Counter-Currents
Libertarian Fake Psychology
& Other Thoughts on Recent YouTube Debates
Alan Smithee
2,097 words
Good and Evil
One of the most popular lines of argument against our recent arguments in defense of paternalism (see here, here and here) goes something like this: “If evil doesn’t meaningfully exist as a choice, then neither does good.”
Where does anyone get off with such nonsense? I don’t need to have the “freedom” to be able to molest children in order for it to be a good thing for me not to molest children. Moreover, even if the state passes laws to deter child molestation, one can still choose to molest children. Other people will simply choose to punish you if you do. And they have declared their intention to choose to punish in advance, in hopes that you will choose not to molest. If attempting to sway others’ choices through your own were somehow illegitimate, then literally all forms of communication would be off limits.
Furthermore, if one really believes this, then it is completely and totally self-defeating. So you believe that paternalistic laws are bad laws? Then your love for this weird and arbitrary conception of “freedom” has to compel you to support our right to implement them if we wish—because according to your rule, we are not “truly free” if we cannot make bad choices. So, if crafting paternalistic laws is, according to you, a bad choice, then your own principles compel you to allow us a “meaningful” ability to make that choice, or else you are opposing “freedom” too. Thus, this is really a notion of “freedom” that drives itself into a ditch and ends up nowhere.
Fake Psychology
A similar point goes for the argument that prohibiting people from making certain choices just increases the psychological temptation for them to indulge in those choices, and therefore results in more of it. But I’ll get to why this is self-defeating in just a minute. Greg Johnson’s opponents in his recent debate on Warski Live were just horribly uninformed about the basic facts.
As I detailed in my article clarifying the real history of prohibition, we know that it wasn’t until the 1970s that alcohol reached the levels it had been at prior to the implementation of national prohibition. Prohibition resulted in significantly less alcohol consumption, period.
Likewise, Libertarians and mainstream fake news are simply wrong when they claim that the war on drugs has failed to curb drug use. Here’s James Q. Wilson, writing in the Wall Street Journal:
Another shift that has probably helped to bring down crime is the decrease in heavy cocaine use in many states. . . Between 1992 and 2009, the number of [hospital emergency room] admissions for cocaine or crack use fell by nearly two-thirds. In 1999, 9.8% of 12th-grade students said that they had tried cocaine; by 2010, that figure had fallen to 5.5%.
What we really need to know, though, is not how many people tried coke but how many are heavy users. Casual users who regard coke as a party drug are probably less likely to commit serious crimes than heavy users who may resort to theft and violence to feed their craving. But a study by Jonathan Caulkins at Carnegie Mellon University found that the total demand for cocaine dropped between 1988 and 2010, with a sharp decline among both light and heavy users. . . . Drug use among blacks has changed even more dramatically than it has among the population as a whole. As Mr. Latzer points out—and his argument is confirmed by a study by Bruce D. Johnson, Andrew Golub and Eloise Dunlap—among 13,000 people arrested in Manhattan between 1987 and 1997, a disproportionate number of whom were black, those born between 1948 and 1969 were heavily involved with crack cocaine, but those born after 1969 used very little crack . . . The reason was simple: The younger African-Americans had known many people who used crack and other hard drugs and wound up in prisons, hospitals and morgues. . . . This shift in drug use, if the New York City experience is borne out in other locations, can help to explain the fall in black inner-city crime rates after the early 1990s.
Greg Johnson made a very good point against this fake psychology by noting that it is ironic that libertarians, who constantly harp on the laws of supply and demand, will pivot on a dime when it comes to prohibiting vices and claim that making a product like heroin or cocaine more expensive (more costly, more risky) by banning it will actually increase demand for it.
If this theory is true—if prohibiting people from making certain choices just increases the psychological temptation for them to indulge in those choices, and therefore results in more of it—then the anti-paternalists and anti-prohibitionists had better be extremely careful about arguing against paternalism. Why? Because according to their own fake psychology, it follows that they’re only going to increase the psychological temptation for us to indulge in paternalism by trying to prevent us from doing so, and thereby create even more paternalism. Right?
