The Foolishness of Identity Politics

Davis Aurini at Stares At the World explains the foolishness of identity politics better than I could in so few words:

You need to understand what Identity Politics is: it is the cheap, plastic, high-fructose corn syrup replacement for identity.  It takes things like culture, identity, ethnicity, and nationality – bleaches them until they’re threadbare – and then dyes the cloth in dayglow colours, turning the adherents into mindless zombies.

The anti-White animus engendered in the Black community does nothing to create genuine culture; in fact, it could only be properly instilled after the Black family had been destroyed by socialist policies.  The same animus is being promoted by many in the Dissident Right, only this time for White – atomized White with no more heart, hearth, and home than the Blacks living in the inner city ghettos.

Identity politics is the mind killer.  It stops thought, and prejudges all individuals with a bad heuristic.  If you’ve ever noticed how White Nationalists tend to spend more time attacking other White people – usually the Whites closest to them, rather than the traitors in Washington – this is why.  Their simplified heuristic demands “If you’re not for us, you’re against us!” You must 100% agree with everything they say, else you’re a race traitor, and those who stand out most prominently as ‘villains’ in this heuristic are those who are most loyal to their co-ethnics.

Identity Politics is a toxic ideology used to destroy the people it infects, while simultaneously turning them into a useful army of zombies.  It has no place in our circles.

This among many other reasons is why despite legitimate points raised by Vox Day’s definition of the Alt. Right, the actual movement fell apart.

Identity politics puts the cart before the horse when it comes to association with cargo cult way reasoning as to why. I tend to associate and befriend those of a specific age, ethnic group, and religion because their values are similar if not the same as mine. However, I don’t associate with people according to these qualities, necessarily, and I’m more than happy to call someone a friend of a separate background if we have common values that make our relationship mutually beneficial.

One of the things I’ve always detested about identity politics is it more or less says you can only befriend certain people and can’t associate with anyone outside of that group.

I will never let anyone or any entity tell me who I can and can’t call “friend.” It is easy to get caught up in the identity politics game provided to us by our wise overlords, and I certainly have not been immune to it.

But we have to break free from that way of thinking and turn to a modern form of tribalism in which you choose who will be a part of your “tribe,” to so speak. It may consist of people from different ethnic backgrounds, but the members are chosen based on who they are, not “what” they are. Meaningful community needs to be personal, real, authentic, and not tied to superficial commonalities that says nothing about the character and integrity of the person in question.

Never let others try to force a collective identity on you against your will. Decide for yourself who you want to identity with based on whatever traits and qualities you think is important. Find people you can trust, are reliable, and who will have your back, not those who just happens to agree with you on some political views.

Not everyone is going to choose the same criteria, and that’s fine. It’s all about what you want to accomplish.

I would add further that it needs to be organic and not explicitly political. Obviously you’re likely to see eye to eye with your friends on much of the same topics, but it shouldn’t be a specific dogma,and the purpose of the tribe should be interdependent of politics.

As long as everyone in the tribe agrees that only those within it should decide what the tribe should be about, not those outside of it, you should be fine.


Posted in Culture, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Tradthots And Open Borders

Regular readers of this notebook blog are aware that I have no love for the tradhots. But Lauren Southern’s detainment and denial of entry into the U.K. offers us a chance to see how ideologically consistent open borders advocates are.

Since news of her detainment has spread, what has their response been? Has it been sadistic glee or amused irony. Or have they come out in defense of her “freedom of travel”?

Remember, these are the same people who believe that one million “refugees” from the Middle East had the right to enter Europe, even if that meant they had their needs and living space provided via the welfare state.

I’ll make two points.

One, being of ideological consistency, I’ll state here and now that Lauren Southern has no “right” to enter Great Britain. Any opposition of mine to the U.K. government’s decision is based on prudence and the idiocy of their reasoning, not her “freedom of travel.” This same government lets in self-professed ISIS fighters and overlooks mass child rape, but somehow a 22-year-old Canadian thot presents a clear and present danger to national security.  Clearly, their border policy does not reflect the sensibilities we see in the private sector concerning private property open to the public. But since Great Britain is not common property, neither I nor Southern have freedom of movement to travel there (I’m putting aside the invitation-scenario for argument sake).

