The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Gottfried Archive
Our American Cultural Revolution
The Murray N. Rothbard Address at Auburn
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

As the person who has been asked to deliver this year’s Murray N. Rothbard address, it seems appropriate to relate my remarks to the person being honored. Although the observations that follow may not have come directly from Murray, he and my speech do have some connection. My pleasurable, often edifying conversations with this remarkable polymath, the letters we exchanged, his book America’s Great Depression and, not least of all, his study of American intervention in the First World War strengthened for me beliefs that I continue to hold.

I never truly grasped where we were heading as a country until my encounters with Murray. Nor did I fully assess the worthlessness of the American conservative movement up until that point. Those realizations took place despite the fact that Murray and I did not always agree on all issues. We often debated political theoretical questions, as a mental exercise, without expecting to come to full agreement. But we did hold the same views about the present age, while I deferred to Murray on all economic matters, because unlike me, he was the proven expert. Most importantly, I finally accepted his arguments about the damage inflicted on our freedoms by America’s run-away administrative state.

Well into my forties I was going through a learning experience about the modern American government. In 1980 I was appointed as an alternate delegate for Ronald Reagan to the Republican nominating convention; a few months earlier I had spent primary night in my state, which was then Illinois, with Mrs. Reagan, waiting for her husband to achieve his by then predicted electoral victory. After Reagan’s election as president I served briefly as an adviser to the Department of Education and urged its immediate abolition, in accordance with a campaign promise made by candidate Reagan. Instead of being doomed to eradication, this department that Jimmy Carter created as a favor to the teachers’ unions, continued to flourish. Meanwhile Washington was flooded with “conservative” office-seekers, claiming to have come to this “swamp on the Potomac” in order to “dismantle the federal behemoth.”

Needless to say, these supplicants and sycophants had come for jobs and most of them stayed on as “part of the problem.” As late as the early 1980s I believed that the GOP was committed to loosening the government’s grip on our lives and earnings; I also nursed the illusion that something called “the conservative movement” would help in this process. The ease with which the neoconservative master class took over and proceeded to purge the Old Right, or that part of the Right that resisted them, removed any lingering sympathy I had felt for “the movement.” Almost overnight, I noticed the list of conservative heroes changed, from such figures as John C. Calhoun, Robert A. Taft, and Calvin Coolidge, to Martin Luther King, Sidney Hook, and even Leon Trotsky. While I had once wanted to believe that the American Right, like John Randolph, “loved liberty but hated equality,” conservatives were now urged to view “equality as the essential conservative principle.”

I also perceived how the Reagan administration went from talking about containing Soviet imperialism to launching crusades for “our democratic values.” This imperialist mission sounded nothing like what the traditional American Right, and certainly not what the interwar American Right, understood as a realistic or defensive foreign policy. It resembled the world revolutionary vision that I associated with Marxist-Leninist expansionists. It was upsetting that the American Right, together with our Republican president, dutifully followed these positions. And even more regrettably that they became standard Republican ideas.

Murray’s understanding of the American state influenced my book After Liberalism, which was the work of a recovering Republican. The state that he analyzed with scalpel-like precision was the American regime as it had grown since the nineteenth century. It was a structure of power that had vast economic resources, expanded at the expense of local and regional authorities, and engaged in war measures when the governing class thought they were advantageous. According to Murray, quoting Randolph Bourne, the US had become a “welfare-warfare state.” Although this was not intended by America’s founders, it happened nonetheless for reasons that Murray carefully explained.

After Murray’s untimely death I accorded him an honored place in my studies about the managerial state. His examination of the alliance of American public administration with crony capitalism and military expansionists infused my work on multiculturalism and political correctness. Murray’s perceptions also helped explain the rise of Cultural Marxism as the new civil religion in both the US and Western Europe. In these societies the administrative state furthers its control by enforcing ideological orthodoxy. And the state in question is not the relatively restrained bourgeois Victorian state of the nineteenth century, but something the tentacles of which reach into every social, educational and commercial activity.

This brings me to the core of my argument: The most publicized critics of multiculturalism, whether neoconservatives or “cultural conservatives,” ignore with equal disregard the contemporary state’s role in generating and sustaining the object of their criticism. Allow me to list some of the standard explanations given for the spread of Political Correctness. First on my list, because it may come closest to the truth, is the “cultural conservative” lament, which stresses that our long established values are in free-fall. PC now substitutes for ethics because of our ignorance and moral blindness. We reject the great teachers of the past and those inherited religious teachings that remain relevant for our collective existence; and this has resulted in cultural and social chaos.


Another explanation for the rise of PC treats academic culture as a uniquely corrupted part of an otherwise exemplary America. Perhaps most conspicuously it has been David Horowitz of neocon fame who has popularized this argument. According to Horowitz, our democratic government is sound and our country in every way “exceptional.” But universities have become “totalitarian islands in a sea of freedom.” The government must therefore intervene and make universities conform to the standard of freedom that exists elsewhere. We also hear complaints about the spoiled generation that has now taken over, about pampered little monsters who are running wild. Or this variation on the same theme: “the young carry with them popular culture, and together they’re corrupting our entire society.” Presumably the self-indulgent young, and their transmission of popular cultural values, are the principal reasons that PC is thriving.

There is also this anti-egalitarian critique that I myself have been known to belabor, to wit, PC is the latest variation on the ideal of universal equality. Although once integrated into orthodox Christianity in a benign form, this poisonous obsession is now running riot. But since some of you have already heard me ranting against equality, I won’t rehash my peeves, at least not this afternoon. Finally, we come to this oft heard assessment of PC that issues from its least concerned critics. Here attention is drawn to the essential decency of those impulses from whence the ideology arose. Neoconservatives and their dependents maintain that we’ve simply gone a bit too far trying to be just. But we can easily address this by adopting a new government policy. For example, it’s possible to help victims of past discrimination, without engaging in “reverse discrimination,” or we can practice equity feminism instead of gender feminism or affirmative recruitment instead of affirmative action. Curiously those who minimize the social effects of Political Correctness at home often rage against it when the subject turns to foreign policy. Thus the failure to be more confrontational in dealing with a worldwide Islamicist threat or with the figure whom George Will describes as a “thug and war criminal” Russian president Vladimir Putin is attributed to an epidemic of Political Correctness.

Some of these observations do have merit. We dismiss at our peril the great minds of the past. Civilizations, which are an intergenerational human creation, decay unless we protect them. Kids are watching too much mindless TV and are not sufficiently under parental supervision; although their parents may be just as poisoned by cultural toxicity. Moreover, popular culture, as far as I can tell from occasional channel-surfing, has nothing cultural about it. It features uninterrupted vulgarity.

Despite these insights and just censures, none of the critical observations I’ve listed engages what is specifically political about Political Correctness. One might ask why so many people are paying at least lip service to something that anyone with half a mind should find laughable. Although most reported criminal violence against American blacks has been caused by other blacks, the true culprits, we are supposed to believe, are the police, whether white or black. If only the racist police recognized that “black lives matter,” then the contagion of violence in black societies would end.

Gender and racial differences are judged to be social constructs and only tangentially related to what is biologically rooted. And let’s not forget that there are multiple genders; and the same person can experience more than one gender identity within a single day. The media would also have us believe that most domestic terrorism results from white male nativists; and as Ann Coulter recently observed, our journalists, academics, and most TV commentators are “delighted” if reality occasionally confirms their superstition. Evidence is no longer required for any of these daring assertions, providing the appropriate feeling is present. Nor does evidence have to be furnished that a statue of Robert E. Lee in downtown New Orleans that has stood there 131 years has to be removed because its presence is causing mental hardship to local blacks. Here as elsewhere, the PC Taliban are assumed to hold the moral high ground.

Meanwhile Princeton is about to remove plaques with the name of a former university president Woodrow Wilson, who defended segregation. Yale’s administrators and student body are renaming Calhoun College, which for the last seventy-five years has carried the name of a Southern slave-owner. Little does it matter that the South Carolina Senator who is now in disgrace may have been America’s most brilliant political theorist and as late as the 1960s was considered by John F. Kennedy and most professional historians to have ranked among our greatest senators.