“Assimilation”
We keep seeing the topic of the history of Irish immigration to the United States come up in debates on immigration policy, as we did during Mike Enoch’s appearance on Andy Warski’s show. The argument is supposed to win by triggering the obvious sense that white people in the United States today, though having originally come from vastly different particular ethnic-national backgrounds, have generally come together to adopt “American” as their new shared identity.
Here’s the thing, though: I don’t know why we keep granting this premise.
My argument for ethnonationalism goes like this:
1. People tend to get along better with others who are behaviorally and psychologically more like themselves. This is a finding proven by research.
2. Since behavioral and psychological traits are heavily influenced by genes, people therefore tend to form deeper friendships with others who are genetically more like themselves. Indeed, studies have confirmed that people tend to form close relationships with people who are about as genetically similar to them as fourth cousins.
3. Since a member of a given race is genetically more similar to the average member of his race than he is to a non-member (Lewontin’s fallacy notwithstanding) ethnically segregated societies will have proportionally more people with a greater degree of genetic relatedness between them. They will therefore have proportionally more people with a greater degree of behavioral and psychological similarity between them, and they will therefore tend to have more social trust and civic participation, as well as stronger interpersonal bonds and relationships. Indeed, a whole mountain of studies have proven that increases in racial diversity do in fact result in decreases in social trust, civic participation, and co-operative social norms.
Since these are all positive values that we all ought to encourage, for everyone’s sake, peaceful movement towards ethnostates is something that members of all races have very good reason to support.
Well, there is genetic distance between, let’s say, Irishmen and Italians. There is less distance than there is between Irishmen and African Pygmies, but more than there is between Irishmen and Irishmen. Have the Irish “assimilated”? Yes, in the sense that most no longer actively identify themselves foremost as “Irish” in contradistinction to other white groups in the United States.
But the lines between the political Left and Right in this country run deep, and there have always been steep political divisions. If one reads David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed or Colin Woodard’s American Nations, it becomes very clear that the divisions in this country over ways of life, social and political policies even among whites align strikingly well with the history of migration patterns of these different founding populations into the United States.
The Scots-Irish who founded Appalachia are to this day the primary adherents of classical republican philosophy. Bill O’Reilly is quite literally more closely related ethnically to Andrew Jackson than Rachel Maddow is, and it shows in his worldview and philosophy. The Quakers who founded Pennsylvania and led the charge against slavery still to this day lead the charge against, say, the death penalty.
What were the American Founders’ solution to these differences?
Why, it was quite literally ethnic segregation between whites! Specifically, it was the ideal of “the” United States as “these united states” with the emphasis on the plural, and the ideal of the states as “laboratories of democracy” which should be given as much leeway as possible by the federal government. This would result in “red states” and “blue states” being allowed autonomy to implement “red” and “blue” rules, and as little interference from the federal government as possible.
But it just so happens that these differences in social and political values correlate extremely well with ethnicity. There are always outliers, of course. But as a rule, the social and political trends established in the very first waves of migration into the United States still persist to this day—whether people no longer consciously identify themselves by their ethnic origins in this way or not. So the anti-federalist philosophy’s solution to different visions of self and future among whites in the United States is quite literally exactly what we propose as the solution to these same differences in visions of self and future between whites and non-whites.
The upshot of biting the bullet on this argument and denying that all of these different white populations ever truly “assimilated” without costs to social trust and a sense of belonging is that my enemies cannot accuse of me of being driven to my views by hatred of non-whites unless they want to insist that I hate basically all white people as well. But hatred of non-whites isn’t the real motivation for ethnonationalism, any more than hatred of whites was the motivation for anti-federalism and for founding the United States as a laboratory of regional democracy.
Furthermore, in the past we had far more regional variation and diversity in the United States than is seen today. It is my view that this was an incredibly good thing. The transformation of the United States into a monoculture, where every state has the same McDonald’s for fast food, the same Starbucks for coffee, and so on is truly a disaster. Maintaining regional independence and intra-white ethnic division would, and still does to some extent, form a bulwark against this form of cultural destruction. And yet, this type of monoculturalization is what our enemies are (intentionally or not) threatening to do to the entire globe.
