Tag Archive | Nazism

The Free Market is not Omnibenevolent

I know it’s considered heresy among libertarians and anarchists, but I feel it’s important to remind people that “The Free Market” isn’t always an acceptable answer. Says the anarcho-capitalist, right–what many would rightly call a “free market anarchist,” in fact, given  the history of the word “capitalism” and whether the market as advocated by anarcho-capitalists actually is “capitalism,” but it’s not important. I’ve written loads praising the free market, and now that we are seeing widespread cheering for the firing of white nationalists, I’m going to write something condemning the free market as the solution.

But let me explain, before you get all worked up and say that I’m abandoning the market now that it’s targeting Nazis, because, in fact, I’m not, and I’ve written this exact thing before targeting traditional values“” and other Nazi-style aphorisms. So, you see, rather than contradicting myself, I’m actually staying true to what I’ve said before, and am now applying the same logic and principles now that the shoe is on the other foot. In this article praising the virtues of personal relationships as the destroyers of bigotry (by all accounts, a positive thing), I said:

There are only three ways that liberty can work: homogeneity, diversity, and individualism.

I also said this on Facebook, drawing attention to the inherent absurdity of attempting to use homogeneity to achieve liberty–we would recognize this as a direct attack on paleo-libertarianism, a weird and twisted school of libertarian philosophy that, in essence, argues that liberty is only for white people:

Homogeneity is obviously broken as an idea–it’s simply impossible. There will always be differences between people, and those differences will always be highlighted. Hitler wanted to basically produce an all-white society, and what happened? The differences among white people were immediately targeted as points of divide: those with blond hair and blue eyes were considered superior to someone who had brown hair and brown eyes. By definition, a society can never be truly homogeneous. Even if Hitler had succeeded in eliminating everyone but white people with blond hair and blue eyes, the divisiveness wouldn’t have ended; instead, it would have become “tall people are superior to short people” or something else. I’d venture the statement that the more homogeneous a society is, the more petty are its points of division.

The idea that any group of people can be truly homogeneous is laughable. If that divisive mentality is there, then it is there regardless of the characteristics of the people in the group. With the divisive mentality in place, paleo-libertarians, the alt-right, and Neo-Nazis think that all non-white people are the problem. Let’s presume for a moment that they somehow manage to get rid of all the non-white, non-straight, non-cisgender people. Do they suddenly stop hating people? No. They merely redirect their hatred to some other minority. Redheads become the target of their hatred, or people who are under 5 feet, 6 inches tall, because the core of their hatred–that there are differences within their group that cannot be tolerated–remains. As long as that idea remains, they will identify any and every difference and pinpoint it as the problem, and will continue on until only one person remains standing and everyone else is dead.

The point I’ve been driving at since I began thinking and writing about this subject a month or so ago is that neither homogeneity nor heterogeneity can deliver on the free market promises of “ultimate equality,” despite its ups and downs. The market, as any market advocate will tell you, swings like a pendulum, and it isn’t always fair or just. It does, however, tend to come to a point of equilibrium, one that is based on the dominant positions and ideologies about what constitutes “justice” and “equality.” If a market comes to rest indefinitely* on inequality, then it is merely a reflection that the majority of people in that society do not value equality.

As written in Fight Club, “on a long enough timeline, the survival rate of everyone drops to zero.”

Just as that is true, so is it true that “on a long enough timeline, the values embraced by a free market are reflective of the people who support that market.” This is why it’s so damning to see that so much child and sweatshop labor continues to go into much of the gimmicky, cheap bullshit bought by people at Wal-Mart; that these things have not vanished in the last few decades since we learned of the child and sweatshop labor is a tacit endorsement of child and sweatshop labor. We know that Indonesian children are making our Nikes. We just don’t care. We know that diamonds are steeped in blood. We just don’t care. We know that the cobalt that goes into our phone and laptop batteries, and soon into our Tesla electric cars, is stepped in blood and horrific child labor. We just don’t care.

With this enormous preamble out of the way, let me get to the point.

People are cheering the firing of Neo-Nazis and white supremacists. I’m actually inclined to view this as a Pandora’s Box–one that we painstakingly managed to close in the 60s and 70s, and one that we should not, under any circumstances, open again. It was arduous, difficult, and unjust for black Americans, Asian Americans, women, homosexuals, transsexuals (ongoing), and all of these others to have to fight an uphill battle to take back their jobs, to not be fired for these things. Thirty years ago, we all (those of sound mind and reasonable ideas–I didn’t even exist then) condemned the idea of firing a man because he was a drag queen two Fridays out of the month, because he and his wife were swingers, because his wife was black, because he was living with his girlfriend and they weren’t married, or because he was gay. How far have we truly come, if we now revisit these ideas, but simply reverse the power structures so that, instead of the white supremacists firing the transsexual black swinging Satanist homosexual for being a transsexual black swinging Satanist homosexual, the transsexual black swinging Satanist homosexual fires the white supremacist for being white supremacist?

I’d argue that we haven’t changed anything. We simply turned the table around.

It’s important to remember that swords like this cut both ways, which we should damned well know from the history of American injustices against black people, LGBT people, Hispanic people, women, Asians, and everyone else. We know how this shit feels when it’s done to us, and we know that it can be done to us. As it stands, “we” have the cultural power–there is no doubt of that. We are currently the ones holding the reins of power, freely able to bend society to our will in whatever ways we want, with very few exceptions. We will not always be the ones holding the power. Less than a century ago, we were not the ones holding the power.

