Dear Ethnostatist Neoreactionary

Listen. I get it. Us white folk, we got sold out by just about everybody. Our own people, most notably. The government was screwing us, so we voted for Republicans to reduce the government. The Republicans screwed us, so some of us went to the Libertarian Party. The LP was impotent, so many of us gave up on the State altogether, and went AnCap/Voluntaryist. Then we were inundated with social justice fanatics, and I figure that’s around the time you came to the conclusion people were just too goddamn stupid to live free. Perhaps this is not your exact timeline, and perhaps I’m being too Amero-centric here, but, something like that?

Dear Ethnostatist Neoreactionary

Dear Ethnostatist Neoreactionary

Makes perfect sense, I don’t blame you one bit.

Well, that’s not entirely accurate. Yeah, I blame you. I blame you a great deal, actually. We had a pretty good thing going there, and you abandoned it. You were looking at an actual opportunity to live as free men and women, and you abandoned it. Over what? Over the incessant whining of weak, stupid, pathetic animals? You abandoned a shot at actual freedom because lesser creatures than you, complained?

And what did you give it up for? The hope to someday kneel before a king? To live a life on lease from a fascist corporate oligarchy? To be enslaved to yet another mass democracy which differs only in the race of your oppressor?

It was nice for a little while these past few days. We had some pro-white hashtags trending on Twitter. We were talking about white accomplishments, and the comparison to our racial and ethnic competitors is just staggering. White men have made the most brilliant accomplishments over the centuries. At times we’ve overcome seemingly impossible odds. We’ve spilled blood and treasure to defend what was ours, to conquer others, to bring civilization and the market economy to savages. Throughout history we have been fearless warriors and peerless market competitors.

People talk about “white privilege” as if we dominated the entire planet through some supernatural quirk. It’s laughable. We earned that dominance, and the only thing which has superseded our ability to dominate, is our empathy. We gave up empires. We gave up slaves. We said to savages “Freedom is great, try it!” and predictably, they failed at it, miserably.

In America, we made the tragic mistake of trying to make equals out of our slaves. Time has shown, this had more downward pressure on us, than upward pressure on them. Between that and women’s suffrage, we today teeter on the brink of catastrophe. White genocide is a real thing, white people are in large part cheering for it, and if we don’t do something soon, white people, and western civilization, will be lucky to find themselves so much as a page in future history books.

We all know this needs some kind of drastic cultural shift to avoid our utter destruction. It may well be that a homogeneous white society would handle a democratic government better than one of forced integration. It may well be that an unelected government would treat its clients better than a democracy treats its voters. But as previously mentioned, we teeter on the brink of catastrophe. An unlimited amount of time is not made available to us to solve these problems.

In any of these situations where a State is radically altered, we are talking about a massive undertaking. Clearly, being political minorities rapidly approaching ethnic minority status, while living in mass democracies, we cannot vote our way out of these problems. If you think you will just keep on complaining until an electoral majority sees things your way, then you are as much an advocate of white genocide as Barack Obama or Jeremy Corbyn. You might as well join ISIS, AIPAC, the Nation of Islam, or La Raza.

Let’s make something abundantly clear here. The targets of a global genocide can’t talk their exterminators out of such efforts. We are looking at bloodshed, extinction, or some combination of the two. Plenty of you may fantasize about some sort of race war, and I wouldn’t pretend for a second that there aren’t good reasons to be wary of that, but I’m here to tell you, your enemy is the State.

Not any one particular government, mind you, but the State itself. The very institution of the State is the mortal enemy of mankind and planet Earth. It is the only means by which the weak and stupid can dominate the powerful and intelligent. Today more than ever, the weak and the stupid rule the world, and that is only because governments have made this possible. Governments love weak, stupid people, because weak, stupid people empower governments. This is why governments involve themselves in education, to make certain that generation after generation of weak, stupid people are produced and crammed into voting booths to empower them for an eternity.

You speak of having ethnocentric States, but I would remind you that most states are ethnocentric, until they aren’t anymore. Europe wasn’t turned into a melting pot by Muslim invaders, it was turned into a melting pot by white European voters. America didn’t abandon its immigration laws because some supernatural outside force willed it, white voters did. And here you are, white man, being made a minority, exterminated, on your own continents, because of the bad decisions of your fellow whites, your stupid, weak, fellow whites.

If you want to repeat that mistake over again, then AIPAC, the Nation of Islam, ISIS, and La Raza send their most sincere gratitude. Governments turned your fellow whites into stupid, weak, fucking cattle. Of course we’re being wiped out, what else could come from something like that?

If we’re actually that confident in our value – fuck it, I’ll say it, our superiority – then what would we require a State for? What is it that you think a State does, other than fuck the people who live beneath its boot?

Here is my suggestion, and I’m certain none of you have a superior and realistic alternative.

1. Geographically concentrate.

I would suggest New Hampshire. I’m already here as part of the largest libertarian political migration on planet Earth. We haven’t been disarmed. We have a far lesser tax burden than many other places. We’re 94% white. The native population tends to be very wary of government. And a long list of other reasons.

2. Form a Culture of Resistance.

I’ve said this in numerous pieces, but I’ll reiterate for the new reader. Governments require an extraordinarily high level of compliance to exist. If you add up all the military and law enforcement in the United States there is only about 0.6% of the population actually employed to use force for the various levels of government. If people stop complying in large enough numbers, the government simply cannot operate. You can accomplish this with far smaller numbers if you are actually willing to violently resist.

Imagine a scenario where 5% of the population in a given geographic area would rather shoot it out with the police than comply. That means one out of every 20 encounters a law enforcement officer has is going to result in a deadly altercation. These guys are not out there harassing motorists or seizing drugs because they think they are doing god’s work. They are doing these things for a paycheck, a pension, and a sick fuckin dental plan. If their career is a path to certain death, they simply will find other careers.

Without law enforcement, the edicts of politicians are meaningless. Without law enforcement, a government is null and void. It is for all intents and purposes an anarchist society.

3. Let economics take care of the rest

You talk about anarchy and people say “Why don’t you move to Somalia if you hate government so much?” As though Somalia were actually in total anarchy, or wasn’t a shithole before its theocratic communist government collapsed. And for sure, I’d rather live in Switzerland than Somalia any day of the week. But by significant standards, life in Somalia has improved considerably since the failure of their central government.

This is because governments and civilizations are not tied to one another. Governments are parasites which leech from civilizations. The vast majority of us, if the government collapsed tonight, would simply wake up in the morning and do exactly what we did the day before. We would wake up, go to work, feed our families, mow our lawns, etc…

When you look at places where crime runs rampant, yes, there are racial and ethnic demographics to take into consideration, but generally the government is somehow enabling this to occur. Be it through gun control, or limits on self defense, or subsidizing awful behavior of one sort or another. At the very least governments monopolize the function of police, and so we can realistically blame governments for 100% of the crime they fail to prevent in a society. But blame them all you want, you can’t fire them.

Imagine tomorrow the government of your State abolished itself. Imagine you woke up and your governor said “I read this Rothbard book, and realized government is evil. So we’re gonna close up shop and let you people do what you do best”. Unlikely, I know, but imagine it.

Would you wake up and start raping and murdering people? If so, I imagine you would be shot rather quickly, but I kind of doubt you would lose all sense of decency just because you didn’t have taxes taken out of your check.

You want security, and a bunch of cops are out of work. Supply meets demand in the market. It isn’t so difficult to figure out. If the security forces you hire are doing a poor job, you fire them and hire better ones. Beats waiting for the collective wisdom of your weak, stupid neighbors to elect a better government, doesn’t it?

Without affirmative action, non-whites will have to compete in the marketplace like anybody else. Do you think you are able to outcompete non-whites?

Without minimum wage and welfare statism, immigration will only occur to meet a market demand, instead of the subsidized purposeful replacement of populations ongoing right now.

Really, the only reason for an ethnocentric State, is if you have some kind of inferiority complex. The only reason you would need a government to keep a society white, is if you think white people require protectionism to avoid non-white competition defeating them.

Personally, I stand pretty confident in white people’s ability to compete, so I have no need of governments. What about you?

You may also like The Secular Reactionary Anarcho-Capitalist Revolutionary

 

This effort is made possible by donors like you. You can also help by shopping through my Amazon affiliate link. Without that support, this site will cease to exist.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

  • Richard Chiu

    Uh…wut? I feel like I missed part of this conversation.

    Anyway, for what it’s worth, let’s do a quick rundown of the numbers. Demographic shifts blah blah blah imminent global economic collapse 90-99% of the world population dies of endemic disease, internecine warfare, mass starvation (not in that exact order) and it turns out that all the previous numbers don’t matter for half so much as your individual capability to provide the necessities of your own existence when the absolute failure of the insane policies of the state becomes impossible to deny.

