unlike Keith, I am not sure of who anonymous is. However, I have a guess, since the writing style is extremely reminiscent of someone who has publicly disassociated with anything libertarian due to its hesitance in persecuting ignorance, especially through the state. As such, I made a response worthy of both of these personalities, in case it was actually one.

Supporting the SPLC – “Incidentally, Keith, yes- as far as I know, I see no reason why I would not be happy to take a job with the Southern Poverty Law Center” – is unequivocally support of that organization and its actions. I’ll make it even more basic than Keith did – the SPLC is organized to encourage the killing, rape, and incarceration of the ignorant in our society, as well as defraud people scared by their propaganda (that they actually perform some other laudable services does not detract from their inherent evil any more than any personal charity practiced by Hitler overrode his inherent nature)

I have no problem calling such activity proto-fascist, just like I do with their mirror images on the right. Encouraging hatred and fear for personal and political gain is the stuff that provides fodder for later strong-man politicians.

By these and other statements, anonymous has indeed indicated that he/she is comfortable with using coercion to achieve her goals of conformity with her social values. In fact, if anonymous is who I guess she is, she has denounced libertarianism precisely *because* it won’t endorse coercive remedies in these areas.

That I am willing to allow others to live in peace so long as they leave others in peace, and allow them to associate with whom they choose, so long as they grant me similar liberty, does not in anyway mean I condone their cultural values. Missing this point is a real problem for many leftist, especially those who, whether knowingly or not, sign on to essentially Maoist ideals.

I am perfectly capable of denouncing racists, homophobes, and other disgusting cultural relics while still advocating that they be allowed to live their lives in peace, so long as they are peaceful. I don’t believe that there ever will be a world without criminals, or scam artists, or homophobes, or racists, or other dangerous people. I’m not religious, but I do believe in the imperfectibility of biological man. Any philosophy, such as that set forth by anonymous, that can’t acknowledge any of this is doomed to end in totalitarianism, as it always has. So I will, with equal vehemance, denounce disgusting cultural relics like anonymous – because if anything, they are even more dangerous than the racists that Keith associates with.

“The world is a crazy place at times, but I don’t see reason to celebrate or turn a blind eye towards these inconsistencies for sake of “diversity”. It’s possible to approach people on these issues without verbally “beheading” them or literally executing them like a Mao might. ”

Yes, but the difference between you and anonymous is that you are capable of recognizing such a continuum of opinion without engaging in personal attacks or behaving with hysteria and fanaticism towards those who are at a different place than you.

“It’s unfair to associate anonymous with the SPLC. When did they say anything about it being a wonderful contrast to what they oppose or dislike before Keith raised the question? This is a ugly confrontation that is going nowhere.”

Well, both anonymous and the SPLC exhibit the same kind of “Nazi-under-every-bed” lunacy that’s a mirror image of the “Commie-under-every-bed” Bircher-types I grew up around, which is why I made the comparison.

“How much of a “troublesome” big deal is it for Libertarianism to involve eschewing racism, sexism, and homophobia-transphobia? If anything; that’s widening the scope for individual expression rather than purging anyone on the slightest suspicion of “counter-revolutionary” tendencies.”

I’d have three primary responses to this:

1) I disagree that “racism, sexism, homophobia” are any more pressing issues than many other things people disagree about. “Racism” might be a pressing issue in Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa. “Sexism” and “homophobia” might be an emergency in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. That’s not the case in politically correct 21st century North America. I see no reason to carte blanche reject people with whom I might disagree over race or homosexuality just as I see no reason to reject people with whom I disagree on environmentalism, capital punishment, animal rights, gun control, abortion, compulsory education, nationalized health care, euthanasia, polygamy, drug laws, welfare, use of steroids in competitive sports, smoking in bars or anything else.

2) There’s also the matter of how “racism, sexism, homophobia” are to be defined in the first place. Some of these terms have become like “fascist” or “motherfucker” in the sense of having no real meaning other beyond that of a universal epithet. By “racism”, do we mean proponents of genocide? Yes, of course we should reject people and groups of that kind. Or do we mean opposition to affirmative action, race-based school busing or other egalitarian forms or social engineering? Or do we mean people who prefer the company of “their own kind” and the legal right to forms institutions or associations for that purpose? By homopobia, do we mean reactionary Islamic proponents of capital punishment for “sodomites”? Yes, we should oppose these, primarily by preventing their immigration into Western civilization. Are people who oppose gay marriage comparable to Ku Klux Klan members? I don’t believe they are, nor are people who oppose polygamy for whatever reason.