“Parasites”
Mike Enoch also got flak in his debate on Warski Live for claiming that refugees who enter a country they do not historically belong to and go on welfare are “parasites,” while poor whites on welfare are not. He defended his stance with valid points, for instance, that these welfare institutions were literally founded by our ancestors for the sake of their posterity, and not for the benefit of the world at large—and that they would have found this idea absurd. But I think we can defend this with arguments much closer to peoples’ everyday experience.
Suppose I live in a household with a wife and two kids. Those children are going to cost me somewhere around $500,000 by the time they turn 18. We make ends meet, but there are plenty of opportunities we’d like to afford for our children and can’t. Now suppose a friend of a friend of a distant relative comes to live in my house while he recovers from a work injury or an awful break-up.
Not only do we have to change our lifestyle to accommodate him, but he costs us—let’s say even just a third of what either of our children cost. Ay normal person asked about this scenario on the street would feel perfectly okay about me deciding to kick this person out so I can devote my resources to my own children.
What sort of bigotry would allow me to think that my children are more valuable than random strangers? Aren’t we all equal in the eyes of God? And yet, absolutely no one would call me a bigot for “arbitrarily” deciding that this person was being a “parasite” on my household, while refusing to use the same word for my children. They wouldn’t even object to me saying that it is more important to me to give my children a luxury like expensive guitar classes than it is to give this stranger a place to live while he recovers from breaking his leg.
It frankly baffles me that it is considered a greater sin to want to preserve welfare institutions for one’s ethnic group than it is to be a libertarian who advocates the wholesale abolition of these institutions. Indeed, one can say things like, “Honestly I feel like . . . fuck everybody and fuck your skin color because even if you were gold I still don’t give a fuck about you,” and be approved for it in modern society. In fact, this a direct quote from a top-rated comment I saw in a thread online. And yet, if one took this same sentiment and added the caveat that he did not feel the same way about members of his ethnic group, one would be on a fast-track into social and professional destruction. Is selfish nihilism and hatred of all humanity really morally superior to “racism,” in which one prefers some people over others? If not, then why does modern society punish the latter while rewarding the former?
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
14 comments
I am beginning to realize that the entire American Dream is just that. There is nothing real about it at all. I woke up to that, a long time ago.
Roosevelt, himself, was more loyal to a Foreign Power, than the Nation over which he ostensibly presided over. That Foreign Power was, of course, The British Empire (what is now euphemistically referred to as The British Commonwealth, or simply The Commonwealth). The entire belief that the Japanese Americans were, somehow, more loyal to their ancestral homeland, of Japan, than they were to America; merely Freudian Projection on the part of those hostile to them. Mind you, having said that, I have always found it fascinating: Great Britain and Japan alike, were, for the most part Island Kingdoms– insular Island Kingdoms.
Now, if I may digress here, both of those Island Kingdoms, Imperial Japan and Great Britain alike, were full of very Xenophobic people. Just like the Japanese held themselves to be superior to other Yellow Asians, the British, to this day, perceive themselves as superior to other White Europeans, including the Germans.
Yes, I have always found it intriguing: the English perceive the Germans precisely the same way that Germans perceive Poles, Russians, and other Slavic peoples. You see, the British– the English in particular– especially during that time, viewed themselves as the True Master Race. After all, what do you suppose those back then, meant when they implemented the term “Anglo Saxon Race”. Now, Americans ridicule the idea of Germans being any kind of Master Race, not so much because Americans are really such egalitarians. Rather, Americans– the Anglophile types at any rate– believe the English to be the True Master Race.
Having said that, I am sure most of you know that Joseph Stalin did not perceive the Russian people, as such, to be members of any type of Jewish Chosen People! No, to assume he did, that would be most silly. Why would that slightly more infamous tyrant, namely Adolf Hitler, perceive the German people, as such, to be the Aryan Master Race?
To extend the analogy, exactly like not all Jews were Russian and not all Russians were Jews; not all Aryans were German and not all Germans were Aryans. Hitler certainly did not perceive German Jews to be Aryans. After all, Aryan was not simply a fancy term for German, anymore than Jew was a fancy term for Russian. Indeed, many– perhaps most– of the English are Aryans (as are any of English ancestry, around the world). They prefer the term “Anglo Saxon”.