A growing body of protestors, including New York’s Mayor Bill de Blasio, are working to rename Yale University, which commemorates an eighteenth-century London merchant. Yale’s early benefactor, Eli Yale, funded the infant educational institution as a way of fostering Christian learning in the New World. But this merchant may have pocketed money that he obtained, however circuitously, through the slave trade. At Lebanon Valley College, a few miles down the road from me, nationally publicized demonstrations broke out against the name of a particular building. This edifice bears the moniker of a long-dead munificent college benefactor, Clyde Lynch, but his name also bears a phonetic association with a practice once linked to racial oppression. Suitable replacement names have also been provided by the demonstrators but I shall spare this audience the pain of having to listen to them.

The neoconservative New York Post demanded in the wake of the Charleston killing that the racist movie “Gone with the Wind” cease being publically shown. In the same issue a Post columnist proposed that a tile in the New York City subway that depicts a Confederate Battle flag be torn out. The tile, which shocks neoconservative sensibilities, was the gift of the German Jewish owner of the Times Adolf Ochs. This man’s family, which resided in Chattanooga, had fought for the Confederacy; and the tile in the subway was intended to honor a cause to which Ochs’s parents had been especially devoted. Little did the newspaper owner know how vigilantly our neoconservatives more than a hundred years later would expose this vile act!


Since the audience should get my drift by now, there may be no reason to multiply my examples further. All such illustrations feature claimants to a fictitious moral high ground who revel in bullying others; and since the others offer no resistance, the bullies feel free to go on making trouble. PC’s advocates appeal relentlessly to the ideal of equality, but it is only the white Christian world that is attacked for breaching this ideal. Although all identities would appear to be sacred, in practice only those identities that please designated victims or their self-styled advocates need to be accommodated. If, for example, I chose to advocate for a neo-Confederate or secessionist position, neither the state nor its subject institutions would have to honor my choice. A university or employer might even be morally or legally impelled to “discipline” me for being hateful.

If one compares these student and faculty protests to those of the 1960s, certain differences become apparent. In the 1960s students were protesting a sometimes life-and-death issue. They feared being drafted and sent to Vietnam in a bloody war that went on and on. In the 1960s student protestors opposed institutions that often resisted the protestors and sometimes even sent in police to arrest them. Now the kids and their instructors manufacture grievances as the action unfolds. Protestors are for or against the wearing of Hallowe’en costumes on campus, depending on which side can be used to humiliate gutless administrators. They take offense at the name of any dead white man or denounce any form of lookism or micro-aggression, providing the resulting protest permits them to express outrage.

In the early 1960s such things did not happen, and for a self-evident reason. Sixty years ago we did not have a vast state apparatus fighting “discrimination,” judging “hate crimes” and by implication “hate speech,” and monitoring the treatment of protected minorities. It’s no surprise that establishment Republicans and so-called conservatives tip-toe around this fact. Those who live off government patronage and from devising government policies are not likely to bite the hand that feeds. And the last thing I would expect them to do is notice the most powerful institution promoting Political Correctness.

I know the response these arguments are likely to elicit from the political and verbalizing classes, if they spoke to me, which they don’t. I’m oversimplifying a complex problem that has to be addressed in various ways. Such ways would include a new batch of government policies, preferably drafted through Heritage and then implemented by a non-extremist Republican president. I’m also blaming the state for what the “culture” has done. The state only reflects cultural forces that operate independently of politicians and administrators. It supposedly responds to conditions that the “culture” brings about. Finally I’ve no decent respect for all the good things the American “liberal democratic” state has already done, for example, combatting racism, sexism, homophobia and more recently, popular revulsion for cross-dressers and transsexuals. Without the modern administrative state, women would still be chattel slaves, our electorate restricted to white male property-holders, and women’s “health services” would not be readily available to those who want to dispose of their fetuses.

Such speakers and I would discover that we had irreconcilable differences. Unlike them, I don’t particularly care about pursuing “social justice” or “ending discrimination.” But I am interested in restricting the scope of the modern mass democratic state. Its overreach concerns me far more than creating larger electorates or empowering the federal and state bureaucracies to go after insensitive speakers and micro-aggressors. I am terrified by a public administration that engages in massive social engineering without effective restraints. Thus I’m disgusted when conservatism, inc. tries to have it both ways, as for example when I read the commentary of Republican columnist Betsy McCaughey slamming the Obama administration for forcing employers to hire and promote underqualified women. This is viewed as a continuing abuse committed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. But this justified complaint comes after the qualifying remark: “Race and gender discrimination is already against the law. As it should be.” Given that McCaughey and others of her ilk happily concede vast power to anti-discrimination enforcers, why are we surprised that the government exercises that power to the hilt? Does McCaughey expect the EEOC to ask her to decide what does or does not constitute “discrimination”? As usual government administrators will make such decisions.

If you accept living under a highly centralized administrative state that is aided by unelected judges, then don’t complain about diminished freedoms. After all, it is not Disney Studies or Jay Z who exercises coercive power over our lives. Nor is it Oprah Winfrey or Martin Sheen who can destroy my business, as soon as a black female, homosexual, or some other designated minority member issues a formal complaint.

Woman students on our campuses are now encouraged by the state to accuse male students of rape; and those who have state power on their side are in a position to wreak havoc on those they accuse. Although felony laws protect women who have been physically assaulted in colleges and elsewhere, the Department of Education and other government agencies insist on more stringent guidelines. They mandate sensitivity training for faculty and staff and demand that university authorities give concentrated attention to well-rehearsed grievances. And the government, under both political parties, has created this Inquisition.

The EEOC and the Department of Education, no matter which recent presidential administration, have pushed universities into embracing affirmative action programs and at least implicitly minority studies programs. And let’s keep in mind that the admission of a single student by a “private” educational facility that is receiving government funds renders that facility subject to a slew of anti-discrimination requirements. The feds have the additional power to withdraw a school’s tax exempt status, as happened at Bob Jones University in the 1980s when this institution was considered insufficiently receptive to interracial dating. The government can also unchain the IRS-attack dog to force its subjects into compliance with whatever it wants.

To ask Lenin’s highly relevant question: What can be done? For starters, those who fear the present political order should work to drive public administration out of education and social affairs. This power-hungry intruder monopolizes anything it touches. If government influence on education and other cultural affairs cannot be contained, it should at least be limited to the local level. It is easier for taxpayers to deal with government at this level than it is for them to move out of the country in order to avoid being bullied. But Mayor di Blasio’s fans needn’t worry. If despite my caveats, NYC wishes to accord special rights to polysexual claimants to government favors, then the Big Apple should be left to its own pleasures.


In conclusion, I would note that unlike Murray and many in this room, I have never presented myself as someone who regards the state in any categorical sense as “the enemy.” In historical perspective, I can appreciate the state as a Western invention pulling Europe out of feudal anarchy, promoting safety for its subjects, and providing a political framework for the growth of historic nations. At times the state has been a generous benefactor to humanistic learning; and one can cite as an example the Habsburg rulers of Austria-Hungary, who generously patronized the early exponents of the Austrian School of Economics. I would further note that public support of American education has not always led to its present unspeakable evils. There was a time when government did not make war on the traditional family, gender roles, and religious liberties.

But that was in the past; and it seems unlikely that we can rein in this regime by electing a Fox-news Republican president or by teaching in our public schools prepackaged “human rights” and “democratic values.” A GOP website that I recently scanned praises the restrained fashion in which the administration of George W. Bush handled the grievances of female students; supposedly this was light years away from what happened under W’s successor. The difference to my knowledge is exceedingly slight: ten years ago those males who were charged with misconduct by accusatory females had minimally more opportunity to defend themselves, before they were publically humiliated. Unless there is evidence that assault and battery has occurred, legal recourse should not be available to women making accusations of harassment or sexual misconduct, let alone should the government be tyrannizing male students because of their non-violent interactions with coeds.

I’ve no doubt that PC would still be around even if our managerial, sensitizing regime vanished through some act of divine favor. My point is not that every attack on freedom of thought or the traditional Right originates with the state. It is rather that every cultural threat is made much worse because of state intervention. What is more, the state does not contribute to this problem in a half-hearted fashion. Concerned administrators and progressive judges are morally committed to their mission of fighting-discrimination. Although the state’s sponsorship of PC may not be the only reason for its existence, it should be the starting point for those seeking to understand it. And one may suspect something less than a disinterested perspective, when the analyst disregards what in this case should be clear for all to see.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Cultural Marxism, Political Correctness 
Hide 80 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Hits all the right points, and most of those out of the park.

