Main Page

From Nathan Larson for Libertarian Party National Chair
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm Nathan Larson, neocameralist candidate for Libertarian Party National Chair. The 2018 Libertarian Party National Convention and associated activities will be held in New Orleans, Louisiana, from 30 June through 3 July, 2018.



Stop telling racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. to leave the Libertarian Party

Opposing bigotry means opposing ideological discrimination too

Bigotry is defined as "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself." If libertarians oppose bigotry, then they should accept racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. into their ranks. Otherwise, they are being intolerant toward those who hold different opinions.

The Libertarian Party has been, and is, for everyone who is willing to pay the dues and sign the pledge. We have no ideological test. Someone can score in the authoritarian part of the Nolan chart and still be an LP member.

If we have no screening criteria or screening process, then we avoid endless debates about what the screening criteria or screening process should be. We only need to assess someone's libertarian purity when they step up to run for office and it comes time to vote on whether to nominate them. Since is a comparatively smaller set of Libertarians, that means we have less drama in our party.

But let's suppose we are simply going to tell white nationalists to voluntarily resign. Even then, we as a party suffer. It's not just from losing their monetary contributions (a loss that, for all we know, might be offset by contributions from those who prefer to donate to a party that's unwelcoming white nationalists). We suffer from the loss of opportunity to dialog with white nationalists.

There are many benefits to having a dialog with those with whom one disagrees. One is that you may change their position. According to the framework for recruiting, with respect to any given idea, such as libertarianism or white nationalism, people fall into groups such as active opponents, passive opponents, fence sitters, passive supporters, active supporters, etc. Even if you can't completely persuade someone, you may move them a notch in one direction or the other by what you say to them and how you treat them.

Every ideology has some points that are more well-supported and other points that are less-well-supported by logic and evidence. If you point out the weaker aspects of a person's ideology to them, you can help correct errors and weaken their support for that ideology. You also help immunize listeners who haven't yet been converted to that ideology, from going in the direction of that ideology.

We also want to make sure we acknowledge when another ideology has some legitimate points. This is part of how we arrive at more of a common ground.

Even if opposing arguments lack merit, we still sharpen our skills at refuting those arguments when we debate people who hold those views. In the Democratic and Republican parties, internal dissent offers an opportunity to mobilize supporters and organize campaigns early and get publicity during the primary season.

When there are extremists around, it also provides an opportunity to see what happens when we take ideas to their logical conclusions. In this way, we may prove some opponents wrong by reductio ad absurdum.

I would like to see a return to a more intellectual LP that doesn't shy away from controversial issues. When LP leaders are denouncing the Mises Institute, you know that the party has gone in an anti-intellectual direction. The Mises Institute and like-minded libertarians have suggested a reasonable alternative to building a wall (which some white nationalists have pointed out wouldn't do much to get rid of the diversity the country already has anyway), which is to allow private property owners to discriminate against prospective tenants, customers, etc. based on whatever criteria they want. But that's politically incorrect, so we won't hear that from the current LP leaders.

There are ways of keeping racists, and others with divergent views, within the LP from causing problems

It usually is not a big problem if we have Libertarians with divergent views in our party. If, say, a racist proposal comes up for debate, or a racist candidate gets nominated, the racists will simply get outvoted in any partywide vote. If we keep racists out of leadership positions, they should not be a major problem.

Entryists have more potential to become a problem when the vote is limited to Libertarians in a certain geographical area where the party is weak and therefore susceptible to takeover. For example, in Virginia, the chair of each congressional district affiliate serves on the state central committee. The congressional district affiliates also have some responsibility for nominating candidates for U.S. House of Representatives.

Some congressional districts hardly have any active members, so the congressional district chairmanship goes to whoever wants the role. It may even be necessary for the state party to recruit a placeholder member to serve as a favor, due to the state law requiring that the committee have a member from each district.

It would therefore be fairly easy for a white nationalist from a part of the state where the party is not very active, to end up on the state central committee. A way of getting around this would be to give the congressional district chairs a nonvoting role on the state central committee, or relegate the committee to a minimal role and put all the real power in the hands of a board of directors elected by the state convention.

It can happen, though, that in a state where the party is weak, not many people show up to the state convention. Therefore, if a large and well-organized group of white nationalists could join the state affiliate and take over the convention. A way of getting around this is to ban people from voting at the state convention unless they have been members of the party for a certain length of time, such as a month. The downside of this is that there may be enthusiastic new members who have no intention of subverting the state party's goals, and are ready to begin taking part in Libertarian party politics.

If white nationalists are present in large enough numbers to take over Libertarian affiliates that have ballot access lines, they probably also have sufficient numbers to start their own party and get their own ballot access line. So that shouldn't be a major problem.

On the other hand, if an affiliate is too weak to keep white nationalists from taking over, then it's probably a fairly obscure and insignificant affiliate anyway. It happens sometimes that some backwater district will nominate a fringe candidate, as when David Duke got the Republican nomination for a Louisiana House seat. It's not a big deal.

Almost everyone is racist and sexist

Natural selection tends to favor those who, all else equal, give preference to their own kind. Your genetics will be rewarded if, all else equal, you help out your cousin instead of some random stranger. Whatever help you render someone genetically close is also more likely to be returned because they have the same tendency to help out those genetically close to them.