Still, I hope that one day, one fine day, the English can and will put aside their anti-German sentiments. After all, those two Great Teutonic peoples should unite against those who are their common enemies; those that are the enemies of all European Nations. Then, and only then, can things be right with the world.
I actually fear that once BREXIT is accomplished, the next thing would be the dissolution of The United Kingdom itself. Indeed, Great Britain shall disassemble into its components: England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Still, if and when that occurs, the English will no longer endeavor to term themselves British, hoping the rest of the United Kingdom does the same. The way they do so, is eerily like how the Germans call themselves European, hoping that the rest of the EU shall do the same. Breaks my heart to think of it!
Let there be no more Brothers’ Wars! The English, if the Anglo Saxon Invasion Theory is true, should embrace their common ancestry with Northern Germany!
Apologies but the author has made an embarrasing mistake. Bill O’reily is catholic Irish as opposed to Scots-Irish, the two groups are rather different and an excellent example of the articles theme. This can be rectified by choosing a Scots-Irish personality to substitute for mr O’reilly
Fair point. I was lazy about selecting examples, partially because the point is a statistical one and so anything short of an extensive analysis is just anecdotal anyway. But I am trying to hint that there is a whole project of building this argument in the detail it deserves that a lot of out people should be working out together.
Not very different really. Sectarian differences really are passé at this point. Lowland Scots and Cumbrians and the Irish are not in any DNA way easy to distinguish.
One reason why the Irish migrant population remained distinct in a sense, is that that they mostly already spoke English. English migrants to the US (or Welsh or Scots) will also maintain their accent. why not? It gets you positive attention.
Any notion that Paddy was seen as non-white is a fallacy. No more than Jock or Taffy could have been considered black. The inter ethnic disputes among the inhabitants of the North Atlantic Archepeligo are not racial.
Captain John Charity Springs MA
I didnt mean different DNA wise, just that post 1845 Catholic Irish have a different culture (urbanised,Catholic, quasi corporate, somtimes left wing) to the Ulster Irish which was a founding stock of the United States (rural, Protestant, individualistic, generally right wing). Its just that one paragraph here highlights these inter ethnic differences. Its a minor point and I agree that all that Noel Ignatiev stuff is nonsense.
When I was in highschool, it briefly became vogue for wouldbe edgy, young white men to declare themselves “racist against everyone”. It was more pro-social than this newfangled “even if you were gold, I wouldn’t give a fuck a out you” bussiness. It implied caring enough to punch down, at the black and white underclasses alike, rather than simply leaving them to rot. It did betray a WASP obsession with fair-seemingness, and, as per usual, it impressed literally no one.
Libertarianism was always stupid, but it’s obscene in the aftermath/midst of the opiod epidemic: a kind of taking-my-ball-and-going-home, anti-politics, of the above average white male, who recognizes that, under diversity, he will never get out what he puts into society, and neglects to follow his thoughts any further. In the process confirms the worst accusations (mendacious, lazy, spoiled, self-alienating (obsessed with Clockwork Orange)) of the enemiea of our people.
The bugman balks at authoritarism, because there’s nothing he’s willing to scarifice – either to or as an authentic figure of authority. The ancestors to whom he is truly in debt , who laid the groundwork for the good parts of the world he inherited, are long dead. His father’s generation includes pleanty of tinkerers, and entrentrepreneurs, but very few people who cared enough to show him how you live, let alone pass these lessons on to anybody else.
Your argument is largely correct that there is hidden trends and attitudes relating to longer-standing history, but Bill O’Reilly isn’t Scots-Irish, he’s of Irish and English ancestry, he’s also Catholic.
Scots-Irish aren’t ethnically Irish, they just came from Ireland. (Hence the Troubles) Even the term hillbilly is in reference to this as ‘billy’ is a term used to refer to Ulster Scots derived from their obvious support for William of Orange.
They’re descended from Ulster-Scots who are themselves descended from British protestants among whom were a significant number of Scots sent to displace and settle territory in Ulster in order to bring it under control. The other major attempt at this in Munster was largely unsuccessful but the Ulster plantation faired better hence Northern Ireland, but not perfectly, hence the Troubles.