    Is there an MP3 file of this somewhere?

  2. nickels says:

    Von Mises and Hayek and Axl Rose were absolutely right (haven’t read Rothbard).

    “I used to do a little but little wouldn’t do it
    So the little got more and more.
    I just keep tryin’ to get a little better
    Said a little better than before.

    We been dancin’ with
    Mr. Dewey,
    He’s been knockin’
    He won’t leave me alone”

    Once the government starts enforcing social “equality” it cannot stop short of an entire value system and the enforcement of that system.

    • Replies: @Vendetta
  3. Great article, but I really take issue with calling Murray Rothbard an expert on economic matters.

    I speak as a former Rothbardian who wasted years in the Austrian ghetto.

    Murray Rothbard–and Austrians as a whole–are absolute quacks on economics. They even outright reject empirical research. Rothbard wrote an essay titled, “In Defense of Extreme A Priorism” in which they deduced economic principles from essentially invented axioms about human nature. Ludwing von Mises called this praxeology.

    Austrians have predicted 100 of the last 2 depressions, and their solution to every economic malady is extreme misery as they have a moralistic hatred of government intervention (especially deficit spending or central bank intervention).

    Austrians have some good insights on the business cycle (though overly focused on their satan–central banks), and of course a lot of small l libertarian insights remain valid. But overall it’s a hive of moralistic cranks.

    Don’t take this as an endorsement of the mainstream economics profession either.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  4. @Thorfinnsson

    You indeed wasted your time studying Austrian economics, because you grasped absolutely nothing of praxeology and a priori knowledge.

  5. joe webb says:

    “…although the state’s sponsorship of PC may not be the only reason for its existence….’

    pee cee was started by the communists. It was also a bit of a joke amongst lots of 60s marxists, and so on. a joke, but taken seriously.

    That was when maybe a leftist, usually a communist jew, would laugh a bit about it. No longer, the crazies do not laugh now, they are killers, anti-fas.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @dahoit
  6. BenKenobi says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    This is where you two titans impart your knowledge to proles such as I.

  7. utu says:

    PC is about the noneconomic social justice. It is so, so we do not think about the economic social justice. This is the simplest explanation of the reasons for PC. Immigration, open borders is part of it. So there is less cohesion, less true empathy and less solidarity. The old schtick: divide et impera. Btw, libertarians and Austrians are part of the same schtick.

  8. trumped says:

    Great article. The speech is on youtube under the Mises youtube account for those interested.

  9. Mr. Gottfried’s critics have been arguing for decades that he downplays the importance of non-state actors in multiculturalism, political correctness, etc., and he repeats his defense here.

    I think his critics are right, social and cultural influences are way more important than state forces, but that won’t get settled here. Instead, I’ll just ask all the anonymous cowards commenting here a question. Why are you afraid to reveal your real names? Is it because you’re afraid the FBI will come knocking at your door? Or is it because you’re afraid of what will happen at your present or future place of work: being denied advancement, not getting hired at all, or in extreme cases getting fired for “hate speech”?

    The government isn’t forcing your employer to ban “offensive speech” and to fire employees who voice unpopular opinions. The reasons for at least that one threat – which I think is the single most chilling force against free speech today – the reasons for that are cultural (political correctness, etc.) and social (lack of strong unions, etc.), not governmental.

  10. Hepp says:

    Why are you afraid to reveal your real names? Is it because you’re afraid the FBI will come knocking at your door? Or is it because you’re afraid of what will happen at your present or future place of work: being denied advancement, not getting hired at all, or in extreme cases getting fired for “hate speech”?

    The government isn’t forcing your employer to ban “offensive speech” and to fire employees who voice unpopular opinions. The reasons for at least that one threat – which I think is the single most chilling force against free speech today – the reasons for that are cultural (political correctness, etc.) and social (lack of strong unions, etc.), not governmental.

    The federal government requires every business to practice affirmative action, or as they put it, “non-discrimination.” Keeping “racists” employed certainly can be used as evidence of creating a hostile work environment towards minorities. Bob Jones University, for example, lost its tax exempt status for opposing interracial dating, and now bakers and florists are being put out of business for not participating in homosexual weddings.

    Gay marriage is a 50/50 issue in the general population, but close to 100% of corporations take the side of homosexual activists, no matter how absurd or dictatorial their demands. That probably has to do with the fact that government has a thousand different ways to destroy a business, and nothing gets liberals more riled up than crusades against “bigots.”

  11. @Aaron Gross

    You make good points, but do you really think modern unions wouldn’t be just as PC as their supposed opponents in the managerial class, that they’d support a worker who voiced “racist” opinions? Actually, there’s no need to speculate, this describes even current, emasculated unions.

  12. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    We should all agree that the Native Born White American Race Revolt against 1)the open and deliberate policy of 1)reducing The Historic Native Born White American Majority to a violently persecuted racial minority in post-white toilet America and 2)the open and deliberate homo -pervert norming of American society, must be infused with an anarchist spirit. That is to say, a revolt against the two most lethal forms of concentrated power in the US:MEGA-CEO CORPORATE POWER and The State. The former owns the latter.

    However, I reject in the strongest possible Rothbard’s Anarcho-Capitalism which at its core is an attack on the idea of a Native Born White American Racial-Tribal community unified by common interests.

    Anarcho-Capitalism leads to the kind of retard stuff that you see on Infowars:”As long as I have the Constitution and the Second Admendment…everything will be all right”.

    On Nov 8, the White Guy Trump Bros are going to be demographically overwhelmed at the voting gets worse 4 years later. White Males, as far as I can tell, are being targeted for racial extermination. Anarcho-Capitalism if it were widely adopted by White Males would be a death sentence.

    The really big problem that Native Born White Americans are going to have to confront is the massive,rapidly growing, nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc-the one that is here legally by birth. If Rothbard were alive today I would predict that he would oppose expelling it-even though the consequences of not expelling it are going to be catastrophic for Native Born White Americans. Just imagine a majority nonwhite Military…You have been warned!!!

  13. @Beefcake the Mighty

    I did and I realized it was wrong, whereas you are apparently still a true believer. No doubt you’re “investing” all your money into gold. Hyperinflation is just around the corner…

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  14. Tark Marg says: • Website

    In my view, the West is in serious decline. We see the decline in the fact that the USA has not won a land war since Korea in the 50s (and lost Vietnam, Iraq and soon Afghanistan), is demographically shrinking and economically stagnant.

    Why is the West in decline? My hypothesis is that both the rise and the decline are consequences of the central theme of Western history of the past few centuries; egalitarianism and diffusion of power.

    We see this egalitarian trend as far back as 1215 with the Magna Carta, and later with Habeas Corpus, the Glorious revolution, the representation of the people’s acts etc which collectively are unique to the West until the 20th century.

    Initially these expanded the class of educated and empowered citizens necessary for scientific and industrial progress. Thus it is no surprise that England, the country where this diffusion of power first began (Magna Carta in 1215, Habeas Corpus English civil war and Glorious Revolution in 17th century) is also the first country to undergo the industrial revolution.

    The egalitarian trend has been useful for so long that it has become a reflex, a religion.

    Unfortunately, the law of diminishing returns has set in by the early 20th century and further expansions of the circle of power has been to demographics that cannot reciprocate well or at all. Thus feminism, the sexual revolution, mass migration, animal, gay and transgender rights, the impending cetacean and chimpanzee personhood projects etc have sapped the West and explain the malaise of the West today.

    What is to be done? I believe a new perspective and ideology is needed.

    For more detail see especially

  15. @Thorfinnsson

    Right, trying to understand the philosophical underpinnings of empiricism and its limits in the social sciences makes one a gold-bug. Well, I can see economics is not the only thing you waste your time on.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  16. @Aaron Gross

    You missed this:

    “My point is not that every attack on freedom of thought or the traditional Right originates with the state. It is rather that every cultural threat is made much worse because of state intervention. What is more, the state does not contribute to this problem in a half-hearted fashion.”