    I see the crimes of the state written in the blood of billions, and I won’t hesitate to kill those who attempt to appeal to the ‘legitimacy’ of their government issued authority symbols as a pretext to attempt to steal from me and mine the necessities of life we have reserved against the day of reckoning. Nor those who appeal to their ‘history of systemic oppression by capitalism/patriarchy/whatever’ for the same purpose.

    Do I care about race? No, I can’t afford to, because most of the people I’m going to have to kill personally will probably be white, and my arch-nemesis nation is Asian. Particulars will vary, and a lot of the civil warfare which occurs around the world will probably have a significant racial component. That sort of thing can hardly be avoided when governments have been fostering racial tensions for decades as a way of distracting from their essential illegitimacy and gross malfeasance. The most ‘multi-cultural’ areas will have the greatest racial divides driving their warfare, and thus end up the most explicitly racially homogeneous in the aftermath. The least diverse areas will have conflicts characterized far more by ideological divides…they won’t exactly become more diverse, but they won’t be purged in the name of racial purity.

    Whites will emerge on top in plenty of cases, I have no real worries about them going more extinct than other races (percentagewise, anyway). I expect that most of the European nations will reemerge under the control of explicitly racist governments. That will happen less often elsewhere, but it won’t be confined to Europe. Hopefully there will be some places that manage to throw off the yoke of centralized governance…but it isn’t readily possible to predict.

    More people will survive in places where there is the will and capacity to adapt and produce what they need for survival. Distrust of the state and a serious determination to live without it will save lives.

    But a lot of people are going to die. There is just no way around that, at this point.

  • Peter

    Creating a culture of resistance (violent or not) simply will not ever come into fruition without pushing more skepticism of government into the minds of the common person. We need to bleed into the core of our non-libertarian brothers the understanding that the State cannot be trusted and have been a threat to their life and potential ever since they lay foot on this earth.

    How do we do this? We can attempt to spew propaganda like the feminists about the state, which may work if we change tactics beyond screaming about speculative conspiracies. Or we can reveal the truth of the evil that is the state.

    This is one reason why I am adamant about the 28 pages movement, If the truth is appropriately propagated rhetorically and screamed about from sea to sea, we might have an opportunity to change the public consciousness. If we reveal to Americans that the fed doesn’t give a shit about them and their safety, and are willing to shield those who murdered 3000 Americans from facing justice for their own greed and interest, and If libertarians really jam this understanding down the average american’s throat, then they will get it

  • NH, eh? Do you ever get up to Maine?
    I’m up by Moosehead lake

  • NeoFuturist

    “Just don’t call it government.”

    • Christopher Cantwell

      This is a profoundly obnoxious and ignorant statement, which I’ve seen some TRS fans make elsewhere. The difference is consent. It is the difference between rape and lovemaking. How that is lost on some people is beyond reasoning, but that’s exactly what I expect from someone who is fucking stupid enough to think that an all powerful superstate is gonna be just fucking fantastic once we get rid of the mud people. Nonsense.

      • Richard Chiu

        Shakespeare wrote, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” (because apparently they didn’t use punctuation quite as regularly back then), but he is assigning that sentiment to Juliet’s feeling for someone named ‘Montague’.

        The imposition of restrictions on the activity of humans is going to be what it is whatever you call it. We don’t object to the term, ‘government’, as though the phonemes themselves had some ill-effect.

    • Richard Chiu

      Also, learn how to use quotation marks.

  • Anders Hass

    If Europe have stayed Monarchies do you think they would still be white?

  • Anders Hass

    And Murica had blacks in their country 😉

  • paendragon

    As for slavery – divide the number of slaves taken by the money they allegedly saved the whites by being enslaved, adjust for passage of time. Now divide the amount of money spent on “reverse discrimination” preferential hiring programs by the number of whites who paid into it. Now who’s enslaved to whom?! And that’s ignoring that the blacks were enslaved by other blacks and Arab muslims back in Africa – the same black and Arab muslims who had enslaved millions of whites.

  • paendragon

    Without government, say your road needs to be re-paved. You go house to house, canvassing your neighbors. Some of them either can’t afford to, or simply don’t want to chip in to pay for it. What now?

    • UsedtobeaSuitBoi

      mix some concrete up and pour it into the pot holes, put a couple planks over it so it’s not ruined while it sets, job done. if you want to be fancy you could run a rake over it a couple hours in perpendicular to traffic flow so it’s a little bit more grippy for the tires. it’ll last longer than fucking tarmac.

      • paendragon

        Concrete cracks and crumbles a lot quicker than asphalt.

        • UsedtobeaSuitBoi

          i’ve got it outside my house and the bituminous stuff cracks and crumbles around it, and we’ve got cars and busses going across it all day. some of the main roads haven’t been resurfaced in the 20 years i’ve lived here, whereas the residential ones have, with asphalt, and there’s holes all over the place.

        • UsedtobeaSuitBoi

          I wouldn’t be patching up the road a mile or so away, only outside my own house cos that’d be neighbourly, and if someone wants to do the same near me, they can buy the excess materials off me, or pay me mates rates to do it outside their house, if they’re bothered. And if the roads are shit elsewhere, they wouldn’t get that way instantly; i’d have my expectations set and buy a 4×4

        • Coralyn Herenschrict

          The free-rider argument attempting to justify the notion of public property and a state to enforce it has been debunked extensively. Most recently in an article by Matthew Reece titled, “The Free Rider Benefit.”

          • Richard Chiu

            Hmmm…there is a free rider benefit for a lot of things, but roads isn’t really one of them.

            Then again, roads are a classic example of something which we know works perfectly well as a privately run enterprise…even competitive against the violence-subsidized public roads as long as the competition is not directly targeted (which usually involves just seizing the private road by force in the end anyway). If the actual users of a road pay according to their usage, there is no need for taxes or a monopoly or anything else. You just need a relatively minimal investment in monitoring usage as well as maintaining and protecting the road itself.

            My belief is that long distance roads are probably not the best possible solution a private market could devise, but some people would probably still use them even if there were more cost (financial and safety) effective alternatives. There is also probably a lot of cultural inertia involved.

            But I have one answer to that. Skeet-shooting deck over the gentlemen’s club car (and get your mind out of the gutter, it’s a club for genteel men).

          • paendragon

            Actually, Reece is arguing the exact opposite position:

            “A person acting on rational self-interest will realize that one can benefit from a public good without contributing to its provision. This leads to what is called the free rider problem, where some people … consume more than or pay for … of a public good. This situation is frequently taken to provide a rationale for government intervention … but is really only an undesirable situation which has no remedy is just a fact which must be tolerated.”

            I’d hardly call “giving up” actually ‘debunking’ my point.

          • Richard Chiu

            Oh, using ellipses to omit the relevant part of the argument. What a cool rhetorical trick that nobody has ever thought of before!

            His point is that government control of public services always makes the free rider problem worse. That’s not the same as giving up, it’s just recognizing a fact about how governments ‘solve’ problems by threatening to kill anyone that expresses dissatisfaction with their management.

          • paendragon

            I guess you didn’t bother to read Reece’s article at all.

          • Richard Chiu

            I read it. I didn’t find it particularly impressive, given that there are more substantial ‘free rider’ benefits which are well known to people who study the marketplace of ideas.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            No he’s not. He’s explaining why the notion of public goods is toxic. Your position is unclear to me, except I surmise you advocate government roads rather than private ones.

            You, me, and Matt would all agree if you privately fund a road and don’t exclude non-payers from using it, then you’ll get free riders.

            That you point to this fact to attempt to justify the creation of an entity called government to violently expropriate land from its owners (eminent domain) then violently expropriate money from everyone (taxes) to pay for the road is a perverse non-sequitur.

            Such a leap of argumentation makes all kinds of other indefensible presumptions like everyone has a natural right to road access at the expense of others, violence can be employed to improve outcomes among trading partners, and other fundamentally invalid concepts.

            Meanwhile the non-aggressive, voluntary, free market response arising to meet market demand for roads is obvious. Private property bought, built up, and managed by entrepreneurs who exclude non-payers from using the private road. Same solution used for movie theaters, ski slopes, train tracks, shipping ports, etc.

            Your objection pointing out obnoxious neighbors could surround you on all sides and refuse you road access is covered in the literature. No one would buy property subject to such risks. That would be like buying a plot of land on the moon. Guaranteed access for its owner is what gives land its value in the first place. Indefeasible right of use agreements, covenants, and insurance agreements would preclude such nightmare scenarios in advance exactly because they would otherwise pose a risk to rendering land valueless. The free market has all this covered.