Second, the only acceptable comment from an open border advocate is that the U.K. government had no right to deny Southern entry into the country, regardless of her political views or activism.

After all, that is what they claim to believe.

And yes, “secure border” advocates who argue that Lauren Southern’s rights were violated (aside from perhaps her Orwellian-style detainment) are not being consistent.

Whatever one thinks of the ACLU, their claim to support free speech is proven genuine when they defend individuals from all political backgrounds, even those whose speech they wholly detest. They are ideologically consistent.

Open border advocates who sit back and chuckle at her situation would be like anti-war activists finding “poetic justice” in the atomic bombings of Japan.

I’ll be on the lookout, but if anyone reading this happens to find examples of open border proponents defending Southern and other laydees kicked out of the U.K., post them in the comment so they can be recognized.

Posted in borders, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Libertarians Should Not Enable Progressive Agenda

Libertarians should resist the urge to say anything positive about Walmart’s discrimination against people younger than 21 regarding firearm purchases.

Yes, they have the right to discriminate all they want; but so do Christian bakers.

Let’s put aside philosophy for a second and look at strategy and the absence of reciprocity. Libertarianism says that you respect my rights and I respect yours. If you don’t respect my rights, I don’t have the duty to respect yours.

Progressives want to have it both ways; they want bakers to bake the damn cake, but Walmart can tell 20 year olds to take a hike when they want to purchase a product. By advocating that Walmart should be allowed to do this, libertarians are playing into leftist hands and letting them – pardon the expression – have their cake and eat it, too.

Don’t be a fool; Progressives aren’t interested in the rights of private businesses to discriminate. It’s all bullshit. They’re interested in whatever fulfills their Vision for society. They want to restrict firearm ownership as much as possible. Businesses refusing to sell to those under 21 is all part of a strategy to raise the legal age to own a firearm. The end goal is total firearm restrictions to where the right to keep and bear arms has no practical application.

One of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is to make your enemy live up to their own beliefs. It’s a form of power, something libertarians better get comfortable with.

Don’t say Walmart should be able to discriminate against 20 year olds. Instead, ask if businesses can discriminate? Isn’t discrimination wrong? Better yet, say “tough, let them bake cake.” Place the moral burden for justification on those who advocate this policy. Don’t virtue-signal how ideologically consistent libertarianism is to people who don’t care and will gladly violate your rights if it benefits them. Don’t affirm or condone their behavior, no matter how “libertarian” it seems – their intent is anything but individual liberty and freedom.

People are already suing Walmart over their policy. The lawsuit should certainly move forward and force the issue; do businesses (not acting as agents of the Deep State, that is) have the right to discriminate? Either they do, or they don’t. This buffet of rights needs to end. You don’t get to pick and choose who has the right to do what, and I’m not interested in providing moral support to those who are pushing that kind of agenda.

Libertarians who advocate for this better be prepared for the day they run afoul of Progressives and get deplatformed from every private sector edge provider, as we’ve seen with members of the Alt. Right.

Posted in Culture, economics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Muh “Private Companies!”

This Wikileaks piece on the relationship between Google and the U.S. government should make all those who support or condone – or even look the other way – at Google’s mass censorship of right-wing dissidents on the basis of “muh private companies” feel completely disgraced. Though let’s not pretend they were wholly ignorant about what was going on.

Google is not a private company engaging in legitimate business. It is a pseudo-branch of the Deep State.  And like all government, official or not, it should be controlled by the people it exerts coercive authority over. Its uncontested ability to utterly destroy business and individuals, in conjunction with its collusion with the feds, justifies restrictions and rules.

On top of that, many social media companies also enjoy federal legal immunity for any content posted on their site, a “privilege” not granted to other traditional news sources who are held legally responsible for what others may publish there.

At a Senate hearing last month, Sen. Ted Cruz called out YouTube’s alleged ideological bias, highlighting Prager University’s lawsuit against the company over censorship of conservatives. Cruz told a YouTube representative that if the platform did not remain politically neutral, they could lose legal immunity for user content under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Without this protection, social media companies would be legally liable for all content posted on their platforms – an existential threat to their business model.

When these companies remove themselves from the Deep State or from federal protection and fully embrace the “free market,” then we can talk about “muh private companies” and their right to politically censor those using their services.

