The options:
1. Open borders; or
2. Open borders and an expensive, intrusive, brutal police state that doesn’t and can’t actually “secure” them
Pick one.*
*Since this is a real world quiz, the utopian fantasy option of “secure” borders is omitted.
26 Comments
Comments are closed.
Generally agreed. However, in this case, see earlier in this thread:
Here, the cultural marxists have provided a revisionist definition of cultural marxism while self-defining themselves as cultural marxists (and prime candidates for physical removal).
Exactly.
I myself don’t use that term b/c it is only used as an urban dictionary accusation. No one self-identifies by that label. However, what it is supposed to ostensibly identify is adherence to the 20th century German critical social science methodology….or, in short, the so-called Frankfurt School.
However, unlike liberalism, socialism, Marxism or libertarianism, critical theory is not its own stand-alone sweeping theory. It’s more like an epistemological add-on to an existing framework. And it can be attached to any existing framework, be it liberalism, socialism, marxism or even apparently, libertarianism. It borrows heavily from the German romantic tradition that started w/ Kant. Just as Kant “preserved” the natural philosophy framework of the 17th century empiricist philosophers from Hume’s devastating skepticism by re-routing the thing through the human mind as mental constructs only, the social critical German school tries to do roughly the same w/ 19th century social philosophy frameworks(like liberalism, socialism, marxism etc) to explain the anomalies of a post WW-II world. Though, substitute out “human mind” w/ “human institutions”. So, in short, re-route your pet social theory through a critical examination of human institutions(be it language, cultural, etc) to preserve your pet social theory. That’s the loose meaning of “critical theory.”
Hans Herman Hoppe is the “pioneer” of applying “critical theory” to Misean praxeology” and Austrian theory. Hoppe is a protege of Jurgen Habermas, the German philosopher most associated with the Frankfurt School. As this piece on Lew Rockwell documents:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/07/geurt-marco-de-wit/egalitarian-libertarians-dont-like-hoppe/
Meaning: Misean praxeology and Austrian theory only holds when re-routing it through human institutions of a shared social commitment.
And, if he we go by Tom DiLorenzo or Tom Woods or Lew Rockwell accusation of “Cultural Marxist,” which means adherence to the Frankfurt school methodology, then Hoppe is a Cultural Marxist. And they too are Cultural marxists. This follows the original Manchurian Candidate pattern that those who scream commie accusations the loudest are the actual commies.
NOTE: if you too chirp that libertarianism, property rights, free markets only work if everyone shares the same cultural values, the same civilization, you too are a “cultural marxist.” You have re-routed all those concepts through a “critical theory” lens to preserve the legitimacy of the original social theory.
The same guy that was selling “Casey’s Gulch” in Cafayate, Argentina to foreign nationals as a type of relocation investment. LOL. Last time I checked Argentina has a welfare state. Obviously, Doug sells one thing to people w/ money and another thing entirely different to dipshits.
Dunno. How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novaya_Zemlya ?
“I would prefer physically removing …theocrats.”
-Andy Jacobs
So if we did physically remove theocrats such as Gary North, where would we send them? Or should we just set theocrats such as Gary North and Marxists like Hoppe adrift at sea in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean on a dinghy and let them figure it out on their own?
If not physical removal, then libertarians should form their own private communities (do a search for my Libertarian Zone concept, posted here at Independent Political Report).
Well, since Hoppeans are cultural Marxists by their own definition….
I would prefer physically removing socialists, communists, and theocrats.
By this definition, immigration restrictionists are cultural marxists, since they want to treat individual migrants not as individuals but as members of racial, ethnic, national or religious groups.
Notice how Doug Casey said you can have open borders, IF you abolish welfare and privatize land. This is a position taken by anarcho-capitalist libertarians who actually have any sense and aren’t looking to cause mass destruction of civilization.
Doug Casey on Cultural Marxism (continued)
Nick Giambruno: What’s the welfare state’s role in all this?
Doug Casey: The State now pays for food, housing, schooling, and even cell phones for the “disadvantaged.” The next step will likely be some type of guaranteed income. All these things only serve to relieve the “disadvantaged” of personal responsibility for their own lives, which acts to cement them to the bottom of society—while slowly bankrupting the country as a whole.
The welfare state must be abolished, pulled out by its roots, and debunked intellectually and psychologically. If you want to help a deserving individual on your own, great. But to make it part of the State is idiotic—except, of course, for politicians that need votes.
Nick Giambruno: I recently read an article by arch-neocon Charles Krauthammer. He claimed that the failure of the US to more forcefully interfere in Syria is an indication of the West’s decline. What’s your take?
Doug Casey: I despise Krauthammer, and his ilk. But, that said, I believe he dislikes me much more than I do him. He’s one of those creatures who thrive within the swamp circled by the Washington Beltway. His prescriptions are almost universally wrong-headed. Which is to be expected from a neocon, a fan of both the warfare state and the welfare state.