          • Richard Chiu

            In fact people are suckered into bad investments because of these kinds of ‘hidden’ risks all the time. It’s the flip-side of people trying to avoid tipping others off to their intentions to use property contrary to apparent assumptions in the hope that this will gain them an ‘advantage’.

            That kind of behavior arises from a zero-sum mindset, a belief that ‘success’ (wealth, in economic terms) is never actually created or destroyed, but only transferred among the participants in a ‘contest’ such that for anyone to ‘win’, someone else must ‘lose’. This mindset generally fails to accommodate the complexity of reality, to apply it in a manner which could model reality with any fidelity, we would need to include all perceivable physical entities as ‘players’ in addition and equal status to other people…but this is just silly on the face of it, because most perceivable physical entities clearly aren’t bothering to play the game and lack any apparent means of caring about the outcome.

            But if you don’t include them in the set of ‘players’, then the fundamental premise that total ‘success’ (however defined) of all ‘players’ is a constant fails utterly, because vast amounts of whatever metric you are using to define ‘success’ will pass out of the possession of any ‘players’ and have to be recovered from ‘non-players’ by those players who recognize this. Economics is concerned with human activity and desires, it cannot be generalized to cover entities which do not have even approximately human capabilities and needs. Thus the concept of wealth can have no meaning outside of possession and use by humans. Thus a zero-sum mindset makes it impossible to understand economics as such.

            Physics, which does not concern itself with any specifically human characteristics of entities, has a number of quantities which can be asserted to be constant when totaled over all entities within a physically closed system. But attempting to explicate human action using physics has a pitfall in that physics cannot tell the difference between a corpse and a human. This is why attempts to use the physical sciences to describe human behavior always end up proposing that humans are actually ‘philosophical zombies’ (the phrase should be ‘, philosophically, zombies’, but apparently not all philosophers are strong on syntax).

            Imagining other people as, philosophically, zombies is an easy enough mental activity. Imagining yourself as, philosophically, a zombie is a simple logical impossibility, you cannot sustain the action of philosophical self-awareness while imagining yourself as, philosophically, a zombie without the contradiction rendering continuation of the exercise completely non-philosophical. The contradiction cannot be resolved without first abolishing any serious intention of philosophy. Only when you propose to consider yourself a zombie in some sense that is not based on philosophy can you continue.

            This does not mean that physics is not ‘true’, merely that it is inadequate to explicate the most salient aspect of our own experiences (which we should have already known without needing a separate proof). Just as economics cannot explain why water runs down-stream rather than the reverse without resorting to silly anthropomorphizations of its ‘motives’.

            Zero-sum thinking is the single-most common economic mistake which is at the foundation of nearly all human misery in the world. Indeed, simply by successfully understanding that zero-sum thinking is erroneous, you will become less miserable even before taking or even identifying any actual actions based on that realization.

            Unfortunately, it is not always true that zero-sum thinking is erroneous, even though it is always wrong in economics, it is not always wrong in physics. If you are trying to solve a problem which actually is zero-sum by ‘understanding’ that it isn’t, you can die as a result.

            But you’ll probably die feeling less miserable than otherwise, I guess?

          • paendragon

            Insane. I copied and pasted exactly what he said, and you try to deny it. The only point here is that when you exclude non-payers, you initiate state force.

          • Richard Chiu

            You copied, pasted, and then edited out parts of what he said.

          • Richard Chiu

            You copied, pasted, and then edited out parts of what he said.

          • Richard Chiu

            You copied, pasted, and then edited out parts of what he said.

          • Richard Chiu

            You copied, pasted, and then edited out parts of what he said.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            You employ private, self-defensive force in response to any non-payers who initiate force against your property to occupy it against your will. If you can’t distinguish between this and state initiated force, then you’ve got much larger intellectual confusions than the question of roads.

          • paendragon

            AAAAAAnd you’re still off-topic and avoiding the point!

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            Hardly. We can’t discuss the topic of government vs. private roads productively as you don’t distinguish self-defense from aggression in the way I do (“The only point here is that when you exclude non-payers, you initiate state force”).

            Libertarians like me believe in the use of force exclusively for the self-defense of private property. The philosophical argument for that is outside the scope of this discussion, but substantial agreement around it is a prerequisite for us to have a meaningful discussion about roads.

            For example, if you are a communist, who believes private property does not exist and force is justly used to redistribute all wealth, then your reasoning is sound that government must own roads, and the shirts on our backs, and the sweat of our brows. You and I debating roads would be a fruitless endeavor, as our fundamental premises are incompatible.

    • Richard Chiu

      Get an off-road vehicle or don’t drive where there’s no road. If there’s money to be made maintaining roads, someone will do it. If not, then nobody wants them enough to be worth the cost. It is that simple.

      My guess is that in a truly free-market economy, a lot of longer distance travel would be by rail, which is also a cheaper and safer way to move a car a long way than driving it. I don’t need the government to save me from the horrors of private rail (I get that huge numbers of farmers who managed to get in debt up to their eyeballs thought government taking over the rail companies could bail them out, and didn’t that work out just great).

      • paendragon

        I live in Canada. Where there’s no roads, it’s called “FOREST.” And no off-road vehicle short of *maybe* a tank can navigate that through sort of terrain! And, given enough time (shorter than one might imagine) said forest will reclaim even the most urban environments, if and when the infrastructure isn’t actively maintained. Besides, what of Cantwell’s private roads and property ownership? What of all those bomb-throwing anarchists who don’t want to live near railway tracks or have new ones built near or on their own properties? Or those who want to extort higher tolls and fees from the railways, especially when they find out how lucrative they’re becoming? Isn’t extortion part of free-market negotiations, too?

        😉

        • Richard Chiu

          Oh, right. We need to support the state or who will fight the forests?

          • paendragon

            You can organize your neighbors to pave the roads – until you meet one who doesn’t want there to be a road on or near his property. Then what will you do?

          • Richard Chiu

            You don’t put a road there. It’s very simple.

          • paendragon

            Picture a straight road, with neighbors on each side.
            Neighbor #5 on one side doesn’t want to pay, but #4 and #6 do – So tell me: how are you going to connect 4 to 6 but avoid paving the road in front of 5’s house?

            😉

          • Richard Chiu

            You don’t. You tell 4 and 6 “sorry, I cannot provide the service you request without infringing the property rights of 5.”

            The same thing you should say if they wanted to pay you to directly steal something from 5 rather than just “appropriate its use without consent.”

          • paendragon

            Except that the road in front of 5’s home isn’t his property – it’s commons land. So while paving it would unfairly benefit 5 (because he doesn’t want to pay for its improvement) it wouldn’t infringe on any of his rights.

          • Richard Chiu

            If you pave it, and thus claim it as your property, and 5 was using it to enter and leave his property, you’ve certainly damaged 5. Maybe not much, and you may even be able to sell a settlement rather than lose ownership of the portion of road you put in front of 5’s house, but it is damage to 5 and it isn’t hard to prove.

          • paendragon

            The scenario was 5 refusing to pay to repair an existing road. Try to keep up.

          • Richard Chiu

            Who owns the existing road? If 5 owns it, you have no right to do anything to it without 5’s consent. If it is your road, 5 has no right to use (and thus cause wear while impeding other traffic) without your consent.

          • paendragon

            The scenario is where right now it’s a common area, but suddenly you anarchists get your way and the state which used to tax you to pave it disappears. So now what – the road continues to be used and worn, and it comes time to repair it. That’s the scenario – what do you do without the state?

          • Richard Chiu

            Okay, so we’re going to pretend that the road is a natural feature?

            Fine. Use of the road affects the value of 5’s house, so if someone wants to take ownership of it, they have to compensate 5 sufficiently for him to agree to any loss of access to his own property. If someone wants to repair the road in front of 5’s house, they need permission to block the road for the repairs, and while they may own the repairs they cannot deny 5 access to his own property without sufficient recompense.

            If 5 proves recalcitrant about coming to a sane resolution (such as moving to a neighborhood where this isn’t a problem), then probably what will happen is that there will be an improved part of the road and then a narrow unimproved ‘access lane’ for 5 (and others like him who don’t want to pay for access to a paved road). 5 still has just as much access to his property as he would have without the improved road, everyone else has a paved road minus the 8 ft (including the curb and sidewalk) for the access lane.

            As the free market increases standards of living and technology, eventually everyone will move out to places with a less ad-hoc arrangement. I predict that most will move into walkable building complexes where they don’t have vehicle roads inside the complex at all, some will move into ‘suburban’ style neighborhoods with a road owned by a neighborhood association, and some others will move into the country and live a few miles away from their property line, using rural vehicles to maintain their fields and roads. Cars designed with the assumption of state sponsored roads will generally go out of style. More functional and cost-efficient forms of transportation will become the norm, whether or not they require paying for access to some kind of privately owned infrastructure.

