AuthorTopic: Against Libertarian Brutalism  (Read 2132 times)

Jeffrey Tucker

  • Guest
Against Libertarian Brutalism
« on: July 27, 2015, 03:28:51 AM »

Off the keyboard of Jeffrey Tucker

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666

Friend us on Facebook

washington-aspx

Published on The Freeman on March 12, 2014

Visit the New Diner News Page for Daily Updates from around the Collapse Blogosphere


Why should we favor human liberty over a social order ruled by power? In providing the answer, I would suggest that libertarians can generally be divided into two camps: humanitarians and brutalists.

The humanitarians are drawn to reasons such as the following. Liberty allows peaceful human cooperation. It inspires the creative service of others. It keeps violence at bay. It allows for capital formation and prosperity. It protects human rights of all against invasion. It allows human associations of all sorts to flourish on their own terms. It socializes people with rewards toward getting along rather than tearing each other apart, and leads to a world in which people are valued as ends in themselves rather than fodder in the central plan.

We know all of this from history and experience. These are all great reasons to love liberty.

But they are not the only reasons that people support liberty. There is a segment of the population of self-described libertarians—described here as brutalists—who find all the above rather boring, broad, and excessively humanitarian. To them, what’s impressive about liberty is that it allows people to assert their individual preferences, to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on “politically incorrect” standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used as a means, to shout down people based on their demographics or political opinions, to be openly racist and sexist, to exclude and isolate and be generally malcontented with modernity, and to reject civil standards of values and etiquette in favor of antisocial norms.

These two impulses are radically different. The first values the social peace that emerges from freedom, while the second values the freedom to reject cooperation in favor of gut-level prejudice. The first wants to reduce the role of power and privilege in the world, while the second wants the freedom to assert power and privilege within the strict confines of private property rights and the freedom to disassociate.

To be sure, liberty does allow both the humanitarian and the brutalist perspective, as implausible as that might seem. Liberty is large and expansive and asserts no particular social end as the one and only way. Within the framework of liberty, there is the freedom to love and to hate. At the same time, they constitute very different ways of looking at the world—one liberal in the classical sense and one illiberal in every sense—and it is good to consider that before you, as a libertarian, find yourself allied with people who are missing the main point of the liberal idea.

Humanitarianism we understand. It seeks the well-being of the human person and the flourishing of society in all its complexity. Libertarian humanitarianism sees the best means to achieve this as the self-ordering social system itself, unimpeded by external controls through the violent means of the State. The goal here is essentially benevolent, and the means by which it is achieved put a premium on social peace, free association, mutually beneficial exchange, the organic development of institutions, and the beauty of life itself.

What is brutalism? The term is mostly associated with an architectural style of the 1950s through the 1970s, one that emphasized large concrete structures unrefined by concerns over style and grace. Inelegance is its main thrust and its primary source of pride. Brutalism heralded the lack of pretense and the raw practicality of the building’s use. The building was supposed to be strong not pretty, aggressive not fussy, imposing and not subtle.

Brutalism in architecture was an affectation, one that emerged from a theory robbed of context. It was a style adopted with conscious precision. It believed it was forcing us to look at unadorned realities, an apparatus barren of distractions, in order to make a didactic point. This point was not only aesthetic but also ethical: It rejected beauty on principle. To beautify is to compromise, distract, and ruin the purity of the cause. It follows that brutalism rejected the need for commercial appeal and discarded issues of presentation and marketing; these issues, in the brutalist framework, shield our eyes from the radical core.

Brutalism asserted that a building should be no more and no less than what it is supposed to be in order to fulfill its function. It asserted the right to be ugly, which is precisely why the style was most popular among governments around the world, and why brutalist forms are today seen as eyesores all over the world.

We look back and wonder where these monstrosities came from, and we are amazed to discover that they were born of a theory that rejected beauty, presentation, and adornment as a matter of principle. The architects imagined that they were showing us something we would otherwise be reluctant to face. You can only really appreciate the results of brutalism, however, if you have already bought into the theory and believe in it. Otherwise, absent the extremist and fundamentalist ideology, the building comes across as terrifying and threatening.

By analogy, what is ideological brutalism? It strips down the theory to its rawest and most fundamental parts and pushes the application of those parts to the foreground. It tests the limits of the idea by tossing out the finesse, the refinements, the grace, the decency, the accoutrements. It cares nothing for the larger cause of civility and the beauty of results. It is only interested in the pure functionality of the parts. It dares anyone to question the overall look and feel of the ideological apparatus, and shouts down people who do so as being insufficiently devoted to the core of the theory, which itself is asserted without context or regard for aesthetics.