    Mr. Gottfried’s critics tend to pass over much of what he says. Just as his point here is not that the problem originates with the state, is when non-state actors are able to hijack the government to do its bidding. I well remember when the loony left started the stuff that we see now back in the late 60s and 70s. They didn’t own the enforcement mechanisms then and everybody wrote them off as the wack jobs they were and are. Since they now own the enforcement institutions, we can’t write them off as mere wack jobs anymore.

  17. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Tark Marg

    You are completely clueless. The US did not lose the Vietnam War. Vietnam was burned…poisoned…ecocide write large. Vietnam was reduced to a dependent basket-case. By 2016, Vietnam was homo-normed.

    The Mega-CEO owners of the Democratic-Republican Party achieved total-complete victory.

    It is obvious that the goal is to wreck and destroy societies..And then impose legal homo legal marriage on these basket-case societies..and later gay tourism. This is the game plan for Afghanistian…Iraq…Iran…and Seribia….and…Conservative Orthodox Christian Russia…and the American Deep South.

    The homo norming of socially and culturally conservative Societies is a direct consequence of The Cold War with Russia. Time to rethink the anti-commie Crusade post-WW2.

    The homo-norming of US Society is one of the very nasty consequences of post-WW2 Invade-the World-Invite the World anti-commie Crusade.

    Ironically, it is the imported high fertility-highly racialized massive nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc that is the cause of the homo-norming of Deep South America for the obvious reason that they are the core-voting-bloc of the Democratic Party. The imported nonwhite Democratic Party is not voting for legalized homo marriage. This voting bloc is voting for the colonization and racial conquest of Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space. In due course, they will dispose of the sexual degenerates in the Democratic Party. Over time, The Democratic Party will be a socially conservative majority nonwhite political party.

    But the perverted homo hedonists in the Democratic Party are in a state of deep rapture about being able to impose homo legal marriage on Deep South Evangelical Christians. So they wont attack the socially conservative Muslim “American” faction of the Democratic Party coalition. In fact, the White Liberal narcissistic degenerates such as Bruce Springsteen want to increase Muslim legal immigration to boost the power of the Democratic Party. So they must go to bat for the Muslim “Americans”. Must keep the coalition together….

    The open and deliberate goal of the degenerate White Liberals in the Democratic Party is the extermination of Deep South Evangelical White Christians and the homo-norming of the children of Deep South White Evangelical Christians and Conservative Orthodox Christian Russia-which is the reason why Conservative Orthodox Christian Vladmir Putin is demonized with great gusto on Oscar night. This is the raison d’ette of the White Liberal..Nothing else matters. And they couldn’t pull it off without the Muslim Vote.

    What I wrote above explains very well what is happening in England…Germany….France…Norway…and Sweden.

    • Replies: @dahoit
    , @Tark Marg
  18. “According to Murray, quoting Randolph Bourne, the US had become a ‘welfare-warfare state.’ Although this was not intended by America’s founders, it happened nonetheless for reasons that Murray carefully explained.”

    Congrats on a fine article. Rothbard was certainly tops in his fields, but didn’t Rothbard call the state, “a bandit gang writ large?” I doubt that he believed that the “founders” intended anything but a welfare-warfare state since he also said, “Thus, the State is a coercive criminal organization that subsists by a regularized large-scale system of taxation-theft…”

    -Murray N. Rothbard, The State versus Liberty

    So your claim is erroneous and I doubt that you could substantiate it. Furthermore, I believe that Rothbard considered, for practical purposes, all states to be “welfare-warfare” states. I don’t think the US became one since it was one from the beginning as was indeed intended by many of the founders. In fact states in general are instituted for the purpose of providing welfare for the ruling parasites who establish them. Any substantial benefit to the masses is purely incidental, probably indicates an oversight or a smokescreen and is most likely transient as well.

    “…and when it was finally discovered that more profit was to be gained by enslaving the weak and systematically exploiting their productive capacities, instead of spoiling and destroying, this discovery opened a new and fruitful era of progress, for it involved the formation of political States.”

    Gustave de Molinari, The Society of Tomorrow [1899]
    Part II: Chapter XV Summary and Conclusion – Gustave de Molinari, The Society of Tomorrow [1899]
    “The positive testimony of history is that the State invariably had its origin in conquest and confiscation. No primitive State known to history originated in any other manner.”

    ― Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, the State

    “The primitive state is the creation of warlike robbery; and only by warlike robbery can it be preserved.”
    – Franz Oppenheimer, The State [1919] , Chap II,(d) the primitive feudal state of higher grade
    I believe that Rothbard would have agreed with those sentiments and I highly doubt he would have been duped by the “Federalist” gangster rhetoric.

    • Replies: @Ralph Raico
  19. In response to Mr. Gross’s objection that I’m always blaming ‘liberal democratic” public administration for unpleasant situations that should be attributed to “culture,” I would answer with this rejoinder: I never deny that there are non-political actors who contribute to the PC tyranny I detest. What I have noticed is that Mr. Gross and others of his “blame the culture” persuasion are usually ready to let the current regime off the hook-or administer at the very most a slap on the wrist. From where I’ve stood since the 1960s, it seems that an evolving American social engineering regime has played a significant role in the social changes I’ve witnessed, and in my books I’ve outlined that role in detail. I’m also amused or appalled by the silly countermeasures to this threat to our freedom that have come from conservatism, inc. Since this would-be opposition consists mostly of policy-designers, government workers, and dependents of the GOP, the most it offers us are proposals seeking to go back to the way things were ten or twenty years ago, that is, before we received the latest batch of government directives on how universities and employers are expected to act in relation to certain preferred victim groups. Like the Duke of Buckingham advising the witless Charles I, I would urge those who want to lessen the grip of PC on this country to “be thorough.” In this case that means pushing public administrators as far as we can out of “social policy.”

    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
  20. gwynedd1 says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    My problem is I did grasp it. I am an empiricist, and I look at what happens rather than assume people are rational. Libertarian paradises always have trouble protecting themselves. When land is abundant , everyone just melts away into their homestead life style and the state is so disorganized, its swallowed up.

    Britain became an economic and Military power house because it blocked the access to arable land , and it was able to coerce a free labor force into industry. The Caribbean islands demonstrated this very well. Jamaica, with lots of arable land, allowed subsistence farming. Thus when the slaves were freed the sugar industry was done. Other island with much worse labor to land ratios could economically coerce the exiting labor pool into the industry, so ironically they had an export economy by having less ideal conditions.

    The story of our lives is states that use slave labor can attack and defeat libertarians. I wish it were not true, but it is.

  21. Tom Welsh says:

    ‘Meanwhile Washington was flooded with “conservative” office-seekers, claiming to have come to this “swamp on the Potomac” in order to “dismantle the federal behemoth.”’

    Very nice – in the great tradition of Ambrose Bierce, Mark Twain, and H.L. Mencken.

    • Replies: @Ace
  22. If we’re going to emphasize “empiricism’ (observing that I see very little empiricism in the article, nor the comments — more a droning-on of unproven and unproductive jargonizing), what might be accomplished by recognizing that virtually all of “what’s wrong with America” is a product of gross corruption at local, state, and Federal levels of government? That would include both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, the Executive branch, and the multiple millions of slothful, ignorant, self-indulgent “gubmint employees”, particularly the military-industrial monster.

    Why can we not address the real problem … empirically?

    • Agree: woodNfish
  23. nickels says:
    @Aaron Gross

    “The government isn’t forcing your employer to ban “offensive speech” and to fire employees who voice unpopular opinions”

    It is precisely the government that forces companies to institute policies that make free speech suicide. Under the guise of harassment statutes, etc etc.
    I want what you’re smoking that makes you think otherwise.

    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
  24. nickels says:


    PC is a nasty hybrid of Anti-authoritarian Jewish paranoia and post-Protestant secular spineless cuckery.

    In other words, religion, or at least post-Religion is now dominating government legislation of social culture.

    Bye bye separation of Church and state. We are now a Godless Church state.

  25. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    One big cultural revolution we’ve seen has happened in the military.

    But it has been so selective. If the Progs are really interested in making the military ‘equal’ and ‘progressive’, why not go all the way?

    Why not get rid of boot-camp training? Isn’t it abusive, bullying, male-dominated? Doesn’t it promote an us-versus-them tribal mentality? Shouldn’t the US military be about loving other nations? So, why promote warfare and tribal camaraderie of USA-USA-USA? Why not pass out flowers and sing songs about US should be friends with all countries?