I’ve debated Charles on three separate occasions. He has a high IQ, but his ideas are quite stupid—if we define stupidity as an unwitting tendency to self-destruction. I recently discovered that he is also a leading bioethicist—which I didn’t know when I did an essay on that pernicious group of busybodies.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Click the link for above for the rest of the article.
Doug Casey on the Plague of Cultural Marxists
https://lewrockwell.com/2017/05/nick-giambruno/civilizational-plague/
From the article: Nick Giambruno: What exactly are Cultural Marxists, and how are they, and political correctness, contributing to the decline of Western Civilization?
Doug Casey: Economic Marxism was intellectually debunked decades ago. With the collapse of the USSR, and radical changes in China, the man in the street became aware that the “intellectuals” were fools. And that is reinforced by the ongoing disasters in Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela. So, since they recognize that there’s nothing to steal if they implement Marxian economic policies, most “intellectuals” no longer talk about them.
Cultural Marxism, however, is just as destructive. It divides people not into economic classes, but cultural classes. You’re no longer an individual—you’re part of a gender, or a race, or some other group. Undoubtedly one being discriminated against by white males who—not just coincidentally—are largely responsible for Western Civilization.
I despise the wave of “politically correct” thought that’s washed over the world like a tidal wave of raw sewage. I remember when I first heard the term used. I believe it was on Saturday Night Live in the early 80’s. At the time I thought it was a joke…
A word Cultural Marxists use a lot lately is diversity. “We’ve got to have diversity.” No, we don’t have to have diversity. There’s zero logical or moral reason why every room should have a quota of blacks, Hispanics, LGBT’s, women, or whatever. It’s extremely stupid to have people qualify for something based upon accidental characteristics. It encourages them to view themselves not as individuals, but members of a group. So it actually foments class warfare.
I occasionally like to go to a men’s club. It’s odd that men are never invited to ladies’ functions—and I don’t care. Everyone should associate with whomever they like. People who use the State to impose their opinions on others, or approve of it, are essentially criminal personalities. I avoid them at all costs.
In fact, birds of a feather usually flock together. This is perfectly natural. You don’t need diversity; it’s not a necessarily positive value, it’s a neutral preference. If you want it in your club, fine. But freedom of association is far, far more important.
I form my friendships based upon neither diversity nor a lack of diversity, although there’s a natural, genetically based tendency to associate with people like yourself. I form my friendships based upon the character and the beliefs that a person has. The attributes that create diversity are stupid accidentals. The fact that diversity is emphasized draws attention to incidentals like race, sex, and gender, and diverts it from important things like character and beliefs. Diversity has become destructive. Cultural Marxists love “diversity” because, in fact, they actually hate people. And themselves. They want to cause conflicts that work to destroy Western Civilization—which they also hate.
Nick Giambruno: How does the migrant crisis in Europe relate to all of this?
Doug Casey: First, let me say that I’m all for immigration and completely open borders to enable opportunity seekers from anyplace to move anyplace else. With two big, critically important, caveats: 1) there can be no welfare or free government services, so everyone has to pay his own way, and no freeloaders are attracted 2) all property is privately owned, to minimize the possibility of squatter camps full of beggars.
In the absence of welfare benefits, immigrants are usually the best of people because you get mobile, aggressive, and opportunity-seeking people that want to leave a dead old culture for a vibrant new one. The millions of immigrants who came to the US in the late 19th and early 20th centuries had zero in the way of state support.
But what is going on in Europe today is entirely different. The migrants coming to Europe aren’t being attracted by opportunity in the new land so much as the welfare benefits and the soft life. When they arrive, they expect free food, shelter, clothing, and entertainment—totally unlike past immigrants. For the most part they are unskilled and poorly educated. And 99% of them will stay that way, because it takes generations to change cultural attitudes. Few of them will ever become self-supporting.
What we’re talking about here is the migration of millions of people of different language, different race, different religion, different culture, different mode of living. If you’re an alien and you’re 1 out of 10,000, or 1,000, or 100, you’re a curiosity, an interesting outsider. But an influx of millions of migrants is only going to destroy the old culture, and guarantee antagonism—especially when the locals have to pay for it. In many ways, what’s happening now isn’t just comparable to what happened 2,000 years ago with the migration of barbarians into the Roman Empire. It’s potentially much more serious.
“Steve Scheetz
May 11, 2017 at 16:50
The funny part about those opposed to open borders is that fact that most of us who are for open borders are ALSO in favor of protecting the private property of individuals. ”
I’m not opposed to government relinquishing control of borders, IF the welfare state were abolished, land was privatized, forced association laws were repealed, and it was no longer possible to vote the rights of people away via democratic elections.