Not every argument for raw principle and stripped-down analytics is inherently brutalist; the core truth of brutalism is that we need to reduce in order to see the roots, we need sometimes to face difficult truth, and we need to be shocked and sometimes to shock with seemingly implausible or uncomfortable implications of an idea. Brutalism goes much further: the idea that the argument should stop there and go no further, and to elaborate, qualify, adorn, nuance, admit uncertainty, or broaden beyond gritty assertion amounts to a sell out or a corruption of purity. Brutalism is relentless and unabashed in its refusal to get beyond the most primitive postulates.

Brutalism can appear in many ideological guises. Bolshevism and Nazism are both obvious examples: Class and race become the only metric driving politics to the exclusion of every other consideration. In modern democracy, partisan politics tends toward brutalism insofar as it asserts party control as the only relevant concern. Religious fundamentalism is yet another obvious form.

In the libertarian world, however, brutalism is rooted in the pure theory of the rights of individuals to live their values whatever they may be. The core truth is there and indisputable, but the application is made raw to push a point. Thus do the brutalists assert the right to be racist, the right to be a misogynist, the right to hate Jews or foreigners, the right to ignore civil standards of social engagement, the right to be uncivilized, to be rude and crude. It is all permissible and even meritorious because embracing what is awful can constitute a kind of test. After all, what is liberty if not the right to be a boor?

These kinds of arguments make the libertarian humanitarians deeply uncomfortable since they are narrowly true as regards pure theory but miss the bigger point of human liberty, which is not to make the world more divided and miserable but to enable human flourishing in peace and prosperity. Just as we want architecture to please the eye and reflect the drama and elegance of the human ideal, so too a theory of the social order should provide a framework for a life well lived and communities of association that permit its members to flourish.

The brutalists are technically correct that liberty also protects the right to be a complete jerk and the right to hate, but such impulses do not flow from the long history of the liberal idea. As regards race and sex, for example, the liberation of women and minority populations from arbitrary rule has been a great achievement of this tradition. To continue to assert the right to turn back the clock in your private and commercial life gives an impression of the ideology that is uprooted from this history, as if these victories for human dignity have nothing whatever to do with the ideological needs of today.

Brutalism is more than a stripped-down, antimodern, and gutted version of the original libertarianism. It is also a style of argumentation and an approach to rhetorical engagement. As with architecture, it rejects marketing, the commercial ethos, and the idea of “selling” a worldview. Liberty must be accepted or rejected based entirely on its most reduced form. Thus is it quick to pounce, denounce, and declare victory. It detects compromise everywhere. It loves nothing more than to ferret it out. It has no patience for subtlety of exposition much less the nuances of the circumstances of time and place. It sees only raw truth and clings to it as the one and only truth to the exclusion of all other truth.

Brutalism rejects subtlety and finds no exceptions of circumstance to its universal theory. The theory applies regardless of time, place, or culture. There can be no room for modification or even discovery of new information that might change the way the theory is applied. Brutalism is a closed system of thought in which all relevant information is already known, and the manner in which the theory is applied is presumed to be a given part of the theoretical apparatus. Even difficult areas such as family law, criminal restitution, rights in ideas, liability for trespass, and other areas subject to case-by-case juridical tradition become part of an a priori apparatus that admits no exceptions or emendations.

And because brutalism is the outlying impulse in the libertarian world—young people are no longer interested in this whole approach—it behaves the way we’ve come to expect from seriously marginal groups. Asserting the rights and even the merits of racism and hate, it is already excluded from mainstream conversation about public life. The only people who truly listen to brutalist arguments, which are uncompelling by design, are other libertarians. For that reason, brutalism is driven ever more toward extreme factionalism; attacking the humanitarians for attempting to beautify the message becomes a full-time occupation.

In the course of this factionalism, the brutalists of course assert that they are the only true believers in liberty because only they have the stomach and the brass necessary to take libertarian logic to its most extreme end and deal with the results. But it is not bravery or intellectual rigor at work here. Their idea of libertarianism is reductionist, truncated, unthoughtful, uncolored and uncorrected by the unfolding of human experience, and forgets the larger historical and social context in which liberty lives.

So let’s say you have a town that is taken over by a fundamentalist sect that excludes all peoples not of the faith, forces women into burka-like clothing, imposes a theocratic legal code, and ostracizes gays and lesbians. You might say that everyone is there voluntarily, but, even so, there is no liberalism present in this social arrangement at all. The brutalists will be on the front lines to defend such a microtyranny on grounds of decentralization, rights of property, and the right to discriminate and exclude—completely dismissing the larger picture here that, after all, people’s core aspirations to live a full and free life are being denied on a daily basis.