            Of course, that’s only if there is a sudden outbreak of mass sanity, and we know that isn’t going to be what happens. What is actually going to happen is that everyone who is depending on the state to take care of them is going to die horribly and the relatively tiny population left will mostly be living in medieval conditions under the rule of warlords while the even smaller minority of people who know how to get shit done are going to be able to hold onto a modicum of modern technology which will basically make them seem like old-timey gods in comparison (not all of them will be particularly sane either).

            Some of those who know how to actually solve real-life problems and seriously thought about the moral value of freedom are going to cooperate to create voluntary communities which will be secure against the raving warlords and their conscripts by virtue of overwhelming economic superiority producing the means of self-defense, others are going to hide away in solitary enclaves or go around acting as scavengers and peddlers and whatnot once the food supply/demand equation comes back into balance. Nobody is going to be living in suburban neighborhoods with people who don’t share their values adequately to make voluntary cooperation feasible.

          • Richard Chiu

            Okay, so we’re going to pretend that the road is a natural feature?

            Fine. Use of the road affects the value of 5’s house, so if someone wants to take ownership of it, they have to compensate 5 sufficiently for him to agree to any loss of access to his own property. If someone wants to repair the road in front of 5’s house, they need permission to block the road for the repairs, and while they may own the repairs they cannot deny 5 access to his own property without sufficient recompense.

            If 5 proves recalcitrant about coming to a sane resolution (such as moving to a neighborhood where this isn’t a problem), then probably what will happen is that there will be an improved part of the road and then a narrow unimproved ‘access lane’ for 5 (and others like him who don’t want to pay for access to a paved road). 5 still has just as much access to his property as he would have without the improved road, everyone else has a paved road minus the 8 ft (including the curb and sidewalk) for the access lane.

            As the free market increases standards of living and technology, eventually everyone will move out to places with a less ad-hoc arrangement. I predict that most will move into walkable building complexes where they don’t have vehicle roads inside the complex at all, some will move into ‘suburban’ style neighborhoods with a road owned by a neighborhood association, and some others will move into the country and live a few miles away from their property line, using rural vehicles to maintain their fields and roads. Cars designed with the assumption of state sponsored roads will generally go out of style. More functional and cost-efficient forms of transportation will become the norm, whether or not they require paying for access to some kind of privately owned infrastructure.

            Of course, that’s only if there is a sudden outbreak of mass sanity, and we know that isn’t going to be what happens. What is actually going to happen is that everyone who is depending on the state to take care of them is going to die horribly and the relatively tiny population left will mostly be living in medieval conditions under the rule of warlords while the even smaller minority of people who know how to get shit done are going to be able to hold onto a modicum of modern technology which will basically make them seem like old-timey gods in comparison (not all of them will be particularly sane either).

            Some of those who know how to actually solve real-life problems and seriously thought about the moral value of freedom are going to cooperate to create voluntary communities which will be secure against the raving warlords and their conscripts by virtue of overwhelming economic superiority producing the means of self-defense, others are going to hide away in solitary enclaves or go around acting as scavengers and peddlers and whatnot once the food supply/demand equation comes back into balance. Nobody is going to be living in suburban neighborhoods with people who don’t share their values adequately to make voluntary cooperation feasible.

          • Richard Chiu

            Okay, so we’re going to pretend that the road is a natural feature?

            Fine. Use of the road affects the value of 5’s house, so if someone wants to take ownership of it, they have to compensate 5 sufficiently for him to agree to any loss of access to his own property. If someone wants to repair the road in front of 5’s house, they need permission to block the road for the repairs, and while they may own the repairs they cannot deny 5 access to his own property without sufficient recompense.

            If 5 proves recalcitrant about coming to a sane resolution (such as moving to a neighborhood where this isn’t a problem), then probably what will happen is that there will be an improved part of the road and then a narrow unimproved ‘access lane’ for 5 (and others like him who don’t want to pay for access to a paved road). 5 still has just as much access to his property as he would have without the improved road, everyone else has a paved road minus the 8 ft (including the curb and sidewalk) for the access lane.

            As the free market increases standards of living and technology, eventually everyone will move out to places with a less ad-hoc arrangement. I predict that most will move into walkable building complexes where they don’t have vehicle roads inside the complex at all, some will move into ‘suburban’ style neighborhoods with a road owned by a neighborhood association, and some others will move into the country and live a few miles away from their property line, using rural vehicles to maintain their fields and roads. Cars designed with the assumption of state sponsored roads will generally go out of style. More functional and cost-efficient forms of transportation will become the norm, whether or not they require paying for access to some kind of privately owned infrastructure.

            Of course, that’s only if there is a sudden outbreak of mass sanity, and we know that isn’t going to be what happens. What is actually going to happen is that everyone who is depending on the state to take care of them is going to die horribly and the relatively tiny population left will mostly be living in medieval conditions under the rule of warlords while the even smaller minority of people who know how to get shit done are going to be able to hold onto a modicum of modern technology which will basically make them seem like old-timey gods in comparison (not all of them will be particularly sane either).

            Some of those who know how to actually solve real-life problems and seriously thought about the moral value of freedom are going to cooperate to create voluntary communities which will be secure against the raving warlords and their conscripts by virtue of overwhelming economic superiority producing the means of self-defense, others are going to hide away in solitary enclaves or go around acting as scavengers and peddlers and whatnot once the food supply/demand equation comes back into balance. Nobody is going to be living in suburban neighborhoods with people who don’t share their values adequately to make voluntary cooperation feasible.

          • Richard Chiu

            Okay, so we’re going to pretend that the road is a natural feature?

            Fine. Use of the road affects the value of 5’s house, so if someone wants to take ownership of it, they have to compensate 5 sufficiently for him to agree to any loss of access to his own property. If someone wants to repair the road in front of 5’s house, they need permission to block the road for the repairs, and while they may own the repairs they cannot deny 5 access to his own property without sufficient recompense.

            If 5 proves recalcitrant about coming to a sane resolution (such as moving to a neighborhood where this isn’t a problem), then probably what will happen is that there will be an improved part of the road and then a narrow unimproved ‘access lane’ for 5 (and others like him who don’t want to pay for access to a paved road). 5 still has just as much access to his property as he would have without the improved road, everyone else has a paved road minus the 8 ft (including the curb and sidewalk) for the access lane.

            As the free market increases standards of living and technology, eventually everyone will move out to places with a less ad-hoc arrangement. I predict that most will move into walkable building complexes where they don’t have vehicle roads inside the complex at all, some will move into ‘suburban’ style neighborhoods with a road owned by a neighborhood association, and some others will move into the country and live a few miles away from their property line, using rural vehicles to maintain their fields and roads. Cars designed with the assumption of state sponsored roads will generally go out of style. More functional and cost-efficient forms of transportation will become the norm, whether or not they require paying for access to some kind of privately owned infrastructure.

            Of course, that’s only if there is a sudden outbreak of mass sanity, and we know that isn’t going to be what happens. What is actually going to happen is that everyone who is depending on the state to take care of them is going to die horribly and the relatively tiny population left will mostly be living in medieval conditions under the rule of warlords while the even smaller minority of people who know how to get shit done are going to be able to hold onto a modicum of modern technology which will basically make them seem like old-timey gods in comparison (not all of them will be particularly sane either).

            Some of those who know how to actually solve real-life problems and seriously thought about the moral value of freedom are going to cooperate to create voluntary communities which will be secure against the raving warlords and their conscripts by virtue of overwhelming economic superiority producing the means of self-defense, others are going to hide away in solitary enclaves or go around acting as scavengers and peddlers and whatnot once the food supply/demand equation comes back into balance. Nobody is going to be living in suburban neighborhoods with people who don’t share their values adequately to make voluntary cooperation feasible.

    • Google Homeowner association

      • paendragon

        But … but … that involves involuntary servitude, too! Sort of exactly like “the state!”
        What sort of dedicated anarchist would ever be caught dead joining a homeowner association and chip in to pay dues to help pay for other people to have roads etc?!

        • Richard Chiu

          As long as there is informed consent (which is not always the case), there is nothing involuntary about it.

          • paendragon

            My point remains: If you can’t coerce a delinquent neighbor into paying for their share of the common infrastructure repairs, they enslave you to them simply by not paying.

          • Richard Chiu

            If the infrastructure is privately owned and operated, they pay or they don’t use it. It’s very simple.

          • paendragon

            How are you going to stop them from using it, then?
            Initiatory (“statist’) force seems the only option left!

            😉

          • Richard Chiu

            How do you prevent anyone from using your rectal sphincter as a pleasure toy without your consent? Does that action count as “initiatory (‘statist’) force” in your world?