3) “Racism, sexism, homophobia” are not the only issues that there are. Should I reject an opponent of military commissions for holding non-liberal views on race? I don’t believe I should. Should I turn my back on a conservative Christian opponent of the Iraq war who also opposes abortion and gay marriage? Not necessarily. In fact, that would be extraordinarily foolish.

“Anonymous has done nothing but engage in encouragement to social boycott towards someone who she disagrees strongly with on this.”

That’s fine, but if she wishes to attack me, I’ll certainly hit back in return.

“Individualist radicals have the much more inspiring task of persuading people to behave differently in their everyday lives. We ask people to act directly for the good rather than relying on-courting extensive coercive authority. The stakes are much higher for us. We don’t have authoritarian power privilege to fall back on to shield us from grassroots bigotry.”

I suppose this is my principal qualm with the hard-core cultural left. I simply disagree that waging war against everything labeled “bigotry”, no matter how dubious, mild, moderate, or marginal, is the highest political or social value. I would say the primary issues are overthrowing the imperial system, the corporatist economy and the police state.

The whole purpose of individual liberty, freedom of choice and association, pluralism and decentralism is for people with contending values to avoid conflict with one another and for individuals to find associations with others compatible with their own interests. Both the cultural left and the cultural right have both libertarian and authoritarian strands. Whom is worse is probably an individual’s value judgement. I’m not fully in either camp myself.

In fact, I think discussions of this type reinforce the view that cultural separatism is the best solution to conflicts between groups with irreconcilable differences.

“Imagine we were living in the Civil Rights era right now. The Civil Rights protesters proved you could win victories through non-violent means.”

Well, they also had the advantage of having substantial support in the media, the government and the elite classes.

“What kind of message would it send to have supported racial separatists at that point? ”

Without really taking any particular side on this, I thought this comment on this same question from a “national-anarchist” was interesting:

“You bring up a very interesting point about separatism being recognized by the radical left in the 70s and earlier (see CPUSA support for an independent black nation in the South). I think the history of the Civil Rights movement in America really shows the evolution of an idea that ended with mutually assured separatism as it’s furthest radicalization. The Civil Rights movement started with white liberal paternalists leading it with the SNNC
which called for one-world universalism. This culminated with MLK Jr., whose ideas had more to do with his being a Christian than with being black. Once these ideas were recognized as hopelessly utopian and the system was recognzied as the problem by both Malcolm X and the Black Panthers as well as lesser known groups like DRUM, separatism was
pursued. Of course, this is when Black Power became an actual threat and so the FBI and local police forces did what they could to put a stop to it. The system adopted the Civil Rights Act as a concession to blacks to ensure that they wouldn’t turn against the system itself. The rest is history and the violent, separatist factions were left out of the Official history of the
movement to make it seem like desegregation and the Civil Rights Act of ’64 was the end point of it all.”

“Diversity has an objective meaning. It doesn’t mean celebrating arrangements that are purposely designed to destroy its meaning. Individualism and all other concepts are utterly meaningless when they refer to everything and anything.”

The problem with this statement is that the Other will always exist. In those countries where the cultural left is most powerful, they seek to silence their opponents with all sorts of repressive measures. Christian clergy who disagree with homosexuality can be prosecuted for “hate speech” in some European countries. You know who brought the first laws criminalizing Holocaust revisionism in Europe? The Communist deputies of the French parliament. Right-wing scholars, none of whom with a history of violence, have been physically assaulted by these “antifa” street thugs. These are just a few examples.

Do you seriously think most leftoids really give a damn about any kind of libertarianism? Or do they want an obtrusive state that regulates society on behalf of their own “cultural values”, i.e., self-interest?

Some years ago I took a hard look at the “culture wars” and related issues in the US and realized that the only viable futures were either civil war, tyranny or mutual separation. I’ll opt for the latter.