Further, the brutalist believes that he already knows the results of human liberty, and they often conform to the throne-and-altar impulses of times past. After all, in their view, liberty means the unleashing of all the basest impulses of human nature that they believe the modern state has suppressed: the desire to abide in racial and religious homogeneity, the moral permanency of patriarchy, the revulsion against homosexuality, and so on. What most people regard as modernity’s advances against prejudice, the brutalists regard as imposed exceptions from the long history of humanity’s tribalist and religiously based instincts.

Of course the brutalist as I’ve described him is an ideal type, probably not fully personified in any particular thinker. But the brutalist impulse is everywhere in evidence, especially on social media. It is a tendency of thought with predictable positions and biases. It is a main source for racist, sexist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic strains within the libertarian world—at once denying that this sentence is true while asserting with equal passion the rights of individuals to hold and act on such views. After all, say the brutalists, what is human liberty without the right to behave in ways that put our most precious sensibilities, and even civilization itself, to the test?

It all comes down to the fundamental motivation behind the support of liberty itself. What is its overarching purpose? What is its dominant historical contribution? What is its future? Here the humanitarians are fundamentally at odds with brutalism.

Truly, we should never neglect the core, never shrink from the difficult implications of the pure theory of liberty. At the same time, the story of liberty and its future is not only about the raw assertion of rights but also about grace, aesthetics, beauty, complexity, service to others, community, the gradual emergence of cultural norms, and the spontaneous development of extended orders of commercial and private relationships. Freedom is what gives life to the human imagination and enables the working out of love as it extends from our most benevolent and highest longings.

An ideology robbed of its accoutrements, on the other hand, can become an eyesore, just as with a large concrete monstrosity built decades ago, imposed on an urban landscape, embarrassing to everyone, now only awaiting demolition. Will libertarianism be brutalist or humanitarian? Everyone needs to decide.


jeff_177x200 Jeffrey Tucker is Chief Liberty Officer and founder of Liberty.me, the global liberty community with advanced social and publishing features. He is also Director of Digital Development for the Foundation for Economic Education, executive editor of Laissez-Faire Books, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, an advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books.

« Last Edit: July 27, 2015, 07:50:20 AM by Surly1 »

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17439
    • View Profile
Re: Against Libertarian Brutalism
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2015, 05:59:52 AM »
Nice piece that lays out the divide between me and the Koch brothers.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15451
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Against Libertarian Brutalism
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2015, 07:51:35 AM »
Indeed. When I read it, I thought of you and GO.

This is one extremely intelligent man.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 37242
    • View Profile
Re: Against Libertarian Brutalism
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2015, 02:13:23 PM »
My experience on the net (anecdotal granted) has the Brutalist branch of Libertarians around 5:1 over the Humanist branch. 

I will have Part 1 of our podcast with Jeff up probably on Wednesday for the Weekly Audio Feature on the Diner.  It focuses on The Donald's run for POTUS.  Surly co-hosted this podcast with me, since Monsta is on vacation in Cyprus.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: Against Libertarian Brutalism
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2015, 02:36:46 PM »
My experience on the net (anecdotal granted) has the Brutalist branch of Libertarians around 5:1 over the Humanist branch. 

I will have Part 1 of our podcast with Jeff up probably on Wednesday for the Weekly Audio Feature on the Diner.  It focuses on The Donald's run for POTUS.  Surly co-hosted this podcast with me, since Monsta is on vacation in Cyprus.

RE

Yes RE, Would say it's a fairly close enough estimate.

One guy like GO for about ever five of them.  :dontknow:

You were talking about me I hope, or did you mean Jimbo Quinn?  :icon_scratch:   :exp-laugh: :exp-laugh: :exp-laugh:




Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 37242
    • View Profile
Re: Against Libertarian Brutalism
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2015, 02:53:51 PM »
My experience on the net (anecdotal granted) has the Brutalist branch of Libertarians around 5:1 over the Humanist branch. 

I will have Part 1 of our podcast with Jeff up probably on Wednesday for the Weekly Audio Feature on the Diner.  It focuses on The Donald's run for POTUS.  Surly co-hosted this podcast with me, since Monsta is on vacation in Cyprus.

RE

Yes RE, Would say it's a fairly close enough estimate.

One guy like GO for about ever five of them.  :dontknow:

You were talking about me I hope, or did you mean Jimbo Quinn?  :icon_scratch:   :exp-laugh: :exp-laugh: :exp-laugh:

Diner Libertarians seem to come from the Humanist branch.  TBP Libertarians come from the Brutalist branch.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: Against Libertarian Brutalism
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2015, 03:27:19 PM »
Quote
TBP Libertarians come from the Brutalist branch.

