Van Staden begins by discussing the difference between people on either side of a border, like Khoisan in Namibia and South Africa, or Anglos in Canada and America. Which can be taken to show the arbitrariness of borders (Khoisan seem pretty homogeneous to me) or the difference in nations after only a short separation (Americans are different to Canadians). There is a difference between people of different nations. Even those of the same colour and continent can differ tremendously, as the Hajnal line illustrates (you can catch hbdchick on Twitter as well). And van Staden makes a semantic error which undermines much of his piece, when he equates the border-delineating state with the nation.
The state is not the nation. You would think a South African would know this, especially one with Afrikaner parents who lived through Apartheid. South Africa has several nations in its borders: Afrikaner, English, Zulu, Xhosa, Indian, Coloured, Pedi, etc. Other nations arguably are split between states, as the Pashtun in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Obviously it is not just citizenship that distinguishes a Canadian from an American. Citizenship is only relevant because state boundaries have driven separation of nations. But even in their absence, nations exist. A Boer is not a rooinek. A Welshman is not an Englishman. A Yankee is not a Reb. A Frenchman is not an Italian. A German is not a Pole. A Korean is not a Chinaman. A Zulu is not a Xhosa. Nations exist.
Saying nations exist is not to say that boundaries can't be fuzzy, as they are with race. It is not to say that a person is only defined by their nation, without any individuality. But ignoring them leads to problems, because of these two maxims:
- Identity > Culture > Politics
- Diversity + Proximity = War
In the below quote, van Staden is disloyal to his Christian heritage, and demonstrates blank slate egalitarianism. It is couched in terms of what is allowable by libertarian morality, but in the absence of any other moral system it appears to be his only basis for judging right and wrong.
"This anti-border libertarianism remained obvious to me for quite a while until I came into contact with various ‘libertarians’ who seemed passionately opposed to the fact that several million Muslims were now living in cherished Europe. Upon inquiry I was greeted with worrying responses qua libertarian. I was told that allowing massive waves of immigrants is detrimental to national identity, preservation of culture, and that Muslims were freedom-hating statists who were making the European welfare state worse. These arguments can easily be dismissed"
No, they can't. Massive waves of immigrants are detrimental to national identity because they are of a different nation. In the same way, adding red paint to green paint changes its colour from green to something else. Culture is downstream of identity, so it follows the same principle. And Muslims are freedom-hating statists who are making the welfare state worse.
Let us refute the refutation.
- National Identity: Libertarianism is intrinsically individualistic. With the non-aggression principle at its core, the philosophy of liberty concerns itself only with the legitimate use of force in society between individuals. Therefore any argument concerning national identity is irrelevant to libertarianism. Your national identity does not have a right of existence.
National identity may be irrelevant to libertarianism, but that doesn't make it irrelevant to people. A Russian is proud of his people and his history and would probably punch you for saying he is in fact Japanese or Swahili. A Japanese would be upset if you told him he was exactly the same as a Ghanaian or Spaniard. Nations exist, and national identity has value to people. The reason van Staden doesn't see this is because his ancestors were born on the outbred side of the Hajnal line. He is genetically predisposed to having less in-group loyalty.
- Preservation of Culture: Much like national identity, a given culture does not have an independent right of existence. A culture is not a rights-bearing individual. Every individual, however, does have the right to exercise his own culture, alone or in association with other individuals. Indeed, a Muslim moving into the neighborhood, or fifty Muslims moving into the neighborhood, is not going to get in the way of you exercising your culture unless they initiate force against you. If you feel a Mosque being erected next to your church is a problem – then at least divorce it from libertarianism. If that Mosque sits on legitimately acquired property then the libertarian answer is the exact same as when a competing barber shops opens up opposite yours: get over it – it’s their right to do so.
This is why people think libertarians are suicidal. A single Muslim moving into your neighbourhood will get in the way. He will initiate force. He will bring his family with, or force little girls into sex slavery and breed more Muslims. He will force restaurants to serve halaal meals. He will complain about eating during Ramadan. He will force you to mute your own religious celebrations. He will kill you for mocking his prophet (piss be upon him). History proves this is what Muslims do. Evidence trumps theory. And so we must realise that libertarianism is a deficient theory.
- Muslims are Freedom Hating Statists: I have never been one to shy away from expressing my distaste of Islamism. Islamism is politicized Islam. The extent to which Islamism disregards individual rights is shocking indeed and wholly incompatible with the libertarian perception of a free society. However, it is not the Muslims who created European statism, nor was it the Mexicans who created American statism. It was white men. White men also created and developed communism; it was a white man who was named Marx and it was a white man named Mussolini. It was white men who created Frankfurtian Critical Theory and gave us radical African postcolonialism. I am not assigning blame here. I am simply showing that the source of the issue is at home, and not coming in from abroad.
Islam is not just a religion, it is a holistic political system. It dictates sharia law for all. Politicised Islam is Islam, there is no non-politicised Islam. Equating Islam with any other religion is nonsense, because Islam is the most violent, rapacious religion in existence. It stole land and captured slaves and raped and murdered peoples until they converted. It is an evil ideology, and it should not be allowed to freely enter Christendom in just the same way child rapists should not be allowed to freely enter a kids play park.
As to equating Islamic statism with other forms of statism, it is almost as much nonsense. The only statism that compares with Islam in magnitude of horror is communism, and the now extinct Nazism. Other polities, when left unmolested by empires, have been much kinder to their peoples. And just to trigger folks: Marx was a Jew. Jews are a different nation to Prussians, whether they're the same colour or not. (Sperg alert: Mussolini was fascist, not communist.)
It is fitting that van Staden tries to downplay the evils of Islam by talking of the Cultural Marxism running rampant throughout the West (while omitting the fact that "pesky Mexicans" and all other immigrants vote overwhelmingly for said Cultural Marxism). The West, Christendom, has two great enemies: Islam, and Marxism (cultural and/or economic). Both have the stated goal of destroying all that the West has created. Both would condemn our souls. Both would impoverish us. Both destroy beauty and obfuscate truth and Truth.
His points being bunk, I conclude that while all large scale immigration adulterates a nation, Muslim immigration is particularly dangerous because it is so potent in its evilness. It must be prevented, which is how van Staden segues onto democracy as the means of doing so.
Given that nations exist, group actions must be decided upon some way. A democratic state is one way to do this, but it far from the only way. Monarchies exist. Feudalism used to. There are small tribes who make group decisions by consensus. Each nation or tribe or group can find their own way to decide. They should not be bullied and intimidated by rioting, raping, murdering Muslims into appeasing outsiders at the expense of their own people (point 10).
This quote in particular stands out: "Stated differently, you cannot delegate a right or obligation to an agent without you having the right or obligation in the first place." It is elegant and logical. It is emblematic of the inherent problem with libertarianism, which is that libertarianism is only sustainable in a population conducive to it. A primitive, violent group of people doesn't care about right and wrong, only possible and not possible. To the savage, might makes right.
Much talk and text has been devoted by libertarians to discussions of private security agencies for the inevitable bad actors, as the theory recognises not everyone will play along with the rules. But it does not discuss what happens when the majority of the group don't want liberty. For example, Rothbard's magic button to push to end the state, the pushing of which was his litmus test of whether one loved or hated the state, didn't take into account the fact that most Americans would just re-establish the state if it was pushed. There are collectivist and statist nations, and there are freedom minded nations. The American nations, and the other English diaspora nations, have been the most libertarian like. The Afrikaners may have turned out that way - they were very insistent on being independent of outsiders - if they had been on islands or isolated continents instead of stuck alongside primitive, violent tribes.
Libertarianism, whether minarchism or anarcho-capitalism or even some other variant, can work inside an amenable nation. But that nation needs a way to exclude statist outsiders, and protect itself from imperial outsiders. And a way to prevent degenerating into hedonistic, materialistic libertinism.
Van Staden claims to have problems with fake libertarians, who don't hold the Non-Aggression Principle and individual rights as the highest principles. On this basis I claim he lacks loyalty. Not even loyalty to nation or tribe, but loyalty to family. For who would not sacrifice innocents to save their own flesh and blood? Who wouldn't toss a grenade amongst a mixed group of loser terrorists and innocent hostages if it would save the life of their own loved ones? Whether this is irrational sentimentality or rational Darwinistic preservation of genes, loyalty does at least sometimes trump the NAP.
Jonathan Haidt identifies five moral intuitions that divide people into left and right (TED talk or article or book):
- Care/Harm
- Just/Fair
- Loyalty
- Obedience/Respect for Authority
- Purity/Sanctity
Leftists tend to only care about the first two channels, Care/Harm and Just/Fair, while those on the right are influenced by all five. And because of van Staden's lack of loyalty, I claim he is still of the left, and still has modern liberal tendencies to rid himself of. He appears to have no loyalty to his nation. A man who doesn't love his nation is deficient, he is missing something.
All of this should not be mistaken for love of the state on my part. I merely recognise that in this world of 4th Generation Warfare, there are things much worse than the state. Don't replace imperfect with comnpletely atrocious. Improve it in a sustainable way, but don't destroy a workable solution for the bad type of anarchy.