In my observation, while it seems fairly common for whites to have black friends, these are usually one-on-one relationships. In contrast, there are few whites who hang around mostly in majority-black groups, and there are few blacks who hang out in majority-white groups.

We see the same across other races. When it comes to hanging out in a group, most people prefer to be around others of their own kind. The exceptions are usually when people have taken on the culture of another group (as in the case of "wiggers," white who have adopted black culture, or "oreos," blacks who have adopted white culture). For example, one may run into a black man who is enthusiastic about stereotypically white interests such as computers and Star Trek, and hangs out with whites. But this is rare, and often he is of mixed race, having a white parent.

Also, a lot of times when a group invites a member of another race to hang out with them, it's so they can have a jester around for their amusement. Or in the case of politics, it's so that they can have a token minority around, to demonstrate that they're not racist.

It's been said that SWPL culture is a moat to enforce segregation in urban areas. I don't see a lot of black people in this photo of urban ax throwers, do you? Nor do I see a lot of blacks among the Jews, which are another group that maintains an elaborate set of traditions that would be hard for an outsider to master.

It probably works the same way with stuff black people dig. Members of different ethnicities use obscure slang, hobbies, foods, etc. to repel those of other ethnicities away from their group, unless those outsiders are so dedicated that they're going to go to the trouble of learning all those cultural memes, and acting like they have the same interests, for the sake of fitting into the group.

It's like how if you're going to hang out with a bunch of old-money rich people, you might need to practice horseback riding and playing golf, and act like you enjoy caviar. Otherwise, you might not fit in, even if you have money. Blacks will similarly speak a bunch of jive that no one can understand, and start conversating about 23 inch chrome rims, to repel whites from trying to hang out with them. It's covert racism, to keep their culture pure by deterring entryists from trying to come in.

As for sexism, feminists are one of the most sexist groups, because it seems like the legislation they propose assumes that men will be more likely than women to be abusive. They seem to mostly ignore or discount the possibility that women might act in a manipulative way and abuse systems that are put in place to stop physical aggression by men. That's just a subtler form of aggression, often involving proxies to do their dirty work for them.

Race can be a useful heuristic

Since attention spans are limited, anything one can tell about a person at a glance is a potentially useful heuristic if it can be correlated with a likelihood of having certain characteristics. People do this all the time, when observing a person's style, mannerisms, etc. to make judgments about what kind of person they are. Employers, for example, when they are unable to do complete background checks, will sometimes use race as a proxy for criminality. It's not a perfect indicator, but it might be better than no indicator at all.

Sometimes people discriminate against outsiders, and sometimes they discriminate in favor of outsiders. It's been observed that people often take a sexual interest in exotic foreigners, for example finding foreign accents attractive. This might be a way of discouraging inbreeding and encouraging cross-pollination with people from different genetic backgrounds.

The Libertarian Party will probably be overwhelmingly majority-white and majority-male for the foreseeable future

Certain causes just don't seem to attract a lot of black people. If I go to a PETA meeting, or a meeting of environmentalists concerned about climate change, I don't see a lot of black people. Is that because animal rights activists and environmentalists are racist? Well, yeah, maybe. Because like I say, everyone is racist.

An animal rights activist would probably look at a typical black person as a villain rather than victim, and say, "How dare you eat that fried chicken," rather than saying, "How terrible that whites have oppressed your race for so long." Environmentalists would probably want to tell blacks, "That Escalade is so harmful to the environment! You should get a Prius instead!"

People who are poor usually are too busy worrying about their own personal survival, and that of their families, to worry about lofty ethical questions and dangers that loom in the distant future. One of libertarians' main arguments is that socialism constrains the entrepreneur from developing better technology that could better feed, clothe, entertain, etc. the masses in the future. But people who aren't doing too well economically tend to be more worried about the present, and therefore using the state to redistribute wealth away from the successful could seem like more of an attractive idea to them.

Not that all blacks are poor, but the immediate needs of the poor are probably talked about more in black culture. Even the middle class blacks in many cases grew up in a poor family and therefore are used to thinking of poverty as being the most important issue to address.

Libertarians also haven't done the greatest job of focusing on issues relevant to blacks. With regard to the drug war, Libertarians have mostly tended to focus on legalize pot rather than legalizing crack. Although more blacks than whites get busted for pot offenses, in terms of total time spent in prison for felony drug offenses, the crack laws have probably been more devastating to blacks.

But why bother focusing on political issues that will help blacks, when blacks are still not going to join the Libertarian Party? We've seen in the past that candidates like Bernie Sanders who did a lot for the black community still didn't get the black vote. It would be the same way if we started calling for crack legalization. Blacks tend to be more religious, and libertarianism is largely an ideology of atheists and agnostics. Christians are usually not going to get on board the idea that the state should condone people's "defiling their temples" with drugs.

Races also tend to specialize. For example, Cambodians often run donut shops. Blacks, when they become educated professionals, typically are lawyers, pastors, politicians, etc. The intellectuals, on the other hand, are usually white. Libertarianism tends to attract intellectuals who are interested in obscure principles of economics, so therefore libertarianism will tend to mostly attract whites.