RE

I'm a great fan of Stucky, wish we could get him posting here.

There are some very mean people over there it seems, that beat up on the unfortunate mercilessly.


I'm no Saint myself and will beat up on a leach or moocher or professional government teat sucker with gusto. Some there don't seem to distinguish between the truly depraved and the leeches though and can be really nasty.

We are all unique in our own way and usually end up in a niche we belong in sooner or later. Diners just seem to belong here for some reason, and the TBP folks are happy in their domain.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15451
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
The Trumpenkreig
« Reply #7 on: August 22, 2015, 07:03:59 AM »
Donald Trump, Voice of the Bottom-Feeders

He has brought the language and ideas of birthers, truthers, and conspiracy theorists onto the national stage.

 
150821_FOR_TrumpLeft, Donald Trump. Right, U.K. Labour Party leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn.

Photo illustration by Lisa Larson-Walker. Photos by Brian Snyder/Reuters and Peter Nicholls/Reuters.

“It’s probably the same person, writing 16 different comments under 15 different names.” That’s how a friend’s son recently shrugged off a social media spat he’d been involved in at his university. There had been some nasty name-calling and a few violent threats, but he wasn’t bothered: He reckoned the anger, racism, and vitriol he had encountered on Twitter and Facebook weren’t “real.” They didn’t affect real politics, or real life. He isn’t alone in this assumption.

Most people—the vast majority—do not look at their cellphones several times an hour and would never imagine that Twitter is reality. Even those who do stay abreast of current events via some form of social media generally assume that whatever nastiness they encounter online doesn’t affect anything important. If there is a political impact, it’s on niche movements or Islamic extremists. Jon Ronson’s recent book, So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed, explores the madness of the Twitter mobs that destroy the lives of people who tell unfortunate jokes, but until now, we’ve still believed that mainstream politics were safe.

Watching Donald Trump bluster and bluff his way through a presidential campaign, I wonder if we underestimate the ways in which Internet vitriol has broadened the parameters of political debate. We are “shocked, shocked” by Trump’s language, but all of it is exactly the sort of thing anyone can encounter in the normal course of reading about politics online. John McCain isn’t a war hero? I’ll bet he finds worse insults than that on his Facebook page, and so does everybody who writes about him. All Mexicans are rapists? I open my Twitter account every morning to find similar and worse (my personal favorite, translated from Polish: “Reading what that @anneapplebaum writes I understand anti-semitism. Jews have an incredible gift for pissing you off”).

The language of online political discourse is now so extreme, and often so far divorced from reality, that Trump’s words fit right in, especially when they make no sense. Trump’s defenders—and I know because they tell me so online—say they admire him because he is allegedly “anti-establishment.” They are wrong: He isn’t anti-establishment at all. As a vastly wealthy man—as one who can invite a former president and his then-senator wife to his wedding and expect them to come—he actually lives at the very heart of a certain slice of the establishment. But of course he is different from other politicians in another sense: He is the only presidential candidate who uses, on television, the kind of language normally found in the comment section of a celebrity website or the more aggressive Reddit forums. Vulgar insults, racist slurs, manufactured “anger,” and invented “facts” are all a normal part of debate in those kinds of public spaces. Thanks to Trump, they have now migrated to presidential politics, too.

As others have noted, protest candidates are hardly a uniquely American phenomenon. Silvio Berlusconi brought the language and style of Italian tabloid television into the center of Italian politics; multiple far-right ideologues have brought anger and bombast into European debates. In Britain, the obscurantist far left is having a revival in the form of Jeremy Corbyn, a bearded Marxist—he favors the nationalization of industry and nuclear disarmament—who may well be the next leader of the Labour Party. All of these candidates appeal to electorates who have strong online ties but don’t hear their views reflected in mainstream politics. Trump falls into that category, too. But instead of the far left or the far right, he speaks for the sarcastic hate-tweeters, the anti-everything nihilists, and the conspiracy theorists who write convoluted anonymous comments at the bottom of newspaper articles.

Top Comment

Fair enough thesis but I see the whole thing playing on the pecularities of the political media, rather than internet trolls.  We've been presented this completely phony, whitewashed slate of candidates election after election.....  More...

