Libertarianism under intellectual scrutiny — and a call for papers

Rand Paul’s Senate candidacy has been a godsend to the liberals. Jonah Goldberg puts it this way:

Indeed, it’s worth noting that the only people who are really jazzed to reopen the argument about the Civil Rights Act are liberals. And they have good reason: They won that argument, politically and morally. This is a fact liberals never stop reminding us, and themselves, about. Like a paunchy middle-aged man who scored the winning touchdown in the high school championship, nostalgic liberals don’t need an excuse to bring up their glory days (which were not the Democratic Party’s glory days, by the way). Give them a living, breathing politician who suggests, no matter how imprecisely or grudgingly, that the Civil Rights Act wasn’t perfect, and they’ll talk your ear off like a drunk uncle at a wedding.

I’d have to agree with Goldberg that the liberals won the argument politically — hence the liberals’ glee at finding a really fat target. But it’s not at all clear that the liberals won the argument intellectually, or even morally. Goldberg himself is quite confused about what Rand Paul is saying — conveniently, as it turns out, because he comes up with a clever argument that he seems to think absolutely destroys Paul’s position:

For the record, Paul and [Barry] Goldwater were both wrong. The libertarian position is not to defend Jim Crow but to condemn it, and not just because of its unjust bigotry but because of its economic folly that served to entrench that bigotry.

Paul weeps for the lost right of white businessmen to refuse black customers (even though he rejects the practice himself). But he fails to appreciate the perverse irony that one of Jim Crow’s greatest evils was its intrusion on the property rights of whites. Jim Crow wasn’t merely some “Southern tradition” undone by heroic good government. Jim Crow laws were imposed by government. And they banned white businessmen from serving blacks.

Based on his interview with Rachel Maddow, Rand is well aware of the distinction between private discrimination and government laws that would force people to discriminate. Paul stated quite clearly that he supports the aspects of the Civil Rights bill that struck down government laws that enforced segregation, but he opposed the parts of the law that made it illegal for private individuals or companies to discriminate on the basis of race.

So Goldberg is managing to go along with the liberals in bashing Paul, without really confronting the intellectual issue of whether the rights of individuals should include the right to personal discrimination. (Incidentally, one wonders whether Israel apologist Goldberg would condemn Israeli apartheid. I assume he would rationalize or ignore all the official and unofficial ways that Israel discriminates against Palestinians in Israel and especially in  the occupied territories, doubtless citing the “Israel is our democratic ally” mantra.)

So the intellectual and moral issues remain.  I have recently become editor of the Occidental Quarterly. (Formal announcement and plea for subscriptions TOQ later, but you can subscribe now, if you want.) Greg Johnson, the previous editor, initiated a contest for the best essay on “Libertarianism and Racial Nationalism.” (The deadline is June 1, but it will be extended to July 1. $1000 to the winner!) Great topic.

Libertarianism is a strong tradition in American history — the tradition of unfettered individualism. Eric Kaufmann’s treatment emphasizes the idea that 19th-century libertarians saw their freedom-loving ideology as an aspect of their Anglo-Saxon ethnic heritage, and as an evolutionary psychologist I agree that there is an ethnic basis to libertarian tendencies.

But Kaufmann also notes that this libertarian tendency became part of the culture of Western suicide in the 20th century. One of the things I noticed in writing the chapter on the Frankfurt School for The Culture of Critique was that these very Jewish (and therefore profoundly anti-libertarian in their own commitments) former Marxists had nothing but good things to say about individualism.  “In the end, the ideology of the Frankfurt School may be described as a form of radical individualism that nevertheless despised capitalism—an individualism in which all forms of gentile collectivism are condemned as an indication of social or individual pathology.”

So it’s not surprising that Goldberg as  a Jewish neocon presents himself as true to libertarianism — while ignoring the more difficult issue of personal discrimination.  But for us White advocates, the problem is even deeper. On the one hand, there is good reason to think that we Whites have a natural tendency to want to live free from intrusive governments and not have to march in lock step with others. That’s not to say that we can’t organize as a collective, it’s just that it’s harder for us to do.

Indeed, White advocacy is essentially a plea that Whites have collective interests and a right and an interest in organizing in order to achieve their interests in what has now become a cauldron of competing ethnic interests. Ethnic competition is always the death knell of individualism, as people organize themselves into competing groups. (That’s the real point  of the Arizona ethnic studies law: The last gasp of American individualism.) Any putative White homeland would necessarily discriminate on the basis of race, if only to secure its borders against the sort of invasion that we are now undergoing. Are Whites really so principled that that they would fail to see a moral imperative in preserving themselves, their culture, and their institutions, even if it meant that they had to discriminate on the basis of race.

It seems clear to me that libertarian individualism is indeed a culture of White suicide given the current political landscape. As Whites become a smaller and smaller percentage of the population, libertarianism will become an “okay” ideology for Whites — an officially approved harmless palliative to make them think they are intellectually honest while they sink into the sunset.

