I was looking back over my past blog entries and got to thinking about the racist blogger from a few weeks ago. You know, the one so consumed with hatred and racism that he myopically pointed an accusing finger at libertarians as the villainous racists in his fantasy world. I read his incoherent blog entry again where he goes into a detailed description of what (he "thinks") is a typical libertarian.
Dissecting it, I see he claims that "Libertarianism is heavily made up of of healthy young men in the 20's and 30's making very good incomes." Hmmm. OK, I may be relatively healthy, but I am not in that age bracket, and I am not making even a passable income.
OK, on to his next lie: "A few older guys and married men are into it, and they are usually making very good incomes too." I am not married, though I am in a relationship (still not making a good income).
Next: "There are not many libertarian women, because the life of woman is vulnerable, as she is the bearer and raiser of the very "weak" people, in this case children, so despised by libertarians. And woman is weak herself, as biology and cultures the world over inform us." Wow, is there anyone this guy doesn't hate? Why does he keep projecting his opinions on others? Some of the libertarians I admire the most are women. But he probably hasn't ever heard of Claire Wolfe, Sunni Maravillosa, Liz Michael, "ElfNinosMom", Kirsten, Taran Jordan, Loretta Nall, and a bunch of others. He hasn't heard of them because it might upset his delicate sensibilities to find out he is dead wrong yet again. I am constantly awed by women, and I never thought of children as "weak". Women take on responsibilities that I don't think I could bear, and children have been strong enough to learn, survive, thrive, and keep this species going for millions of years, even with imperfect parenting.
Moving right along: "The number of poor, low income or working class libertarians is not large." I fit into this category, but feel in no way "less-than" or whatever he thinks I should feel. I think I am a very typical, if somewhat more vocal, libertarian.
His final insult is: "As these libertarian and far-right men age, many shed off some of their extreme conservatism or libertarianism, as entropy inevitably attacks their mortal coils. In particular, they often endorse more socialist health systems. A tiresome saying says, "Any man at age 20 who is not a socialist lacks a heart, and any man at age 40 who is still a socialist lacks a brain." Well, wages of time being what they are, I've noticed that older conservative guys sort of move back into that age-20 thing as they grey and hobble. Past 65, you are one of the "weak" that the libertarians hate so much, and most smart American conservatives figure this out." I guess he means that when the brain cells die off, old men become reborn socialists who want welfare? Socialism, being a form of authoritarianism, does not have a "heart". Neither does its mirror-twin, conservatism. No system based on theft does, unless it is the heart of a thief. Old people are seldom "weak". Their bodies may be battered by the ravages of time, but their spirits are often stronger than that of people a quarter of their age. I have known old people who would happily punch him in his smug, racist, sexist nose for saying such things. But elderly libertarians will not initiate force. Not that I would blame them too much if they did in this case. The only thing I "hate so much" is when government, posing as a "provider and protector" steals the future away from these people, replacing it with a welfare check. Where is the dignity in that?
I guess I shouldn't let this get to me. After all, it isn't the first time I have read mischaracterizations of this sort. It just seems like someone who advertises himself as a "journalist" should try a little harder to look into things he is trying to denigrate. I guess that is too hard for him.
Very well stated, Kent. And I must say I am in awe that you have placed me in the same category with some very well-known libertarian ladies. Thank you, I am honored. :-)
ReplyDeleteThe main thing that jumped out to me was the encyclopedia-wide and Mariana Trench-deep bevy of fallacies from paragraph one on, only Mike Huben's anti-libertarian nonsense can top it for sheer volume and diversity, the other problem with his post is so elegantly explained by you. The bastard's a racist and a sexist. His 'support' of the black community is not unlike most leftists in America, whose opinion of blacks, women, and minority groups in general can be summed up as thus:
ReplyDelete"They [blacks, Mexicans, women etc.] are so weak, inferior, stupid etc. etc. that they can't possibly take care of themselves. We, their white, privileged saviors (from New England, mostly) must protect them from their child-like selves!"
I cringe when I see that crap in 'respectable' print.
Brian, that is the best description of that attitude I have ever read. Bravo!
ReplyDeleteHey there, 'Hawk! I too am honored (and surprised) to be included in such a pantheon. :-) Thanks very much for that.
ReplyDeleteBut more to the point, thank you for so thoroughly blowing to shreds Huben's pernicious nonsense about libertarian "types." The very nature of freedom is that it's diverse, because it encompasses every aspect of life - and so it's relevant to every individual life.
It's just that the individual has to be willing to see it that way. And individuals who've merged their selves into a group mentality might not be capable of such a stretch. I recall Kirsten talking passionately about generalities - the same applies here! I'm a woman, but I might have more in common with a black gay man or a Hopi Indian than with the woman next door. It's all about individual consciousness.
Got to go add your site to my blogroll now - thanks for the great vibes and scribes!
Taran Jordan