-Dan

197 CommentsJoin In

He’s simply taken their outraged feelings out of cyberspace and translated them into real life. Trump dismisses Jeb Bush because Bush learns about foreign policy by sitting at a table and talking to some boring general all day? So do they. Trump says he “wouldn’t care” if Ukraine joined NATO? Neither would they. Trump thinks the “real” unemployment rate is 42 percent? They aren’t bothered by the nuances of statistics, either. And there we have it: Long left out of a national conversation that focuses on dull things like budgets, legislation, and foreign policy, now, at last, the birthers, truthers, and trolls have a voice, too.

"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline Petty Tyrant

  • Cannot be Saved
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 4573
    • View Profile
Re: The Trumpenkreig
« Reply #8 on: August 22, 2015, 02:08:45 PM »
Donald Trump, Voice of the Bottom-Feeders


<h2 class="dek">He has brought the language and ideas of birthers, truthers, and conspiracy theorists onto the national stage.</h2>
<div id="main_byline" class="byline">By <a href="http://www.slate.com/authors.anne_applebaum.html" rel="author">Anne Applebaum[/url]</div>
<div class="parsys iparsys editorsNote"> </div>
<div class="newbody body parsys">
<div class="parbase image slate_image section">
<div><img title="150821_FOR_Trump" src="http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/08/150821_FOR_Trump.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg" alt="150821_FOR_Trump" />Left, Donald Trump. Right, U.K. Labour Party leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn.
<p class="credit">Photo illustration by Lisa Larson-Walker. Photos by Brian Snyder/Reuters and Peter Nicholls/Reuters.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="text text-1 parbase section">
<p>“It’s probably the same person, writing 16 different comments under 15 different names.” That’s how a friend’s son recently shrugged off a social media spat he’d been involved in at his university. There had been some nasty name-calling and a few violent threats, but he wasn’t bothered: He reckoned the anger, racism, and vitriol he had encountered on Twitter and Facebook weren’t “real.” They didn’t affect real politics, or real life. He isn’t alone in this assumption.</p>
</div>
<div class="text-2 text parbase section">
<p>Most people—the vast majority—do not look at their cellphones several times an hour and would never imagine that Twitter is reality. Even those who do stay abreast of current events via some form of social media generally assume that whatever nastiness they encounter online doesn’t affect anything important. If there is a political impact, it’s on niche movements or Islamic extremists. Jon Ronson’s recent book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594487138/?tag=slatmaga-20" target="_blank">So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed[/url], explores the madness of the Twitter mobs that destroy the lives of people who tell unfortunate jokes, but until now, we’ve still believed that mainstream politics were safe.</p>
</div>
<div class="text-3 text parbase section">
<p>Watching Donald Trump bluster and bluff his way through a presidential campaign, I wonder if we underestimate the ways in which Internet vitriol has broadened the parameters of political debate. We are “shocked, shocked” by Trump’s language, but all of it is exactly the sort of thing anyone can encounter in the normal course of reading about politics online. John McCain isn’t a war hero? I’ll bet he finds worse insults than that on his Facebook page, and so does everybody who writes about him. All Mexicans <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/02/donald-trump-racist-claims-mexico-rapes" target="_blank">are rapists[/url]? I open my Twitter account every morning to find similar and worse (my personal favorite, translated from Polish: “Reading what that @anneapplebaum writes I understand anti-semitism. Jews have an incredible gift for pissing you off”).</p>
</div>
<div class="text parbase text-4 section">
<p>The language of online political discourse is now so extreme, and often so far divorced from reality, that Trump’s words fit right in, especially when they make no sense. Trump’s defenders—and I know because they tell me so online—say they admire him because he is allegedly “anti-establishment.” They are wrong: He isn’t anti-establishment at all. As a vastly wealthy man—as one who can invite a former president and his then-senator wife to his wedding and <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/250773-hillary-thought-itd-be-fun-to-attend-trumps-wedding" target="_blank">expect them to come[/url]—he actually lives at the very heart of a certain slice of the establishment. But of course he is different from other politicians in another sense: He is the only presidential candidate who uses, on television, the kind of language normally found in the comment section of a celebrity website or the more aggressive Reddit forums. Vulgar insults, racist slurs, manufactured “anger,” and invented “facts” are all a normal part of debate in those kinds of public spaces. Thanks to Trump, they have now migrated to presidential politics, too.</p>
</div>
<div class="text parbase text-5 section">
<p>As others have noted, protest candidates are hardly a uniquely American phenomenon. Silvio Berlusconi brought the language and style of Italian tabloid television into the center of Italian politics; multiple far-right ideologues have brought anger and bombast into European debates. In Britain, the obscurantist far left is having a revival in the form of Jeremy Corbyn, a bearded Marxist—he favors the nationalization of industry and nuclear disarmament—who may well be the next leader of the Labour Party. All of these candidates appeal to electorates who have strong online ties but don’t hear their views reflected in mainstream politics. Trump falls into that category, too. But instead of the far left or the far right, he speaks for the sarcastic hate-tweeters, the anti-everything nihilists, and the conspiracy theorists who write convoluted anonymous comments at the bottom of newspaper articles.</p>
</div>
<p class="title"><span>Top Comment</span></p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Fair enough thesis but I see the whole thing playing on the pecularities of the political media, rather than internet trolls.  We've been presented this completely phony, whitewashed slate of candidates election after election.....  <a>More...[/url]</p>
<p>-Dan</p>
</div>
<p class="comment-options"><a class="count labeled" href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/08/donald_trump_his_rise_demonstrates_the_alarming_success_of_internet_trolls.html#comments">197 Comments[/url]<a class="join-in" href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/08/donald_trump_his_rise_demonstrates_the_alarming_success_of_internet_trolls.html#comments">Join In[/url]</p>
<div class="text text-6 parbase section">
<p>He’s simply taken their outraged feelings out of cyberspace and translated them into real life. Trump dismisses Jeb Bush because Bush learns about foreign policy by sitting at a table and talking to some boring general all day? So do they. Trump says he “wouldn’t care” if Ukraine joined NATO? Neither would they. Trump thinks the “real” unemployment rate is 42 percent? They aren’t bothered by the nuances of statistics, either. And there we have it: Long left out of a national conversation that focuses on dull things like budgets, legislation, and foreign policy, now, at last, the birthers, truthers, and trolls have a voice, too.</p>
</div>
</div>