But I am open to all sorts of ideas on this topic and am definitely looking forward to reading the contributions to the special contest issue of TOQ.

Bookmark and Share

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

34 Comments to "Libertarianism under intellectual scrutiny — and a call for papers"

  1. Sean Gruber's Gravatar Sean Gruber
    May 31, 2010 - 8:37 pm | Permalink

    The 1964 Civil Rights Act “freed” blacks from the oppression of having to accept the free choices of their fellow citizens who are White.

    You are not free to forbid a black in your restaurant – but the black is “free” to barge in.

    You are not free to hire and fire as you please – but the black is “free” to get a job based on racial quotas.

    You are not free to rent to whom you please – but the black is “free” to demand that you rent to him.

    Libertarians support the latter kind of “freedom”…which means they oppose freedom. Their definition of freedom is closer to the communist one: universal slavery to the government and its laws and rulers is “liberation.” After all, Jew Goldberg sez the 1964 Civil Rights Act REMOVED oppressive laws and LIBERATED blacks. The Big Lie.

    Apologies to those with tender sensibilities for the following blunt comment: Jews always and everywhere reverse the truth. They are masters of the lie, the people of the lie.

  2. Sean Gruber's Gravatar Sean Gruber
    May 31, 2010 - 8:28 pm | Permalink

    Look up what the Libertarians (e.g. Virginia Postrel) had to say about Trent Lott’s praise of Strom Thurmond. The same inversion: freedom of association = government oppression.

    How is the –freedom– to hire and fire, for example, the same as –laws passed to prevent — intermarriage? How is Rand Paul advocating “Jim Crow”?

    The Libertarians in 2002 (re. Lott) brewed up the inversion that the 1964 Civil Rights Act repealed laws, when in fact, it outlawed free association. Instead of being liberating, the Act was plainly statist. Even old-line libertarian Jewess Alice Rosenbaum (“Ayn Rand”) denounced it at the time for exactly this reason (“the worst attack on property rights in American history,” she said). But latter-day LIbertarians brazenly reverse the truth: they say the Act is pro-freedom! Liberation – in the communist meaning.

    Goldberg simply continues the Big Lie from 2002.

  3. Harumphty_Dumpty's Gravatar Harumphty_Dumpty
    May 30, 2010 - 11:39 am | Permalink

    To me, libertarianism is just another mythologizing of human nature, namely, the myth that we are all such capable individuals in making our own decisions that we need no help at all from our fellows through the medium of our culture and its institutions.

    That’s as patently absurd as the liberal notion of the “perfectability” of human beings.

  4. Harumphty_Dumpty's Gravatar Harumphty_Dumpty
    May 30, 2010 - 11:30 am | Permalink

    Kratos says:

    “Why are Jewish people taking the credit for Civil Rights…?”

    This article in the Jewish Journal, “Jews Note Role in Historic School Case,” goes some distance in answering your question:

    “‘It was disproportionately black and Jewish lawyers that were fighting the civil rights cases,’ said David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism and a board member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).”

    “Charles Black, a member of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund team that argued Brown, used to joke that he was the only non-Jewish name on many of the briefs in that case.”

    “…the AJCommittee funded research by Kenneth Clark on the effects of prejudice and discrimination on personality development that Chief Justice Earl Warren cited in his unanimous Supreme Court decision handed down on May 17, 1954.”

    “David Saperstein,..a board member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)…said…’There was implicit recognition that Jews wouldn’t be safe in America until they created a country with no room for discrimination.’”

    http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/print.php?id=12245

    That last statement says a lot (but not quite enough!)

    Also, a New York Times editorial on March 24, 1987, entitled, “With All Deliberate Impropriety,” discusses the improper collaboration between Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter and Justice Dept. attorney Philip Elman (also Jewish), assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General at the time, to find ways to overcome the Court’s initial opposition to Brown.

    Philip Elman revealed his and Frankfurter’s collaboration shortly before his death, and here’s Erwin Griswold’s reaction to his disclosures:

    “Erwin N. Griswold, a former solicitor general and dean of Harvard Law School, was ‘startled’ at the impropriety, as were many others. Griswold said the behavior of Frankfurter and Elman was ‘clearly regarded as improper at the time and would clearly be improper now.'”

    That excerpt isn’t from the NYTimes editorial (if anyone is willing to pay the few bucks to recover that editorial online and post it, I would love to be able to read it), but from a book review that makes a strong case that this connivance between Frankfurter and Elman is what shifted the Court from its initial opposition to Brown to its final unanimous decision in favor of Brown:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/brown.html

  5. May 28, 2010 - 4:39 pm | Permalink

    My cousin recommended this blog and she was totally right keep up the fantastic work!

  6. Kratos's Gravatar Kratos
    May 28, 2010 - 2:21 am | Permalink

    Why are Jewish people taking the credit for Civil Rights and libertarianism when white people themselves made the decisions to progress themselves, than spend endless amounts of money on separating races?

