www.thornwalker.com/ditch/lights145.htm

Reposting and reprinting.

September 29, 2006

Strakon Lights Up
 

Solutions, dissolutions, and disillusions
 
The treason of the West
 

 
Any white Westerner mindful of ethnic issues has been able to decipher a few simple signals, over the past year if not before, that our alien, anti-white, anti-Western, colored future has arrived, ready or not. Even if he hadn't already known that in Brussels the most-popular name for a baby boy is Mohammed or that in Britain there are more mosque-goers than churchgoers, our mindful Westerner has been able to observe a protracted episode of Muslim arson and mobbery in France, the Toon War between Muslims and Europeans, the thuggish intimidation (and murder) following the Pope's quoting a Byzantine emperor, and, in the United State itself, the big pro-illegal-immigration protests that depended, at least initially, on the Mexican flag as their principal symbol.

Of course many mindful Westerners need not depend on the mass media to bring them evidence of disturbing — and accelerating — change. For example, a friend of mine in Ypsilanti, Michigan (Joe Sobran's home town, by the way), reports that on a recent grocery-shopping expedition in neighboring Ann Arbor he "was basically surrounded by veil-wearing women speaking Arabic." He suddenly knew fear, for "a small voice in my head said, 'This is the world your grandchildren will live in ... the world of Islam and the sword. If you're not with them, you're most definitely against them.'" In a later dispatch, he reports that he "was at Kroger in Ypsilanti Township and saw what must have been two dozen women in head scarves. I have never seen that many Muslims at that store. There is a different Kroger store near the Ann Arbor Islamic Center on the north side of Ann Arbor where there's an abundance of Muslims present quite frequently. But on the west side of Ypsilanti? I mean, it was weird."

Seeing such displays close up and personally, and not merely through the telescreen, can make an indelible impression. Some years ago I was transfixed during a visit to suburban Northern Virginia when I spotted, proceeding down the sidewalk of a shopping center, two Halloweenish apparitions who proved to be, upon closer examination, a Muslim woman and her little daughter, both cloaked head to toe in black, faces masked. I've seen other memorable things since then, but that discordant image has stayed with me: a mundane little dry-cleaning shop here, a mundane little pet store over there, cars coming and going ... and then without warning, mediaeval Arabia. Only a few miles away, I should point out, even the shops were not so mundane: all the private signs in a certain district, including those of an entire shopping center, were in Vietnamese. (It may be that I was signally impressed, or depressed, by all these images because I was sojourning in what was once Robert E. Lee country.)
 

Some of us, I know, still harbor fond hopes of eventual assimilation; but under the current system we must wonder who will be assimilating to whom, which is by way of saying that libertarians fall into profound error if they maintain that the alien avalanche is not a grave and pressing problem. In his indispensable essay Repatriating the West, Ronn Neff cites Jared Taylor's declaration that "we have a right to be us; and only we can be us," and Neff goes on to observe:

The "we" in this context is white Westerners; and what [Taylor] and others have pointed out is that white Westerners cannot expect to live in ever-decreasing proportions with Negroes, Hispanics, Orientals, and Third Worlders without its having some effect on our culture — specifically, without its weakening white Western culture, as our folkways, our art, our mores, indeed our very personality are first overshadowed then displaced by those of nonwhite non-Westerners. In other words, multiculturalism means, essentially, the dilution and probable extinction of Western culture.

Often when I slip into political talk with a non-totalitarian rightist, he will assure me that he agrees with 90 percent of what we libertarians have to say but that he naturally disagrees with our odd (to him) detour in favor of "open borders." Out of politeness I swallow that "90 percent" claim, but I do always point out that libertarians don't approve of "open borders." We approve of no state borders because we approve of no state.

Usually that does not help matters; but it might, if it were seen in the context in which libertarians approach social problems.

Libertarians agree with those who say that much is wrong with the state schools and with state schooling. But libertarians do not agree that what is needed is more and better state schooling. We call for separation of school and state.

Libertarians agree with those who decry disease and think good health is a good idea. But libertarians do not agree that what is needed is more socialist or fascist medicine. We call for separation of medicine and state.

Libertarians agree with those who decry inflation and poverty and unemployment. But libertarians do not agree that what is needed is more socialism or more fascism. We call for separation of economy and state.

Libertarians agree with those who decry air and water pollution. But libertarians do not agree that what is needed is more regulation and state "ownership" of resources. We call for "private" ownership, which is to say just ownership. We call for separation of environment and state.

Libertarians agree with those who decry crime — real crime. But libertarians do not agree that what is needed is refinement of the state's monopoly over adjudication and defense services, or more power for the police, or confiscation of the people's means of self-defense. We call for separation of justice services and state.
 

Likewise, libertarians who recognize the white West as the world civilization — the civilization that created modern science, industry, the university, individualism, and the art, literature, and music we cherish — agree with those who decry its dissolution. But we don't look to our enemy, the state, to rescue it. We call for separation of civilization and state.

In short, we call for the separation of the state from everything, including its very existence. Libertarians do not look to the state to solve social problems. We see the state as a social institution only to the extent that it is possible to see cancer as a bodily tissue. That is because we oppose the initiation of force, and because the state is the great bloody institution designed to initiate force and hide that great unceasing crime behind fancy costumes, bright flags, impressive monuments, and a million sonorous lies.

Now, that's just Libertarianism 101. But recognizing our paradigm ought to help those paleos who consider themselves our ideological cousins and believe that our position on immigration is somehow peculiar or inconsistent.