Specialization tends to produce a certain amount of segregation, as the different races develop their own unique cultures and interests, in much the same way that the isolated Galápagos Islands produce unusual species that could not survive elsewhere. Even if the goal was not segregation, that ends up being the effect. One will notice, men and women often segregate themselves at different tables by sex when there's, say, a company get-together, because they have different topics of conversation. When men and women come together, it's often because of a sexual or romantic interest rather than for other reasons. (See "It's a Man's Universe" from The Manipulated Man.)

Libertarianism is a philosophy that believes specialization is good because it expands the scope for division of labor. That could mean that whites end up being the ones who specialize in promoting libertarianism, while blacks focus on writing hip-hop rhymes, arranging their hair into complex styles, going to the club, etc.

One might say, "You make it sound like blacks are mostly interested in frivolous stuff." That's only true if one considers art and music frivolous. And who can say what's high art or low art? Whites, at any rate, are involved in plenty of seemingly frivolous stuff themselves, like Eve Online. (I'm surprised that didn't make the list.)

Racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. will probably not repel too many blacks, women, gays, etc. unless they end up actually running the party

Some people would say, "If we have a white racist around, then the blacks might not want to have that person sitting next to them at the convention." The white racist will probably segregate himself, though, and hang out with the whites if he can. Or, if he gets a frosty enough reception from all Libertarians, he might simply stop coming to conventions at all. That apparently is what LP leadership is trying to do by asking white nationalists to resign from the LP, but one has to bear in mind, if you explicitly tell them to leave, they might out of principle hang around more, just to be contrary.

White nationalism and school segregation are not necessarily contrary to libertarian principles

If white nationalists were to buy up all the land in the U.S. and tell the blacks to get out, that would be in accordance with libertarianism. Libertarianism has always favored letting property owners decide what to do with their property. That includes deciding whom to kick out.

Let's assume for a moment that the minarchists are correct, and public property does need to exist. There's still no reason to say that public property must be open to all. A private citizen cannot simply walk into, say, the National Security Agency building at will. A random adult cannot just walk into an elementary school and begin wandering around. The government would deem this a threat to security, even though it means that discrimination is being practiced (e.g. on the basis of employment at the agency, or enrollment at the school). This is despite the fact that we are all paying taxes to support these institutions, and that some of us might believe ourselves to have a legitimate interest in being there to observe what our public servants are up to.

Taking this to its logical conclusion, what would be harm in having separate schools for whites and blacks? This already exists to some degree, in that jurisdictions like DC have schools with a higher black population. If we really wanted to take egalitarianism to its logical conclusions, then all schools would be funded in such a way as to keep them all to the same level of quality.

But who's to say that's in the public interest? Why not instead invest more funds in training the best, the brightest, and the most promising students, and put them around other smart kids? Why not put the smartest intellectuals all in one place, as we already do at the university level, by only accepting the highest-achieving students into certain schools? At some public schools, it can already be observed that the honors classes only consist of white students, which is a form of segregation based on performance.

A local government can exclude most blacks from its schools simply by zoning property in such a way that only wealthier people can afford to live there. But the poorer whites have no way to get away from blacks, which many white nationalists find objectionable. So they're going to use their votes to obtain what they cannot afford to buy. Rather than object to this, why not focus on objecting to public education's existing at all? If it didn't, then everyone would just pay for their own kids' schooling, and segregation could easily be achieved by private schools' explicitly banning certain races.

What libertarian principle is there that says that either whites or blacks have a right to live in the United States? Who was the first to homestead the land? It was probably neither whites nor blacks. Yet we're here because the land was taken by conquest, which apparently vitiated the original claims, because I don't see anyone trying very hard to track down the rightful owners and give the land back. That being the case, who is to say that another conquest wouldn't give claim to new title as legitimate as what we have now? Why shouldn't white nationalists try to achieve that? Is there any truth to the principle that might makes right, or was that a principle for another time, and now libertarians only recognize claims that were grandfathered in before the new system came into being? That's fairly arbitrary.

Comparative advantage only goes so far as an argument against white nationalism

Comparative advantage argues that even if whites are superior to blacks in every respect, whites still benefit from having blacks around, because they provide unskilled labor that frees up whites to be skilled laborers. If a black man is taking out the trash, then the white man who otherwise would've needed to take out his own trash can now focus on engineering, or programming, or whatever it is that he does.

This assumes that the two available alternatives are to (1) have a white man doing everything for himself, or to (2) have a white man doing skilled work and a black man doing unskilled work. But there is also the possibility to (3) have a white man doing skilled work and another white man doing unskilled work.

By increasing the white population, we could achieve the same benefits that are achieved by bringing in immigrants, without having to deal with certain problems that arise from having a multicultural environment. As for the other benefits of global trade, such as gaining access to raw materials that don't exist in the U.S., those can be obtained by trade, without the races' needing to mix.

There are benefits to both uniformity and diversity

Uniformity has certain benefits. When people share the same culture, they can understand each other better, pursue common goals better, etc. It becomes easier to "fit in" when you're among people you share stuff in common with, because you laugh at the same jokes, share the same hobbies, etc.