    Even Africa was handed its freedom in haste and easy which resulted in Africans themselves quickly failing to grasp nationhood and falling back to their village bestiality.

  7. Daybreaker's Gravatar Daybreaker
    May 27, 2010 - 6:24 pm | Permalink

    You could be a crypto-White if you like – part of the secretly White brother and sisterhood.

    Anyone commenting here under a pseudonym is in some sense “secretly White”.

  8. Daybreaker's Gravatar Daybreaker
    May 27, 2010 - 6:15 pm | Permalink

    We are all of us in large part what we choose to be, and some of us need to be mostly what we choose to be.

    It’s only the belief that to be truly human we have to be entirely what we choose to be that’s poisonous, because that denies the validity of identity based on things we did not choose, such as sex and race.

    Once accept the idea that secure identities and rich lives are generally built on accepting and going with what we’re born into, and you’re out of liberal swamps and libertarian clouds and into safe, healthy conservative highlands.

  9. Daybreaker's Gravatar Daybreaker
    May 27, 2010 - 5:59 pm | Permalink

    AngryJew says: “Do Jews who inveigh against anti-white discrimination “at least” earn such a title?”

    Of course. And if you want it, welcome to it. I’d shake hands with a thousand honorary whites before one White whose chief ambition was to be an honorary member of some other race.

  10. AngryJew's Gravatar AngryJew
    May 27, 2010 - 5:03 pm | Permalink

    Boy oh boy “white suicide”.

    White suicide started with McDonald’s and ends with Country Music. White suicide.

    What political current is not “suicide”?

    Libertarians are implicit White…and many Jews make up their ranks. Maybe that’s why someone’s (who?) crying wolf?

    White suicide is above all the rejection of Jews as whites.

    South Africa had a title for Iranians “honorary whites”.

    Do Jews who inveigh against anti-white discrimination “at least” earn such a title?

    Or does the suicide have to be complete.

    @Aaron.

    Middle Eastern does not mean the person isn’t White! Look at yourself in the mirror for christ’s sake!

  11. May 27, 2010 - 1:32 pm | Permalink

    MacDonald: “There are a whole lot of White people who have identifications that are not at all compatible with their genetic interests–Christian Zionists, for example. They have an explicitly religious, not a racial identity, and that leads them to advocate all sorts of things that are against their real interests.”

    I would argue Christian Zionists DO have a racialist identity: Judeo. Which is to say, they see themselves as on some kind of religo-racial Judeo-Christian continuum with Zionist Jewry and biblical Jewry. Myths propound, for example, that certain European peoples were descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. And how many times since the inception of the “War on Terror” have polemicists invoked the idea that we’re in a clash of civilizations between “the Judeo-Christian West” and Islam? This all gets mixed in with Christian Zionist Dispensationalist eschatology and the American Promised Land-Manifest Destiny mythology of U.S. history, and turned into crusades like the Iraq war, which unquestionably had a Judeo-Christian racial supremacist component. Furthermore, by identifying with Zionist Jewry (probably the most cohesive and enduring racialist orientation on the planet), and allying with apartheid/Jim Crow/institutionally racist Israel, White Judeo-Christian Zionists are implicitly racialist.

    However, unlike MacDonald’s preferred brand of White nationalism, these Judeo-Christian racialists include White Ashkenazi Jews in their “race,” and have essentially swallowed any White nationalist impulses that have arisen in America in favor of the concept of Judeo-Christianity, and channeled them into Middle Eastern crusades for Israel (that not coincidentally have also enriched the war profiteering elements of the Judeo-Christian, Statist-Corporatist power structure).

    As a long time critic of organized Jewry and it nefarious influence upon Western society, clearly this disturbs MacDonald, who it seems would like to see Whites break with Jewry in particular, but even Christianity if it comes to that, in favor of creating a White nationalist homeland…MORE…LINK
    http://www.libertariantoday.com/2010/05/how-government-enforced-tribalism-is.html

  12. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    May 27, 2010 - 1:25 pm | Permalink

    Are Whites really so principled that that they would fail to see a moral imperative in preserving themselves, their culture, and their institutions, even if it meant that they had to discriminate on the basis of race.

    Those pointing out that that there is nothing ethical about going through with the suicide pact that white elites have signed us up to are regarded as free riders who must be punished for the good of all.

    The white elite will have to become demoralized before they’ll change course, God knows what state the rest of whites would be in by that time.

