria.)

    Here was a nice, potential “fix” for the “crisis.”

    Ignored by our “ruling experts.” Lest you think I’m full of it, I actually was prescribed the drug once when I had excruciating back pain. It was great: It cut my pain by a mile, and unlike while taking Vicodin’s cousins, I could still THINK.

    We are ruled by FOOLS. I’m not sure we wouldn’t be better off with a hundred different “schools of thought” competing for the allegiance of citizens. None of us can be expect at everything, but the notion that we can trust our elected and appointed rulers to know what is best is a notion based on hot air.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @dc.sunsets
    In case this thread isn't dead, let me just observe that in my personal opinion most of these arguments are about the poles on various (usually political) spectra, and that in reality, the world (and all its subsets) never actually approaches any of those extremes, and that we're always witnessing a dynamic move along each spectrum, a pendulum-like condition where the "cure" for any extreme is that condition's extremity.

    The end to monopoly systems is a pole. It is unattainable. And end-states are synonymous with dead systems. Nothing living (or made of living things) is static.

    In the end, libertarianism (as I prefer to understand it) is entirely philosophical. It is promotion of human relationships based on cooperation instead of coercion. That's ALL it is, to me.

    Who can argue against the idea that institutionalized coercion should be minimized? Seriously? The notion that we live in a far too coercive society is, I believe, obvious. Much of the genesis of this is today's Pandemic Pursuit of the Gnostic Heresy, the Progressive Cult's insistence on squaring the circle of human heterogeneity under their "equality of outcomes" banner. [That they are dupes, mere pawns of the very powerful who work them like sock puppets is plain to me.]

    My point is this: We will have a state. It will be more tyrannical or less, more free or less, more orderly or less, more conflict-riven or less, more productive or less, more random or less,....you get my point. I'd like to see Freedom of Association (and non-association) revived under a regime that better respects rights in property. I do not think this can occur within anything remotely resembling "democracy." I agree with Hoppe, if we have to have a state, I want it to be a hereditary monarchy where Joe Citizen has absolutely no hope whatsoever of obtaining control of the levers of power. Only then can a proper detente be established between the rights of citizens and the prerogatives of rulers, for that is a perpetual state of war among mankind.

    I don't care who rules. I just want everyone around me to know that they are nothing more than a necessary evil, not a temporary caretaker whose seat can be filled with "our guy" so we can loot "the other guy" just as is being done to us now. (I'm aware there's debate over the reality of a "necessary evil," but as I've said, zero evil is a pole, and poles are not attainable. Maybe "minimum evil" is a better choice.

    Discourses on Voluntary Servitude, indeed.

    Very good post.

    Essentially, I agree with your assessment of the poles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?