Btw, there was a very good article on pan-secessionism in “The American Conservative” recently, if anyone is interested:

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/nov/03/00019/

“While Marx had many great insights into the workings of capitalist economies, the libertarian movement does itself a great disservice by adopting the cultural purges that are inherent in the political philosophy. I mean, look how well that worked out in the Soviet Union and China! Who wouldn’t want that kind of world?”

I can understand a desire to avoid a repeat of Mao’s cultural revolution, but I don’t think that people arguing for more certainty on cultural politics are proposing anything like it. Based on my reading of anonymous’s posts elsewhere, I do not think that is what they advocate.

(The next part isn’t addressed to quasibill per se. I don’t know of him or her as an advocate of any of the isms I mention. It touches on my marvel at the fact that we have to have ugly debates like this in the first place)

How much of a “troublesome” big deal is it for Libertarianism to involve eschewing racism, sexism, and homophobia-transphobia? If anything; that’s widening the scope for individual expression rather than purging anyone on the slightest suspicion of “counter-revolutionary” tendencies. I have had black friends. I have had female friends. I have had gay-trans friends. It’s not very difficult for rational individuals to discard blind prejudice towards people. It’s very easy and immensely rewarding. It doesn’t involve Maoist purges or mindless notions of political correctness — unless not talking to someone who is a different skin color is some kind of “outrageous imposition”. Anonymous has done nothing but engage in encouragement to social boycott towards someone who she disagrees strongly with on this. A far cry from the forced labor camps of Soviet Russia.

I would contend that Libertarianism is more in need of cultural analysis, because it rejects a state centric view of politics. Stalinists or Maoists need only focus on achieving unlimited political power. They need only find a suitably timid populace to keep in check by terror. Individualist radicals have the much more inspiring task of persuading people to behave differently in their everyday lives. We ask people to act directly for the good rather than relying on-courting extensive coercive authority. The stakes are much higher for us. We don’t have authoritarian power privilege to fall back on to shield us from grassroots bigotry.

Imagine we were living in the Civil Rights era right now. The Civil Rights protesters proved you could win victories through non-violent means. What kind of message would it send to have supported racial separatists at that point? Diversity has an objective meaning. It doesn’t mean celebrating arrangements that are purposely designed to destroy its meaning. Individualism and all other concepts are utterly meaningless when they refer to everything and anything.

(Btw; I am aware of black nationalism and Malcolm X. I’d prefer to avoid being called a white devil though)

As opposed to such an exemplar of enlightened rational objectivity as yourself, no doubt?

Boo-hoo-hoo. Cry me a river.

If you wish to persistently make shrill, accusatory attacks on me, and do so on every list where you and I both happen to show up, that’s your prerogative. But I’m not going to play softball in return. If you wish to take off the gloves, so be it, but I hit back and I hit hard.

Vdare carries works by Pat Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts offering many valuable insights on foreign policy, economics and civil liberties. It’s funny because I used to despise Buchanan and Roberts twenty years ago as Reaganite apologists (which they were) but their stuff is now some of the best anti-Neocon commentary around. As for Vdare’s views on immigration, I agree sometimes and not other times. That’s an issue where I’m more of a centrist than a “conservative”.

Anonymous,

This is getting to be a real comedy show. You don’t speak in anything except generalities, blanket accusations and “guilt by association”. Like so many other leftoids I’ve encountered, its seems to be my relationship with these “national anarchists” that you are particularly galled by. Like the folks at Infoshop.org and elsewhere, you seem unable to bear the idea that there might be some anarchists somewhere who don’t subscribe to cliched leftoidal orthodoxy and predictable liberal pieties.

“Your views are simply not based on a desire to see human beings become happy and fulfilled.”

I suppose that would depend on matters of degree. Do I give a flying fuck if everyone’s coffee is warm in the morning? Not particularly. I’d be curious to know what you’ve ever done to advance the happiness of mankind. My primary political issue for over two decades has been to dismantle the US international empire which has killed nearly eight million people. Judging from your posts on this and other lists as well as your own former list (yes, I know who you really are) it would appear that you, on the other hand, basically claim no grief with the empire so long as “liberal” values are advanced in the process. And these “liberal” values basically seem to amount to little more than “Gay Sex Uber Alles” or making sure no one, not even a single individual hidden away in a broom closet, ever uses racial epithets or thinks homophobic thoughts, to be imposed on everyone else with Maoist-style purges and repression.