  13. May 27, 2010 - 12:41 pm | Permalink

    I’ve written the following reponse to the issues raised in this article:
    ——–
    How government-enforced tribalism is destroying America, and how libertarian nationalism can save the Republic
    http://www.libertariantoday.com/2010/05/how-government-enforced-tribalism-is.html

  14. Tom Watson's Gravatar Tom Watson
    May 27, 2010 - 11:43 am | Permalink

    This is the R. Crumb’s cartoon humor concerning Jewish motivations:

    http://www.heretical.com/miscella/rcjoa2b.gif

  15. Tom Watson's Gravatar Tom Watson
    May 27, 2010 - 11:22 am | Permalink

    @Finrod

    Although, I agree with you, and Al Zahoodi on the general history and politics of the Jews—there is a physical basis to the neurosis of many Jews. The cartoonist R. Crumb, if you have ever seen his works point it out in a humorous way. Let’s face a fact there are Jews who could pass for “colored”—I’ve seen ‘em. You probably have too. LOL. Not every Jew is blonde haired & blue eyed like Henry Kissinger or Joe Lieberman. :)

  16. Freddie_turnill's Gravatar Freddie_turnill
    May 27, 2010 - 8:37 am | Permalink

    Ron Paul’s son Rand made some comments about the 1964 “Civil Rights” Act which it turned out gave State apparatchiks the power to declare any private as well as public relations subject to their jurisdiction…………. though needless to say it wasn’t sold that way back then.

    He made some vague comments about whether the State has the right to dictate private arrangements and relationships (who you choose to let or rent a room or a flat to for instance) so naturally the media ratpack went after him.

    Anyway Steve Sailer wrote the piece below where lawyers are suing the Chicago authority.

    The grounds are that any test that Afros (when the individuals are looked at as belonging to a racial group) can’t “pass” with the same scores as Euros means that the differing outcome is by the very fact “discriminatory” and they have invented the concept of calling this relative group failure “disparate impact”.

    This invented “disparate impact” of outcomes concept, means, despite the fact that some individuals who are Afros can perform a comparable score to Euros, that the failure of more individual Afros than Euros means that lawyers can sue the test setters in some “class action” suit.

    Why should a test you take individually mean that because more individuals who do the worst in the test are racially Afros mean that the individual measurement of the test is overridden or trumped according to which racial group you belong?

    Why, when you take a test individually, should you not be measured above all as an individual when quite clearly some members of the Afros racial group can score well in the test and some Euros score poorly but at a lesser rate?

    To repeat: why should someone else who does not score as well as you get a free ride on the back of his racial affiliation? How & why should racial affiliation by used to trump your outcome just because an individual competitor who does worse happens also to belong to another racial group who overall does worse than your own?

    How can being identified with one racial group that does worse than another somehow entitle you to sue despite some Afros scoring the test perfectly well? Those Afros that score low can sue because they are Afros. Bizarre. This certainly is “Civil Rights” in its 21st century outfit of outright discrimination against one racial group and that group certainly ain’t the Afros?!?

    These litigants can offer no explanation other than the fact of different outcomes which is of itself not an explanation of anything. They cannot point to anything in the test which is racially biased. Hence the “Scalia acknowledged this law ….can “produce puzzling results.” In other words the Supreme Court cannot think of a reason why Afros do so much worse at any written test though I think I can figure that one out. (and Steve Sailer can and has in much more detail).

    It would be easy to predict the reaction of the Mass Media or any SCOTUS ruling where the results showed that Afros had achieved consistently better results than Euros but despite this those Euros who had not done so well had been hired. (Okay I know that other than in certain sports this concept is ludicrous…)

    This ridiculous ruling went through SCOTUS at 9-0 showing each and every judge goes along with the concept of discrimination against Euros on the grounds of the collective concept of race. Somehow I have my doubts that this ruling is constitutional though I don’t think any of the justices will lose any sleep over that.

    Still when given that the system is so biased as to present an opportunity to steal on the basis of group failure then surely it will be taken as it is specifically designed to do so.

    And for most of the failed Afro candidates this is going to be the best of all outcomes: a huge payoff without any of the work and danger involved had they actually been gifted the job they were clearly second/third/forth-best qualified to do.

    Whether those needing to be rescued by the members of a Fire Brigade whose problem solving abilities were incapable of achieving comparable scores in a relatively simple test would agree if or when efficient rescue procedures were flunked on the job, can, I think, be easily forecast though they would probably not be around to launch a complaint….
    .
    The “disparate impact” on survival on both persons and property on those who were in need of emergency help that would follow as a consequence of employing extremely dumb fire-fighters would surely be discriminatory….
    ********************
    24 May 2010
    The Rand Paul Brouhaha and 21st Century Reality
    [Steve Sailer] @ 11:42 pm

    “For the last half dozen days, the punditry have been convulsed over hypothetical questions of — assuming the country got into a giant time machine and went a half century back into the past — would Senate candidate’s Rand Paul’s position on laws public accommodations be a good thing or not.

    Few seem to have noticed that we are actually living in the 21st Century, when the issues about discrimination law don’t revolve around disparate treatment but around disparate impact. Firefighter cases seem to provide the best examples of what the current law is, which isn’t anything like what everybody has been talking about.”

    ***********************************
    “Supreme Court backs black applicants in firefighter discrimination suit
    Chicago could be liable for as much as $100 million in damages in the case in which minority candidates passed a fire department exam but were not hired.