    Why not get rid of ranks? Ranks are hierarchical. It’s not egalitarian. Why should some officers be generals, colonels, captains, majors, and etc?
    Why must some men be in infantry? And that is insulting. It sounds like children or babies. There should be equality. And all ranks should face equal danger in combat. Why should upper-rank officers just give out orders while lower-rank soldiers do all the dying and getting maimed? That isn’t equal. That isn’t fair.

    Why not get rid of uniforms? It promotes conformism. We should welcome more hijabs and other such garb to promote ‘diversity’. Same uniform for everyone promotes aesthetic homogeneity, and we know homogeneity of any kind is evil and wicked. So, let each soldier dress as he, she, or he/she pleases. Promote aesthetic diversity!

    Why not get rid of marching and other coordinated behavior? Such promote unity and obedience. And we know ‘progressivism’ is about being ‘different’ and being ‘deviant’. So, let each soldier march in his, her, or his/her way? Why must all march the same way?

    And why should soldiers who do all the dying have no say in which wars to fight? Shouldn’t they have a veto power over a certain war, at least if it’s overseas and if the nation in question did NOT attack the US? How is the US military part of national defense when it acts offensively against other nations? That is imperialism.

    And why should US military be the strongest in the world? Isn’t that a form of supremacism? US military should seek equality with militaries in other nations. Not supremacy and domination. That is so unequal and America-domineering.
    US should share its weapons technology with all nations to spread equality.

    And why should American military favor the agenda of Israel? That is favoring one ethnic group over others. That is ‘racist’.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  26. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website
    @Priss Factor

    And we need to end ‘age-ism’ in the military. Why shouldn’t middle-aged men and women join the military? Some middle aged people are more fit than overweight young men and women. ‘Age-ism’ must end!!!

    Someone should make a propaganda video promoting my vision of the New Progressive Military.

  27. @gwynedd1

    Not entirely sure what you’re replying to, but if you think Austrian economics amounts to assumptions about rationality, you didn’t in fact grasp it. Empiricists claim to believe only what they see, but they’re generally better at believing than seeing.

    • Replies: @gwynedd1
  28. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    Lenin said, “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”

    What goes for ropes also goes for roads.

    After all, the roads that Romans built conquer other lands turned into roads used by barbarians to sack Rome.

    “The capitalists will build the roads with which we will conquer them.”

    It seems many Third World migrants and immigrants feel that way. Globalism creates all these connections, electronic and transportational, that allow the West to expand all around the world. But those same connections allow the non-West to come barging into the West.

    Alt Right must take advantage of these connections, and to an extent, they have in the Age of the Internet. Internet was created by globalists to spread globalism. But anti-globalists have used it to challenge globalism. Globalists still have a huge advantage, but more connections also cause them more problem cuz formerly ‘fringe’ elements are given a platform. Google exists to spread globo-power. But google platform can be used to spread anti-globalist voices.

    The Bolsheviks and others used the system created by the Tsars and capitalism to undermine the Tsar and capitalism.

    And sometimes they did so not by championing Bolshevism but by creating divisions in the enemy. They did it by looking for contradictions within the dominant enemy — the Tsarist order and then the Kerensky regime — and playing on them. There are always cracks within the system. The thing is to make those cracks bigger.

    The true Right had a core following that upholds its key principles and convictions.
    But it also needs to develop a subversive wing that hides its agenda and instead works at creating havoc and divisions with the cracks of the globalist power.

    The central contradiction with the globo-Liberal power is that between globo-homos and the rest. Globos and Homos are the ruling elites of so-called ‘progressivism’. Homomania is no longer about tolerance or rights for homos. It is a full-blown religion. Homos and trannies are sacralized into divine figures who must be celebrated and worshiped endlessly. This is why Libs, who claim to disdain religion, are so eager to turn all the Churches into ‘gay havens’. They want churches to exclaim that Jesus died so that men who are into fecal penetration could get married and so that men could lop off penises to get fake vaginas. They want this stuff preached IN the church. Homomania is the new faith.

    But the fact is Globos and Homos who yammer so much about equality are all about power and privilege. And they offer little for Negroes and Hispanics. And nothing for white working class. The Right must play on this division. Not by speaking Right points but by vilifying the globo-homo elites as a bunch of greedy, hypocritical, lecherous, and disgusting liars and crooks who’ve taken most of the globalist pie.

    Once the Prog coalition cracks up — and we should welcome Black Lives Matter for messing up Liberal colleges and creating havoc in Jew-homo-run cities — , there will be more space for political action.

    We need more unity on our side, more division on the other side.

    Bolsheviks won the Russian Civil War cuz they were united whereas the whites were divided.
    Franco won the Spanish Civil War since the Right was united whereas the Left was divided among anarchists, socialists, Trotskyites, Stalinists, liberals, etc.

  29. gwynedd1 says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Wow, that just inspiring. I gave actual examples ans then you try to suggest empiricists don’t look at the evidence. its a routine rhetorical gimmick to project your own weakness on others. Its my experience that one is either empirical and scientific, or ya just make crap up. Historians , anthropologists and psychologists in the modern era all leaned towards the scientific, observational approach. The modern economist babbles something about honesty being more efficient than locks.

    I gave you historical and concrete examples of what happens. The Caribbean windward islands with low worker to arable land ratios created independent subsistence farmers who could demand high wages. The same contrast occurred between the US and Britain with the US barely escaping being reacquired by the European colonial powers during the civil war. The French had a Habsburg in the South and the British were in Canada. The Russian empire probably kept them out. Thus without some form of coercive element, libertarian paradises can’t form viable states. Those that do have a pool of labor simply have a economic form of coercion and concentrates enough wealth and power to allow, ironically, some sort of organized defense of the society.

    Austrians , as I often find them, are silly idealists much like orthodox Marxists who do little more than make fertile ground for a tyrant who will meet little resistance. They never account for real human behavior but continually appeal to their ideal forms of it. As Montesquieu said, those who have nearly total freedom are nearest to losing it.

    This is to say nothing of the actual culture behind it as if all of them are equally “rational”.

    So trying to crate a market without first creating the conditions of the desired state using historical references , Austrians are in a dream world.

    • Agree: John Jeremiah Smith
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  30. Ace says:
    @Tom Welsh

    I was one of those who found employment in the Reagan Administration and I benefited greatly at the hands of some of the very fine people who were thrilled to have a chance to undo some of the damage of the left and return to constitutional government. We were quite sincere in that but Bush ’41 was a pointless exercise in something or other on the part of a man whose economic thinking can fairly be captured in his statement about “voodoo economics.” His political were such that he did not appreciate the poisonous effect of his breach of his “no new taxes” promise. John Podhoretz brilliantly captured the uselessness of Bush in his underappreciated book Hell of a Ride.

    There was little those who came could do afterward. Some stayed on but better them than the usual leftists. The greater tragedy is that Americans simply have no interest in their Constitution. In the last eight years we’ve had four men present themselves as candidates for the presidency who are not natural born citizen. One even has the gall to try to play a spoiler role in the process in which he simply should not be a participant. Bill O’Reilly has him on his show and declines to even ask Cruz for a legal opinion on his status or for him to produce his birth and/or citizenship documents. Once again we are presented with a “no docs” presidential contender and a political establishment resolutely failing to raise the most fundamental constitutional objection.

    Anyhoo. As a nation we are proving the truth of Franklin’s witticism: “Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.”

    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    , @dahoit
  31. @gwynedd1

    Your ability to completely misapprehend the point is impressive. Well done.

    • Replies: @Vendetta
    , @gwynedd1
  32. Art says:

    PC – political correctness

    Sorry – but everyone so far has it wrong – cui bobo – who benefits from political correctness the most?

    Political correctness divides people – especially the prevailing establishment from its minority groups.

    Divide and conquer – that is how a small group can control a large group.

    The Jews have done a masterful job of dividing the American people against themselves.

    We all know this to be true. It is amazing how all these intelligent people refuse to see this.

    • Replies: @utu
  33. Tom Welsh says:

    ‘As a nation we are proving the truth of Franklin’s witticism: “Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.”’

    Actually, as a British citizen, I have a slightly different opinion. You don’t often see this said, but I think the bigger the organization, the worse the people at the top become and the more frightful the mess they make. The USA has been unfortunate, in a way, in being so immensely successful. (At my old company the engineers had a saying, “Success breeds failure”. Another way of putting it is Sevareid’s Law “The chief cause of problems is solutions”). So much money, power, military might, financial clout… as Lord Acton said, “All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Similar processes led to broadly similar results in the Roman Empire, the British Empire, the USSR and now in the EU.

  34. utu says:

    “Sorry – but everyone so far has it wrong” – not everybody. See #7.

  35. dahoit says:
    @joe webb

    It’s called divide and conquer.
    Jack Lew (Zionist Jack,no less)just said,Andy Jackson,you no good,are off the 20.

    • Replies: @Art
  36. Rehmat says:

    “Well into my forties I was going through a learning experience about the modern American government. ”

    Former Congressman Ron Paul is no stranger to the US government, and its subservience to the Zionist entity. He ran for the highest office as a Libertarian in 1988, and in 2008 and 2012 as a Republican and every time faced a vicious campaign by the powerful Israel Lobby for proposing cuts in US military aid to Israel and denying the ‘official 9/11 story’. In a recent interview with RT, Ron called the current presidential election – just an entertainment having no impact on any changes for a better governance.

  37. dahoit says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    Ah,if only those deep south evangelical christians were actually Christian.Sigh.
    They are the wackos who like traitor Cruz,who did phenomenally well in Orthodox Jewish NY neighborhoods,btw.

  38. dahoit says:

    Ted ineligible Cruz;Not a word from the ziomedia about him being ineligible.Remember Obomba,and the claim(?) he was born in Kenya or Indonesia?The uproar?This is actual,and not a murmur from the criminals.
    Ted got his ass kicked yesterday.hallelujah.

  39. Vendetta says:

    Axl Rose, the moral philosopher of our time.

  40. Vendetta says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    You’re embarrassing yourself in front of everyone, McBeef. Can you make a credible argument or not?

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  41. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    It’s no longer about Conservative vs Liberal. Both used to be sane. But Conservatism Inc is cuckservatism and Liberalism indulges in trivialities like men using women’s restrooms.

    The Culture War is now really about Honest, Serious, & Sane versus Dishonest, Decadent, & Trashy.

    A nation where homo-mania is the new religion — and it is quasi-religion — is a ridiculous place.

  42. Vendetta says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Are you the real Ignatius J. Reilly?

  43. @Vendetta

    Yawn. Show me a critic here who understands something about the epistemology of the social sciences and I’ll have something to respond to. Tools like Thor and gwyn don’t seem up to the task, maybe you are?

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  44. Cultural Marxism and PC are not quite the new religion of America and Western Europe: they are only its sentimental coating.

    The brutal core of the religion is the worship of Mammon.

    There are many examples of the symbiosis of these two parts. For example, it is notable that those who wish to dissociate Yale University from its founder do not want to give back his money along with compound interest.

    Another example is that the priests of PC make a very good living as academics, journalists, or social workers. They pretend to fight for their cause, as long as they get paid. We agree to pay them off, as long as they waste their time on unimportant things such as microaggressions.

    Above all, Liberals and Conservatives conspire to draw their battle lines in places that allow business to continue as usual. For example, there will never be a serious campaign to end the abuse of tax havens and trusts by the rich.

  45. Art says:

    Natural American liberalism died with John and Bobby Kennedy’s murders. All liberalism sense then is Jew liberalism. Their all-encompassing top-down control of the media, dictates the flavor of the news presented to the American people.

    Anyone with grievance is pushed into being a victim of establishment Americanism. Divide and conquer!

    Every miss fortune and negative event is manipulated to push more victimhood. Divide and conquer!

    Every dispute in America is about victims. Divide and conquer!

    This divide and conquer strategy has gone so far that the president, the congress, and the courts are now dysfunctional. Democracy is failing.

    What the Jew have done to America is nothing short of criminal.

  46. @Beefcake the Mighty

    There’s nothing to criticize.

    You’d made no specific claims of any kind.

    You are appealing to gnostic knowledge that you alone (and other members of the Austrian cult) supposedly possess, without going out on a limb and presenting it.

    Epistemology…feel free to discuss it. You are not willing to.

    • Agree: Vendetta
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  47. trumped says:

    That is an odd conclusion – austrians believing everyone is rational – since Austrians specifically reject that people are rational with their embrace of the subjective value theory, as well as aspects of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.

    Usually the arguments I see against austrian econ show that the people criticizing are not even familiar with some of the most basic ideas behind it, and this is no exception.

    • Replies: @gwynedd1
  48. Tark Marg says: • Website
    @War for Blair Mountain

    No gay marriage will occur in Iraq or Afghanistan, especially with the defeat of the USA and ascent of Islamic fundamentalists there.

    When one is on the losing side, as the right is regrading the culture wars, it is tempting to ascribe to one’s opponents hyper intelligence or power.

    Yet the reason that the left wins, in my view, is the fact that it rides a very powerful human instinct favoring the underdog. Indeed the whole of leftist literature can be boiled down to the adage “the underdog is always right”.

    It is this “underdogism” explains the bizarrely contradictory liberal stances of supporting both gay marriage as well as Islamic immigration, or supporting both welfare and open borders, because both the involved parties can claim underdog status.

    In my view, the only chance of overcoming strong instinctive drives is to repeatedly and calmly point out the logical flaws inherent in “underdogist” culture, and be ready with a rational alternative, especially as the contradictions become sharper.

    Incidentally it is not only in the West that underdogism prevails, the same holds in India and elsewhere too.

    See for a very interesting case of underdogism from India.

  49. @Thorfinnsson

    Your assessment of Austrian econ, specifically praxeology, was that “they deduced economic principles from essentially invented axioms about human nature”, which shows that you do not know what you’re talking about (despite your claims that you’re a former Austrian). You’re an ignoramus, and clearly one with some kind of chip on their shoulder (“cults”, “gold bugs”, etc.). It’s not up to me to educate you, you need to show that you’re remotely knowledgeable. In the meantime I’m more than happy to mock you for the tool that you are.

  50. @nickels

    That’s a big part of it, but only a part. Yes, the government enables workplace censorship via harassment lawsuits. The state will allow a black co-worker to sue if you say at work that blacks are dumber than whites, but not if you say it on this forum.

    You anonymous cowards are posting here on your own dime, without claiming any connection to your employer. The state isn’t going to make your employer fire or punish you if they find out. (Your employer probably wouldn’t do anything at all actually, which is why most of you are cowards, but the point is that that’s the fear that’s stopping you from standing up.) The state didn’t make Mozilla remove Brendan Eich; there are lots of other high-profile examples where corporations fire employees over speech outside of the workplace. Employers go above and beyond their duty to avoid lawsuits.

    These are the things driving employer policy, which in turn is driving your cowardice in the public square: state legislation, as you pointed out; employer political correctness, which is culture; and employer’s fear of customer backlash (bad publicity, boycotts), which is also culture—the customer base’s—mediated socially.

    • Replies: @nickels
  51. @paul gottfried

    This reply addressed what others of my “persuasion” usually do. I don’t know what they usually do, but speaking for myself, I’m not “ready to let the current regime off the hook.” Obviously, the state’s enforcement of political correctness, multiculturalism, etc. is a Bad Thing and should be resisted.

    The attack on “conservatism, inc.” seems a bit beside the point. To say that cultural PC is more important than state-sponsored PC doesn’t say much about the form that opposition to state PC should take. One can be the purest of paleocons and still believe that the main problem with PC is culture, not state. In fact, that would probably be the near-consensus paleo opinion, if there were any paleocons left. It’s certainly a common belief on the alt right.

    My own point was purely descriptive—what’s the relative importance of the conditions driving this phenomenon? Mr. Gottfried’s reply seems to ignore that point and talk about policy goals, on which we probably agree very closely, if not on the best strategy for achieving them.

  52. Why do you say employers probably wouldn’t retaliate for posting on or some similar site, but then point out that there are many instances of employers doing precisely this (canning people for speech outside of work)?

  53. @Beefcake the Mighty

    My last reply is addressed to Aaron Gross.