It so perfectly mirrors the growth of the executive branch that it’s staggering. For years, Republicans gave their approval to the growth of the executive branch, apparently never considering the possibility that it could end up in the hands of someone they didn’t like. Then Democrats did the same. Now we have Trump in power, and people are like, “You know? Maybe we shouldn’t have created this power structure that is now ripe for abuse against us instead of in favor of whatever we happen to want at that particular moment.”

More bizarrely, we’ve already been through this. We’ve already been on the receiving end of discrimination, and it’s still the case that there are tons and tons of “non-protected groups” with whom we are allies to some extent, and who are free to be fired by their employees for upsetting someone’s personal moral sensibilities.

Drag queens aren’t protected.

Swingers aren’t protected.

Interracial couples aren’t protected.

Women who have had abortions aren’t protected.

Former partiers, musicians, rappers, and the like are not protected. In fact, we see this already with colleges and employers searching through people’s histories and firing them for getting a little too wild at a party 6 years before.

Polyamorous people aren’t protected.

In fact, if we look at things rationally and objectively, we’ll find that not a whole lot are protected from anti-discrimination laws. And while I don’t think we need anti-discrimination laws at all, and certainly not more of them, the overall sentiment appears to be that “It’s okay if we discriminate against them, because the law prevents them from doing the same to us,” and this simply isn’t true.

There is no protection for contractors, of course. You could wreck my entire life by finding out who my clients are and informing them that I’m transsexual. This was actually my biggest concern with forming the Libertarian Party in my county. Even if I was an employee, and not a contractor, there is still very little protection for transgender and transsexual people, legally or socially, and none at all in the state of Mississippi.

Do you think that the white supremacists and traditional valuists in positions of authority will not retaliate? Do you think that secret KKK member Bob Greenwich, head of the marketing department in some firm, won’t suddenly begin finding reasons to fire his black employees?

Unlike many people who seem to be talking these days, I reject both. I fully recognize the right of an employer to fire anyone that they want for any reason that they want. This does not mean, however, that having the right to do something makes it the right thing to do. I have the right to fire someone for being gay, for being a white supremacist, or for being lazy. But this doesn’t mean it’s right, just, or moral to fire someone for being gay, or for being a white supremacist. The only factors that should go into employment are the person’s capabilities to do that job. I said this exact thing two weeks ago when arguing against Trump’s proposed trans military ban, and people applauded. I say it now, and I’m called a Nazi sympathizer.

On July 27, I said this:

Banning trans people from a job is dumb.

As an employer, you shouldn’t be interested in what characteristics a person has; you should be interested in their ability and skills to do the job. If you hire them according to any other criteria, you won’t be hiring the best unless it’s by complete accident.

This applies to every job.

If you want the best military in the world, then you have to hire the people who are the best. If you hire the people who are second-best or third-best because they have whatever characteristics you prefer, then your military will be second-best, third-best, or worse.

People are looking at this thing all wrong. Perhaps, on average, the extra medical and psychological needs make trans people inferior to other potential employees. But then you have people like me, whose only “need” is to be left the hell alone by people with more free time than common sense. “Can this individual do the job? Is this individual the best person for the job?” The hardships and struggles of the collective are fictitious. We are dealing with individuals.

I don’t give a damn if I hire a guy who seduced his dog, if he’s the best damn tech in the area. The “best” are usually pretty quirky, to put it kindly.

No one disagreed. No one took issue with it. It was common sense, and I was obviously right. Earlier today, I said this:

People are cheering the firing of Neo-Nazis and white supremacists. I’m actually inclined to view this as a Pandora’s Box–one that we painstakingly managed to close in the 60s and 70s, and one that we should not, under any circumstances, open again. It was arduous, difficult, and unjust for black Americans, Asian Americans, women, homosexuals, transsexuals (ongoing), and all of these others to have to fight an uphill battle to take back their jobs, to not be fired for these things. Thirty years ago, we all (those of sound mind and reasonable ideas–I didn’t even exist then) condemned the idea of firing a man because he was a drag queen two Fridays out of the month, because he and his wife were swingers, because his wife was black, because he was living with his girlfriend and they weren’t married, or because he was gay. How far have we truly come, if we now revisit these ideas, but simply reverse the power structures so that, instead of the white supremacists firing the transsexual black swinging Satanist homosexual for being a transsexual black swinging Satanist homosexual, the transsexual black swinging Satanist homosexual fires the white supremacist for being white supremacist?

I’d argue that we haven’t changed anything. We simply turned the table around.

… which you’ll find written above. I do that often, where I write something in an article and preview it on Facebook. Anyway, I was immediately accused of being against freedom of association. That’s quite remarkable, considering that I have a long ass history of arguing in favor of freedom of association.

On an individual basis.

I wholly reject as immoral, reckless, stupid, and irresponsible the idea of disassociating from an entire group of people because of the actions of some, the words of some, ostensible similarities among its members, or whatever-fucking-else is proposed. If someone wants to fire the racist asshat Bob because he treats black customers like crap, I have absolutely no issue with that. But if someone wants to fire the racist asshat Bob because he’s a KKK member even though he’s never displayed any tendency for treating black customers differently, I have to take issue with that. Sure, they have the right to do it, but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do.