So she calls people "bottom feeders" then complains that these people would make "vulgar insults". She claims trump says all mexicans are rapists and provides links to articles that do not demonstrate that. Complains about trump representing the comments section then includes the top comment from her comments section being trump doesn't  care about details and facts because he thinks the unemploynent rate is far higher than the govt stats. 3 for 3 for hypocrisy.
ELEVATE YOUR GAME

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15451
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: The Trumpenkreig
« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2015, 03:34:51 AM »

So she calls people "bottom feeders" then complains that these people would make "vulgar insults". She claims trump says all mexicans are rapists and provides links to articles that do not demonstrate that. Complains about trump representing the comments section then includes the top comment from her comments section being trump doesn't  care about details and facts because he thinks the unemploynent rate is far higher than the govt stats. 3 for 3 for hypocrisy.

Nonsense.

Your experience of the trumpenkreig is probably filtered through a variety of media and 6000 miles. But Trump did indeed say that "Mexicans are rapists."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/08/donald-trumps-false-comments-connecting-mexican-immigrants-and-crime/

Trump has now mainstreamed the shuddering, spittle-flecked id of the Republican Party, a clumsy vehicle of politicized resentment and white identity politics now shorn of its hood and cape.

The Republican Party — and the conservative movement, in general — has been playing a version of this game for several US election cycles; using extreme reactionaries to win elections but pretending the GOP is run by urbane, center-right moderates. In he past they'd offer up a Pat robertson or a Pat Buchanan as raw meat for the drooling right, but that candidacy would go nowhere, and the extremists would ahve no where else to go. Same technique by which corpdems gutted the Democratic Party: they'd sell out to business interests, then say to progressives, "Where you gonna go?"

This week Trump came out against birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, and as such stands foursquare against the 14th amendment, which grants citizenship to essentially anybody born in the United States. Trump is obsessed with the notion that pregnant women are illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border for the purpose of having a child or an “anchor baby,” which reduces the likelihood of the parents being deported. The xenophobes, racists and practitioners of white identity politics are having a field day.

At no time did Trump mention the Constitution, which Bush the Lesser once described as "a goddam piece of paper." Such a move would require an amendment. Changing the Constitution would require a two-thirds vote in Congress, then ratification from three-fourths of state legislatures. It could also be changed through a constitutional convention in which at least 34 states convene to vote on an amendment, which would then need ratification from a minimum 38 states. I'll let you compute the likelihood.