    By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau
    May 25, 2010

    The Supreme Court reinstated a discrimination ruling Monday in favor of 6,000 black applicants for Chicago firefighting jobs in the 1990s, saying they had properly sued after it was clear that an entry-level test had a “disparate impact” based on race.

    The ruling leaves public employers in a pickle if they are required by law to use tests for deciding who should be hired or promoted.
    After two Supreme Court decisions with very different results in the last year, public employers can be sued for using tests that screen out most blacks and other minorities; they also can be sued by high-scoring white applicants if the test scores go unused.

    The apparent conflict is built into the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the justices said Monday. “It is a problem for Congress, not one federal courts can fix,” Justice Antonin Scalia said.

    He spoke for the court in a 9-0 ruling in a case that began in 1995 when 26,000 applicants took a written test to become city firefighters. Faced with the large number applicants for only several hundred jobs, the city decided it would only consider those who scored 89 or above.

    This cut-off score excluded a high percentage of the minority applicants.
    After a trial in 2005, U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall ruled the test had an illegal disparate impact because the city had not justified the use of the cut-off score.
    Experts had testified that applicants who scored in the 70s or 80s were shown to be capable of succeeding as firefighters.
    The city did not appeal the disparate impact finding, but in Lewis vs. Chicago said the firefighters had waited too long to appeal. The high court disagreed.

    Last year, however, the high court ruled that disappointed white firefighters were victims of discrimination by city officials in New Haven, Conn., which had dropped a promotion test after they learned no black candidates were among the top scorers.

    In a 5-4 ruling, the justices said this amounted to illegal racial bias against the white firefighters.

    Nationwide, about 20 million employees work for city and state governments. And in many of these agencies, tests are used to hire and promote employees. That in turn has led to years of litigation on whether the tests are fair.

    The decision dealt a potentially costly defeat to the city of Chicago. Earlier this year, a lawyer for black applicants estimated the total damages in the case could reach $100 million.

    The ruling was welcomed by John Payton, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, who argued the case. “This victory goes well beyond the immediate results in Chicago. It should ensure that no other fire department or employer uses a discriminatory test,” he said.

    Though the recent court rulings have focused on city agencies, the civil rights provision involving disparate impact policies applies to all employers, private and public.

    Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley voiced some weariness with the years of litigation. “For decades we have tried to diversify the Chicago Fire Department. But at every turn, like most cities, we have been met with legal challenges from both sides.”

    Since 2006, Daley said, the city has used a “pass-fail” approach so that all those who have passing scores are eligible for jobs.

    **********************************************
    Steve Sailer says
    “In other words, to get around the EEOC’s four-fifths rules, Chicago has made the test so easy in 2006 that about 96% of white applicants pass the test and about 77% of black applicants, which is four-fifths as good, and that selects fire cadets randomly from those who pass, which means that all the test does is eliminate complete idiots.”
    ***********************************
    From the Chicago Sun-Times:
    When results for minorities were disappointing, the city established a cut-off score of 89 and hired randomly from the top 1,800 “well-qualified” candidates.

    In 2005, a federal judge ruled that the city’s decision had the effect of perpetuating the predominantly white status quo, since 78 percent of those “well-qualified” candidates were white.
    The clock normally stops ticking on civil rights cases 300 days after the employment action is taken. The first lawsuit was filed 430 days after the test results were announced.
    But, African-American firefighters maintained — and the Supreme Court agreed — that a new act of discrimination occurred every time the scores were used to hire firefighters between May, 1996 and October, 2001. That’s when the city stopped using 89 as a cut-off point because the number of candidates had run out.

    Plaintiffs’ attorney Matthew Piers said the decision means Chicago must hire roughly 120 African-American firefighters and adjust their pensions as if they had been on the job since 1995. Six-thousand others will share roughly $45 million in damages.
    “They have to immediately put them on. They can’t say, ‘We don’t have the money,’ ” Piers said.
    If class members are too old to perform the physically demanding job, the damages could top $100 million, Piers said.

    From the Chicago Tribune:
    The Chicago case began in 1995 when 26,000 applicants took a written test to become a city firefighter. Faced with the large number applicants for only several hundred jobs, the city decided it would only consider those who scored 89 or above.
    This cut-off score excluded a high percentage of the minority applicants. And after a trial in 2005, U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall ruled the test had an illegal “disparate impact” because the city had not justified the use of the cut-off score. Experts had testified that applicants who scored in the 70s or 80s were shown to be capable of succeeding as firefighters.

    The city did not contest that conclusion, but it won a reversal from the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on a procedural technicality.
    The appellate judges said the applicants had waited too long to sue. They had not sued during the year when the test results were released, but sued only after the scores were used to decide who would be hired.
    Civil-rights lawyers appealed on behalf of Arthur Lewis and the other black applicants.

