Diabolus

I don't know if anyone has ever just plainly mentioned this to you, and I don't mean this in a cruel way at all, just purely as an observation. But, my friend, you suffer from some fairly serious disorganization of thoughts. I mean, here you are making a post that is really quite difficult to follow in its logic. You open by providing a link and explaining that you're asking for money to travel somewhere; simple enough, I guess. Then you start to get into reasons: "has to do with the way things are going", I simply have no idea what you're talking about or what could even be implied by that. The way things are going in your daily life? In your country/region? The world? The way things are going this week? This century? No context and no explanation given, I simply have no idea what you mean, and just as quickly as you bring it up, you move on. You open the video in kind of a creepy way; you just seemed vaguely upset at nothing in particular and began by talking about something that the audience has no idea of, so it was mostly just confusing and frustrating to watch, rather than informative and persuasive. Rather than being charming which is what you should be aiming for, considering that you're hoping to raise money basically for giving people nothing in exchange, you just seem creepy and angry. You look like your heart is racing really hard, you're probably a bit sweaty, your voice is shaking a bit, and you aren't even looking at the camera. To be quite honest, if I saw you on the street acting in that way, I would probably cross to the opposite sidewalk just to be cautious of a possible crazy person. From the way you've presented yourself to the world, I'm honeslty not at all surprised that you have zero dollars contributed to your funding and seem to be getting no attention at all. Did you sincerely really expect that people who watched your video would feel persuaded afterwards to help your cause, or did you experience doubts about making the effort to ask for money at all?

Then you haven't heard much criticism of anything Stefan has ever said. I'm not talking about the idiots who call FDR a cult, I just mean valid, reasoned criticism. I've heard the point made quite commonly. It is true, Stef's philosophy is founded on a blank slate theory of human nature. Fantastic. Would you care to share how you derived this omniscient knowledge, or do you just hope we'll take your word for it? Well. There are people here interested in making arguments to back up their assertions, and some who are not. In your single contribution to this thread, you have fallen more into the latter category. I can't help but wonder if you're talking more about yourself than the OP when you suggest that certain people want to feel right at all costs.

He does that. It's been increasingly annoying lately. I'll attempt to rescue your thread. First of all, I have found that without exception, every single person who claims that a free market will turn into feudalism has a poor understanding of the definitions and nature of both. They tend to know very little of pre-Enlightenment history, economics, and philosophy of property. Especially a poor understanding of law. I have found, generally, that talking about those topics and reaching common ground there tends to eliminate this faulty notion in their heads that capitalism = feudalism. If you can get people to understand what the distinction between wage labor versus serfdom is all about, explaining a stateless society is much easier.

No one is making that claim. You accuse TronCat of misrepresenting your argument, then here you go doing exactly that. The claim that white nationalists are actually making, not that you care to listen to it anyway because you'd rather appeal to your preconceived notion of what it means to be nationalistic, is that the private means of right to association have been entirely disallowed to such an extent that deportation is a reasonable response even if you disagree with the state. Basically, the state fucked it up to begin with, and the sitiuation has become so intolerable that it isn't possible to wait out a few generations and hope the tides of public policy swing in their favor. Due to the very nature of the issue, it is a time-sensitive manner; populations either grow, stay about the same, or shrink. it isn't unreasonable to try to undo the damage that has been done, even if the only means of doing that involve state aggression. Currently welfare states are actively incentivizing masses of immigrants to flood into countries that historically have consisted of one major ethnic group and dominant culture, and it is not going well. The native populations are not just failing to coexist peacefully with the masses of suddenly introduced foreigners, they are failing to even sustain their population numbers in most first world countries. Were it not for those foreigners, we would see that population levels in those regions of the planet are shrinking quickly. But instead, the population is being replaced with the immigrant populations, and this works in two major methods. Firstly, the immigration has tended to continue generation after generation, so that even if all the immigrants in one generation didn't have children in their new country, the population would continue to grow due to the new immigrants in the next generation. And the second effect, of course, is that immigrants do tend to have children, and when they do, they tend to outbreed the natives. So you have an introduced population that is outbreeding the natives at a certain proportion, and on top of that waves of new immigrants are coming into the first world all the time, adding to the phenomenon. The point being that in no more than a few hundred years' time, at the rate of current trends, those countries as we know it will have had their native populations essentially gone extinct. That's if the current political trends continue indefinitely, which may or may not be the case. If you have no attachment at all to your particular racial ancestry or nation (nation ≠ state! Even Mises knew this and defined the difference carefully!), I can understand why you're not especially thrilled about the suggestions of nationalists on how to best save their favored groups from extinction. But look at it this way. Imagine that you did have a preference for a certain kind of person, a certain culture, a certain language and collection of traditions. Maybe you don't even necessarily believe it is a superior group to all others, you just like it and don't mind belonging to it. Can you sympathize with people who detest their government's failure to preserve their history, their identity, their people? Hundreds, even thousands of years went into forming these distinct peoples all over the world. Eons of history, countless lifetimes of work that their ancestors passed on so their children's children could have a good place to call home. And historically speaking, within what is nothing more than a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of time, modern democratic governments have so poorly managed human populations across the globe that in some places certain peoples are shrining rapidly, in other places certain populations are growing far more rapidly than their own countries can deal with, and the overall effect is instability and conflict everywhere. There is not a nation on this earth that hasn't been affected by the disruption of populations in the last century. Certainly you could at least imagine why there is a sense of urgency to the problem, why some people are resentful that centuries of history and heritage are being wiped away in mere decades because bureaucrats don't understand the tragedy of the commons. Even if you personally believe race, culture, tradition and all of that is all nonsense, I would hope that you can sympathize with the sense of loss and understand why there are some people who, otherwise opposed to any state action at all, condone using aggression to deport foreigners.

It's a false equivalence because you're assuming that distrust based on racial or cultural background is indeed a "destructive present day reality". I don't agree with that assertion at all. And unless you can proviede a decent argument for why it is, you are making a false equivalence between something that happens purely in someone's head and harms no one, and actions of violence against other human beings. Fair enough, just keep in mind that you're already making unjustified assumptions. You're the one talking about people instilling "good-guy/bad-guy prejudice" based on race; neither myself nor TronCat said anything of the sort. There is a world of difference between being a little more distrustful of foreigners and believing that all Japanese people are literally evil. If you can't see the difference, I don't think this converstaion is going to go anywhere useful. They may all be strangers, but some strangers are more dangerous than others. If you seriously think that teaching children that it's no safer to go to a fireman than it is to go to a drug-addicted homeless person if they're lost and need help, I worry for the state of common sense in our day. You seem to be arguing against someone who lives only in your head here. Who said anything about "shunning basede on their skin color, place of birth..."? Neither the OP nor I said anything of the sort. You're arguing against some kind of racist boogeyman strawperson that exists only in your imagination. Find me one person who is actually arguing in favor of what you're arguing against and I would change my mind about that, but as I see it now, I dont' think you're very interested in having an honest discussion. Instead you seem to be more interested in assuming things that all "bigots" must inherently believe and arguing the way that you were taught to react against alleged "bigots". Prejudice alone cannot ever lead to violence. I can have extreme prejudice against you, I could hate every word that comes out of your mouth, and I would still have no motivation to do you physical harm. Wanting to commit violence against another person requires much more than prejudice. It requires a belief that the violence is warranted, justified, and even necessary. It's no coincidence that every example of genocide you can find was instigated by states. States are experts at manipulating populations into killing masses of peope and getting them to believe it is justified. Arguing that prejudice leads to genocide is as dubious as arguing that eating one potato will give you diabetes. But mass murder inspired by any reason is destructive. How on earth is the particular motivation for it relevant? Why is any one reason for killing masses of innocent people worse than any other bad reason? Recently a man walked into a school and murdered dozens of children before killing himself. Does the motivation matter? Is the crime worse if he did it because they were black, then if he did it because he believed they were possessed by extraterrestrial spirits? Again, false equivalence. You're equating all prejudice with mass violence and assuming that they are interconnected, while ignoring the vast majority of violence in this world that is not racially motivated and is just as horrifying. The problem with the logic is analogous to the following: imagine if I point out that x% of planes crash and therefore planes should be banned, but then you point out that more than x% of cars crash and to be consistent I should advocate that cars should also be banned. Yes, you did. You stated that racial/cultural prejudice is inherently evil and destructive. You were talking about people brought up to distrust people of other races, and you called that dangerous, evil and destructive nonsense. You said that those people tend to segregate. Do they not do so voluntarily? I am asking you to make an argument for why you think that voluntary segregation that no one is being coerced into is dangerous, evil and destructive nonsense. Ivan, I couldn't possibly compete against your mountains of evidence so I'll bow to your unquestionable expertise in this area. Okay, I may have exaggerated the amount of evidence I have the patience to look up. [] But my point stands. The fact is that if you look at the world today, even after all the civil rights crap we've endured, neighborhoods remain heavily segregated in most areas of the world. Attempts by governments to awkwardly incentivize or even force people into living with other ethnicities always turn out badly. In fact in my experience, the neighborhoods that I lived in that were the most multicultural were always, without failure, the most impoverished shitholes you could possibly imagine. The evidence in all of our lives points to segregation being the current state of humanity. You are saying that it is not the natural state, that humans would prefer to live in proximity to each other without regards to race or culture in some other hypothetical world. I am saying that the burden of proof for that claim is on you.

False equivalence. Discrimination by race, nationality, culture, or any other criteria that you don't happen to like is not the same as violence against other people. If you have any belief in property rights at all, you would acknowledge this. People should be able to do with their property as they wish, even if that means discriminating by standards that you don't happen to like. Calling it evil, I have no idea what you're hoping to accomplish with that. Are you going to even make an argument for why you think segregation on a voluntary basis is dangerous nonsense and evil? You may hope that education and time will swing society in your favor, and I have precisely the opposite hope. Merely asserting that your goal is the same as what is ultimately good does not prove it is so. Ironically you are expressing bigotry against people who don't happen to hold your egalitarian beliefs. You've described them as beleiving in evil, dangerous nonsense. Generally speaking, blacks do tend to prefer to live near other blacks. Your wishing that they would prefer otherwise does not make it so. I could at this point bring in mountains of evidence to back up my point, but honestly I don't see why I should bother. You are the one asserting that in a different world, blacks would choose one way rather than the other. In the society we now live in, we have plenty of evidence that people self-segregate. You are the one proposing that they would prefer otherwise, I'd like to see the evidence in favor of this claim. Very good chance because you want it to be the case? Just saying it's likely doesn't make it so. I don't know what point you're trying to make. A lot changes in 59,000 years. People, generally speaking, demonstrate a preference for their own race or culture group of some sort. You can moralize that preference all you want but it doesn't change reality.

This is the distinction between nations and states that almost no one on these boards understands. Nations exist even in stateless regions. States may or may not overlap with one or more nations.