  54. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    This is another attack on the current university system.

    I must ask… do we really need universities anymore for Liberal education?

    Despite all the gripe about universities, I think many of them do a very good job in hard sciences, medicine, engineering, and etc.

    And despite ideological biases, I think many history departments have first-rate people too.
    It seems English departments have been taken over by PC-lords as Harold Bloom lamented. I noticed the changes in the late 80s.

    If you go on youtube and check out some of the lectures, many are very informative and first-rate. It seems many in the history, literature, classical studies, and etc departments are still doing quality work.

    I wonder about journalism school. Maybe they do a good job, but judging by today’s journalists, I really wonder… Why are so many journalists so propagandistic, biased, and dishonest? Are they just sociopathic? Or do private-owned media only hire the kind of people who are pliable and brainwashed?

    Even today, there are certain things one can learn ONLY in universities. Especially lab work in science and stuff.

    But when it comes to humanities and Liberal arts, maybe we don’t need universities any more in the traditional sense.

    There was a time when the ONLY way someone could have access to learning material was by going to college. The local library was small. There were limited sources of news. There might be a local movie theater that only showed the biggest Hollywood movies and nothing else.
    In the past, if you didn’t live in a big city with a big library or in a college town, you were pretty much without much access to books, culture, and all sorts of material.

    But with the internet, even people in small towns have tremendous access to all sorts of stuff.
    Today, someone who never left his small town but has good internet connection has more access to all kinds of movies than I did in college in the 80s.
    Through legal and illegal downloads or file sharing, he can have access to so much.

    It’s like anyone today has more access to news around the world than a professional in a newsroom at NY Times before the internet.

    So, when it comes to material and information, there is no need to attend college if one simply wants access to all sorts of Liberal arts and humanities material.
    And via youtube, one can watch so many college lectures on anything.

    There was a time when someone, especially if from small town, had to go to college(or a big city) to have access to such stuff. But no more.
    In the past, we can see how students who went to college felt their minds were being opened to stuff they hadn’t access to back home. A real sense of excitement.

    I lived in a suburb of a big city in the 80s, and even I felt I was getting something new and precious by attending college. I would have access to many more books. Many more movies. More music. More everything. I would listen to lectures in college classes. A whole new world would open up to me.
    I wanted to watch European films, Japanese films, and etc. But I couldn’t at home. They didn’t come on TV. Movie theaters(and they were all around) mostly showed Hollywood stuff.
    And even the odd arty video store had a limited collection, and the quality back then was really poor.

    In college, I had greater access to movies relative to what I had back home.
    But today, what I had in college would be laughable to even someone in a small town with an internet connection who has access to literally 100,000s movies of all kinds from all over the world. And ordinary people can even communicate with well-known authors and artists and etc.
    And people with common interests can form communities and share info and knowledge and debate stuff.

    When I came to appreciate Bubblegum Crisis OVA, I wanted to know more, but I had no means of access. But thanks to the internet, I got to know so much more so fast. And even order stuff from Japan.

    So, if people want access to knowledge and arts, they no longer need to go to college.
    There was a time when that was the ONLY way. Now, people are just going through the motions since they could learn just as much on their own at home.

    Of course, if you want to pursue a career in some liberal arts field, you need degrees and accreditation, so you have to attend college. But if you want knowledge-for-knowledge sake and want to appreciate art, you don’t need to go to college.

    Besides, liberal education shouldn’t be confined to four yrs or be about degrees. It should be a lifelong process until the day one dies. Most of it should happen OUTSIDE the school.

    Institutionalization of society has made education into something you learn in school when everyday is filled with learning experience in life, culture, family, reflection, and experience. Raising and teaching your kids morals and watching them grow should be part of education.

    So, maybe what we need to do is revamp the entire concept of education.
    Life as education that never ends. It goes on even after you die through your kids.
    And there is no need to be so institution-centric. There was a time when you had to attend institutions to have access to material.
    Now, you can access so much through the net.
    IT’s all a matter of using it right.
    Cuz we know internet can be used badly for nothing but videogame and porn and gossip.

  55. @Beefcake the Mighty

    You’re right, I didn’t say that clearly.

    There are “a lot” of high profile cases like Brendan Eich’s relative to high profile cases caused by the state (lawsuits).

    But those high profile cases are obviously not a lot relative to the number of people saying politically incorrect things under their own name. Most of them don’t get fired.

    So anonymous cowards are intimidated more by non-state theeats. But that intimidation is exaggerated compared to the real risk.

  56. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    A kind of tit for tat.

    If blacks say riots and racial violence are justified to send a message to whitey, then one can argue that violence against blacks was necessary to keep them in line.

    If black violence is necessary and justified to send a message to ‘white racists’, then white violence was necessary to send a message to black thugs(naturally stronger than whites).

  57. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Tark Marg

    Tark Mag

    I completely agree with everything in your comment above. Without a doubt, our side has a tendency to vastly overrate the intelligence of the enemy. The enemy just takes advantage of Native Born White American Male stupidity and lack of racial civic hyper-vigilence.

    As soon as the larger Native Born White American Working Class starts flexing its muscle, the Asian “Americans” will begin to self-deport.

    The solution to the open and deliberate policy of demographic extermination policy and wage slave labor policy is hyper-Native Born White American Racial Vigilence. Our Social-Cultural life must be built around this. No more Bruce Springsteen Concerts. And if the wife complains about this…belt her!!!!..And then sell Bruce Springsteen’s wife and daughter into sexual slavery in the Muslim Sudan.

    If only General Lee had won at Gettysburg. The thought of Native Born White American Men exterminating each other to liberate Blacks was, and is insane.

    If Blacks find themselves enslaved by Mexicans…well, I won’t lose any sleep over it.

    • Replies: @Tark Marg
  58. nickels says:
    @Aaron Gross

    You seem confused.
    I would suggest you do more reading, less commenting.
    Hayek should clear everything up for you, try Road To Serfdom.

  59. Tark Marg says: • Website
    @War for Blair Mountain

    Dude, just FYI, I’m from India myself (and not residing in the USA) so I’m not likely to partake of some of these sentiments you express.

    Nonetheless, the damage wrought by dogmatic leftism is widespread and global. Indeed leftist memes in India always shadows that in the West.

    I urge you to consider whether a solely racial classification of friend and foe is sensible. Remember John Walker Lindh or the Tsarnaevs were white too.

  60. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Targ Mag

    I harbor no ill will towards to the Hindus,Sihks, and Jains of India. I wish them the best and hope they make India a great Nation. However, The Hindu-Sihk “Americans” in the US are demanding that the Historic Native Born White American Majority commit demographic suicide in the Nation for which they have been a racial majority since the founding of the US. Yet these Hindu-Sihk “Americans” would never tolerate the same exact immigration policy that they demand the Historic Native Born White American to tolerate. There is obviously something very predatory about this. It is not the least bit unreasonable for The Historic Native Born White American Majority to ferociously oppose this.

    Sidenote:interesting connections between Hindu Mythology and Celtic Mythology.

  61. @Jacques Sheete

    An excellent and informative article by Professor Gottfried. It’s a delight to see the erudition of some Unz readers. jacque sheete, in a brief and trenchant compendium of comments on the nature of the state, even cites the “reactionary anarchist” Gustave de Molinari. To my mind, Molinari was the most brilliant thinker in the French (classical) liberal tradition, the greatest of all such traditions. It’s a pity that it is ignored by so many anglophone academics unable or disinclined to read any language but their own. Thus, we get histories of liberalism that begin with Adam Smith and end with…John Maynard Keynes.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    , @5371
  62. @Ralph Raico

    Absolutely, Molinari was rightly admired by Mises and Rothbard. Too few people wonder how, exactly, States are able to command the resources they do (being always parasitical minorities).

  63. 5371 says:
    @Ralph Raico

    Perhaps the founder of that French tradition of radical questioning of the nature of power was Montaigne’s friend La Boétie in his “Contre-Un”.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  64. @5371

    Nice catch, I was confusing de la Boettie with Molinari.

  65. gwynedd1 says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    as is you ability to make no point at all.

  66. gwynedd1 says:

    Oh right, my bad .That is the neoclassical lunacy. Austrians have their own self contradictory lunacy, subjective-value. This is of course a value judgment in itself , but hey that’s the luxury of theories that have nothing to do with reality. Subjective value theory is of course so compatible with commodity money….