Until then, anyone who claims to support freedom and individual liberty but rationalizes or offers mealymouthed excuses for government-colluding corporations silencing dissident on that government’s behalf only expose themselves for the charlatans and worm-tongues they are.

Posted in capitalism, Central Government, Culture, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The “Will” Of The People

The Daily Mail writes about the blessings of the democratic process and the achievements possible when people just follow the constitution – amended, of course:

White South African farmers will be removed from their land after a landslide vote in parliament. The country’s constitution is now likely to be amended to allow for the confiscation of white-owned land without compensation, following a motion brought by radical Marxist opposition leader Julius Malema.

It passed by 241 votes for to 83 against after a vote on Tuesday, and the policy was a key factor in new president Cyril Ramaphosa’s platform after he took over from Jacob Zuma in February.

Mr Malema said the time for ‘reconciliation is over’. ‘Now is the time for justice,’ News24 reported. ‘We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land.’

Mr Malema has a long-standing commitment to land confiscation without compensation. In 2016 he told his supporters he was ‘not calling for the slaughter of white people – at least for now‘.

This is precisely why the concept of open borders is as destructive as communism; no, immigration and open borders didn’t cause this outcome in South Africa. But people who live in a country have a right to decide who is let in, and allowed to vote, for precisely this reason. Today’s immigrants are tomorrows residents and the next day’s citizens. As long as there is democracy and majority-vote rule, anyone who enters your political jurisdiction is a potential invader no different than the German soldier participating in Operation Barbarossa. We haven’t even begun to touch the issue of the franchise for people who are natives.

Democracy + open borders = legalized conquest.

Vox Day offered this scenario a while ago, but under open borders a nation can completely destroy another without ever invading it; all it need do is send immigrants over there to overwhelm the native population and through the democratic process vote away their customs, traditions, culture, and laws until it resembles that of their native land.

No doubt the open border, “color-blind” lolbertarians will completely ignore the plight of the Boers in South Africa and evade, evade, evade the issue of what to do when a similar situation occurs here in the USA – it is exactly why when the moment of truth comes, they should be afforded zero aid, comfort, or assistance by those who right now have the moral courage to call out what is happening for what it is. Let them sleep in the bed they made.

In a time of crisis, a good litmus test for anyone you want in your “tribe” are those who acknowledged the problem before it actually happened, not after. Their stance on immigration and borders is by no means the sole criteria, but its a damn good start.

Posted in borders, communism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 13 Comments

Egalitarianism Destroys Humanity

Bionic Mosquito has a new post recounting Murray Rothbard’s intellectual assault on the notion of egalitarianism, which he rightly called a “revolt against nature.”

BM ends on a note that, like so many other lines, tell us everything we need to know about the belief system and its adherents.

Such egalitarian ideas can only be made manifest only via the most totalitarian of methods and can only result in the destruction of humanity.

I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: Egalitarianism is ultimately totalitarian because the only way to make people all the same is to force them to be. The natural state of mankind is that of utterly inequality. Every man is unequal to who he was the day before and the next day after that.

I appreciate to some degree concerns over acknowledging this. If some people are superior to others, then it lends possible moral credence to oppressing them or possibly eradicating them.

However, we see that exact same behavior among egalitarians against anyone who exposes their viewpoint for the falsehood that it is. Anyone who is better in any meaningful way is castigated and persecuted, while loserdom is celebrated.

Yes, inequality is often caused by violence or external factors that limit people’s abilities or achievements. But the push for equality is an inherently violent one, just as trying to make all kids in a foot race just as fast requires threats or actual coercion against the fastest child. It denies the moral agency of the individual and thus, their humanity.

This is why communist systems as implemented always fall on their ass. When everyone is treated the same and gets the same thing regardless of effort and productivity, then why strive to be better than others? Why work harder than the laziest person? Why do anything at all? They can’t expect you to work harder or, God forbid, as productively as others who are performing better.

This is why I maintain a very careful balance with work, because the fruits of that extra labor can be taken away in one form or another from my by the state and given to others. There are plenty of opportunities to direct our energies and passions elsewhere than our day jobs and in areas where we are taxed the more we improve.