And it’s really just a back-handed, passive aggressive forceful coercion, when it comes down to it, especially in these hypothetical numbers I gave above, where 99.99% discriminates against the 0.01%. As someone pointed out, “Then the 0.01% of people who are racists need to change their minds.” Yes, and that’s a moral hazard. “If the 0.01% don’t want to die, then they need to get on board with my ideas and stop disagreeing with me.” I’m not saying that it violates the NAP. Nor does it violate the NAP if 99.99% of people are cisgender and insist, “Then the 0.01% need to stop being transgender if they want to work.”

I’m kinda surprised that I’m saying this, but the NAP isn’t the ultimate standard on what is and isn’t moral. It’s only the standard of what must be tolerated and what must not be tolerated. It’s not a moral guide. It’s a minimal level of acceptable behavior guide. One’s morality is something for one to work out themselves, and I have many thoughts on morality–many of which would you would disagree with. I’m not saying that my moral proclamations that collectivist discrimination is morally wrong is objectively correct. I’m saying that it’s subjectively correct, and here I’ve outlined the subjective criteria for making that assertion.

It has also been stated that the 0.01% are more than welcome to form their own little society, despite that I’ve pointed out that, even in the United States, this would produce a society of only 30,000 people–nowhere near enough for a self-sufficient society in any modern terms. Besides which, the nature of leaving a society where food is bought from stores to form one where there are no stores from which to buy groceries, and where food would have to be raised and farmed, is effectively a death sentence without outside help–do we need to be reminded that the only reason the Puritan settlers survived the first winter in the New World was the benevolence of Native Americans? There’s a rather large gap there between “leaving society” and “growing one’s own food” that results in rather a lot of death.

Now I’ve got someone who says he’s closer to anarcho-communism than anarcho-capitalism suggesting market solutions, while I’m pointing out that a free market, in order to achieve liberty, requires either pure heterogeneity (practically impossible), pure homogeneity (theoretically impossible), or individualism. You know–the same thing I said a month ago, when another group–*cough* trans people *cough*–were being treated as a collective instead of as individuals with their own merits regardless of these characteristics and behaviors that had absolutely nothing to do with their ability to do a job and function within the confines of a free market.

And though I was right a month ago… Now, I’m wrong. In fact, one of the people who liked my status about this very subject when I wrote it about trans people in the military is not arguing with me, because I’ve had the audacity to say the same damned thing about individuals who, regardless of their ability to do the task they are required to do, are also white supremacists. And, in so doing, this person–who alleges to fall closer to AnComs than AnCaps–is suggesting market solutions.

I will be debating this person–presumably–on the 25th, where we will use Lincoln-Douglas format to discuss “The nature and scope of self-defense.” Honestly, I don’t think the debate is going to happen. I’ve not heard anything about it since I challenged and Matt accepted. This isn’t the way I do things, you know? I iron out the details beforehand, and I still don’t know the venue where we are having this debate. But, as soon as I have that info, I’ll share it.

I made that crappy thing. Someone is, again presumably, making a better one. Since they’re doing it for free out of kindness, I’m not badgering them about it, but it doesn’t seem to have been made, and that further makes me wonder whether this debate is actually going to happen.

* Markets never rest indefinitely, but that’s not the point.

Punching Nazis?

Question: At what point does a person’s political ideology become a determinant factor in whether it’s okay to inflict violence on them?

Answer: It doesn’t.

A lot of people have talked about this idea, whether it’s okay to punch Nazis, whether the NAP allows it, and even whether it means the NAP should be abandoned. It’s often treated as a “Gotcha!” question for Libertarians, either because the answer is so nuanced that the asker attests the libertarian has no answer, or because it causes the libertarian to stumble out of the gate. After all, Nazis are Ultra Super Evil, so it must me okay to attack them! So if your guiding principle doesn’t allow you to attack these symbols of unchecked evil, then your guiding principle has problems.

Right?

In some ways, it can be a difficult question to answer, and I understand why much ink has been spilled over attempting to dissect it and come up with an answer. This usually deals with the core of Nazi beliefs and the idea that it is the Nazi’s intention to use force, violence, and coercion against others; therefore, inflicting violence against the Nazi is an act of prevention.

But that’s the wrong answer.

We can’t allow ourselves to be distracted by magician parlor tricks that cause us to chase down obfuscations. The question is stupid and unworthy of an answer in the first place. It relies on widespread hatred of the very word “Nazi,” often regardless of whether a person knows what Nazism professes, and attempts to bait people into expressing any sort of sympathy with these people widely considered the symbols of evil. Nazis are the safe bad guy in any form of entertainment for a reason.

In fact, the person’s political identification is irrelevant to the question. Is it okay to punch a socialist? A communist? A racist? A sexist? A Muslim? A Christian? An anarchist?

“No” on all counts.

A Nazi?

“Well, you see, there are some complexities…”

“No” is still the answer.

Part of this idea that Nazis represent The Devil Incarnate is the notion that all Nazis are the same and believe exactly the same things to exactly the same extent. This is an assumption we don’t apply anywhere else, and for good reason. We all know that we’ll have a very difficult time finding two Democrats who agree on everything, two Republicans who agree on everything, two socialists who agree on everything, and you can forget finding two libertarians who agree on everything. I don’t think I’ve ever met two Christians who agree on everything, or two Muslims who agree on everything. But two Nazis who agree on everything?

It’s just assumed. “Oh, yeah, definitely… All Nazis are the same.”

I know that the propaganda during World War 2 was extremely effective, and that it has permanently colored our society, but it’s time we put aside the propaganda and evaluated things as rational adults. The fact is that, at the height of their power, lots of people were Nazis. And the reason that Hitler kept the Holocaust as quiet as he could was precisely that he knew the common people of Germany, many, many of whom were Nazis, would never have been okay with his proposed Final Solution. Many Nazis defected from the country and the party, not because they disputed National Socialism but because they rejected the Holocaust. That wartime propaganda still lingers, but all Nazis have never been the same.