Meanwhile, the issue of illegal immigration compels the attention of many in this coun try as it does elsewhere in the world, with migrants saying, "let me in" and natives saying, "hell, no!"
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Against Libertarian Brutalism
« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2015, 01:32:24 PM »
  In the interest of logic and common sense, I humbly submit this bit of graphical education for those who aren't sure of what Mr. Trump and friends are all about:


Brought to you by Libertarians for Trump


Reality difficulties for Trump supporters   


Gradual Public Realization of Trump and friends' business model for American prosperity.  :evil4:
« Last Edit: August 23, 2015, 01:34:19 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Petty Tyrant

  • Cannot be Saved
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 4573
    • View Profile
Re: Against Libertarian Brutalism
« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2015, 02:56:09 PM »
UB ON IMMIGRATION PART 1

Surly
I admit i am less informed but might also have more objectivity as an outsider, wheras much of america is so polarised as being one eyed with either a left or right eye. To me it is lying at worst and gross exaggeration at best to change a speech about illegal immigrants not mexicans per se in which Trump says "they are coming from all over not just mexico" and clarifies this. He says that people from many places use the mexican border as the entry point. This is far from generalising about Mexicans and even generalising about illegal immigrant mexicans would not be generalising about ALL mexicans. This is clear when he says "they are not sending their best" about 3 seconds earlier. Obviously he thinks their best are mexicans who dont rape. if this was not clear enough he makes it unmistakable  in the same sentence. "...Theyre rapists,  and some i assume are good people. " You have posted in this and other threads that trump says ALL mexicans are rapists.

As your article by applebaum states in the opening trump has brought  the language of people intetested in the truth,  and this is construed as bad. How orwellian is the left now when everywhere u look the truth and facts matter not, interest in the truth is cause for scorn and concern. Only blind bobbleheading and unquestioning credulity are expected and provided by half the people. In such a topsy turvy ideology trump is feared and smeared with blatant untruth while Hillary is run as the premierre candidate fir president while under investigstion and not cooperating with investigators for compromising national security in the highest role responsible for it. I see the same lack of concern for quality and acceptance of criminality in the leadership of other associated chapters and any scrutiny is easily silenced and shut down by calling those calling it out conservative or right wing so by nature racist and white supremacist or simply saying its racist and white supremacist plot to undermine the movement. Scores of black people asking wheres my money or where is the money are then ignored by the leadership and left media.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2015, 03:27:51 PM by Uncle Bob »
ELEVATE YOUR GAME

Offline Petty Tyrant

  • Cannot be Saved
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 4573
    • View Profile
Re: Against Libertarian Brutalism
« Reply #12 on: August 23, 2015, 06:19:58 PM »
Part 2

Regarding your wider point on immigration, refugees and nativism, xenophobia i wholly agree. You only need to read the comments in the articles posted in the official refugee thread to see how many people post and upvote comments talking about threats to "white culture" and catchcries of "multiculturalism doesnt work" and "they dont even learn the language". These seem to be american posters commenting in american based and focussed outlets running stories re europe. Some even still use words like 'miscegenation', archaic relics so offensive you dont want to say them in front of me.

What then is white culture and is it true multiculturalism doesnt work?  The culture in the western world is determined by the roughly standardization of the laws and principles behind them. Everyone generally follows these if they want to stay out of trouble. Immigrants especially want to stay out of trouble or risk deportation after  whatever other penalty applies. I see no evidence of higher crime among any immigrant group,  instead i see people willing to work at all levels and type of jobs especially as skilled migration is targetted by govt and often unskilled lowest paid work it is only immigrants willing to do it.

 I have to say also i see it as more likely for an immigrant to start with nothing and become wealthy than a native starting with nothing. pressure to study and get good grades is taken to another level among many more immigrants than natives.

Where some people being mainly youth and those born as natives of immigrant parents lead lives of crime they are associated with other networks of natives. There are then "bad apples" in every barrel of native and immigrant backgrounds,  though some almost totally avoid it. Bikers such as hells angels are criminal network and used to be all white native,  yet natives dont think of them as representing anything but a negligent number of the white people. The same can be said of italians and the mafia ,  a neglible number and for some groups such as indians it is almost none at all. So overall the common catchcry "theyre bringing all their problems" is just in their imagination.

The amount of sectarian or ethnic trouble is tiny and gets way overblown any time anything happens which is hardly ever. if anything a synagogue or mosque is the target of cowardly attacks by nativists is more common. Somehow nativists can differentiate between the criminal element in their own ranks not being a representation of the majority but any sign of antisocial or criminal behavior among immigrants becomes indicative of multiculturalism failing. Isnt it funny that this belief is so prevalent yet you never hear a nativist complain about being treated by all the ethnic doctors when they need  the services. For that matter the claim that diversity quotas never positively discriminate for whites hits a snag too. Our medical schools have to ensure extra white natives are accepted into courses by means of a subjective interview overriding raw exam scores otherwise all the indians and chinese completely crowd them out.

So we know the threat to white culture is not from crime or work ethic, maybe its clothing or music or sport or food. What are immigrants wearing? Almost always exactly the same thing as natives, styke choice notwithstanding.