            What am I saying, of course it does because you never pay attention to the difference between defensive force and aggression anyway, and probably love to claim that preventing people from anally raping you is just as ‘statist’ as taxation and police.

          • paendragon

            Pst! “Projection” isn’t a valid form of argumentation. Take your anal fixations elsewhere.

          • Richard Chiu

            Okay, but seriously, do you prevent others from using your rectal sphincter as a pleasure toy, and how do you do that, and do you believe it constitutes aggression on your part?

          • Richard Chiu

            Why do you keep referring to private property as “common infrastructure”?

          • paendragon

            Do you think you own the road in front of your house?

          • Richard Chiu

            No. No sale.

            Explain to me how you keep people from using your rectal sphincter for their own amusement, and now that isn’t violence against them, and then we can continue this discussion.

          • Richard Chiu

            No. No sale.

            Explain to me how you keep people from using your rectal sphincter for their own amusement, and now that isn’t violence against them, and then we can continue this discussion.

          • Richard Chiu

            No. No sale.

            Explain to me how you keep people from using your rectal sphincter for their own amusement, and now that isn’t violence against them, and then we can continue this discussion.

          • Richard Chiu

            No. No sale.

            Explain to me how you keep people from using your rectal sphincter for their own amusement, and now that isn’t violence against them, and then we can continue this discussion.

          • Richard Chiu

            Huh, I thought I replied to this. To reiterate,

            Why are you referring to private property as “common infrastructure”?

          • Richard Chiu

            How is private property “common infrastructure”?

          • paendragon

            How is common infrastructure “private property”?

        • Which dedicated anarchist would ever be caught joining a volleyball team? If it’s consensual, it’s fine.

          • paendragon

            We’re discussing road paving here. Without consent of everyone, nothing will get done by or for anyone.

          • Richard Chiu

            That is simply demonstrably untrue. NAP doesn’t mean that every single possible action which would create a private property interest for someone has to be approved by everyone else.

            It just means you can’t go around recklessly harming other people without consequences. If you inflict harm on someone without just cause, you are the one subject to retribution, not them.

          • paendragon

            You seem completely oblivious to cause and affect as usual. How many blunts did you smoke tonight before randomly sleep-posting on the Internet?

          • Richard Chiu

            Okay, that thing where you accuse me of something purely because you know the accusation to be untrue and you therefore imagine it will offend me? That I’ve come to expect. But you do get bonus points when it is a thing that you are openly proud of doing yourself and have vigorously defended.

            Not unprecedented, so no originality points as such, but still unusually silly.

    • rider650

      There`s private roads all over the world working just fine right now. Individual fees, flatrates, large networks, single roads – everything you can imagine. Here in Austria there is a private company operating the highway network. Indeed, it`s entangled with the state, but in a free society – what would stop companies from inventing all sorts of transportations and means of payment for them?

      • paendragon

        That’s called “extortion.” And no it doesn’t work just fine, because (for instance) the toll roads in Tara, Ireland, are owned and maintained not by the locals, but by a different country!

        • Richard Chiu

          Some toll roads are ‘owned’ and operated by states. So are some guns. Does that mean that private gun ownership is fundamentally invalid because states ‘own’ and operate them as well?

          • paendragon

            You’re saying there should be no common areas, no public, only privately owned everything. That’s silly.

          • Richard Chiu

            I’m not saying that at all. There is, by nature, a ‘commons’ in the sense that most of the physical world is ‘unimproved’ and thus doesn’t belong to anyone. Anyone is free to come along, improve something in nature, and claim ownership of the improvement.

            Conversely, anyone can come along, worsen part of nature and be forced to accept responsibility for doing so if the harm can be proven.

            But a road is not something that exists in nature, thus it has to be owned by whoever improved the land on which the road is built or a person who has received it by voluntary exchange from the former legitimate owner (traceable back to whoever built it).

            Likewise, damages to a ‘common’ good have to be proved in the same way that damages against a private asset owned by an actual owner would. In a sane society, you can’t claim someone has committed aggression against you because they ‘used’ your property without your permission by looking at it. You have to show how their action prevented you from using it as you please. Showing how someone has impaired the use of a natural resource by a group of people is more complex, but it is fundamentally the same principle.

          • paendragon

            Again, you ignored the pain point, seguing off into some weird fantasy realm. If I pave your untended field, do I now own it because I have improved it?

          • Richard Chiu

            If it was mine, no, you’ve simply damaged it and I can prove that to a jury of my peers when they ask why I “improved” your untended brain with high-velocity lead fragments.

  • Dan Engerer

    “In America, we made the tragic mistake of trying to make equals out of our slaves.”

    …What the fuck
    exactly are you saying here? That we should have kept black people as slaves?

    • Coralyn Herenschrict

      Yeah, this gave me pause too. On its face, it’s a very troubling statement. Chris should clarify.

      My guess is he’s criticizing “trying to make equals of” not in terms of rights nor in terms of potential but in terms of realized accomplishments. I think he’s arguing slaves’ impoverishment, no matter how unjust, doesn’t elevate their meager achievements in standing compared to the greater achievements of non-slaves.

      • Richard Chiu

        The fact of the matter is that the whole “equality” thing is unAmerican on the face of it. There is only one place for ‘equality’ in the founding theory of America, national military parity against any external threat.

        The fact that men are considered to be “created equal” means that justice demands the differences between them be the result of their own choices rather than of inheritance or appointment.

        I suppose Cantwell is asserting what I believe to be historically a significant truth, that the effort to overcompensate for the legacy of slavery significantly eroded the ideal of considering people generally accountable for their own life, which eroded the reality of an America in which anyone who made the right choices could make their fortune, replacing it with acceptance that ‘justice’ consisted of adjusting people’s outcomes to compensate for advantages. It is also true (and in my mind, just as significant) that those who argued that the legacy of slavery could only be overcome by eliminating the presumption of individual responsibility were the intellectual heirs (and, in the immediate post-bellum period, the actual same individuals) of those who argued that slavery was a positive moral good.

        In other words, it was the people who originally thought slavery was well and great that put forth the idea of making former slaves equal to everyone else by making everyone else (except themselves, of course) into slaves.

    • Christopher Cantwell

      I’m saying, as I said in my interview with TRS, that slavery was a fucking terrible investment. Should we have kept them as slaves? Of course not. We shouldn’t have enslaved them in the first place.

      Once that mistake was made, what should have happened was the original plan being devised as the constitution was written. To ban the importation of slaves, and let the existing slave population die off naturally. No more slaves, no freed slaves roaming amongst the white population.

      What unfortunately happened was, slave owners bred slaves after the importation ban, and the abolitionists got impatient. We had the civil war, and all the terrible shit that came with it, along with a bunch of slaves now roaming free amongst the population, which, I would remind you, didn’t exactly result in a luxurious life for them either.

      Then, in an effort to lift them up, we instituted a welfare state, affirmative action, and all manner of nonsense programs. Now, 150 years later, they are committing half the murders, robberies, and assaults on our streets. They burn cities to the ground in support of violent criminals. They load up the welfare rolls, vote left, and cause all manner of havoc both in our streets and in our ballot boxes. It is a fucking disaster, and the only reason for denying this is cowardice.

      Blacks and whites, as groups, are not equal nor should they be. The accomplishments of whites over pretty much every other racial group are well documented and without dispute by serious people. Trying to make equals out of lesser peoples, as groups, requires government force and always fails. The point made in this post is that the market should decide, this premise should not be disputed by libertarians.

      I simply make the prediction, that whites will win out in a free market, which anyone is more than welcome to try and dispute, to the peril of their credibility.

      • Richard Chiu

        Some will ‘win’, many won’t. The same as for every other race, though perhaps in different percentages. The deeper point is that individuals should be free to choose whether ‘winning’ at the property game is really the be all end all of their own existence, and then be allowed to live with the consequences of that choice.

      • Coralyn Herenschrict

        “…let the existing slave population die off naturally…no freed slaves roaming…”

        Wow. Endorsing the persistence of a state of slavery for a group of individuals. This is the most un-libertarian thing I’ve ever heard from you. I’m horrified and incredulous.

  • Ethnostate: socialism for white people. Keep your colored hands off my gubmint programs!

    • Christopher Cantwell

      Exactly, entirely too many of these people think that you can have any economic system and it will automatically be good because “It’s alright, if it’s all white”. I have a hard time denying that white societies tend to be faring better than non-white or multicultural ones, but that doesn’t mean the laws of economics just get tossed out the goddamn window.

    • WhereArtTheWest

      Oh if you decree it so, it must be so. I take it you’re buddy buddy with the creator himself. I must ask if that is the case if you can ask him how my great grandmother is doing.

    • GoyToy

      Yes because Whites have never had an ethno-state before. It’s definitely a 21st century concept.

  • Slick_Hall

    I’d love to move to New Hampshire but I’m not American. Yeah I know the whole state thing is BS but as a Brit I am blocked from even the green card lottery. So apart from becoming an illegal immigrant anyone got any ideas how to do it?

    • Coralyn Herenschrict

      Britain has a long, proud tradition of libertarian thought starting with the levellers. Even today, exponents are out there. Find them. Cluster together.

      • Richard Chiu

        The British Isles actually have a lot better chances of seeing serious areas of hinterlands outside the control of any real centralized government than many other places in the world, including NH (the terrain of NH just doesn’t strike me as favorable). There’s going to be anti-Islamic militias all over the place, some with decidedly racist bents, but the same will probably be true of anywhere in America with a decent shot of surviving (though with generally more racism than anti-Islam).

        On the other hand, if you don’t mind being an active resistor of organized criminality, pulling off being an illegal alien shouldn’t be too hard if you have the right friends ahead of time. It’s probably easier than getting away with avoiding taxes, which I hope is a thing we are all trying to do.

        • Slick_Hall

          Thanks for your reply Richard. When it comes to the British Isles geographically you may be right but it is already a police state. For example it is widely reported there are more cameras per capita there than in any other country on Earth.
          I made the decision to leave a few years and am currently a permanent resident of Canada which is much freer (for the moment at least). I still want to get to the US but it will probably be a few more years before I do.
          Oh and I completely support your comment about taxes.

          • original-gideon

            I live in the UK and whilst we are, I believe the ‘most monitored’ or have more cameras per square mile than any other nation it’s certainly not a Police state. Have a LOL

  • HughManatee

    It’s hilarious that people like you don’t realize that YOU are the stupid ones. Not white people, you ignorant racist freaks. YOU are the stupid ones. Deeply, profoundly, stupid.

    • Doop-doo-doop

      Can you elaborate on who you’re replying to and why?

      I don’t feel like going through all your posts to understand the context of your histrionic

      • Richard Chiu

        Most of the people he’s responding to have apparently already been banned and had a lot of their posts removed because they were just spamming and posting offensive images and so forth. Which admittedly does leave the response without an appropriate context.

  • Bill Bochynski

    Well done, Chris.

    Once, again, you demonstrate that most rare of all human traits, courage.

    Once, again, you prove truth is not determined by how many people agree with you.

    Once, again, you remind us the folly of the men and women who call themselves “government.”

    Once, again, you relentlessly “speak truth to power.”

    Thank you for your extraordinary effort.

    In Liberty,
    Bill Bochynski

    • Christopher Cantwell

      Thanks, Bill!

  • schobbejak

    I’m from Western Europe. I’m sure you have noticed that our countries are currently in the process of being invaded. White people are systematically being displaced in their own countries. Worse, many of our own people are infected with some sort of mind virus that causes them to welcome these invaders with open arms, and bully into submission those who are not as eager to embrace their own destruction. This is not the logical result of the state existing. I’ll admit that right now the state is an accomplice of the forces of evil. But when the tide turns, I believe the state will be necessary to root out the same evil it now serves.

    I don’t consider myself a libertarian, but I actually agree with a lot of the libertarian criticisms of government programs. I fully agree with you when you say that governments love weak, stupid people. It would be an interesting experiment to see if people can live without government. I do think some challenges in society require central coordination and organization on a larger scale. Maybe the market can provide these solutions just as well as a government, maybe it can’t. Does it really matter that much if you call it “government” or “dispute resolution organization” though? I think libertarians overestimate the practical real-world difference between a euro/dollar-vote for a businessman and a democratic vote for a politician. Still, I would like to see people be able try libertarianism somewhere without being stamped out by existing governments.

    However, right now in 2015 the people of Europe have to deal with reality as it is.

    And the facts are:

    1) Europeans mostly do not care, or want to know about NAP fundamentalist anarcho-capitalism or even minarchist libertarianism. These concepts make even less sense to the average European than they do to the average American. The chances of a European libertarian party winning an election are infinitesimally small. Neither will some sort of anarcho-capitalist revolution happen.

    2) The initiation of force gets things done. If we want to remove excess kebab, close the borders, and give back Europe to its own people, we’re going to need to initiate force. Our current governments have the ability to get this done. There currently exist no private security corporations capable of achieving this.

    3) If we manage to get enough people voting for right-wing parties, our current governments will not only have to ability but also the will to restore sanity. This is a realistic scenario. Right-wing parties are rising in the polls all across Europe. Look at what Poland did just now.

    After we take back our countries we can discuss the merits of voluntarily buying unemployment insurance from private companies vs. having government distribute unemployment checks to those who lose their jobs. To be honest, I don’t really care that much either way. I just want to live in a society where Whites are the majority, because they are the best societies, and also because I am White myself and prefer to live among people who are like me. White people can thrive in constitutional republics and in social-democratic societies. I’ve been to the US, and it seems there are advantages and disadvantages to both options. But the difference between them is tiny compared to the difference you observe between Europe/USA/Aus on one side vs. Africa/Middle East/South America on the other side. Economic and political systems come and go, but once you’re ethnically destroyed it’s game over FOREVER.

    • Richard Chiu

      You can’t vote your way out of what’s going on in Europe. Look what’s happening to Greece and Portugal. Sure, they were voting for left-wing nuts, but do you imagine the push-back against nationalistic Euro-skeptics is going to be less.

      There must be armed revolt predicated on recognition that the fundamental form of the government is unsalvageable, not just opposition to the current regime. This will occur as the global economic collapse exposes the fallacy behind the Euro and all other fiat currencies. And I have little doubt that, as the organization necessary to effective military action to reverse the Islamic invasion proceeds, setting up new, explicitly nationalistic governments will be a priority which few actually involved in the fight against Jihad will be inclined to question or resist.

      It’s true that the particular form of psychopathic insanity inflicted by a state is contingent on many factors. One state welcomes Islam, another stomps it out vigorously. Most of the world’s population lives in states which regard Islam as a threat to their existing governments, and acts accordingly. States can fight Islam, and can do so very effectively if they wish. Like by imposing Juche instead.

    • Christopher Cantwell

      I don’t blame you for needing to deal with the situation as it is. In the current situation I’ve advocated for immigration controls to be exercised, I also think deportations are in order. In Europe, you are under attack and as long as the State stands it has a duty to protect you from annihilation.

      The point here made is that it is wholly unwilling or incapable of doing this. So why are you paying taxes to it?

      • Richard Chiu

        Or, to finesse a point, however fine free movement without respect to arbitrary lines drawn on maps may be in theory, the theory also requires recognition of the rights of property owners to defend their property against aggression.

        The state (particularly the European version) is denying some people the right to defend their property while selectively and deliberately importing large numbers of people they know will not respect property rights. That’s a massive infringement of property rights, not any recognition of the rights of people to travel and associate with whom they will.

  • Coralyn Herenschrict

    “Culture of Resistance.…Governments require an extraordinarily high level of compliance to exist….If people stop complying in large enough numbers, the government simply cannot operate…. Imagine a scenario where 5% of the population…”

    I keep waiting for a series of articles elaborating on culture of resistance. This attention-grabbing notion of how people might be able to free themselves from authoritarian rule, boldly introduced a while back, goes largely unelaborated here. Where the heck are Parts II-X of this topic. What gives.

    Let’s talk about how the Iranian people might employ a culture of resistance to free themselves from their sinister Islamic extremist government. Let’s set aside the delicate subject of the 5% for a moment, and just look at the remaining 95% of Iranians.

    What do they need to do to confound the Iranian government? How do they exploit its dependence on an extraordinarily high level of compliance and undermine its potency, without in the process just getting mechanically squished like bugs or ground into hamburger as all who defy the state routinely do? For example, are there systematic ways to not comply without being perceived by the Iranian government as defying? Or is victimhood required, i.e. 100% of Iranians attempting to adopt a culture of resistance must necessarily sign up for kamikaze service?

    Please apply your marvelous brain and fearlessness to delving into such problems. They are what matter most and what freedom lovers really want to discuss.

    • Richard Chiu

      A culture of resistance doesn’t mean everyone resists. It does mean that people who resist are regarded as cultural heroes and those who crush resistors are commonly despised and hated. You can all join the culture of resistance right now (and I’m guessing a lot of you have) simply by committing to always give those who fight against the cops the benefit of the doubt and regard every claim of virtue by cops and their masters with distrust.

      Sometimes the cops aren’t doing anything wrong other than wearing stripper costumes in public. Sometimes people fighting them are just disorganized criminals. But if you never allow that as your first presumption, then you are part of the culture of resistance, and you are breaking the system down by degrees.

      In the case of Iran, there’s a pretty serious Islam problem involved. If the overwhelming majority of Iranians were as outraged by the Iranian government’s claims to represent the interests of Islam as most Christians are outraged by Obama’s claims to represent Christianity, then the government would already have fallen long ago. Obama’s claims to represent Christianity are far more peripheral to the reasons anyone doesn’t spit on American government, but it’s pretty clear it has made a bit difference with the Christians all the same.

      Of course, if America were at all a Christian nation (not even the way Iran is a Muslim nation, just the way America was superficially Christian 50 years ago), then the government would do a better job of posing as representing the interests of Christians. It’s a thing governments do. That’s why you need a culture of resistance to government, the way America was 200 years ago. Those in government office will still try to expand their power and influence, but there will be constant pushback and frequent popular revolts limiting what government can do.

      I don’t believe you can ever fully eliminate government, most humans are too stupid to understand the difference between leaders and rulers, and this cannot be changed short of selective pressure of a degree likely to halve the human population every few months. You can apply that amount of pressure for at most a couple of years without driving humans extinct, you cannot apply it for the several dozen generations necessary to actually change human nature. If you want to eliminate the human need for leaders, you’d probably need to halve the population every damn day for a thousand years.

      There will always be some psychopaths around claiming to know how to direct the affairs of people they don’t even know. There will always be a majority of people too stupid to realize this is impossible. But if the culture inclination is to distrust such claims on the face of it, the reach of government will always be limited.

      • Coralyn Herenschrict

        It’s Chris’s concept. I’ll let him define it. But I’m pretty sure merely “committing to always give those who fight against the cops the benefit of the doubt” doesn’t cut it. The word culture suggests a much broader, deeper practice of values.

        • Richard Chiu

          That’s “tradition” or maybe “customs”. Both can be part of culture, but culture (the non-biotic kind) starts with ideals and education.

          Once a majority of people automatically start from the assumption that resistance to the state is morally just and obedience to it is morally suspect, they’ll start to get away with whatever they can, whenever they can. And that would sharply limit the reach and power of the state to what it can actually prove to be justified.

          Which would be a lot better than what is going to happen, the reach and power of the state will prove to be utterly inadequate to its bloated claims of omnipotence despite the overwhelming faith placed in it by the majority, and they will die like maggots in an incinerator as a result.

          • Great stuff you are pouring over here. Do you have a blog?

          • Richard Chiu

            Meh. Technically I guess I do, functionally speaking not so much.

    • Richard Onley

      Bad Quaker (who kind of went over to the dork side cozying up to Beuhller, but stopped clock and all that) had a series about “Beyond Civil Disobedience” that bears listening to. I’m at the library, and can’t link it, but it should turn up in a search.

  • Sirius Jones

    You’re right, we need to destroy the state and replace it with a Home Owner’s Association that will look out for our interests.

    ………………….Just don’t call it a government.

    • Christopher Cantwell

      This is a profoundly obnoxious and ignorant statement, which I’ve seen some TRS fans make elsewhere. The difference is consent. It is the difference between rape and lovemaking. How that is lost on some people is beyond reasoning, but that’s exactly what I expect from someone who is fucking stupid enough to think that an all powerful superstate is gonna be just fucking fantastic once we get rid of the mud people. Nonsense.

      • Richard Chiu

        Oh, that’s what that top comment is about. I was like, “is that a quote or does the guy just not get punctuation”?

      • Sirius Jones

        You better just make sure you stay out of the wrong neighborhood or you will be kicked out by the Home Owners Association’s goon squad for violating the NAP by being in their neighborhood.

        • Christopher Cantwell

          Of what concern would this be to the ethnostatist? Shouldn’t people be able to kick outsiders out of their neighborhoods?

          • Sirius Jones

            It’s not my concern, it’s your concern. You’d be the one who would have to deal with the various HOA’s in Ancapistan. I’d simply be living in my HOA’s neighborhood with my evil Nazi buddies that want to gas 6 million Jews.

          • Christopher Cantwell

            We have gated communities in modern day America. It’s not that difficult a thing to deal with. I go where I’m welcomed. Additionally, you might want to take notice, because even if you don’t take me seriously, I aim to take the option of forcing a state on people away from you by force.

          • Sirius Jones

            I just hope you’re ready when someone’s Home Owners Association grows large, militarizes, and decides you’re an asshole that needs to go down.

          • Christopher Cantwell

            HOA’s have a tendency to maintain the value of the property they’re assigned to protect, not to venture into foreign lands and murder strangers for their opinions. To do so would incur massive costs on the HOA, and might well get the HOA and all of its members killed and all of their property destroyed. Can you try to think about economics for like 30 seconds?

          • Sirius Jones

            “HOA’s have a tendency to maintain the value of the property they’re assigned to protect”

            And the “worker’s party” in many nations was supposed to be great for workers. Calling it an HOA doesn’t mean it’s going to behave what you think one will behave like. The mafia offered “protection” to people, too.

          • Christopher Cantwell

            Oh, an organization stepping outside of its intended bounds, points out the advocate of a racially oriented superstate!

          • Sirius Jones

            Implying you need a superstate to maintain a border and immigration.

          • Richard Chiu

            How does your logic fail imply the necessity of a superstate to maintain a border and immigration?

          • Sirius Jones

            Naw, you just need a little money to go towards a border.

          • Richard Chiu

            All you need is to leave property owners free to defend their own property rights, and to apply to the free market for additional means to do so.

          • Sirius Jones

            Then have fun eventually warring with people who formed their own community of like-minded people with war like tendencies.

          • Richard Chiu

            I’m not going to war against Cantwell. Neither is anyone else that has a hope in hell of actually surviving what is coming. Only you morons who will pollute the earth with your stinking corpses are even saying you will.

          • Sirius Jones

            No, you’re not going to war against Cantwell. You’re going to war with Cantwell against other HOA’s that have an agenda that’s aggressive towards you.

          • Richard Chiu

            Sure, because they’re aggressive against me. Which is part of why they aren’t going to survive.

          • Sirius Jones

            Implying they won’t have a force greater than your defense.

          • Richard Chiu

            Well, logically that isn’t implied per se, since they could simply lack sufficient force to survive all the people they are going to offend against by their rampant aggression.

            But I have no problem with the implication.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            If they become aggressive in nature, they can’t sustain greater force. The more aggressive a group, the less productive it is, the less resources of force it can marshal for its aggression. The more non-aggressive a group, the more productive it is, the more resources of force it can marshal for its self-defense. The scary scenario you paint is a fantasy because it is self-contradictory in nature, contravening how means of force get created in the first place.

          • Christopher Cantwell

            I’m making the implication that you don’t need a government to maintain borders or immigration. In fact, I’ve made the point that your immigration problems are inextricably linked to the PROBLEM of government. I linked to an article where I very specifically explained why government is imposing immigration on you.

          • Sirius Jones

            I don’t believe economics are the end all be all. I wouldn’t care for the home owner’s association a few miles down the road importing a bunch of third worlders if that’s what their free market demanded. I would rather live in a nation that has a government that focuses on national identity, heritage, and culture.

          • Christopher Cantwell

            “I don’t believe economics are the end all be all. ”

            Which means you don’t know fuck all about economics, and if you want to plan the future of civilization, you might want to take a god damn class.

          • Sirius Jones

            I do care about economics, I just don’t believe it’s the only thing that matters like you do.

          • Christopher Cantwell

            Then you’re an economic illiterate. It’s that goddamn simple. Go blame the jews, shithead. But it’s your goddamn fault.

          • AS-20 Kayak

            Actually, it’s your fault. Your vision of a free world with free people simply wasn’t attractive enough to attract “consumers”.

          • Christopher Cantwell

            Oh, wow, you mean reality doesn’t appeal to people who watch MSNBC? Shocker, fuck, I better take a marketing class on how to tell people that personal responsibility is better than blaming jews!

          • AS-20 Kayak

            If MSNBC is the norm you need to adapt yourself to, it’s your own fault for failing in the face of blatant reality.

          • Christopher Cantwell

            Alright shithead, you’re outta here.

          • Sirius Jones

            Well, then good luck with your NAP and explaining free market principles to all the various people out there who either don’t give a fuck about it or aren’t motivated by economics other than lining their own pockets.

          • Christopher Cantwell

            I don’t need luck, I intend to impose it by gunpoint. Goodbye, you illiterate fuckin retard.

          • Richard Chiu

            We don’t need to explain free market principles to those who have no interest in participating in voluntary exchange.

          • Richard Chiu

            Okay, that’s unfair. He’s obviously lying, not economically illiterate. People can really not care about economics, they just honestly indicate this by not investing enormous effort in talking about it.