“I do not understand how it is possible that so many people do not see this. Perhaps they haven’t seen hatred and abuse up close themselves before. Perhaps they are blinded by your impressive and original intellect and by shared hatreds, for instance of the state. Perhaps the root of the matter does lie in libertarianism’s political commitments to formal value-neutrality.”

Or perhaps the fact that they don’t share your hysterical hostility towards me is more a reflection on you than on me or them.

“I’m not sure- I do not understand this perfectly, and I do know that my own hatred for what you stand for is clouding my own judgment and effectiveness and simply contributing to the kind of atmosphere in which you thrive.”

I’m not entirely sure what you mean here about “the kind of atmosphere in which I thrive”, but I would certainly agree that “judgement” is not your strong suit.

“I simply warn everyone here- Keith Preston does not intend and will not accomplish anything good for you, for the world, or for himself. By aiding and sanctioning him you harm and discredit yourselves and empower the worst in all of us. Please, listen to your common sense and just *look* at what you are getting into. Is *this* where you wished that the idealism which led you to libertarianism would take you?”

LOL! Who do you think I am? Charles Manson?

“Incidentally, Keith, yes- as far as I know, I see no reason why I would not be happy to take a job with the Southern Poverty Law Center, altho’ I don’t know if I’ve any skills they would find of use. I’m not intensely familiar with the organisation and the microspecifics of its ideology, but have generally agreed with what I’ve read on their web page and have found them a useful resource. I remain open to rational criticism of their worldview or activities.

The SPLC is a scam organization that many liberals and leftists, even those who agree with many of their views, reject. It’s one of the wealthiest so-called “non-profit” groups in the US, and it raises its money by frightening elderly Jews old enough to remember Nazism with hobgoblins and conspiracy theories concerning outlandish cult groups on the very margins of US society. Morris Dees has been exposed over and over again as a fraud, even by his fellow leftists (read Elinor Langer’s “Hundred Little Hitlers” as an example). Dees also raped his 16 yr old stepdaughter with a dildo (it’s mentioned in his divorce decree). How’s that that for a great humanitarian supposedly advancing “human happiness”?

Acceptance of diversity (which, by any reasonable definition requires acceptance of things you dislike) is a virtue that has truly fallen out of fashion amongst the Marxist left. While Marx had many great insights into the workings of capitalist economies, the libertarian movement does itself a great disservice by adopting the cultural purges that are inherent in the political philosophy. I mean, look how well that worked out in the Soviet Union and China! Who wouldn’t want that kind of world?

Your views are simply not based on a desire to see human beings become happy and fulfilled. That should, really, be enough warning to alert the reader that something is very seriously wrong.

I do not understand how it is possible that so many people do not see this. Perhaps they haven’t seen hatred and abuse up close themselves before. Perhaps they are blinded by your impressive and original intellect and by shared hatreds, for instance of the state. Perhaps the root of the matter does lie in libertarianism’s political commitments to formal value-neutrality. I’m not sure- I do not understand this perfectly, and I do know that my own hatred for what you stand for is clouding my own judgment and effectiveness and simply contributing to the kind of atmosphere in which you thrive.

But I stand by my own judgment that the libertarian movement, by accepting common cause with you, is making a colossal error which I find truly astonishing.

* * * *

I simply warn everyone here- Keith Preston does not intend and will not accomplish anything good for you, for the world, or for himself. By aiding and sanctioning him you harm and discredit yourselves and empower the worst in all of us. Please, listen to your common sense and just *look* at what you are getting into. Is *this* where you wished that the idealism which led you to libertarianism would take you?

Incidentally, Keith, yes- as far as I know, I see no reason why I would not be happy to take a job with the Southern Poverty Law Center, altho’ I don’t know if I’ve any skills they would find of use. I’m not intensely familiar with the organisation and the microspecifics of its ideology, but have generally agreed with what I’ve read on their web page and have found them a useful resource. I remain open to rational criticism of their worldview or activities.