The question has nothing to do with the NAP; it has everything to do with virtue signaling, as the asker attempts to test the waters to see if he can goad the libertarian into expressing virtues different from his own, at which point the libertarian can be called a Nazi Sympathizer, and, since everyone hates Nazis, it means whoever asks the question generally wins in public perception. A fair question is “At what point is it okay to use a person’s political beliefs as a factor in determining whether it’s acceptable to inflict violence upon them?”

The answer to this question is, “It’s never okay.”

Recently I read an article by a libertarian who wants to re-evaluate the NAP because it allows racists to be considered libertarians, and the author doesn’t like that. He seems to struggle with the idea of tolerance, that we must tolerate behavior and ideas we don’t approve of, as long as the person doesn’t use force, violence, and coercion. Since using force, violence, and coercion are the only ways to be intolerant of an idea, it basically means that “Everything is tolerable except force, violence, and coercion.”

While I can see why people would struggle with this, there is no identifiable link between a person’s religious or political beliefs and their willingness or unwillingness to use violence. Progressives have for decades condemned the use of violence, but now are the prime actors initiating it. If you ask some people, Hitler was a Catholic. If you ask others, he was an atheist. Whether Stalin’s atheism had anything to do with his atrocities is good troll-bait. Whether Islam has anything to do with the large amount of extremism coming out of the Middle East also makes good troll-bait.

But the reality is simpler: the reason we can’t find any direct correlation between a person’s beliefs and things like terrorism is that there really isn’t one. A few years ago, I came across someone who asserted that people who are homophobic are actually gay and just can’t accept it. That’s absurd, and the reasoning behind it is aggressively unworthy of our species. So a man who hates pedophiles is secretly a pedophile and can’t accept it? That’s the reasoning we’re going to go with on this?

As “evidence” of this claim, another person came forward and said, “I used to be homophobic, and I’m gay, so it’s actually true.”

No, it’s still not true. You’re connecting dots where there are no dots to be connected. You were homophobic and you are gay; you weren’t homophobic because you are gay. This person’s upbringing and social environment would have led him to be homophobic regardless of his orientation. Being gay is simply what allowed him to stop being homophobic. We find the same pattern everywhere, with people attempting to draw correlations between religious beliefs and violence, and between political ideologies and violence.

Is the man hateful because he is racist, or is the man racist because he is hateful? Is the man willing to use violence against black people because he’s racist, or is he racist because he’s willing to use violence against black people? Or is his racism unrelated to his willingness to use violence, and his racism merely determines who is the recipient of his willingness to use violence? In most cases, the latter. Being a white supremacist won’t turn a non-violent person into a violent one. I’m sorry, but it won’t. Neither will being a black supremacist, an atheist, a Christian, a Muslim, a Democrat, or a Republican.

In nearly all cases, extremist positions do not create a willingness to use violence. They are merely used as an excuse. The people who bombed abortion clinics didn’t do so because Christianity made them looney. They did so because they were already looney, and parts of Christianity gave them an excuse to do what they wanted to do anyway. Ditto for Muslim extremists, atheist extremists, socialist extremists, racist extremists, and other extremists. And in all of these cases, for every one who is batshit nuts and violent, there are 99 who are perfectly normal.

Question: Is it okay to punch a Nazi?

Answer: What the fuck kind of question is that?

Is it okay to punch someone who is engaged in act of aggression? Is it okay to punch someone who is a reasonable and credible threat planning an act of aggression? Is it okay to punch someone because you really, really don’t like what they believe? These questions don’t all have the same answer, and that’s why “Nazi” is used in the question. We’re just supposed to accept that all Nazis are supremely evil and willing, perhaps even eager, to kill everyone who isn’t a straight, white Christian. And even if that’s true about Nazis–which it isn’t, though it’s more likely to be true of neo-Nazis–it’s still the wrong question to ask, because the fact that they are Nazis isn’t a determining factor. The determining factor is whether the person is engaged in, or credibly planning to be engaged in, acts of violence and aggression. It doesn’t matter if they’re Nazis, socialists, anarchists, communists, capitalists, Christians, atheists, Muslims, or anything else.

 

How Would Americans Handle President Fuhrer?

I recently talked about how libertarians and anarchists need to draw a line in the sand with our government, and make it clear that, if that line is crossed, it will be tantamount to a declaration of war by the government against the people, and will be treated as such. Don’t get me wrong–I think that needs to happen, and I think it’s ultimately necessary for the government to be firmly reminded that we are armed and will not tolerate much more bullshit, but I also know that it won’t happen.

Calling upon the Libertarian Party to draw this line is a waste of bandwidth and the time it takes to type the sentence. This is not Sarwark’s fault, of course, or Austin Petersen’s or Gary Johnson’s; it is the party’s fault generally because, as I alluded to in the previous discussion, concerns about electability and what is a “good” political move will forever prevent the Libertarian Party from probably ever being anything like its older, principled self.

But it isn’t just the Libertarian Party that wouldn’t dare make such a statement publicly. In fact, very few people would be willing to. The reason has to do with psychology, the innate desire for acceptance, the horror that we may be seen as overreacting, and peer pressure to conform and behave as others behave. Can I back up this claim? Goodness, yes.