          • Richard Chiu

            Then please move to one.

            Oh, your ideal government doesn’t exist? Maybe you should deal with that.

          • WhereArtTheWest

            I’d like to see you try! Judging by Anarchism’s track record it will be well worth the wait.

          • Richard Chiu

            Judging by the state’s track record it won’t be worth the billions dead in the wake of their fundamental failures to recognize and deal with reality.

          • WhereArtTheWest

            You do know that the Bolsheviks fought an army of Anarchists not once but twice; right? The first time was in the midst of coming to power in 1918 in Moscow and the second was in the Spanish civil war. In both cases the Anrachists collapsed faster than a wet cardboard box while it took the Bolsheviks far longer to eradicate the White Russians and later the Axis partisans after the defeat of the Third Reich. In the case of the Axis partisans they managed to remain a active force until 1958. A solid thirteen years after the fall of the Axis powers and a good four times longer than the best attempt of any band of Anarchists.

          • Christopher Cantwell

            You could hardly call those egalitarian morons anarchists. They were communists, who figured their compulsory central economic planning committee was something other than a government. Try studying the history of the nonsense you speak.

          • Richard Chiu

            He does have a point about the history of the term “anarchist”. I don’t mind calling myself a libertarian without much apology but I need at least a couple of paragraphs every time I talk of being an ‘anarchist’, so I usually don’t.

          • WhereArtTheWest

            Where is this convention saying an anarchist can’t believe in ethnic, racial, sexual or cultural egalitarianism? Isn’t that, like, a statism maaaaaaaan.

          • Christopher Cantwell

            Judging by statism’s track record… I’ll leave you to ponder that.

          • AS-20 Kayak

            From the way you’re trying to control the dialogue, it sounds like you’re the statist here.

          • Richard Chiu

            Yes, because defending one’s own private property is statism.

          • AS-20 Kayak

            “Private Property” is an illusion unless you can secure it for your utility by force of arms. A non-aggression mindset is unilaterally adopted.

          • Richard Chiu

            Because self-defense is aggression. Yes, yes, we get it.

            Actually, I do get it. All living things must kill to survive, thus being alive is proof that you are a murderer and deserve to die. Because there is never any such thing as a difference between killing and murder.

          • AS-20 Kayak

            Depends on your metric. Do you think murder exists? Or are you using the corrupted metric of a society you hate?

          • Richard Chiu

            “Murder” is a concept, like any other. Whether it exists or not isn’t the question. The question is whether the formulation of the concept helps you to make choices which result in consequences you desire, or causes you to make choices with consequences contrary to your desires.

          • Hypothetical: You have your ancapistan neighborhood association that is totally not a government. A militaristic, war-like tribal community establishes itself in a nearby town and starts to grow larger and more powerful but they don’t attack your community yet and haven’t made any overtures indicating they will imminently. But judging by their notoriety and philosophy there’s a good chance they will.

            Would attacking them before they became too powerful to defeat violate the NAP?

          • Richard Chiu

            If you offer self-defense services and materiel to someone they are currently oppressing, does that count as “attacking them”?

            If so, then no, because you can freely associate and engage in voluntary exchanges with anyone you like under the NAP.

            If not, then we don’t really need to attack them to help out anyone they are actually hurting.

          • That’s proxy war by definition, so yes. Historically helping Group A fight their enemies, when you’re positioning yourself as a neutral party, results in their enemy (Group B) declaring war on your “neutral” group.

            Any leader of ancapistan with sense would ban you from doing that to prevent the military wrath of Group B from coming down on your “neutral” group.

            This religious adherence to NAP would be the downfall of any ancapistan.

          • Richard Chiu

            Okay, so you define the free association of people in exchanging services and goods to which they have an inalienable natural right as “proxy war” against your precious state. I kinda figured that but thanks for confirming.

          • Are you referring to the Declaration of Independence, which was one of the founding documents of our government?

          • Richard Chiu

            You mean how it outlines the case that it isn’t the colonists who started the war? It wasn’t explicitly on my mind, but I guess it is an example.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            He’s controlling by threatening to revoke your permission to use his private property on which you are an invited guest. Don’t confuse that with state violent control of your use of your property.

          • Richard Chiu

            Cantwell has already demonstrated his willingness to depart in peace from those who do not wish to associate with him.

  • PagingMr.Hermann

    “Self-preservation is the result of an inferiority complex” said the cuck. Way to internalize the commands of your oppressor.

    • Christopher Cantwell

      If you think you cannot preserve yourself in the presence of freedom, then yes, this is born of an inferiority complex. I have faith in white people, I think they can compete. Apparently, you think we’re lower than jews and niggers. Congrats.

      • AS-20 Kayak

        Freedom is the absence of a preexisting authority. Once you become the authority, “freedom” becomes tainted with the zeitgeist of the societal mindset that people have brought with them.

        • Richard Chiu

          No, “liberty” is the release from bondage (which is still not what you said). Freedom is another thing altogether, it requires personal responsibility for your choices and their consequences.

          • AS-20 Kayak

            Bondage was the human societal norm before Anglo-Saxons decided to shift the gears of history at great loss of life for themselves. What is your measure for a worthwhile goal? Are you measuring by the criteria you actually accomplish? Or are you measuring solely by the flesh you sacrifice at the altar of war as you claim to love peace?

          • Richard Chiu

            I measure by what actually gets accomplished and whether it bears a reasonable resemblance to what those bringing it about intended.

      • PagingMr.Hermann

        Shitty argument. Not worth formulating a response to.

        • Richard Chiu

          Actually, that’s a pretty good definition of a good argument. Or at least a good enough argument.

          • PagingMr.Hermann

            Glad your weed dealer agrees.

          • Richard Chiu

            Hah, these guys don’t have the slightest clue, do they? I thought this was too easy.

        • Christopher Cantwell

          Interesting, I thought the same thing about your original nonsensical statement. Go fucking kill yourself. You’re a weak stupid fuck, and part of the problem.

          • PagingMr.Hermann

            What problem? That hurt you feel in your anus?

  • Richard Chiu

    This site is Cantwell’s private property. From a libertarian perspective, he’d be well-justified in hiring someone to hunt down and kill you morons who persistently refuse to respect his private property. He doesn’t do it because it would be bad publicity and probably also because he’s a genuinely nice guy who doesn’t like killing people just for being idiots.

    • WhereArtTheWest

      I’m pretty sure the state is the one of the co-signers on the convention of my safety in this case.

      • Richard Chiu

        Since I’m planning to kill pretty much all of them too, that does not impress me.

        • WhereArtTheWest

          My how statist of you! What about the consent of people in the local areas as to how they are to act. You’re sounding like the chief devil, Hitler, himself. Are you going to kill six million jews too?

          • Richard Chiu

            The agents of the state have committed aggression against me personally, I don’t need anyone else’s consent to kill them.

          • WhereArtTheWest

            What you are is an racist white imperialist! How dare you express intent to destroy the societies of the little brown teddy bears in Africa!

          • Richard Chiu

            I’m Chinese, you moron. I’m genetically impervious to your accusations of racisms.

          • WhereArtTheWest

            How dare you make light of the sufferings of the Mongolian, Cantonese and Uighur minorities you filthy imperialist!

          • Richard Chiu

            Again, ethnic Han descent, thus completely impervious.

    • Richard Chiu

      Changed my mind, Cantwell is not having these people killed because that would be too merciful for some of them. Cantwell, you are really pretty ruthless, I have to say I’m impressed.

  • Richard Chiu

    Holy crap, these cowardly trolls actually think they are more interesting and relevant than Cantwell.

  • Orthodox Laissezfairist

    Rothbard wrote on this
    wwwDpanarchyDorg/rothbard/nationDhtml

    (just replace Ds with dots)

  • lowell houser

    Dude, just wake me when it’s time to start shooting.

  • dagann

    Half of you’re rant may be true, but you’re conclusions are incredibly asinine. You opine the decline of the west is the result of stupid white people with apathy and non-white people are taking advantage of the situation. You suggests all world achievements and progress are the result of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) dominance. That you are handicapped as a result of such intrusions.

    In reality, the problems we face are the result of WASP involvement. You were right when you stated we, for a brief time, enjoyed freedom. However, you’re insistence that “others” of “inferior” breeding and origin has stole your prominence is laughable. The elite of the Eastern Establishment made all decisions that affects you’re life. It is they who decide you’re worth, education, status, rights, privileges and acceptance. By blaming the Jews and other minorities may be simple, the fact is the ruling class of WASP, with the aide of other criminals of various backgrounds, committed treason with every conceivable method known to man. If we were given the opportunity, by divine involvement, to investigate, charge and convict many of said elite forces, you’re world would be all you could expect.