To those who call themselves libertarians and at the same time call for the exercise of state power to control movement, and to deny the right of property and the freedom of association, I actually have less to say that is fraternal or comradely. I will say to my present readers, though, that the example of those false libertarians — alongside the examples of other "libertarians" who support Bush's War and of still others who confine themselves to tinkering, technocratically, with leviathan — has made me reluctant to continue describing myself as a libertarian. A better choice, I am coming to believe, is for consistent partisans of freedom and justice to describe ourselves as anti-statists, or, better, just anarchists.

***

The narrowly political.

A "border-control" paleo may wish to convince me that some plan or other to stop mass non-Western immigration by force of law has a better chance of being implemented than anti-statists' demands to peel back leviathan, including the many programs and operations of leviathan that serve as magnets for the immigrants. It is true that the anti-statist tendency is tiny and weak and virtually without intellectual influence, regardless of the inherent validity of its ideas. I would remind paleos of something else that is just as true: our ruling class would have to undergo not merely a revolution in strategy but a revolution in its very composition before it would permit the political class to try to stop non-Western immigration — but let me stipulate, in arguendo, that the paleos' dream is more likely to be realized than that of the anarchists.

I would reply that the liberty paradigm stands unaffected: that I was unimpressed that my interlocutor had a better chance of proceeding in the wrong direction than I had of proceeding in the right direction. And I would note in passing the peculiar and distressing fact that those who never tire of proposing state action despite man's grim experience with the state are nothing less than utopian fantasists. Humanity lives in society and perishes in the state.

The utopianism resides in the assumption that the plan will "work" in its own terms — let us leave aside, for the moment, its movement away from liberty and toward tyranny — with no unintended consequences that its proponents will regret; and the utopianism resides also in the assumption that our rulers are righteously honest tribunes of the people, with no private and corrupt agendas of their own. But have these utopians never heard of politics? Have they read no history? Or even a newspaper?

We must also consider the difference in character and performance of the two kinds of human institutions. Social institutions depend on voluntarism; state institutions depend on the initiation of force. Considerations of justice aside, have our utopians never reflected on the contrast between the performance of a typical government agency and that of, say, Amazon or Wal-Mart?

***

The broadly cultural.

To take the two most exigent examples of encroaching alienness, just what is it we fear from the Latin Americans and from the Muslims? It certainly isn't military conquest. We may not be happy at the prospect of a bomb in the hands of the Iranian state, but thanks to Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman the jinn is long escaped from that bottle. (More particularly, it is thanks to the American imperialism of the 1960s that the Iranians have nuclear facilities in the first place.) Nuclear armageddon may still lurk in our future, but the Muslims here or overseas would survive such an event no better than we, and at all events it seems unlikely that Muslim states would wish to seal their oil resources under a sea of radioactive glass while simultaneously massacring their customers in the West.

As for terrorism, Sobran writes truly that "terrorists can disrupt; they can't conquer." And I have written, also truly, I believe, that Americans have summoned Muslim terrorism upon themselves by going abroad to meddle with the fierce dervishes of the Middle East: the best way to avoid being stung by wasps is to avoid poking a stick into their nest.

What most white Americans seem to fear is not military conquest, or even physical destruction through violence, but the increasing influence of the fatally alien in what used to be our own social and cultural space (already shared, awkwardly enough, with American Negroes).

Something happened to that space, and it happened before the current onrush of the alien; in fact it set the stage, or swept it, for that onrush. Whatever else may be said of Islamic or Hispanic families, it is not their example or influence that has shattered the white American family — a social disintegration at the molecular level, apparently unprecedented in all of recorded history — or stopped white Americans and other Westerners from having children. It is not Muslims or Hispanics who have stopped Westerners from raising aright the children the West still has — not Muslims or Hispanics who have pierced the tongues and tattooed the bodies of America's white youngsters, or made them prefer noise to music, or made them dress, grunt, and swagger like Negro criminals. It is not Muslims or Hispanics who have led white Westerners to despise their own civilization and history, and at the same time remain maddeningly ignorant of that civilization and history.

It is not Muslims or Hispanics who have caused white Westerners to revile themselves; and not Muslims or Hispanics who have caused them to disdain and surrender their birthright of Liberty.
 

I write above of "most white Americans" and what they fear, but I should revise that. As a matter of fact, when it comes to these questions most white Americans either slumber in a vegetative state or practice, all too animatedly, what I can only think of as the worst treason.

For it is white Westerners themselves who have carried out the murder of white Western morale and the demolition of white Western civilization. As I do not wish to load too much onto the backs of ordinary people, I hasten to accuse the white Westerners and semi-Westerners of our ruling class as well. But farmers cannot prosper by feeding their animals food they will not swallow, and we sheep have taught ourselves to swallow offal that our more manly — and more Western — forebears would have spurned.

Our civilization is in a state of dissolution. We may rightfully blame other civilizations for many crimes, but we cannot blame them for that one. When a foolhardy traveler expires on the desert, we don't blame the buzzards. And when a corpse rots, we don't blame the worms.

If we are unwilling or unable to be ourselves, let us, at least, summon one last scrap of honor and refrain from blaming other people for our own fatal act of treason.

September 29, 2006

Posted in 2006 by WTM Enterprises.

If you found this column to be interesting, please donate to our cause. You should make your check or m.o. payable in U.S. dollars to WTM Enterprises and send it to:

WTM Enterprises
P.O. Box 224
Roanoke, IN 46783

Thanks for helping to assure a future for TLD!

Notice to visitors who came straight to this document from off site: You are deep in The Last Ditch. You should check out our home page and table of contents.