People often mistake “hard work” to only apply in your official “career.” I disagree. We should put our time into projects where we reap the rewards that can’t be transfer to someone else under the guise of “social justice.”

I want to be superior to others in ways that I cannot be forced (yet) to be made their equal for the sake of a warped ideology.

Posted in communism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Karl Marx On Free Trade

In a speech in 1848 titled “On the question of free trade,” Karl Marx concluded with this remark (bold emphasis added).

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolutionIt is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

This same observation is often brought up men such as Vox Day regarding free trade versus protectionism.

 I do not deny that free trade benefits certain parties, the point is that it also harms other parties whose costs are never factored into the equation. The point that I was making  when I referred to the maximum efficiencies provided is that the argument for economic efficiency to which free traders so often appeal – free trade is good for the economy – necessarily and intrinsically includes the free movement of labor and capital. If one is going to appeal to the good of the economy as a whole without considering the costs to various elements of the economy, then it is every bit as reasonable to argue for the free movement of labor combined with restricting the movement of goods as it is to argue the reverse.

Like Marx, Vox argues that free trade undermines nations. The difference is that one of them thinks this is good, the other does not.

So my question is this: Why did a communist like Marx think free trade was a good thing, and were his reasons based on an accurate assessment of the net effect of free trade on a nation?

Before anyone asks, no, this is not me opposing “free trade,” though I would want to qualify what that means exactly.

I think in this discussion it is good to start with that: What do you mean by free trade?

The problem is, libertarians often dwell in the hypothetical. Free trade in which two parties exchanges goods and services without any state involved is both laudable and perfectly libertarian, but wholly removed from reality. Governments exist and regulate these matters. So what is the ideal situation, and are there any countries out there with a trade policy that best reflects free trade as envisioned?

And concerning issues such as NAFTA and the EU, “free trade agreements” are like born-again virgins: self-contradictory terms.

I don’t unilaterally and unconditionally support government policies just because it benefits one group. Like Vox Day, I’m interested in the full picture. It’s also why I don’t unconditionally support tax cuts and deregulation that give one group a financial advantage over their competitors purely due to tax code preferences.

What this also is, is me not being a hypocrite. I’ve taken open border libertarians to task for completely ignoring the fact that their immigration stance is aligned or fits within the agenda of globalists.

Now, it is my turn to adhere to my own standards. The fact that Marx supported free trade deserves investigation, at the very least.

One Marxist site discussing the speech offers this explanation for his position (obviously their words, not mine):

Marx said he voted for free trade as opposed to protectionism because in most cases this would be the quickest path to capitalist development and thereby the revolutionary class struggle to overthrow capitalism. But Marx also pointed to examples of where the bourgeoisie cleared away barriers to its development by utilizing protectionism. So Marxism hardly obligates one to declare for any free trade measure nor any protectionist measure. In fact, the whole issue of whether capitalist development would go faster under this or that policy is always a big issue for the bourgeoisie, but not the proletariat.What the proletariat must always do is maintain its independence from both the free-trade and protectionist wings of capitalism.

In other words, Marx didn’t favor free trade for ideological reasons. As he put it, “in this revolutionary sense alone” did he support it. His stance was more practical or pragmatic in nature. He had an end goal, and free trade achieved that faster than protectionism. The fact that he held a similar policy as genuine free traders was a coincidence, at least in the minds of Marxists.

However, this doesn’t evade the question I have, and I’m sure you do, too: Does free trade actually produce the kind of outcome Marx describes in the closing part of his speech?

I fully admit I don’t have solid rebuttal to offer, but that has more to do with my limited knowledge of economics.

However, it is sad to see the irony that libertarians and marxists hold the same view on trade appears to be lost on many, including one writer at the Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEE).

It is a shame, that even when virtually all intellectuals, from F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman to Karl Marx and Keynes, have agreed that free trade is the best, there are those who would still defend protectionism.

Surely that should raise questions, since they agreed for entirely different reasons. Marx saw destructive tendencies in free trade, whereas libertarians see prosperity. Marx saw a path toward abolishing capitalism, while libertarians consider it a path to economic freedom.

Like with borders and immigration, pro-open border libertarians and globalists support it for entirely different reasons and envision totally separate outcomes.

Only one side can be right for the right reasons.


Posted in borders, free market, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment