Herbert Spencer: Dismantling the Myth.

My AP World History textbook defines "White Racial Supremacy" as:

"Belief in the inherent mental, moral, and cultural superiority of whites; peaked in acceptance in decades before world war 1; supported by social science doctrines of social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer."

Spencer gets a bad rap from the educational establishment for his supposed "social Darwinist" views. What they fail to realize is that he was condemning existing nation states by saying they only existed because they were stronger than those before them, not by some social contract or divine right. He was actually very anti-imperialist. If anyone needs further proof that what a man actually believed and wrote in his lifetime could be drastically different than what he is famous for; here it is. A great article about how drastically wrong the textbooks are which could truly refute the myth can be found here,

http://mises.org/daily/4779

Apparently they also forgot about the time Spencer wrote this lovely article, not to mention his writing against imperialism, racism, and coercion:

PATRIOTICSM

Were anyone to call me dishonest or untruthful he would touch me to the quick. Were he to say that I am unpatriotic, he would leave me unmoved. “What, then, have you no love of country?” That is a question not to be answered in a breath.

The early abolition of serfdom in England, the early growth of relatively-free institutions, and the greater recognition of popular claims after the decay of feudalism had divorced the masses from the soil, were traits of English life which may be looked back upon with pride. When it was decided that any slave who set foot in England became free; when the importation of slaves into the Colonies was stopped; when twenty millions were paid for the emancipation of slaves in the West Indies; and when, however unadvisedly, a fleet was maintained to stop the slave trade; our countrymen did things worthy to be admired. And when England gave a home to political refugees and took up the causes of small states struggling for freedom, it again exhibited noble traits which excite affection. But there are traits, unhappily of late more frequently displayed, which do the reverse. Contemplation of the acts by which England has acquired over eighty possessions – settlements, colonies, protectorates, &c. – does not arouse feelings of satisfaction. The transitions from missionaries to resident agents, then to officials having armed forces, then to punishments of those who resist their rule, ending in so-called “pacification” – these processes of annexation, now gradual and now sudden, as that of the new Indian province and that of Barotziland, which was declared a British colony with no more regard for the wills of the inhabiting people than for those of the inhabiting beasts – do not excite sympathy with their perpetrators. Love of country is not fostered in me on remembering that when, after our Prime Minister had declared that we were bound in honour to the Khedive to reconquer the Soudan, we, after the re-conquest, forthwith began to administer it in the name of the Queen and the Khedive – practically annexing it; nor when, after promising through the mouths of two Colonial Ministers not to interfere in the internal affairs of the Transvaal, we proceeded to insist on certain electoral arrangements, and made resistance the excuse for a desolating war.* Nor does the national character shown by a popular ovation to a leader of filibusters, or by the according of a University honour to an arch-conspirator, or by the uproarious applause with which undergraduates greeted one who sneered at the “unctuous rectitude” of those who opposed his plans of aggression, appear to me lovable. If because my love of country does not survive these and many other adverse experiences I am called unpatriotic – well, I am content to be so called.

To me the cry – “Our country, right or wrong!” seems detestable. By association with love of country the sentiment it expresses gains a certain justification. Do but pull off the cloak, however, and the contained sentiment is seen to be of the lowest. Let us observe the alternative cases.

Suppose our country is in the right – suppose it is resisting invasion. Then the idea and feeling embodied in the cry are righteous. It may be effectively contended that self-defence is not only justified but is a duty. Now suppose, contrariwise, that our country is the aggressor – has taken possession of others’ territory, or is forcing by arms certain commodities on a nation which does not want them, or is backing up some of its agents in “punishing” those who have retaliated. Suppose it is doing something which, by the hypothesis, is admitted to be wrong. What is then the implication of the cry? The right is on the side of those who oppose us; the wrong is on our side. How in that case is to be expressed the so-called patriotic wish? Evidently the words must stand – “Down with the right, up with the wrong!” Now in other relations this combination of aims implies the acme of wickedness. In the minds of past men there existed, and there still exists in many minds, a belief in a personalized principle of evil – a Being going up and down in the world everywhere fighting against the good and helping the bad to triumph. Can there be more briefly expressed the aim of that Being than in the words “Up with the wrong and down with the right” ? Do the so-called patriots like the endorsement?

Some years ago I gave my expression to my own feeling – anti-patriotic feeling, it will doubtless be called – in a somewhat startling way. It was at the time of the second Afghan war, when, in pursuance of what were thought to be “our interests,” we were invading Afghanistan. News had come that some of our troops were in danger. At the Athenæum Club a well-known military man – then a captain but now a general – drew my attention to a telegram containing this news, and read it to me in a manner implying the belief that I should share his anxiety. I astounded him by replying – “When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are shot themselves.”

I foresee the exclamation which will be called forth. Such a principle, it will be said, would make an army impossible and a government powerless. It would never do to have each soldier use his judgment about the purpose for which a battle is waged. Military organization would be paralyzed and our country would be a prey to the first invader.

Not so fast, is the reply. For one war an army would remain just as available as now – a war of national defence. In such a war every soldier would be conscious of the justice of his cause. He would not be engaged in dealing death among men about whose doings, good or ill, he knew nothing, but among men who were manifest transgressors against himself and his compatriots. Only aggressive war would be negatived, not defensive war.

Of course it may be said, and said truly, that if there is no aggressive war there can be no defensive war. It is clear, however, that one nation may limit itself to defensive war when other nations do not. So that the principle remains operative.

But those whose cry is – “Our country, right or wrong!” and who would add to our eighty-odd possessions others to be similarly obtained, will contemplate with disgust such a restriction upon military action. To them no folly seems greater than that of practising on Monday the principles they profess on Sunday.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* We continue to hear repeated the transparent excuse that the Boers commenced the war. In the far west of the U.S., where every man carries his life in his hand and the usages of fighting are well understood, it is held that he is the aggressor who first moves his hand towards his weapon. The application is obvious.

The Hunger Games: War Propaganda or inherently anti-authoritarian.

—I saw this post on the old mises community and I have to say, I think the guy is dead wrong. I actually read the books and think I understand the narrative a little better than this guy:

“I just saw this movie. I’ll try to recall the obvious stuff, maybe a discussion can get going about what others noticed.
I’ve always been extra skeptical of tv/movie/music propaganda, and my wife is absolutely obsessed with hollywood and can predict any movie. Her secret is, “every detail counts” but I’m sure she’s just good with hollywood propaganda patterns. Anyways, I’ve thought a lot about propaganda in movies, and if the rest of my thinking in life is any indication then I’ve probably caught onto a lot of the right things. So this is what I noticed, and my take on that movie given my perspective:
The movie is pure war propaganda. From the hyperemotional yanking from family to be conscripted, to the proving yourself with violence in front of your judgemental peers, to the “group mentor” a la the military, to the obvious stuff like sportifying murder, impossible moral decisions, laughing about the killing your group has done, absolute disregard for morals because of some clearly avoidable crisis. It had blatant military and prison overtones, and yet never showed the rape that would likely have occurred from such disconnected and powerful supermales (the 10 guy, the black mentor, the white mentor, and the old god man). The murder-scapegoat was a posterboy military superhero stock character who killed shamelessly and laughed and got the girl while times were good, and stayed strong until the bitter end. And just like that he exits the movie and we’re supposed to not judge him because “all he knew how to do was kill” and at least he fought to the death for what he believes in.
Stock characters and the morals and themes: The girl is a sex toy/prize, but she has talent. The berserk 10 points military hero is white and automatically has a girl and friends and dominates everyone, and when he is exposed as a plain murderer its simply brushed off because he couldn’t help it. I live in a military town, and half the people in the theater were women/girls, so I noticed that they all giggled (if you rewatch the movie, you’ll notice the girl characters giggle often too) during scenes that normal people would hate. For example when the military superhero is running around slaughtering people with teeny boppers giggling presumably blowing him off between scenes of murder or some other psychologicalk trauma. Or when the boyfriend (?) back at home saw that she was falling in love with another guy. In fact, the whole idea of sexual promiscuity and widespread cheating and the idea of never talking about the rape that’s all around you is psychological preparation for a standard military life. More preparation was for PTSD, I forget the precise details of every scene, but of course there was something traumatic which involved the anatagonist making an impossible moral decision and panicking afterward. As I mentioned before, the panick for acknowledging evil was clear, and then immediately brushed aside as it cut to the sex prize hero girl sleeping peacefully.
There’s so much more. I saw the latest showing and it’s extra late now. I wonder how this will seem to me in the morning.”

— The Hunger Games takes place in a fictional dystopia. Nobody respects the Capitol and the only time the protagonists try to impress them is when their lives depend upon it. Rather, I think the existance and popularity of this series reflects a realization by people in the Western wolrd that we are the Capitol and that we are on top of the world for reasons that may not be too pretty to look at. A major theme in the Hunger Games is the depiction of the Capitol as a “Bread and Circuses” society. In fact the country Panem is named for the Latin for bread. The fact that people giggled every time someone was slaughtered only reinforces what the book is capturing; that we live in the Capitol; that too many things are controlled by a nefarious government; that the wealth and success of that government exist largely through theft and hegemony; and so much more. It really reflects that people understand that the way we live off of others is wrong, but we don’t know how to change it. So pop culture reflects societies feelings. Sometimes popcult is full of propaganda, but this, I think, is much more a reflection of our understanding that things are just fucked up.

Also, when they do rebel, they side with another government which is quickly shown to be just as bad as the Capitol. You'd think war propaganda would portray at least one government as good.

I think these will be more than your common serial novels turned movies. They will be, as literature should, a reflection of what society is experiencing. Right now we're expeirencing the fact that we done fucked up the world just like the Capitol did in The Hunger Games.

You have to love Tolstoy

I see mankind as a herd of cattle inside a fenced enclosure. Outside the fence are green pastures and plenty for the cattle to eat, while inside the fence there is not quite grass enough for the cattle. Consequently, the cattle are tramping underfoot what little grass there is and goring each other to death in their struggle for existence.

I saw the owner of the herd come to them, and when he saw their pitiful condition he was filled with compassion for them and thought of all he could do to improve their condition.

So he called his friends together and asked them to assist him in cutting grass from outside the fence and throwing it over the fence to the cattle. And that they called Charity.

Then, because the calves were dying off and not growing up into serviceable cattle, he arranged that they should each have a pint of milk every morning for breakfast.

Because they were dying off in the cold nights, he put up beautiful well-drained and well-ventilated cowsheds for the cattle.

Because they were goring each other in the struggle for existence, he put corks on the horns of the cattle, so that the wounds they gave each other might not be so serious. Then he reserved a part of the enclosure for the old bulls and cows over 70 years of age.

In fact, he did everything he could think of to improve the condition of the cattle, and when I asked him why he did not do the one obvious thing, break down the fence, and let the cattle out, he answered: "If I let the cattle out, I should no longer be able to milk them."

Xero and Pragmatarianism Part 2

---In responce to my bringing up the paradox of tolerance, Xero said this,

I’m tolerating intolerance? Let’s consider what Kinsella wrote in that link you shared…

It simply means that the state-advocate does not mind the initiation of force against innocent victims — i.e., he shares the criminal/socialist mentality. The private criminal thinks his own need is all that matters; he is willing to commit violence to satisfy his needs; to hell with what is right and wrong. The advocate of the state thinks that his opinion that “we” “need” things justifies committing or condoning violence against innocent individuals.

You anarcho-capitalists are advocates for the victims. But who are the victims though? Taxpayers. In a pragmatarian system, if taxpayers felt like the IRS was initiating violence/force/aggression against them…then why would they allocate any of their taxes to the IRS? As Rothbard said…”In a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors.”
Regarding Mao, Hitler and Rothbard…who doesn’t have some sense of right vs wrong? The thing is… we are all touching different parts of an elephant. Therefore, no two people are going to always agree on right vs wrong. Therefore, the issue is 1. the willingness to make a decision for millions and millions of people and 2. our ability to truly understand the unintended consequences. As Milton Friedman strongly emphasized, “If we can’t persuade the public that it’s desirable to do these things, then we have no right to impose them even if we had the power to do it.” The difference between Rothbard and Friedman is the same difference between Conceit and Humility.
Regarding the invisible hand…you really don’t see Hayek’s partial knowledge in Buddha’s parable of the blind men and the elephant? It seems like they were both saying that we all have some information but nobody has all the information.
Consider this passage by Adam Smith…

The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder. – Adam Smith, Theory of Moral

Every single one of us has our own unique principle of motion. These principles of motion are determined by the part of the elephant that we are touching. Given that we are all touching different parts of an elephant…then isn’t it self-evident that we’re all going to have different principles of motion? Buddha didn’t need to say anything about an invisible hand because how could anything else follow from his parable? You’re certainly not going to get the visible hand from his parable. You’re certainly not going to get Rothbard or Hitler or Mao pushing a button to try and impose their ideal society onto everybody else.

#

James Rick said 1 week ago:

We’re kind of talking in circles here. Being humble doesn’t mean you concede everyone the right to abuse you simply because you’re not enitrly sure that abuse is wrong.
Again its about the theft, not what it is allocated towards afterwards. If a theif came to my house, stole the money I was going to donate, and donated it himself anonymously, it would still be theft. If I had rather kept the money at home, well, then the theft is just more annoying.

And of course, if someone’s perfect system of governance is different than mine, I won’t attempt to stop them from practicing it themselves. When it involves unwilling participants is when it is a problem.
I’m certainly no chess master, nor do I ever want to be. I do, however, reserve the right to condemn the chessmaster who coerces his pawns into place. Its not a matter of pride, its a matter of decency.
How would Rothbard have been imposing his will on everyone else by pressing the mythical button? They would have been free to form a voluntary system of governance afterwards. By not pressing the button, he would have been, in effect, condoning the behaviour of the state.
And I have to say, this relateing Buddha to YOUR ideal system of government is nothing but pure sophism. Historically he has nothing to do with it. I understand the point you’re trying to make but you’re trying to connect a very broad idea to a very specific issue of justified aggression. It’s like me saying that because Jesus once said “He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword” he must have been an anarcho-capitalist because he clearly opposed agression; in fact I may have more ground in my statement due to its specific nature whereas the elephant parable is open to much more interpretation. Both are, nonetheless, absurd.
This concept that no-one truly understands his own fallibility who doesn’t agree with pragmatarianism is itself one of the highest forms of arrogance.

One Man's Terrorist

A group called "Bucking the System", which is composed of some very able filmakers and at least one veteran of the Iraq war, released this production over the last few weeks. It is a sort of “Red Dawn” invasion of America thing, which I think is a very important tool to use when talking with conservatives., as they are the ones most likely to grab a rifle if anyone were to try and occupy their backyards they way we occupy the backyards of people overseas.