I am opposed to “libertarians” (if these people are really libertarians at all, and not just left wing Marxists posing as libertarians), who are so politically inept to believe that under our current market and legal conditions, a government declaration saying, “Attention people of Earth, the government of the United States of America is now opening its borders. So everyone who wants to show up, come on in!” is a good idea, and will somehow result in increasing freedom. Anyone who believes this is a sound strategy, WITHOUT MAKING THE CHANGES I MENTIONED ABOVE, is either incredibly inept and naive, or they are not really libertarians and are instead trying to lead us into a societal collapse and the destruction of what is left of freedom.
The funny part about those opposed to open borders is that fact that most of us who are for open borders are ALSO in favor of protecting the private property of individuals. It should ALSO be stated that most of us who are in favor of open borders are also in favor of dismantling the welfare state, i.e. no carrot no motivation.
Those people who wish to have free stuff will go to where the free stuff is, no matter what is in the way. HOWEVER, without that incentive, the only people who would be coming over the border are the people willing to actually work and contribute to our economy, and I would like to think that we would like to have that sort here to do whatever it is that they do best.
Our government has created many initiatives which have been demonstrated to be absolute abject failures. The Drug War, for example. Every education initiative, for example has been a failure. (well at least in so much as the sales pitch saying that it was meant to help children learn) The DMV, the EPA (particularly to those people who live in THAT river…..) I could go on, but everyone gets the point.
The US government has attempted to fix the immigration problem for… I lost count, how many DECADES? I listening to Reagan talking about amnesty for 3 million illegal immigrants, in return for increased border security and penalties… blah blah blah….
So, like every other program the US government has undertaken, it was an EPIC FAIL. so where do we go from here? continue to do the same thing over an over hoping for a better result?
I think it is time to try something different…. for a change….
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Andy prefers to blame victims (indigenous and foreign) of statism for the crimes of statism. First he should see how statism – and especially European and American imperialism – have lead to many of the problems he deplores.
And he obviously thinks in terms of mass political entities where all association is forced instead of private and voluntary associations on private property.
And of course he ignores that all through human history groups of people have moved from place to place from desire or need. (Let’s just hope we don’t have another ice age that sends millions of Americans, Europeans and Asians hustling down to the equator to be the “unwelcome refugees”!)
It’s burying you head in sands to not make those connections.
that’s b/c it is probably the same person…
No congrats are in order. I’m pretty sure he considers himself a leftist.
Jill, that post was very consistent with Andy’s usual opinion on the subject.
Tom is framing this in a bullshit, self serving, leftist manner, as in let every parasite on the planet walk into the same land territory we are occupying, or have a police state, as if this is all there is to the discussion. Never mind the welfare state, mass democracy, forced association laws, or crime rates. Never mind the people who are already occupying this land mass, who paid for all of the infrastructure through their taxe, and who are not in favor of mass forced integration of foreigners. Screw the people who are already here, and let’s ignore the destruction that is happening across Europe right now due to mass migration of hostile cultures into the European welfare states. Let’s all just bury our heads in the sand and pretend that none of the problems I brought up exist
I really hope this comment is from our Nazi troll, and not Andy Jacobs. It’s pathetic that I can’t tell the difference.
Hey TK, congrats on being called a “Leftist!”
Ahh Andy . . spoken in his xenophobic best.
Tom is framing this in a bullshit, self serving, leftist manner, as in let every parasite on the planet walk into the same land territory we are occupying, or have a police state, as if this is all there is to the discussion. Never mind the welfare state, mass democracy, forced association laws, or crime rates. Never mind the people who are already occupying this land mass, who paid for all of the infrastructure through their taxe, and who are not in favor of mass forced integration of foreigners. Screw the people who are already here, and let’s ignore the destruction that is happening across Europe right now due to mass migration of hostile cultures into the European welfare states. Let’s all just bury our heads in the sand and pretend that none of the problems I brought up exist.
Third *libertarian* alternative.
Self-determining Independent communities, cities, counties who make their own rules as to who can or cannot visit or live there. Preferably libertarian minarchist or anarchist, but private ones can always make their own rules on a number of issues either through contract or democratic means (preferable direct super-majority voting).
(These will network or confederate regionally as necessary to work on common issues such as environment, legal issues, defense, etc. with the right to secede always recognized and similarly supermajoritarian voting with lots of minority rights. Plus a “Bill of Rights” that prevents legal injustices among communities or to vistors or members of communities.)
Or 3) Open borders, and lots of people with anti-liberty ideologies pour into the country and get on welfare in large numbers, and after fraudulently gaining American citizenship, engage in block voting in favor of expanding the welfare state and restricting gun rights in super-majority percentages. .
There, fixed that for ya.
#1