And I would say Appalachians are mostly the way they are because of their way of living and history which O’Reilly’s ancestors did not share in any case.
Looking at most men these days, is “paternalistic” really the correct term for what we envision? Maybe even a decent “maternalism” would be better than the shit we have now, which is really
(((MSMernalism)).
Hello Aedon,
So, what do you think about gun control laws? Is it something you advocate?
Best regards,
Per Nordin
Well, the short answer is that I think gun laws need to be tailored to local circumstances. Gun control seems to be working quite well for NYC, but I see no reason to increase regulations in most rural parts of the South.
Overall, the data seems equivocal as to whether gun availability does more to increase or decrease crime. This probably results from guns bringing a net increase to crime in some areas, and a net decrease in others – depending on racial demographics, how spread out vs. concentrated the population is, the ratio of cops to citizens, and so on.
In a densely packed urban area where a cop is always nearby, guns probably cause more crimes than they prevent. The presence of cops already brings the deterrent effect near to its maximum, it isn’t easy for criminals to commit crimes without being seen, and it may be quite efficient to call for a cop in case of a crime.
In a rural area where homes are spread out and it takes police a long time to even show up, they probably prevent more crimes than they cause. Just knowing that homeowners are likely to be armed in and of itself has a deterrent effect against crime under these circumstances.
So in some areas I wouldn’t want guns introduced, but in others I wouldn’t want them taken away.
Aedon, haven’t you read John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime”? His results were pretty conclusive that allowing concealed carry, even in urban areas, always leads to a decrease in crime. No liberal statistician has been able to refute his conclusions.
Interesting, I didn’t remember him breaking things down so narrowly by locale. I have read it, but it’s been a really long time now. And I’ll admit this isn’t a topic I’ve devoted much time to in general. So it’s not fresh on my memory… but I feel like I did read something adding credence to a role for gun control while reading about NYC’s crime drop in the context of the war on drugs. Maybe I’ll dig back into it some time soon…
Thanks for your answer Aedon.
I do not like the argument because there are criminals who commit crimes and shoot people, is it really a motive to ban weapons for the public, especially for honorable and law-abiding citizens? Would it not be a better idea to prohibit criminals from buying weapons in such a case, wherever they live? I do not know if you mean so, but you want to ban it in some places and allow it to others, I understand.
Lawy white people should be able to own weapons wherever they live in white countries, even in New York etc, perhaps especially in places like that where they are surrounded by non-white.
It would maybe make it more difficult for some criminals to get guns, but on the other hand if criminals who really want guns, can buy them illegal, and this seems impossible to stop.
So if guns are banned or become more difficult to get hold of in general, it will only make it difficult for honorable citizens to defend themselves from criminals who, surely, will have guns in any case, no matter what the guns laws look like. I think that the only difference gun control laws would imply is that the strengths of the criminals would be better, in comparison to the honorable ones. This gives more power to criminal people and less to the good and honest people. Why would we like this?
Think about it. Especially in areas where white is in a minority, and where black, mexican and other gangs rage around with their illegal guns, do we really want to disarm whites even more?
“guns probably cause more crimes than they prevent.”
But guns don’t really cause any crimes at all, people do. Knives don’t cause crimes neither, nor trucks, people do. And if people realy want to hurt other people, they will do so no matter what the guns laws looks like. Take my country for example, Sweden. In Sweden we have extremely strict gun laws, and it’s very hard to get a weapon license. Basically, only police officers, and hunters may have guns, and some who are in shooting clubs. Getting a license for a pistol/revolver is virtually impossible. No firearms can be owned for self-defense for themselves and their family! And you really have to be able to justify carefully what you are going to use the gun for and to prove it.
So it’s very hard for ethnic Swedes to own guns and to get them. It is very different for the racial foreigners which overflows our country. Their gangs has access to a lot of illegal weapons. Automatic weapons even. There are shootings all the time, while Swedes are defenseless.