We recoil when we see in the news that a bunch of neighbors watched as a woman was gang raped and murdered in broad daylight, with none of them intervening and none of them even calling the police, and we tell ourselves, “Goodness, no! I would have intervened! I would have at least called the police!” And this is true–if there is no one else around. Strangely, as the number of people around the scene increases, the chances of someone intervening or even calling the police drop. It’s very peculiar, but it’s a known fact.

This experiment consisted of people being placed in a room to wait for an interview while they filled out paperwork. Smoke began to roll from the bottom of the interviewer’s office door. The results showed that, when people were alone, they were far more likely to treat the situation like it was a potential emergency. On the other hand, when the person was not alone, they were far more likely to ignore the smoke and pretend like they didn’t notice it–even as they began coughing from it. It’s called the Bystander Effect, and it’s a serious problem.

It will be the reason that almost no one does anything about President Fuhrer, whoever that president happens to be.

Even in my article, I stated at least twice that I was not making the allegation that this was about to happen or that there was any reason to panic; the same psychological tendencies exist in me, too, of course. I don’t want to sound like I’m in foaming-at-the-mouth hysterics over President Trump when there really isn’t that much to be worried about. It’s a shame that modern liberals lack this restraint, but with all their friends pushed into overreaction by the media, we all became outcasts for not overreacting to President Trump.

Just as I was insulted–heavily insulted–simply because I did not overreact to the clown sightings of 2016. It became acceptable to be hysterical, to make Facebook posts about how one would “totally shoot a clown on sight” and how a clown “better hope I don’t see one, I’ll break a bat on a motherfucker’s face!” Hysteria became the norm, and thus it wasn’t considered hysterical. Closing down schools, posts from people about how they would gladly shoot someone just for dressing up like a clown… These became acceptable, while trying to convince people they were exhibiting the same behavior that led to the Salem Witch Trials went against the grain and became unacceptable. Instead of everyone fearing to be seen in hysterics, people feared to be seen reacting calmly and proportionally.

Overreaction became the acceptable level of reaction.

In effect, measured, proportional reaction became under-reaction.

This happened again when Trump won the November election. Holy hell, people went crazy, and I can think of at least a dozen people who should be too damned embarrassed to even show their faces in public, yet instead of having any shame they’re still carrying the hysterical insanity torch proudly. That’s a hell of a thing to say, considering that my previous article said that we needed to be ready to fight an American dictator with guns and not words, but the difference is context; the difference is reaction, overreaction, or anticipation.

Shortly after the election, I had an extensive discussion with a woman who claimed to be Hispanic–though she had the whitest goddamned name I’ve ever heard, short of Wendy McFinnigan–and who claimed to be huddling in her house in fear with her children, crying and terrified. One of my clients, a doctor, closed her practice and returned to India, though she claimed it had nothing to do with the election, she sold off her equipment days after Trump’s victory, and was in such a hurry that she refused to wait and let me wipe the drives. Yes, that’s correct. She sold computers with tons of patients’ medical data on them; clearly, she has no intention of ever returning to the United States, because that’s illegal in more ways than I can count, and I can count to at least seven.

There are three large, politically active groups in the United States: conservatives, liberals, and libertarians. All of these are subdivided into various groups that range in loudness, pettiness, stupidity, petulance, childishness, horror of policy, and activism. Conservatives consist of the Tea Party, the alt-right, liberty-leaning conservatives. Liberals consist of Greens, communists, socialists, mainstream democrats. Libertarians consist of libertarians, classical liberals, minarchists, anarchists. There are other groups, of course, and more divisions within the three large groups, but none of that is really that important.

The important part is that the left overreacts to everything, which makes them pretty much The Party That Cries Wolf. They scream about racism, sexism, homophobia, misogyny, and every manner of -phobia so often that when one of these descriptive labels actually applies to an action, it’s met with the eye rolling and groaning that accompany the mundane and familiar. “Oh, Democrats are screaming about some sexist thing… again…”

Plus, their manner of doing things is to simply make a lot of noise. They’re good at getting the media’s attention, but they’ve routinely shown that they don’t have a clue what to do once they have that attention. Black Lives Matter is my “go to” example, but it’s hardly unique to that movement; virtually everything that liberals protest and demonstrate for or against gets a lot of attention but does nothing, changes nothing, and accomplishes nothing. It’s ultimately just noise. This doesn’t mean that I agree or disagree with the sentiments they’re expressing; I do not approve, however, of how they [don’t] achieve their goals. Like the Republicans now that they totally control the government, liberals in general are like the dog that finally caught the car–now that they have it, they don’t know what to do with it. “Alright! We shut down a major interstate that stretches from California to North Carolina! The country’s eyes are on us! … … … So what do we do?”

Meanwhile, Trump and the alt-right have made huge strides in getting conservatives to accept and go along with some truly horrible policies. People cheered when Trump said he would bring back torture, when he said that he’d go after terrorists’ families, and when he said that he wanted to ban Muslims from entering the country. Four years ago, a Republican saying that would have quickly found his political career in shambles.

This means that the two biggest chunks of the politically active American population won’t do anything to fight against President Fuhrer. The liberals won’t, either because President Fuhrer is a liberal–President Obama showed us just how much liberals will turn a blind eye to, and their zeal to inflict violence upon people who disagree with them knows almost no bounds–or because they simply don’t know how. They’ll be the group out protesting while the U.S. military rounds up Muslims. And, surprisingly, they’ll be ignored, I think, because clamping down on protest would only exacerbate the problem and possibly motivate people to further action. As long as they’re simply protesting, they’re only making noise and accomplishing nothing, so I believe President Fuhrer would largely ignore them. People who aren’t already liberals will certainly ignore them, because liberals are always protesting and demonstrating–generating noise–and we’ve already started to filter it out.

There are two paths I see us going down in the future, and it really depends on the timing. There is a strong chance that President Fuhrer will be a conservative, in which case conservatives won’t resist. However, there is also a strong chance that liberals will vote in a terrible choice in 2020, who proceeds to gut the Tenth Amendment and force liberal legislation onto conservative states, particularly regarding abortion and LGBTQ issues, which is more likely than anything to send the conservative states into secession again. People who advocate #CalExit today would, of course, be opposed to this, because “If Mississippi leaves, then we can’t force Mississippi to put LGBTQ people on a pedestal! No, they can’t leave, because they only reason they want to leave is to oppress people!”

I’m sure we all know how the rest will play out.

This really only leaves the Libertarians, but they’re generally so concerned about how the public perceives the Libertarian Party that the absolute last thing they would ever, ever do is appear to be overreacting. The Libertarian Party is lately motivated by only one single concern: mainstream acceptance. The psychological tendencies that create the Bystander Effect virtually control the Libertarian Party, such that it would probably be the last group to actually take up arms against a tyrannical government. Only once most people were doing it and it was socially acceptable would the Libertarian Party do it, because they’re terrified of doing anything that will make them appear kooky or extreme.

It’s simply sad, but true, that the Democratic Party is more likely to tell Trump, “If you begin construction of this wall or impose a national registry of Muslims–or any other group–then we will take it as a declaration of war against the American People!” than the Libertarian Party is. If the Democratic Party did do that, then I’m sure the Libertarian Party would immediately leap to its feet and cry, “Us, too! Us, too! Yeah! A declaration of war!”

But regardless of political affiliations, it won’t much matter how President Fuhrer and his/her actions sit with people. They won’t do anything, because they don’t want bystanders to think they’re overreacting. And by the time it reached the point where it obviously wouldn’t be overreacting, because President Fuhrer had already declared martial law and started rounding people up, it would be too damned late to do anything about it.

So I guess we need to hope that President Fuhrer never rises, because the American People won’t do anything about it until it’s way too late.

 

Words Are Cheap

Libertarians and anarchists for months have been expressing solidarity with Muslim Americans, promising that we’ll do this or that when or if the time comes, and this is good, but I can’t help but notice how incredibly vague the promises are. Of the many promises that have been made, the only actual Cause/Effect I’ve seen has been that many people have sworn to register as Muslims if the government forces them to. I guess that’s fine, if you want to be a martyr for no reason, but if the government begins rounding up everyone who is registered as a Muslim, then you’ll have accomplished nothing by getting yourself arrested alongside them. On the vague ones, let’s look to the Libertarian Party’s release.

It’s a lot of nothing, a lot of words, a lot of… empty sympathy.

“We’ll speak out against it,” goes the line.

I have to take issue with that. Now is the time for speaking out. If any of these more extreme things come to pass, the time to speak out will have passed, and the time for action will be upon us. As I said, joining a national Muslim registry is well-intentioned, but it will accomplish nothing. If the Frank’s business party–I can’t recall the name–had registered as a Jew to “show solidarity,” then he would have been arrested long before he was, the Franks and… Van somethings… wouldn’t have been able to hide in the attic.

That aside, we’ve seen this play out before. We know how this progresses. Countless times this has played out. The demonization of immigrants, the marginalization of a religious minority, threats of a border wall, tighter immigration control… I’m not at all saying that Trump is “the next Hitler,” as people have been so fond of saying, but if he is, then expressing solidarity and speaking out against him will do nothing to stop him.

Nicholas Sarwark, it’s not politically acceptable. In fact, politically it’s probably a terrible move. It doesn’t matter. This isn’t the time for politics, and it’s not the time to think about the 2020 presidential election. We have a president with enormous amounts of power with a history of not thinking things through, with a history of relying on false evidence and sensationalized bullshit, and he leads a government that has systematically given itself the power to do to us “legally” exactly what we hate Hitler for doing. It’s more than a technicality that FEMA inadvertently gave the President the authority to declare a state of emergency and impose martial law. Presidents in the past have suspended habeus corpus, and HR1955 took away our right to a trial by allowing for American citizens to be indefinitely detained in prison. And, of course, the 2014?NDAA gave the President the power to assassinate American citizens. There is nothing that Hitler did in Germany that our government hasn’t given itself the authority to do.

As I wrote in “The Power Gap,” it is not a question of “if” the government is going to abuse these powers; it’s a question of “when.” Humans have never invented a weapon that we did not use, and no government ever took authority that it did not use. If the government gave itself the authority to impose martial law and put us in “FEMA Camps,” then it’s only a matter of time before it does it. I don’t know if this will be Trump or not, but it’s stupid to think that the President–whoever it will be–is going to announce it beforehand. “Okay, if you guys want to revolt, go for it, because I’m about to impose national martial law, round up all the Muslims, and build the wall to keep you trapped in.”

I’m not being hysterical; I’m being realistic. The day will come. It would be hysterical to suggest that Trump’s recent actions suggest that he’s about to go all Fuhrer on us. I don’t think he is, in fact. But he might–and, if he does, protests won’t work, no matter how vocal they are.

Through the last several years, various protests and demonstrations have demanded the public and government’s attention. Interstates have been shut down, schools have been closed, and people have been killed. Despite these disruptive actions, absolutely nothing has changed, and nothing has been accomplished. Why is this? Because these protests and demonstrations were not undertaken with clearly defined goals. It’s not something that can be compressed into a neat chant of “What do we want?!” “For the First Amendment to be properly abode!”

Unfortunately, the only conceivable “clearly defined goal” in the event of a President Fuhrer, whoever that president is, is full and complete removal of the current administration through force. “Speaking out” simply won’t be enough.

It’s time to draw a line in the sand, and to make it clear that if that line is crossed, we will take up arms and we will revolt and remove the current government. I have no doubt whatsoever that most people in Germany “expressed solidarity” with their Jewish friends and family. I’m sure that many of them told their Jewish friends, “I’ll speak out if they try to do that!”

The stakes will be high; the stakes are high. We must acknowledge that, and we must be ready to act, not with words but with weapons. Is this an anarcho-capitalistic thing to say? I would argue “Yes,” because what we’re discussing is self-defense against a tyrannical government.

If the government imposes a national registry of Muslims, there is only one thing to do.

Take up arms and revolt.

We already know what the next step of that is, and we should not–we must not–allow our government to get anywhere near that next step, because it will already be too late. With the NSA already watching everything–and probably going to be expanded under Trump–and torture probably going to make a public return, with the broad powers at the president’s disposal and his repeated statements and actions against Muslims, a national registry absolutely must not be tolerated. “Registering too” won’t work. Only taking up arms will.

Because the next step along that path is the one at which resistance becomes futile, and that’s especially dangerous given that the United States is the most powerful government in human history. On the world stage, our government far surpasses where Germany was when Hitler began the Holocaust. And stopping Nazi Germany, stopping Hitler, cost millions upon millions of lives while Hitler put people to death by the millions, with his SS rounding up dissenters and ensuring that no one dared speak out. If we reach that point with the American Government, the time for revolution will have already passed, and the only thing we’ll be able to do is wait for the Russians and Chinese to band together and hopefully defeat the Nazi Oceanian Empire.

A national Muslim registry is the last phase of the journey at which armed revolution is still possible.

If that wall goes up, it again becomes impossible. We will need the automatic weapons, drones, SAMs, and other things that will come across the southern border. We’re libertarians! We know that effective arms control requires effective border control! The only way that the UK has kept guns out of its nation is that it is surrounded by ocean, making it impossible to sneak in weapons. We need that southern border open, because if any of what people fear comes to pass, that is the only way we’ll be able to renew munitions. And don’t kid yourself. When push comes to shove, the Canadian government will fall in line immediately behind the United States. Mexico will make a show of doing so–as they’ve done about “controlling emigration.”

These are two things that absolutely must not be allowed under any circumstances. We do not need to be trapped in with a tyrannical government that has an allied government to the north. We will need that escape route for those unwilling or unable to fight, and we will need supplies to resist.

I have no delusion about how all this sounds. Again, I’m not saying any of this is about to happen, or that any of this will be necessary. But if it becomes necessary, we must be ready, and we must be willing to accept the responsibility that will fall to us. The German People were not ready to accept the responsibility that fell onto them.

As the party of liberty, no one else has the moral justification for drawing such a line in the sand.

So draw it.

If the government imposes a national Muslim registry or begins construction of the wall, it means armed revolt.

If the government imposes a national registry of any type or begins construction of a wall that will trap us in, then it means war.

We must be prepared to fight, not speak.

 

Death Camps For Fags

I’ve seen a lot through the last day or so about how people–meaning liberals–are preparing for the absolute worst. And I mean that: the absolute worst. They firmly believe that LGBT people and black people are about to be rounded up and thrown into death camps. Stop. Read that sentence again. They actually believe that. They truly believe it’s going to happen, just like I truly believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow.

Their connection to reality is… how shall we say… a strained relationship.

These are the people who have been saying for months that Trump is LITERALLY Hitler, after all. Evidently, they weren’tfags just being retards who didn’t know what “literally” meant. They knew what “literally” means, and they meant it literally. According to their worldview, Trump might as well have been wearing a swastika during his acceptance speech.

So I’ve written a message for libertarians. I’ve written a message for liberals. This is my message to conservatives.

These people are terrified. I spent most of yesterday enjoying their laughter and mocking them, and it was great. 10/10 would do it again. But only some of them were worth laughing about. Some of them had genuine fear. Many were faking fear, like this one:

She wasn’t really feeling the emotions that she appeared to be feeling. She was posturing, feigning to feel. Of course, she truly believes that she was feeling those emotions, but my 4 year old nephew would tell you that he was really feeling sad and mistreated when his mom told him that he couldn’t have a candy bar. There’s a dead giveaway to that video–and here’s the link in case that doesn’t work.

There are no tears.

That’s right. The girl’s eyes are completely dry.

Why would anyone upload themselves having a genuine emotional breakdown anyway?

No, this was posturing and pretense. We might as well call it virtue signaling, except it had more nuance than that. Think of her exactly as you would the 4 year old child screaming and causing a scene in the aisle because his mother told him that she wouldn’t buy him a candy bar. That is what this is. This is the result when you have a generation of people whose parents bought them the candy to make them stop crying–they learned that crying and pitching a bitch fit works, so it is what they do when they don’t get their way. Universities have been bowing to it. Their parents bowed to it. Now they are trying to make their Biggest Nanny, the government, bow to it.

The reality check for those people is going to be glorious, and I eagerly await it.