On the other hand, diversity has benefits too. We can learn from those who are different than us. We can incorporate parts of their culture into our own and thereby progress faster than if we had to come up with all innovations on our own. Different cultures give us a basis for comparison by which we can judge how our own culture affects our performance. Having many different cultures allows for small-scale cultural experiments to be conducted.

However, for cultures to develop, they often need isolation from other cultures that would invade and take over. For example, if an Indian tribe is going to retain its language, then it's helpful if the tribe is together in one place that's mostly closed off to outsiders, rather than scattered across America, where they will probably end up just speaking English because they're surrounded by English-speakers. In that case, we end up with a monoculture rather than a diversity of cultures.

There could be a legitimate concern that if schools are run by the government, then once whites fall into the minority, they will be at risk of having their culture denigrated, stamped out, etc. and replaced with another culture. If there are lower-IQ students entering the schools, who don't have help from their parents in doing their homework because their dad is in prison or ran off, leaving them a bastard child, that could also be a problem, because the slower students sometimes hold the whole class back.

Every intelligent person has had the experience of being around the less intelligent, who spoiled the conversation by interjecting stupidity into it, so that they had to be quiet and let the lowest common denominator take over. Some whites prefer to not be around typical blacks because they find their loud yelling and distracting antics disruptive.

While blacks have a high rate of criminality, most of their criminality is directed at other blacks. Nonetheless, whites end up being called in to clean up the mess. In this respect, it is a nuisance. One might regard it as an externality of black communities, from which some whites might wish to free themselves by letting the blacks bear responsibility for policing their own.

If blacks were in charge of legislating for other blacks, rather than being under a mostly white-led legislature, they might get rid of some of the criminal laws that disadvantage blacks, such as the crack:powder cocaine sentencing disparity, which reforms like the Fair Sentencing Act still have not completely eliminated.

White nationalism doesn't necessarily mean that the entire U.S. would need to exclude non-whites

Even the Confederates never tried to force their way of life on the northern states that didn't want it. Entering the Confederacy was strictly voluntary for those states that chose to secede from the U.S. The Nazis likewise only had in mind incorporating Germanic Europe into the Greater Germanic Reich.

A lot of white nationalists just call for a certain part of the country, rather than the whole country, being set aside for whites. Libertarians such as Ludwig von Mises have called for villages, provinces, etc. to have a right to secede and make their own laws.

As long as we have democracy, there will be a reason for people who are prospering under the current system to want to keep potentially disruptive newcomers out

If foreigners are coming into the country, who have different values than what the current system was built on, there's a chance they will try to effect change in the politics of the country. The people prospering under the current laws will tend to favor preventing this kind of demographic change. Therefore, if the goal is to encourage immigration, libertarians should want to get rid of democracy and instead have a system under which a minority can continue to rule even as immigrants come into the country.

This also applies internally in the LP. If the LP is organized in such a way that a majority faction of the membership can take over, then there will be a natural tendency of those currently in power to want to keep newcomers with different values (e.g. a different flavor of libertarianism) out. If it were a board-only organization, that wouldn't be an issue.

If the state is going to prohibit anyone from privatizing the commons, then if the state does not act to control the commons, the commons falls into chaos

Some will argue, anarchists should oppose government regulation of the border because the less action the government takes, the closer we are to anarchy.

By that logic, we're a step closer to anarchy if the government allows companies to dump a bunch of pollution into the water, or if the government frees murderers from prison, etc. while still forcibly arrogating to itself a monopoly over environmental regulation and criminal justice.

Unless property is privatized, and property owners are permitted to regulate what happens on their property, we end up with chaos, not spontaneous order.

If private property owners are not allowed to discriminate against, say, Mexicans who want to patronize their stores and rent property from them, then letting Mexicans into the country potentially adds more chaos to their lives. Of course, if they wanted those customers and tenants, then the immigration helps them.

I think that if anti-discrimination laws were done away with, then most white nationalists would probably be less opposed to immigration.

It's arbitrary where we draw a line and say, "These are debates about libertarianism" and "These are debates within libertarianism"

The Statement of Principles has stayed the same since 1974, but the platform has changed dramatically. What this indicates to me that from a few fundamental principles of libertarianism, it is possible to draw many different interpretations. This is evident in the many splits within the Libertarian Party, for example between anarcho-capitalism and minarchism. The interpretations are just something people made up one day, often based on the cultural and political influences of the era in which they were written.

Libertarians passively supported gay marriage for a long time, but I wouldn't really say that they led the charge to legalize it. The LGBT movement did that, while Libertarians were focused more on stuff like tax cuts and pot legalization. The LP played more the role of follower than leader with regard to the cultural change that made decisions like Obergefell v. Hodges possible. The LP has borrowed quite a few ideas from the left, including their norms of political correctness.

Much like how anarcho- can be a prefix for anything one likes, there are as many different flavors of libertarianism as there are ideologies.

What makes someone a libertarian? It's like asking, someone who has lived in a bunch of different areas, what state do you consider home? Are you a Virginian, a Texan, a Coloradan? Usually it's a question of, where do you keep coming back to? If someone is a conservative Republican all their life, and then they run for president as Libertarian, and then they drift off again back into the conservative movement, I wouldn't consider that person a libertarian. What makes someone a libertarian is when, regardless of whether they drift away now and then and dabble in other ideologies, they keep coming back to the libertarian movement.