    They were joined by the Obama administration, which said the federal civil rights law forbids the “use” of discriminatory tests. And by that standard, the suit was filed on time.

    The high court agreed Monday in Lewis v. Chicago. “Our charge is to give effect to the law Congress enacted,” Scalia said. The class of black applicants had sued at the time the test was used, and it resulted in their not being hired, he concluded.

    The unanimous ruling stands in sharp contrast to the deep split within the Supreme Court last year over a case involving white firefighters from New Haven, Connecticut. They sued after they were denied promotions when the city scrapped a test because its impact on black applicants. They won a 5-4 ruling from the Supreme Court saying they were victims of illegal discrimination.

    Chicago’s case involved the opposite situation. Where New Haven had backed away from using its test results, Chicago pressed ahead and was later sued for using a test that had a discriminatory impact on blacks.

    In Monday’s opinion, Scalia acknowledged this law creates “practical problems for employers” and can “produce puzzling results.” He concluded, however, “it is a problem for Congress, not one that federal courts can fix.”
    ********************************
    Steve Sailer says:
    “But 21st Century reality will get infinitely less coverage than hypotheticals about Rand Paul’s views.”

  17. me's Gravatar me
    May 27, 2010 - 6:16 am | Permalink

    Armchair qbing but Paul could have easily brought up the antiwhite discrimination that exists now, the increasing number of minorities asking for handouts/special rights..

  18. May 26, 2010 - 1:32 pm | Permalink

    Prof. Kevin MacDonald says:

    “It seems clear to me that libertarian individualism is indeed a culture of White suicide given the current political landscape. As Whites become a smaller and smaller percentage of the population, libertarianism will become an “okay” ideology for Whites — an officially approved harmless palliative to make them think they are intellectually honest while they sink into the sunset.” –Prof. Kevin MacDonald

    SOoooooooo True!!! Not just for Whites, for all other groups too.

    I now understand this at a late stage of my life, ( I come from the Left), and I used to pathologize group interests.

    We can learn a lot from today’s Japan–not perfect, but a good starting point.

    “An Ethnie without a sense of peoplehood will end up being used to achieve the goals of other ethnies.” — Michael Santomauro

    Peace.
    Michael Santomauro
    ReporterNotebook@gmail.com
    Call anytime: 917-974-6367

  19. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    May 26, 2010 - 12:22 pm | Permalink

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

    Ron Paul today on ’64 civil rights act

  20. May 26, 2010 - 9:02 am | Permalink

    “Jim Crow laws were imposed by government. And they banned white businessmen from serving blacks.”

    Unless RP is, literally, an anarchist, this sentence is completely inane. ALL laws by definition are “imposed by government” and ALL laws by definition restrict someone’s behavior. “Jim Crow” was no different than laws against rape, incest or naked shorting.

    I know some “libertarians” say that the Constitution should have stopped with “Congress shall make no law…” but this is intellectually insulting.

    As MacDonald says:

    “Any putative White homeland would necessarily discriminate on the basis of race, if only to secure its borders against the sort of invasion that we are now undergoing.”

    As well as his example of Goldboigs hypocrisy re: Israel. As always, what’s good for the goyim, not so much for the Juden.

    “Are Whites really so principled that that they would fail to see a moral imperative in preserving themselves, their culture, and their institutions, even if it meant that they had to discriminate on the basis of race.”

    I wonder about MadDonald’s idea of some “White” basic belief in individualism. As Nietzsche said, “Man does not strive for pleasure; only the Englishman does.” IOW, utilitarianism/individualism/captitalism are not features of Nature or even Man, but post-18th Century England.

    The rise of England shows how useful those ideas were — then.

    Starting in the early 20th century, a different spirit began to arise in Europe. Yockey and Spengler saw it [“Prussian” or “Ethical” Socialism respectively] as the Spirit of the New Age. So of course, the Juden, who controlled the Anglosphere through the banks, got their pets to crush The European Revolution by two world wars, followed by campaigns of mass Soviet rape and Frankfurt School style “re-education” [see Tom Sunic].

    Spengler and Yockey were right, however, and so we now see the inevitable rise of … China. Racially pure, capitalism harnessed to the needs of the People [instead of “libertarians” hypocritically praising a mythical ‘free market’ and whining about restrictions on businessmen exploiting society], and no Juden.

    The pencil-necked “libertarian’ geeks at Google must have shit themselves when China told them to take a hike. China is replaying the German policy of Gleichhaltung and this time, for reasons of geography, size, isolation from ‘the world’ [i.e., finance capital, and you know who They are] etc., it will work.

    All hail our new Oriental overlords!

  21. Helvena's Gravatar Helvena
    May 26, 2010 - 6:12 am | Permalink

    Aaron, can you define “Jew”? Classification is not by definition but by who will accept you. Think Obama.

  22. Daybreaker's Gravatar Daybreaker
    May 25, 2010 - 10:24 pm | Permalink

    Aaron says: “I’d be really curious to see Kevin MacDonald’s definition of “White”.”

    If you’re really, really curious, you could read the books. Reading is great. It helps you know what you are talking about.

  23. Aaron's Gravatar Aaron
    May 25, 2010 - 10:11 pm | Permalink

    Jonah Goldberg is a goy. His mother is a goyah, so (estimating his father to be genetically 1/3 European, which some claim is the average for Ashkenazim) Jonah is more than 50% European and less than 50% Middle Eastern (Hebrew). Maybe that makes him a white – oops, sorry, a White – according to the implicit definition among commenters here, who seem to define whiteness by biological descent. By that definition he may be a White renegade, but he’s a White nevertheless.

    Or maybe there’s something like a one-drop rule for being Jewish? I’d be really curious to see Kevin MacDonald’s definition of “White”.

    • admin's Gravatar admin
      May 26, 2010 - 9:12 am | Permalink

      There are two aspects whenever one thinks about ethnicity:
      The biological, according to which Goldberg is apparently half-Jewish. From a biological perspective, he shares interests with both Jews and with Europeans, probably more with Europeans as per Frank Salter.
      The psychological: regardless of his biological constitution, Goldberg may strongly identify as a Jew and with Israel, and that seems to be the case. He seems to be gung-ho pro-Israel and have typical Jewish neocon attitudes. Psychological identification does not rigidly and automatically track true genetic interests. There are a whole lot of White people who have identifications that are not at all compatible with their genetic interests–Christian Zionists, for example. They have an explicitly religious, not a racial identity, and that leads them to advocate all sorts of things that are against their real interests. Kevin M

  24. Enoch Was Right's Gravatar Enoch Was Right
    May 25, 2010 - 10:02 pm | Permalink

    That Jonah Golberg could write such an asinine article for what was once America’s best known conservative magazine is disgraceful. Whose side is this “conservative” on?
    As readers of Steve Sailer and Pat Buchanan should know, the current interpretation of Title VII of the ’64 Civil Rights Act – that “disparate impact” is proof of discrimination – is intellectually indefensible and incredibly unpopular. A sane conservative movement (and Republican Party) would seize the affirmative action issue and use it to win over white voters.
    Affirmative Action was originally designed to redress the grievances of American blacks who had suffered under slavery and de jure segregation. It was sold as a temporary measure to create a more level playing field for blacks. Unfortunately, under the current regime of judicial activism the law has turned into an extremely effective tool for race hustling lawyers at the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to fleece and humiliate white owned businesses.
    To name just one of many extreme examples of destructive government meddling, Home Depot was forced to pay a settlement of $87.5 million in a class action “gender discrimination” lawsuit in 1997. Why? Was there any evidence that Home Depot ever practiced disparate treatment of women or minorities in its hiring of employees? No. However, under the “disparate impact” standard, Home Depot was ruled guilty of discrimination because approximately 70 percent of employees selling merchandise (such as lumber, hardware, carpet, etc.) were men. At the same time, about 70 percent of “operations” employees (such as cashiers) were women. Under the current regime, this constitutes discrimination.
    Of course, under the current regime, not only do aggrieved blacks receive racial preferences over whites in education and employment. In today’s America, 3rd world non-white immigrants who have no historical grievance with the American nation are greater beneficiaries of affirmative action than blacks. According to the current interpretation of the ’64 act, white Americans whose ancestors built the country are being discriminated against in favor of aliens who have no ties to the historic American nation at all.
    If Rand Paul talked about these aspects of the ’64 act, he could have made an extremely powerful case that would have resonated with the American people, instead of being piously denounced by every moronic pundit and politician in the country.

  25. Z.O.G.'s Gravatar Z.O.G.
    May 25, 2010 - 9:26 pm | Permalink

    Libertarianism is a Jewish ideology.

    Period. End of story.

  26. Z.O.G.'s Gravatar Z.O.G.
    May 25, 2010 - 9:26 pm | Permalink

    Great post, Zahoodi. You’re exactly right.

  27. Zahoodi Benoodi's Gravatar Zahoodi Benoodi
    May 25, 2010 - 8:29 pm | Permalink

    Finrod is partially right, but jewish ‘support’ of snivel rights had far more to do with the jews seeing that they could use blacks, black behavior, racial issues and the like as one of the key elements in destabilizing American society. The jews weren’t interested so much in joining some “WASP” club somewhere as they were interested in taking over and ultimately destroying the greatest white nation of modern times, ruining what had been a stellar achievement when it came to building a civilization. And building and maintaining a civilization is something the jews simply cannot do, as they’ve proven again and again. All they can do is destroy, then when kicked out, they say the drained host collapsed because it went against the jews. These creatures couldn’t keep Israel moving for more than 2 days without tax money confiscated from middle class Americans.

  28. Finrod's Gravatar Finrod
    May 25, 2010 - 8:20 pm | Permalink

    Tom Watson:

    No, they are a highly abstract people. They always think in several degrees of abstraction ahead of an issue that could potentially affect themselves. If it is possible to exclude blacks on the basis of race, then why not Jews as well? You forget that a major issue in those days was the exclusion of Jews from WASP country clubs and resorts, such as Atlantic City and Lakewood. I believe there was a strong element of self-interest, disguised in a cloak of social justice.

  29. Tom Watson's Gravatar Tom Watson
    May 25, 2010 - 7:45 pm | Permalink

    I think one of the key reasons that Jews opposed segregation was that they were always worried about being mistaken for “colored” in public accomodations.

  30. Clyde's Gravatar Clyde
    May 25, 2010 - 7:38 pm | Permalink

    Professor MacDonald,

    I believe you will appreciate the cognitive dissonance apparent in today’s NYT obituary on David Ginsburg, a “liberal” lawyer who was active in the 1950s and 60s regarding race relations with blacks in America.

    The NYT notes that Ginsburg, with one hand, was instrumental in pressuring Truman to support the imposition of a white supremacist state on the Palestinians. (I am of course referring here to the recognition of Israel as a state.) With the other hand (the NYT goes on within another two paragraphs) Ginsburg railed against the complicity of American whites in segregating blacks and called for their integration integration.

    And here I join Chris Moore in encouraging Americans (including Jews, the majority of whom are acting in good faith as loyal citizens of the United States) to see and make common cause with Arabs in the Middle East. Both are facing the same Jewish supremacist campaign against the native peoples of each respective territory.

    Here is the NYT article:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/us/25ginsburg.html?hpw

  31. Der weiße Engel's Gravatar Der weiße Engel
    May 25, 2010 - 7:27 pm | Permalink

    “one of Jim Crow’s greatest evils was its intrusion on the property rights of whites … they banned white businessmen from serving blacks.”

    Even if we accept for the sake of the argument that Jim Crow was evil, to say this was one of the greatest evils of Jim Crow seems perverse. Of course, to see Whites “serving” negroes is a Jewish wet dream, and that’s why Goldberg introduces the idea. When writing those words, he probably giggled to himself at all of the brainwashed Whites, both right and left, whose consistency would compel them to agree with his little witticism.

    Quite beyond that though, it’s factually incorrect. First, nothing about Jim Crow prevented Whites from “serving” negroes. White-owned businesses continued to do so everywhere, if they found it profitable. At most, they would have to provide services to Whites and negroes separately. Second, only a small minority of states passed Jim Crow laws that regulated commerce to the extent of requiring separate facilities for Whites and negroes. Where it happened, this appears to have been mostly a voluntary decision on the part of the business owners. Nationwide, in the states that had them, the Jim Crow laws were mainly aimed at two things: prohibiting intermarriage, and mandating separate schools.

    As a practical matter, one of the greatest evils of Jim Crow was that it helped induce a lot of negroes to migrate to White areas that had no such laws. Neither Goldberg nor anyone else will be mentioning that, though.

  32. Matthew Dunnyveg's Gravatar Matthew Dunnyveg
    May 25, 2010 - 7:09 pm | Permalink

    “Paul weeps for the lost right of white businessmen to refuse black customers (even though he rejects the practice himself). But he fails to appreciate the perverse irony that one of Jim Crow’s greatest evils was its intrusion on the property rights of whites. Jim Crow wasn’t merely some “Southern tradition” undone by heroic good government. Jim Crow laws were imposed by government. And they banned white businessmen from serving blacks.”

    The last sentence in particular simply is not true. My understanding of the way segregation worked is that whites could own businesses serving blacks.

    There were no racial boundaries as far as employment went. Blacks could work at white businesses. And while I doubt few whites would have wanted to work at businesses serving blacks only, they could sure own these businesses. And many of them did. I even seem to recall reading that in a few cases blacks actually owned businesses that served whites only.

    Jonah Goldberg is another Jew working well above his rightful pay grade.

  33. Superdave's Gravatar Superdave
    May 25, 2010 - 5:01 pm | Permalink

    From the article

    “Jim Crow laws were imposed by government. And they banned white businessmen from serving blacks.”

    Because we all know whites were just banging down doors, trying to get blacks to be around them 24/7, right?

    Under this same, “logic”, the government is losing a great deal of money by not openly distributing heroin/cocaine/child pron because there are markets for these things.

    I’m disappointed with the mental gymnastics Paul had to pull off in his original comment. It probably couldn’t be helped; anyone who does not worship at the altar of the “Civil Rights Movement” will instantly be demonized as 2837563285 times worse than Hitler.

    The plain fact of the matter is we don’t want to be around blacks and shouldn’t be forced to cater to them. The societal disease calling itself the Democratic Party could care less about freedom though.

2 Trackbacks to "Libertarianism under intellectual scrutiny — and a call for papers"

  1. on May 27, 2010 at 1:10 pm
  2. on May 25, 2010 at 3:58 pm

Comments are closed.