14937288_346679765690730_7013755243204471515_nHowever, that isn’t the end of it. Only the people who are posturing–only the people crying crocodile tears–are worthy of our laughter and mockery. They are worthy. Don’t get me wrong, and I’ve enjoyed it as much as anyone, while I didn’t even vote for Trump and would legitimately rather die than vote for him or Hillary.

Some people, though, have simply been so brainwashed by the media and liberal elites that they genuinely believe this shit is going to happen. So hellbent on winning the election, the media and liberals did everything in their power to beat Trump, including twisting his words and lying outright. Trump saying that he could shoot someone and his supporters wouldn’t care became “Trump Advocates Murder!” Trump saying that women let him have sex with them became “Trump Brags About Sexual Assault!”

Here’s a podcast I did regarding the media’s repeated allegation that Trump refused to disavow white supremacist groups.

If you’ll listen to the podcast, then you’ll notice very quickly that Trump did, in fact, disavow such groups as soon as he was given something to rebuke. He rebuked and disavowed David Duke the moment he learned of the endorsement–literally the moment he learned of it. Then he had to deal with the media for weeks saying that he refused to disavow Duke. It was insane, propagandic, bullshit brainwash.

But the liberals swallowed it completely, because the liberal media and Democratic Party told them it was true.

Recently, I argued with a Hillary supporter who said that Wikileaks has ties to Russia, and in the very same comment she said that she couldn’t believe that Hillary was a criminal because there wasn’t enough evidence. Not only is this profoundly biased and aggressively stupid, but it gives us an insight into the minds of the people we’re dealing with.

“The media or my party said it? Then it must be true. Conservative media or the Republicans said it? Then there’s not enough evidence to support it.”

She would deny this adamantly if we challenged her on her obvious bias, yet there it is, on full display, for anyone who cares to look. Of course, there is absolutely no evidence that Wikileaks has ties to Russia. This is an allegation that Democrats–who once cheered for Assange as he took on the Bush Administration–have begun spouting only because they are the ones who are being hurt by it. No one has ever put forward any evidence at all to back the claim. Repeat: no evidence at all. It’s not a matter of “not having enough” evidence. It’s a matter of not having any evidence.

This Hillary supporter would have us believe that she is interested in truth, and so she will only accept claims that have evidence to support them–but that’s obviously not the case, or she would reject the assertion that Wikileaks is connected to Russia.

As I wrote about yesterday in my message to them, liberals have divided the United States into “straight white Christian men” and a coalition of “everyone else.” In order for their coalition to work–no, in order for their coalition to even exist–those divides must be of consequence. They want sexual orientation to matter because they need it to matter; their coalition is dependent upon it. After all, if lgbt people don’t band together and vote democrat, then Democrats lose a lot of votes. What to do then? Make sure that sexual orientation matters.

I’ve talked about it extensively. They see the world in terms of Either/Or. They live in a world of black and white, of false dichotomies, of allies and enemies. If you are not an Ally, then you are homophobic, but you are most certainly not “straight.”

Their worldview excludes straight people from existence. If you are straight, then you are an Ally or homophobic, depending on your relationship to the LGBT community and your position on LGBT equality/rights/whatever.

To them, there is Us, and there is Them*.

And, from their point of view, “Them” is a group of hateful neo-Nazis just waiting to launch death camps to kill all the gay people. That’s seriously how they view the world, because you’re not “with” them. That means you must be against them.

They do believe in the liberal elitism bullshit, where socialism is the only ideology that isn’t for selfish assholes, where everyone who isn’t a Hillary supporter is a privileged piece of shit, a racist, misogynistic homophobic islamophobic xenophobic. They truly believe that, because that’s what they’ve been told.

It’s on you now, to show them that this isn’t the case. It’s your responsibility, Conservatives, to show to all the liberals out there that you are not Nazis, and that you do not wish any ill will upon them, that your interests do not have to violently clash with theirs. If you do not meet this responsibility, then Death Camps For Conservatives is what we need to worry about, because they are out there, right now, attacking people, burning buildings, rioting, and inflicting violence.

These are the same kind of people who gleefully say that they think people who disagree with them should die.

death-to-dissenters“Death to all who oppose me?”

“Death to all who disagree?”

Aren’t those, you know… kinda Nazi-ish?

Yes, they are. And he is not alone. I’ve been talking about it for a very long time. They are convinced of their own self-righteous Quixotic quest against the straight, white, Christian men, and they are okay with using violence to achieve their goals. They will be elected again. Make no mistake about it, conservatives. You will not hold Congress and the Oval Office indefinitely.

If you fail to uphold your responsibility here, then you will find that people like Harrison up there are back in power. And we already know they’re okay with you dying.

And they’re the ones afraid of death camps?

So here’s what you do, conservatives. Stop gloating. I know how hard that is. Believe me. I do. Stop gloating and stop relishing victory.

Instead, make it a point to tell your LGBT, Muslim, black, Hispanic, and female neighbors that you do not support any violence being done to them, because they truly believe that you do. It’s what they’ve been told, and they believe what they’re told–as long as their side is the one saying it.

Briefly, To Liberals

I’m an openly transgender resident of Mississippi.

If they come with death camps, I’ll be among the first to die.

I dare them.

Tell them to try.

I wish them the best of luck taking me alive.

I wish them the best of luck taking me alive.

* I’m well aware of how this sounds and have already addressed it: https://anarchistshemale.com/2016/05/28/a-study-on-mob-behavior/