In the long run, we don't really need to worry about non-libertarians causing problems in the party, because unless they actually convert and become libertarians or unless they convert us to their point of view, they will tend to drift away on their own. Or, if they stay, it's because they are indeed libertarians, and their opposing viewpoint is just one of many debates within libertarianism.

No one can really say of another person, "You're not a libertarian." Once we go down that road, the smallest deviation from the orthodoxy makes people susceptible to being excluded. But that prevents libertarianism from evolving and changing. Murray Rothbard writes, "Libertarianism, while vital and true, cannot be merely graven in stone tablets; it must be a living theory, advancing through writing and discussion, and through refuting and combating errors as they arise." He also notes that "any new idea, much less any new critical idea, must necessarily begin as a small minority opinion."

If you kick people out, or make them feel unwelcome, that actually makes them more likely to drift further away from libertarianism.

But there is another critical reason for “talking to ourselves,” even if that were all the talking that was going on. And that is reinforcement—the psychologically necessary knowledge that there are other people of like mind to talk to, argue with, and generally communicate and interact with. At present, the libertarian creed is still that of a relatively small minority, and furthermore, it proposes radical changes in the status quo. Hence, it is bound to be a lonely creed, and the reinforcement of having a movement, of “talking to ourselves,” can combat and overcome that isolation. The contemporary movement is now old enough to have had a host of defectors; analysis of these defections shows that, in almost every case, the libertarian has been isolated, cut off from fellowship and interaction with his colleagues. A flourishing movement with a sense of community and esprit de corps is the best antidote for giving up liberty as a hopeless or “impractical” cause.

How can we say that libertarian doctrine is clear-cut on any issue? Rothbardians would say that the state shouldn't forcibly prevent abortion and child neglect, while other libertarians would say that the state should allow abortion but not allow child neglect, and others would say that the state shouldn't allow either abortion or child neglect. There is disagreement within libertarianism about quite a lot of issues. If we got rid of everyone who didn't agree with the current platform, there'd be hardly anyone left.

Most of the precepts behind humanitarian and brutalist libertarianism are just something people made up one day

Rothbard wrote, "Libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life."

Both humanitarian and brutalist libertarianism, to the extent they prescribe norms of behavior that should exist in a libertarian society, could be regarded as forms of "thick" libertarianism.

These traditions consist of stuff people (usually non-libertarian people) made up one day. Take something like homophobia, for instance. Where did the idea come from that one should regard homosexuality as immoral? We know it goes back at least as far as Biblical times, but at some point, someone simply made up the idea, for reasons that are perhaps now lost to history. What about the idea that homosexuality is normal and that homosexuals shouldn't be discriminated against; where did that come from? Someone made it up one day, and now it's considered a part of part of libertarian doctrine that we're not allowed to question. But the old-school classical liberals, prior to the Party's founding, probably would not have had those same views.

What about transphobia and anti-transphobia? Where did the idea come from that you have to call people by whatever pronoun they want, or else you're being hateful? It's just something the left made up, that eventually caught on in mainstream society, and became part of humanitarian libertarianism (which is basically libertarianism mixed with leftist cultural ideas).

Now one might argue, leftists and libertarians have the same views about social issues, so therefore Libertarians should adopt leftist cultural norms. There's a difference, though, between saying "the government shouldn't persecute transgender people" and saying "everyone should be tolerant of transgenderism".

We shouldn't ask people to leave the Party because they refuse to go along with whatever is the current mainstream cultural trend

A all-white nation could emerge organically through capitalism, e.g. if a wealthy white nationalist were to buy up a bunch of land and secede from the country. This would not be contrary to libertarian principles, but current Libertarian leaders arbitrarily say that nationalism is a "sickness".

Canada is whiter than the U.S. Is its economy doing worse than the American economy? Is there evidence that Canada is culturally more dysfunctional than the U.S.? If not, then where do we draw this conclusion that being against multiculturalism is a sickness?

There's room in the party for cultural dissidents. We don't all have to follow whatever views are trendy with the mainstream.

The mainstream is not even all that tolerant, so Libertarians who aspire to be tolerant should be skeptical about mainstream opinion rather than passively following it

The mainstream is not tolerant toward, say, pedophiles, so that's a blind spot, to the extent that the mainstream aspires to be tolerant. Mainstream criticisms of pedophilia are not evidence-based, and moreover, the mainstream does not even tolerate a free and open debate about pedophilia. It's possible that the anti-pedos would be unable to defend their arguments if such a debate did transpire, which is why they are dodging the debate. We've seen this happen too with those who were against pot smoking -- they dodged the debates.

White men are supreme

The media talks a lot about "white supremacists". But who isn't a white supremacist? When you look at the U.N. Charter, it says that the nations that will have the most power in running the U.N. are "The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America". That sounds pretty white (and Asian) supremacist.

Yeah, each U.N. member gets an equal vote in the U.N. General Assembly. But that's just a way of creating a pretense on paper that every country is equal. Those third world countries' votes still get manipulated by the major powers' offering them foreign aid. They're mostly just puppet governments.

It's the same way with domestic politics. Yeah, blacks vote for the Democratic Party, but the Democratic Party is still run mostly by whites. Whites came up with every idea that the Democratic Party puts forth. A few black "leaders" have just found a convenient way to enrich themselves by being highly-paid puppets of a certain white-run political faction.

So if your fellow whites fuck you over, and give a bunch of resources to the blacks that could have gone to the whites, I don't see that so much as cucking out. Those whites are just using those blacks as pawns in their fight for dominance over rival white factions.

The white woman who fucks a black dude and has interracial offspring doesn't really betray her race, as much as she just consigns herself and her offspring to being servants rather than masters in the power structure. Yeah, Barack Obama became President, but whoop-de-doo. He was surrounded by white advisors, just like Trump is surrounded by Jewish advisors.

It's like when people talk about men hating women. How do you hate that which is inevitably subservient to your kind? It's like hating dogs. If a police dog mauls you, or the police shoot your dog when they come to make an arrest, or someone lets their dog crap in an area where you wanted to walk, that's just dogs being used as pawns in a fight of man against man. The male feminists are just using women as a weapon to destroy other men. Women are not actually going to be in charge of anything; they will continue to be puppets of men.

It's not really possible to fight against white supremacy; that would be like if you shook up a container of oil and water really hard and said, "Aha, the oil isn't on top now, is it!" Yeah but it's going to inevitably rise back to the top.

For there to be any kind of serious fight for supremacy, you have to be pretty similar in strength to your adversary. It's like how alphas don't really worry about all the beta orbiters their girlfriend has. They don't fear getting cucked by betas because they know that alphas run the sociosexual hierarchy, and if she does go for the beta, it means that her SMV has dropped to the point that she's now given up on landing an alpha.

I think a healthy amount of contempt would be a good antidote for racial hatred. Just view the other races as subhuman rather than as serious competitors. Only see the whites in the room as rivals for the throne. If a black speaks arrogantly, it has little more significance than if some annoying dog is barking. If it chimps out, there are ways of dealing with that.

If a black man shows any kind of cleverness that you lack, you can think, "Huh, isn't that clever how it knows how to roll over and jump through a flaming hoop like that." It's just a fancy trick that a human could probably do too with enough training, except that we have better stuff to do.

Ironically, those who would say "they're giving this country to the blacks" or "the Mexicans are taking over" are assuming that it's even possible that some other race besides whites could be masters of this country. It assumes that these other races are enough like whites that they could be capable of the same stuff whites are capable of. It's like when people observe that a large number of women are now working as corporate managers or as Congresswomen, and say that someday, maybe women will run this country, or have an equal role as men.

They have to close their eyes to the role men play in helping these women with their leadership role, and in starting the company to begin with. Yeah, Angela Merkel is nominally in charge of Germany, but who established Germany? Who came up with the idea of a European Union?

It'll never happen. It can't happen. And the proof of it is that you can't have the same conversations with blacks, or with women, that you can have with white men. If you can, that's an extremely rare outlier, kind of like an albino or a hermaphrodite.

Even in Game of Thrones, there are constant reminders of how men are central to everything. Anything women are able to do, it's because they were taught by men, and even then, they're not as good at it, unless some kind of magical power is involved (like with the dragons). The successful women are mostly just good at manipulating men.

Dang, the few things women were uniquely good at, now they're losing their skill at, making them inferior in every way rather than just most ways! No wonder so many women are depressed.

Why offer blacks a choice, when all they are going to do is consult their masters and ask, "What should we do?" You could just go straight to their masters and negotiate directly with them (preferably from a position of power).

It's like how the Frenchwomen were in World War II. They were just gonna fuck whoever they thought was more powerful (Frenchmen or German men). After the war, the ones who fucked German men got their heads shorn in disgrace, but it was arguably the Frenchmen's fault that they acted that way, because they were the ones who got taken over. Women are just going to go with whichever man is more powerful; it's pointless to appeal to any higher value than that.

Likewise, the blacks will obey whichever white faction is more powerful. There could be a few black opportunists who think, "If I go with this particular white faction, I can get a privileged position" but all those promises are moot unless that white faction becomes the supreme white faction. The losing white faction is not in a position to dispense rewards to its black collaborators.

So the key is, show you're strong enough to defeat Antifa, and then the blacks will fall into line.

It's pointless to make promises to nigs unless they have something to offer us in return. We'll give them a role in our economy if it's in our self-interest, but that's about it. If the costs exceed the benefits, then we'll just liquidate them like we did to the Indians who refused to become civilized.

Sometimes it seems like whites might be losing out to other races. But it's more like some whites are being outwitted by other whites, while the other races are just pawns in the game. When you look at, say, the Rhodesian Bush War, it was the British against the Chinese and Soviets. The blacks would not have been able to win on their own; they were equipped and trained by advisors from rival superpowers. Likewise, it took the Russians to stop the Germans in WWII.

Looking at the superpowers now, who are they? Still a bunch of whites and Asians. Yeah, the blacks and spics can migrate into our country all they want, but just like Jews dominate the whites, the whites still dominate the other races. We can't be defeated from the outside; we can only defeat ourselves.

Even Antifa is predominantly white. It took some white dudes to stop some other white dudes; Black Lives Matter couldn't have done it on their own. Yeah, they could've had a chimpout, but it wouldn't have had the same effect as the doxing that Antifa does.

I notice, any time there's a world war, Europe is always at the center of it. I.e., it's all about whites fighting other whites to see which faction of the whites will rule the world. The Second Congo War is sometimes called "the third world war" but nobody really cares because there weren't a lot of whites involved.

A bunch of shitskins fighting each other doesn't affect the global balance of power that much. And if there's a fight of whites against blacks, that's not even really a fight, but more of a savage beatdown and one-sided slaughter. For there to be a truly epic, high-stakes conflict, it has to be whites against whites.

Welcome to the epic, high-stakes conflict!

Not only that, it's not even "whites fighting whites" but white men fighting white men, since the white women, like the blacks, just follow the lead of whichever faction of white men defeats the others to become supreme. Welcome to the 31 percent of America that's most relevant in determining its future!

There is more slavery now than there was before the Civil War

It seems like the 18th-century slavery was better than modern slavery, because it was capitalistic. The slaves' activities were directed by market forces, because their owner would look at the prices of crops and have his slaves work on the crops that could make the most money. The slave traders in turn had an incentive to breed slaves who could be most productively employed in activities that would make the most money.

In modern society, we're enslaved by the state, as money is drawn from the economy to fund a bunch of useless programs that aren't directed by market forces. So in some ways we've actually taken a step backward.

Uncle Tom's Cabin used to say that it was tragic that an intelligent slave who could actually invent machines and stuff would be stuck working for massa on tasks that any horse could do, just because massa was spiteful. But the market would tend to punish a master who didn't make the best use possible of his slaves' talents.

At any rate, we could make the same argument about negro slaves that we make about animals, which is that if they didn't serve our purposes, we wouldn't have them around. Those negros would've been stuck in Africa, and they wouldn't have been inventing machines there either, because it's hard to make machines out of mud.

From Chapter III:

"My master! and who made him my master? That's what I think of—what right has he to me? I'm a man as much as he is. I'm a better man than he is. I know more about business than he does; I am a better manager than he is; I can read better than he can; I can write a better hand,—and I've learned it all myself, and no thanks to him,—I've learned it in spite of him; and now what right has he to make a dray-horse of me?—to take me from things I can do, and do better than he can, and put me to work that any horse can do? He tries to do it; he says he'll bring me down and humble me, and he puts me to just the hardest, meanest and dirtiest work, on purpose!"

"O, George! George! you frighten me! Why, I never heard you talk so; I'm afraid you'll do something dreadful. I don't wonder at your feelings, at all; but oh, do be careful—do, do—for my sake—for Harry's!"

"I have been careful, and I have been patient, but it's growing worse and worse; flesh and blood can't bear it any longer;—every chance he can get to insult and torment me, he takes. I thought I could do my work well, and keep on quiet, and have some time to read and learn out of work hours; but the more he see I can do, the more he loads on. He says that though I don't say anything, he sees I've got the devil in me, and he means to bring it out; and one of these days it will come out in a way that he won't like, or I'm mistaken!"

The market would punish him for being that way, though, so that it would be harder for him to buy more slaves. From Chapter XI:

"I've got a gang of boys, sir," said the long man, resuming his attack on the fire-irons, "and I jest tells 'em—'Boys,' says I,—'run now! dig! put! jest when ye want to! I never shall come to look after you!' That's the way I keep mine. Let 'em know they are free to run any time, and it jest breaks up their wanting to. More 'n all, I've got free papers for 'em all recorded, in case I gets keeled up any o' these times, and they know it; and I tell ye, stranger, there an't a fellow in our parts gets more out of his niggers than I do. Why, my boys have been to Cincinnati, with five hundred dollars' worth of colts, and brought me back the money, all straight, time and agin. It stands to reason they should. Treat 'em like dogs, and you'll have dogs' works and dogs' actions. Treat 'em like men, and you'll have men's works." And the honest drover, in his warmth, endorsed this moral sentiment by firing a perfect feu de joi at the fireplace.

"I think you're altogether right, friend," said Mr. Wilson; "and this boy described here is a fine fellow—no mistake about that. He worked for me some half-dozen years in my bagging factory, and he was my best hand, sir. He is an ingenious fellow, too: he invented a machine for the cleaning of hemp—a really valuable affair; it's gone into use in several factories. His master holds the patent of it."

From 1860 United States Census:

The total population included 3,953,761 slaves, representing 12.6% of the total population.

From Recent US Total Government Spending:

Viewed from a GDP perspective, total government spending was steady at about 33 percent GDP in the mid 2000s and then jumped, in the Great Recession, to 41 percent GDP. But in the subsequent economic recovery total government spending has steadily declined as a percent of GDP down to about 34 percent GDP in 2015.

Feminism has failed, and it is time to domesticate women

There can be no equality between the sexes

Notice that the system people tried to set up, in which men and women had equal rights and responsibilities, wasn't stable. That period of transition, in between men being in charge and women being in charge, didn't last long. Someone has to be dominant and someone else has to be submissive, for the relationship to work. And because of the importance of female virginity for pair-bonding, and the depreciation of aging women, and the fact that kids need their biological parents, they pretty much have to stay together. That boils down to something like slavery, for one party or the other. I just don't see any avoiding it. It's just a question of which one will be holding the leash.

However, I prefer not to call it "enslavement of women" but rather "domestication of women". It's taking what's feral (or what would become feral) and giving her a comfortable enough life that she wants to settle down and be tame. Or if she won't willingly submit to being tamed, then you just forcibly tame her, by capturing her.

Freedom works for men; it doesn't work for women. Feminism has a greater tendency to degrade women than to uplift them. For every Marie Curie who is freed by feminism to reach her potential, there are many more women who misuse their freedom. Women have not evolved to have the same characteristics of integrity that men have. Rather, their strengths are to have a motherly instinct and look up to a strong man who will lead them. By destroying femininity in women, society has simultaneously destroyed incentives for the development of a healthy and civilized kind of masculinity in men, which destroys sexual polarity and generally causes more dysfunction in relations between the sexes as the complementarity of male and female roles and the natural division of labor breaks down. As I noted in 2017:

The fight against feminism is about investing resources more wisely for a better tomorrow. It is poor stewardship for parents and society to tell the best and brightest young women that they should spend the years when the flower of their youth is in full bloom partying at the university or slaving away at the corporate grind, rather than having large families and passing on their exceptional genes to produce the next generation of artists, doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs, philosophers, and scientists. Society's current approach is similar to that of a farmer who, having had an unusually good harvest, decides to consume it all that year, rather than setting aside some of those high-quality seeds to plant the following spring.
The "nice guy" approach has failed

This whole concept of "marrying for love" is based on the beta idea, "I can wow her by showing her what a nice guy I am!" Yet nice guys are commonplace. Problem is, these commonplace nice guys all think (1) women value niceness more than other characteristics and (2) they're nicer than average, which is why they support "love marriage". They think they can do a better job than other men at getting women to fall in love with them, because they'll buy her more flowers, etc. They see all these older women who say, "I went for the bad boy and he impregnated me and dumped me, but now I'm looking for a nice guy" and they think, "Wow, there are bad boys everywhere, but I stand out because I'm a good boy" when in reality it's just the same few bad boys fucking all the chicks. Plus the guy she was with may have actually been good but she was the one who fucked up the relationship. When she reaches the end of her party years, she finally is ready to settle for a nice guy because it's her last chance to cash out.

Whether women want to be enslaved and raped by a strong man is an empirical question. We can argue all day using logic, and come to opposite conclusions; but in the end, it mostly comes down to anecdotal evidence (which will vary from person to person, so it's unsurprising if this too results in different people reaching contrary conclusions, although a trend should be noticeable) and, perhaps, statistics about what actually makes men and women happier. Those of us who have been in the trenches and observed actual female preferences as demonstrated by how they behave when given sexual freedom, know what's up. Any student of praxeology knows that talk is cheap, and actions are what matter. It's just that some beliefs and experiences are more stigmatized than others, so people keep quiet about them.

A market for girls would facilitate capitalistic eugenics

Enslaving women would probably solve one's problem of worrying about where one's son is going to find a virginal 100 percent Aryan girl. Girls would just be bred to be that way, similarly to how animals are bred, and one could go buy one.

That could be a pretty good business idea, actually -- an Aryan man could acquire a bunch of pure Aryan women, and sell the female offspring on the market, while raising the male offspring to carry on the family business. The market would encourage the spread of popular genetic lines in this way, kind of like how weed-resistant plants or border collies have spread pretty widely because they're so easily accessible on the market.

We could have a marketplace of girls who are independently certified (just like diamonds) as having certain qualities, and the dad could handle his portfolio of daughters as though they were stocks -- i.e. either hold them to see if they appreciate in value as they get older, or go ahead and sell when he thinks they've reached their peak SMV. The competitive nature of the marketplace would encourage men with superior genes to produce more daughters, and thus we would have capitalism-driven eugenics.

Of course, in the marketplace for plants and animals, there are not only wholesale dealers but also a cottage industry of amateurs. In our society, this would be the individual families who produce a few of their own girls as a hobby, perhaps to give away (the same way people with pet cats will often give away a litter of kittens to their friends), or for the father to enjoy incestuously, the way one might eat tomatoes out of one's own garden.

Domestication is possible

Men are physically stronger, more likely to have weapons, etc., so can overthrow feminism whenever they want. This makes sense, given that our species evolved to be patriarchal.

We need a return of the Ron Crickenberger style of running the LP

Ron Crickenberger, during his tenure, focused on candidate recruitment and got results. We had an unprecedented number of candidates spreading the message of liberty. Crickenberger also ran for office several times himself. We need more LP officeholders who have experience running for public office, since they will be assisting candidates.

We need some more innovative campaigns

We need candidates who will offer new, experimental flavors of libertarianism. Gary Reams's 2001 "Reams Reeferendum" was an example of that. My 2017 red pill libertarian campaign was another example of that. Innovative campaigns encourage a dialog about which ideas and approaches will work, and which won't work.

We need some dank memes

The alt-right has done a better job than the libertarian movement in coming up with dank memes. We need to catch up.