I once heard an italian guy complain about muslim women in the shopping mall wearing hijab and that they might have explosives underneath. I asked him what they were waiting for, that was 2006 and so far they still havent blown anything up. My grandmother wore a sari every day until she died,  one of those you might hear speaking in another language having a conversation that doesnt concern you,  so you incorrectly assume doesnt speak english. Maybe thats an affront to native sensibilities and shouldnt be allowed. If that were so then there shouldnt be a curry in a hurry in every eatery or any of the other national cuisines. They should all be outta biz because natives only want white culture food of bacon and eggs, roast and veggies and fish and chips. Anglosphere countries shouldnt even eat sausage in hot dog and hamburger brought from the germans they fought for two world wars.

There still must be some definitive white culture somewhere, maybe in sport. Lets see, swimming and surfing and lawn bowls cover it for white supremacy. Boxing, running, football, and basketball not so much. Even the grown up frat boy game of golfs best ever player was an african-asian american. Aha motorsport, mostly white front runners right? No again, the best ever racing driver in the highest class of F1 was ayrton senna from mongrel land Brazil.

On cars, none of the nativists buy the most reliable cars and fastest motorbikes from japan either im sure, should stick to harleys and chevys, well if you look at the roads they cant be. Maybe its ok to buy everything from inferior asians making superior products like a subaru if you put white culture in it.

Most people must be buying sony stereo and playing elvis,  eagles credence or beach boys and bieber boy, except the sales show jimi hendrix, diana ross,  michael jackson, kanye west, and almost all the divas from whitney houston to beyonce being black and selling much more music than only black fans could be buying.

So anyone want to tell me again how multiculturalism doesnt work and immigration threatens white culture?

« Last Edit: August 23, 2015, 06:38:04 PM by Uncle Bob »
ELEVATE YOUR GAME

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15451
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Against Libertarian Brutalism/The Trumpenkreig
« Reply #13 on: August 25, 2015, 02:37:43 PM »
Who's next? Baron Bodissey?

David Duke On Trump: He’s “Certainly The Best Of The Lot” Running For President

Burt Steel / AP

David Duke, a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and self-described “racial realist,” says Donald Trump is the best Republican candidate for president because he “understands the real sentiment of America.”

Duke, who unsuccessfully ran for president as a Democrat in 1988 and later served in the Louisiana House of Representatives, noted Trump’s experience as a salesman and his “great sense” of what people want to buy.

“I praise the fact that he’s come out on the immigration issue. I’m beginning to get the idea that he’s a good salesman. That he’s an entrepreneur and he has a good sense of what people want to hear what they want to buy,” said Duke on his radio program last week after noting that he had previously been critical of Trump’s run.

“And I think he realizes that his path to popularity toward power in the Republican Party is talking about the immigration issue. And he has really said some incredibly great things recently. So whatever his motivation, I don’t give a damn. I really like the fact that he’s speaking out on this greatest immediate threat to the American people.”

Later in his show, Duke said his view on Trump was evolving.

“I’ve said from the beginning I think his campaign is good in the sense that it’s bringing these issues to a discussion which we have to have in America. And he’s continuing to move the envelope further and I think he understands the real sentiment of America.”

Duke, who said he wasn’t sure if Trump’s proposals are sincere or are just a means to getting the nomination, spoke favorably of Trump’s policy calling for mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, saying it was the government’s role.

After going on a rant about “Jewish domination” of the media, Duke said Trump is saying things few other Republicans say about immigration

“Trump, he’s really going all out. He’s saying what no other Republicans have said, few conservatives say. And he’s also gone to point where he says it’s not just illegal immigration, it’s legal immigration,” Duke said, adding Trump has also talked about companies are taking advantage of the H1B visa program. Duke added that he felt the big technology companies were headed by “Zios.”

Duke said The Donald, while untrustworthy, was “the best of the lot” running.

“So this is a great opportunity,” Duke said. “So although we can’t trust him to do what he says, the other Republican candidates won’t even say what he says. So he’s certainly the best of the lot. And he’s certainly somebody that we should get behind in terms, ya know, raising the image of this thing.”

Here’s the audio of the program:

w.soundcloud.com

 
Andrew Kaczynski is a political reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in New York.
Contact Andrew Kaczynski at andrew.kaczynski@buzzfeed.com.
 
 
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
3671 Views
Last post May 15, 2014, 08:38:01 PM
by Petty Tyrant
578 Replies
71963 Views
Last post January 15, 2019, 06:36:21 PM
by RE
36 Replies
5897 Views
Last post August 02, 2015, 02:28:26 PM
by RE