    I find Maslow’s hierarchy of needs far more eloquent in the reality of human value judgments ….which is certainly much more consistent with the idea of say commodity “values”.

  67. guest says:
    @Aaron Gross

    Notice Gottfried doesn’t blame the state as such. He pointed out that there was a time when the state intervened in the culture without turning it into a PC madhouse. You’re right, social and cultural influences matter more. But the same people in charge of the culture are in charge of government, or at least tells those in charge what to do. Or, if you prefer to think of it another way, those in charge of culture and those in charge of the state have the same ideas. Is that coincidental? No, certainly not in a (nominally) democratic system, wherein who owns the public mind owns power.

    There may be a chicken and egg problem with state versus social/cultural power. I know when things turned, but not why nor how, exactly. I can’t blame the plutocrats, for instance, even if I want to. But one thing I do know: PC madness couldn’t survive without being backed by state power. They need public education, tax exemptions, subsidies, licensure, regulation, favorable court decisions, etc. In this sense culture is downstream from politics.

  68. @gwynedd1

    “Subjective value theory is of course so compatible with commodity money….”

    You’re just tossing together terms you don’t understand.

  69. Subjective value theory has nothing to do with money, commodity or otherwise. (One of von Mises’ great accomplishments was to integrate the two.) Do you clowns understand why you’re dismissed as not really understanding the subject you’re criticizing?

  70. @Aaron Gross

    We are certainly headed towards some sort of violent upheaval…what percentage do l gain from identifying myself to my midget cultural enemies? The government already knows knows who is typing these comments- and l am self- employed. If my customers don’t like my values-[ and l am outspoken face/face] they are free to take their business elsewhere.

  71. guest says:
    @Aaron Gross

    By the way, Marxists have told us exactly what it is they’re aiming at, and it’s called “cultural hegemony.”

  72. trumped says:

    Actually, subjective value helps demonstrate what you said was your problem with austrians – that people are rational – with plenty of contemporary and historical examples. When a land developer offers several times market price for a piece of real estate and the owner rejects the offer, that is someone not acting “rational” in an economic manner because they place a subjective value on their property that far exceeds monetary value.

    It doesn’t have to involve anything with commodity based currency, though of course there have been examples of it. During the french revolution, people held onto their commodity based currency and even melted it down rather than accept the paper fiat currency the government declared was of equal monetary value. This is the basis for the often misunderstood axiom that bad money drives out good – but if they were of equal value, why did the public overwhelmingly choose the precious metal based coin currency? Because most people placed a subjective value on the metal based currency, and they were certainly vindicated.

    • Replies: @gwynedd1
  73. Old_Steve says:

    What’s the point here? The USA is dead; secede or die!

  74. gwynedd1 says:

    “Actually, subjective value helps demonstrate what you said was your problem with austrians – that people are rational – with plenty of contemporary and historical examples. When a land developer offers several times market price for a piece of real estate and the owner rejects the offer, that is someone not acting “rational” in an economic manner because they place a subjective value on their property that far exceeds monetary value. ”

    See again, this isn’t economics. This is an ontological argument, not even one I get very excited about. Most of these arguments depend on abstractions. Certainly all things are subjective until one knows the subject. The object becomes much more obvious knowing the subject. If I have a male dog as a subject, a female is a likely object. All hungry dogs imply food is an object.

    So its all a very longhaired approach to explain the problem with central planning. People making decisions for others is either inefficient or a form of slavery. Nothing really new here.

    “It doesn’t have to involve anything with commodity based currency, though of course there have been examples of it. During the french revolution, people held onto their commodity based currency and even melted it down rather than accept the paper fiat currency the government declared was of equal monetary value. This is the basis for the often misunderstood axiom that bad money drives out good – but if they were of equal value, why did the public overwhelmingly choose the precious metal based coin currency? Because most people placed a subjective value on the metal based currency, and they were certainly vindicated.”

    Well again I view this as knowing my subject. Paper money is as valuable as any given the right context. Paper money is based on the power of the sovereign. Metals were convertible to any sovereign money , or even commodity. So they tend to be popular with political instability. However I fail to see what is accomplished in parsing out the dynamic. In every practical context we are going to try and understand a subject and this subject will have an object in mind. Anything else saws the child in half. The subject must also be assumed it will also have imperfect knowledge, or may be coerced or manipulated( blowing the damn does not mean people wanted boats). I don’t particularly like George Clooney, but it is a rational concept to expect the ladies would.

    Don’t so called economists have better things to do? One thing I have asked them when it comes to going off fiat currency is : what do you do when your enemies do so? Its really the same question that one would have about what to do when your enemies use slave labor? Central banks militarize with ease….

  75. KenH says:

    The creators and purveyors of cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt school doctrines are almost entirely Jews, yet reading professor Gottfried’s speech he would have you believe that this phenomenon just appeared out of thin air and in a vacuum and here we are today. Frankfurt school doctrines are just a form of unconventional and indirect warfare designed to make white non-Jews more malleable and less of a threat to Jews in the diaspora and to give Jews immense political power and influence by controlling the dominant culture.

    These rats were unceremoniously ejected from Nazi Germany and were unfortunately granted safe haven in “the land of the free” which will soon be no more thanks to their legacy.

    You don’t see critical theory being applied by Jews in Israel.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  76. geokat62 says:

    The creators and purveyors of cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt school doctrines are almost entirely Jews, yet reading professor Gottfried’s speech he would have you believe that this phenomenon just appeared out of thin air and in a vacuum and here we are today.

    Here’s a commented I posted previously:

    The question that has to be asked is: who is responsible for promoting Political Correctness (PC)?

    The brain-trust behind the promotion of PC is the Frankfurt School. The FS identified nationalism as the root cause of the holocaust. To ensure that another holocaust never occurred again, the FS prescribed cultural Marxism (better known as Political Correctness) as the antidote to nationalism.

    Theodor W. Adorno, a leading member of the Frankfurt School of critical theory, wrote The Authoritarian Personality in 1950. In it, Adorno invented a set of criteria by which to define personality traits, ranking them on what he called the ‘Fascist scale’.

    Here’s how one observer characterized the book’s goal:

    [it] was to eliminate antisemitism by “subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective psychotherapy — by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum.”

    But hell bent on eradicating PC is a zionist front group called The Clarion Fund. It is keen on destroying PC, especially in Europe, as the birthrate of Muslims is outstripping that of Christians. The concern is that the jungle will be expanding rather than contracting, thereby making it less safe for the villa.

    The Clarion Fund has produced a trilogy of films – Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West, The Third Jihad, and Iranium – in an effort to get the goy to get their act together and re-embrace nationalism.

    With all this toing and froing between nationlism and political correctness, one gets the sense that the goy are perceived to be puppets whose strings are constantly being pulled by the puppet masters.

  77. Vasilis says:

    There seems to be something in the American psyche that transforms rational political disagreements into crusades. This is not a new phenomenon, it has been going on before cultural Marxism first appeared in Europe. Where else in the western world did the rational discussion on the problem of alcoholism evolve into a total prohibition? Where else did the rational discussion on abortion evolve into the major political issue for over 4 decades? Where else can rational discourse over automobile gas mileage lead to the question “what car would Jesus drive”? Political correctness in excess seems to be a product of this mentality. PC may have been born in Europe, but it took hold and ran wild only in the US.

    As for government bureaucracy, it will always grow until it occupies all the room offered to it, there is nothing new or American about that. The real issue is, why is it offered so much room in this field at this time?

    As for the future, history and previous experience dictate that there will be a backlash, which will probably lead to an excess in the other direction. Perhaps the popularity of Donald Trump is an indication of such a backlash, since he is winning support just by not being politically correct.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
  78. Rolando says:

    The author says, “PC now substitutes for ethics because of our ignorance and moral blindness.”

    I would replace “moral blindness” “moral emptiness.”

  79. @Tark Marg

    No gay marriage will occur in Iraq or Afghanistan…

    Afghanistan doesn’t need “gay marriage”. It’s already the pederasty capital of the world.

    At least the boys of the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Morocco get paid. Not the poor young Afghan.

Current Commenter

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 Paul Gottfried Comments via RSS