Green Line 4-Evah, or Cosmolifestyleorangebeltwaytarians Unite!

I am not a fan of either, but I actually find black nationalism much more objectionable than white nationalism. Of course, maybe that's just because I'm white. How shocking!

The words "majority" and "minority" belong to democratic cant and are actively confusing. In most cases - the only actual exception I can think of is the Nazi murder of the Gypsies - racist genocide consists of opportunistic attacks by groups with lower social status on groups with higher social status.

The Holocaust is of course the classic example. The Jews of Europe were hated because they were envied, not because they were despised. The various Soviet atrocities are also classic cases, as is the case of the Hutu and the Tutsi, the impending genocide in South Africa, the current attacks on Kikuyu in Kenya, etc.

"Genocide" is itself a misleading word and inherently racialist. A better word is probably aristocide. Try Amy Chua's World on Fire for modern experiences of aristocide in the Far East. There has been no mass murder of Jews in the Middle East - at least, not yet - but Lucette Lagnado's new memoir, The Man in the White Sharkskin Suit, is a fascinating if morally tone-deaf memoir of the ethnic cleansing of Jews in Egypt. At least before 1941, the Nazis would have much preferred to export their Jews than execute them, and the German and Egyptian procedures were very similar (both involving complete confiscation of all property).

American black nationalism is of course chock-full of aristocidal tropes. Welcome to Shaker Heights, kids.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled progressive cant.

Micha, white nationalists believe themselves to be oppressed by ZOG or whatever. As Will admitted, they are one of the most despised groups around and cannot openly admit their ideology without high social costs. If you truly can't understand something, that reveals a shortcoming of your understanding that you should work on, not some relevant moral difference. If you want to say that white nationalists actually came to power and caused a lot of problems in the past and that there are more of them than black nationalists and so represent a bigger problem, I think that would be a perfectly good reason for caring less about Obama's connections than Paul's.

There is nothing unlibertarian per se about a group of people isolating/secluding themselves and pursuing autarky provided all involved give their consent, but Farrakhan's NoI is also linked to things like the Zebra murders.

Mencius accuses Will of hypocrisy, for being decent to Obama and indecent to Paul. Apparently, according to Mencius, Obama has "blatant connections to black nationalism." I don't know if this is true, nor do I really care, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it's true, and that Obama has as strong a connection to black nationalism as Paul has to white nationalism. Is it hypocritical to acknowledge this and yet still support Obama and despise Paul?

Only if you think black nationalism and white nationalism are equally objectionable.

When a historically persecuted minority responds to the racism of the majority with racism of its own, through isolation, seclusion, and self-sufficient autarky, it is an unfortunate, unwise reaction, but it is understandable in a way that majority, power-holding racism is not.

Right you are, TGGP - it's interesting to note the halfway status of Prussianism. It is perfectly acceptable among American intellectuals to describe WWI as a mistake. Anti-Prussian sentiments survive mostly as unstated assumptions in kneejerk opposition to any kind of aristocratic militarism.

The "cognitively independent" approach, of course, is not to embrace King George, Jeff Davis, Kaiser Bill and Hitler. It's to ask: what were these dudes, and those who fought for them, right about?

I'm afraid the Orange Line doesn't go there. But our host (to give him his due) certainly strikes me as open-minded for an OLMer, and one can always step off the train and walk. If our host has ever taken that dark road, I'm curious as to what he found. If he hasn't, is it ever too late? A fresh breeze is blowing on the Intertubes...

And retired? Ha. My ill-got gains were not that gainful. Man, if only I'd understood the precious-metals market back in 2002.

I thought you were retired, Mencius.

I think the Mexican-American war, Spanish American war and Vietnam war were important. It is true that they left less of a mark on the national psyche, but the same can be said of World War 1. Dissenting on that war is generally considered acceptable and few people raise fears of revived Prussian militarism. Do countries that fought major wars against Communism still treat it similarly?

You can be decent or indecent. I don't care. I rather like a good bit of indecency, myself. (And anyone who's read Stanton Evans' new book on the McCarthy era should certainly think twice before quoting Joseph Welch.)

But my objection is not to indecency. My objection is to hypocrisy. If you are decent toward one person and indecent toward another, you ought to at least have a good explanation of why. Barack Obama and Ron Paul certainly fit this profile.

The problem is that when I look at who moderate libertarians despise and would like to ostracize, I see a very clear pattern. USG has fought four major wars: against the Tories, Confederates, Prussians and Nazis. And the ideas you believe should be excluded from respectability all strike me as either Tory, Confederate, Prussian or Nazi.

So the reason you don't despise Barack Obama for his blatant connections to black nationalism is that black nationalism does not strike you as Tory, Confederate, Prussian or Nazi. The reason you despise Ron Paul for his much more tenuous connections to white nationalism is that white nationalism reminds you of at least two of the four.

I'm not sure "cognitive independence" is really the best description of this pattern. If you have an alternative explanation of the situation, please feel free to suggest it. Otherwise, I'll have to stick with Occam.

I make no apologies for my anonymity. It is not exactly a new idea. I have a career in the productive economy and I'd like to maintain it. If you really want to know my name, email me and I'll tell you. It won't mean anything to you, and I'm not sure why you care.

Ben, Thanks.

MM, Aren't you the one so enamored of calling it like one sees it (anonymously), the stifling pressure of decency be damned?

As I wrote at Julian's site:

How mature, respectable and polite of you to describe your opponents as deranged loons! Because, apparently, they are not mature, respectable, and polite. Hmm. I wonder why that might be.

"At long last, sir, have you no decency?"

You might want to fix that link.