I only remember a few years ago when there was an immigrant gang that shot with automatic weapons in the suburbs and murdered people. The Swedish politicians wanted to show manpower. What did they do? They even introduced more firearms restrictions, for shooting clubs! Shooting clubs, where most older law abiding Swedish men are doing sports shooting, who has nothing to do with the killings. It was for “the public’s best and the common good” we are told. Yeah right.
It’s really absurd. And that does not solve any problems. Even if immigrants do not get firearms, they can use knives. Knives are forbidden to wear in Sweden, but those laws do not stop immigrants from wearing them or using them, just with the firearms. Some year ago, an immigrant ran into an Ikea store in Sweden, took a knife and murdered a Swedish mother and son. Why? Because he would not want to be expelled from Sweden. Ikea responded to removing all knives for sale for a while, because it really stops the problem of murder, removing the kitchenware, just ban them, for the sake of the common good, and security! A few years ago, a Muslim terrorist performed a terrorist attack in Sweden, Stockholm. He drove into a human mass , with a truck and killed swedes, one little girl! The swedish politicians’ response to this in order to demonstrate their ability to act? Emergency stopp the immigration? Intern Criminals Foreigners? Expel criminal aliens? The start of the decommissioning of multicultural and multiracial society as the basis for the problems from the beginning?
No! Their solution, put out some lead sows at the city of Stockholm, so no more trucks can enter!
But is it the kitchen knives, and trucks that kills people and that’s the problem in our countries? And is the solution to ban them or to limit their use? Obviously not! It would be to try to deal with the symptoms, but not the underlie real problem. And the real problem is neither Ikea’s kitchen knives, trucks or firearms for that matter, but mainly the multiracial society’s existence as the basis for these problems.
If these immigrants want to hurt us, there are thousands of ways they can do it, as no laws can change that. The only thing these laws do is to destroy it for our own people. Secondly, to limit our own ability to defend ourselves and our families by prohibiting us from having firearms. Then, exploiting the crimes of immigrants, as a way to justify new draconian laws, to control ordinary people even more, and especially the true political opposition, while restricting the Swedish civil freedom and justice, to purchase, and to be able to introduce one draconian law after the other. But all for “the best of the public and the common good”. Their “solutions” to immigrant problems? More cameras in the cities that monitor people! Their solutions to immigrants robbery of bus drivers, they prohibit people the opportunity to pay with cash! Etc, etc…
Just prohibit, and cut and limit the swedes freedom, instead of get rid of the real problem! Firearms have never been a real problem in Sweden. All homes had rifles before. Even younger children were allowed to learn firearms, etc. No mass shootings, gang criminals etc. Same with other European countries, see switzerland for example, filled with guns, but very low crime, and realy no gun problems.
Swedish men have previously rebelled when tyrannical, both domestic and foreign rulers attempted to take the swedish people’s weapons. The least talk that the people would not be allowed to be armed, people knew they had tyrants to deal with and they lifted “the rebel flag” so to speak, and declared war.
That the proud and free men from our great race, the Northern European Germanic race should be denied the most fundamental and bacis right, the right to defend our homes and familys, is humiliating. Once upon a time, such a strong and proud people would never accept it, but today most Swedes are totally brainwashed like dressed dogs.
Swedes are soon to become an minority in Sweden. White Americans are already a minority in several states in USA, and certainly soon throughout the United States. It’s bad here like in the United States. But at least you have some benefits away in the United States, you have the right to own and carry weapons! Be glad for it, and protect it, for you will need weapons when you become a minority and be deprived of the aggressive peoples of the other races. You have the opportunity to be prepared with weapons, we do not have that opportunity. To advocate that the right to arms should be limited is insane. Now, I think you’re not for a ban off arms, but just want to say that, beware of your advantage. Allt white nationalists should, buy a lot of weapons for the future, and join shooting clubs, militias etc and train shooting. I would have done that if I was an American.
I would like to recommend this documentary about the subject, “Disarmed A History Of Gun Control Documentary Film”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7b4I1HLCsk
For those who understand Swedish, me and my colleagues at Nya Dagbladet, recorded a podcast episode about the right to own and carry a guns: https://nyadagbladet.se/poddradio/nyd-podden-avsnitt-4/
Best regards,
Per Nordin
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment