Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

n25an

3953 The Immigration Debate | Adam Kokesh and Stefan Molyneux

Recommended Posts

I have to say that I loved stefan's approach on this debate...

stefan was dealing with the idea of basic attitudes and beliefs held by certain people groups... and the impact that transplanting these groups will have on the movement of these ideas...

while adam was basically saying he wants to burn down the system

and adam was arguing that no group is superior...

and what adam was doing was cherry picking... for points to support his ideas...

adam is the guy who would shoot to defend himself in the wrong side of town at midnight...

while stefan is the guy who would not end up there... because he is aware of his soroundings... will probably not end up there...

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi thinkers and alike,

Slippery, lubricant immersed, wet fish in moist hands. Trying to get a grab...

It always amazes me when people come to debates not having prepared properly while knowing that millions of (and billions, the Internet can't forget) people will watch it. UnbeLIevable.

Up until today, I have NEVER skipped listening/watching(a third) ANY FDR video/audio before,... drumroll... ta-da! 1st for everything and it's especially memorable. Not sure if Adam would be happy to know the why's, but to the mighty FDR community I think it is good if I share. In brief, of course...

° (Adam!) There should be (universally preferable) NO TRY OF EMOTIONAL MANIPULATION in a philosophical debate. It's a waste of time, Stefan had to deflect it several times wasting precious face-time. Also, kinda comes off as being insecure... very insecure in fact (due to the multiple occasions)... don't do that!

° arguing semantics (Adam) over principles (Stefan) is a sign of weaseling out to me. Boooring. Amateur, especially knowing it's a high ball Stefan can't miss. And he didn't. Each and every time.

° going against arguments for the sake of demolishing them only makes sense if there's a superior one to be recommended instead with REASON & EVIDENCE (not magical thinking...

er, no. Uhm... That's not what Adam did... scrap that 'think' part.... let's say better 'MAGIC' , just. According to his argumentation-fog-hot-air)

° I know he doesn't like (Adam) statistics but to even assume that his (how many times did he repeat the word 'subjective' anyway? Geez... ) anecdotes can measure up in a debate about economics, sociopolitical topic? ... flochinochinihilipilification my friend!

° "convicted fellon", All-right. No worries mate(could be solely bad luck, am unfamiliar with the story/facts) , however even if you can't (legally) own guns, have no skin in the game (no pay-e tax-e, no kids)... How am I to assume that when the 'push comes to shove' you'll walk the walk?

° I'm sorry if I sound too harsh but having thought that I understood what Liberitarians had meant, am I to assume that it includes mysticism now also? (or that Adam is in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM represents any Liberitarian values?)

° To Stefan Molyneux, Dear Sir:

PLEASE GIVE A DEFINITION OF 'FRIEND'

Barnsley

P. s. {I honestly have my fingers crossed that many thousands of people (sorry, can't call them Liberitarians if they 'follow' this guy... Just can't...not even if red snow...cringe) will watch Stefan's presentations. I'll include them for their merit and clear-cutting properties here below as well. Once more.}

 

Stefan Molyneux :

° The Truth About Immigration: What They Won't Tell You

° The Truth About America's Survival | Demographics

°  The Truth About Illegal Immigrants

°  The Truth About Immigration and Welfare

° IQ and Immigration

aaaand (worth watching too)

° The Fall of Rome

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in Adam's strategy of localization.

For example, if California wants to have Hillary for president still and bring in refugees, they should be their own country and DO IT.

But in the meantime a wall wouldn't hurt anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Libertarian: I don't know what is good for you, so I will give you the freedom to choose.

Common dude: But I don't want the freedom to choose.

Libertarian: You still have to respect my freedom to choose.

Common dude: I don't.

Libertarian: Please?

 

People in general don't want freedom. Not even higy IQ people. China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore are all military dictatorships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't take a man over 30 seriously if he isn't married with children. When a man repeatedly restates the same thing but with different types of flowery language and repeatedly gets the same direct and straightforward wet-fish of reality and yet continues to repeat himself as if he had heard nothing...

Also, I really hate how Kokesh doesn't at least admit his plan puts millions of lives at risk and means the rape and torment of many more millions. Hell I was waiting for Stefan to repeat a point he tweeted: open borders has resulted in the rape of a million or more English girls! Hell, mention the rape gangs and the child rapists of Sweden and Germany for more. If anyone argues for open borders they must be willing to verbally admit that the pain and suffering of rape is worth the delusion they think will result from tolerating bottomless humiliation and indignity. 

I'd respect him a lot more if he'd open say "look, I don't care about people who don't agree with me. If a few million strangers have to die for the dream to come to reality then the ends do justify the means...". I come to the conclusion he has this in his mindset because he continually ignores Stef's damning statistics and doesn't react when Stef points out that if nothing changes bloody ethnic cleansings and religious/cultural wars are the result (well he said "civil war" but we know how bad it'll be. The American Civil War won't even compare to it. The Russian October Revolution being a far better comparison. Perhaps the Yugoslav Wars during WWII and after the Cold War). 

Either way anyone who's a libertarian and not redpilled about race and IQ and culture is pretty much as crazy as the communists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite a debate! Geez guys, same team.
Goal: stopping low IQ people flooding The West.

Effective solutions:
A: Full-on nationalist: build a tribal wall similar to Israël
B: Nationalist-ish: just stop funding the migrants similar to Japan, Poland..

I prefer option B as it is:
- less expensive
- less chance of hampering trade & tourism
- cannot be abused by socialists to turn The West into a prison
- has been proven empirically to prevent terrorism close to option A

That being said, option A is fine with me too... it has added symbolic value. Do what works!

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam keeps stating that the problem is the "government" as if the the government is anything different than the people.  No Adam, the problem is people; people who use the gun of the state to steal.  I don't know why he doesn't get this.  You stop importing thieves, you stop importing government!

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2018 at 11:35 AM, jpahmad said:

Adam keeps stating that the problem is the "government" as if the the government is anything different than the people.  No Adam, the problem is people; people who use the gun of the state to steal.  I don't know why he doesn't get this.  You stop importing thieves, you stop importing government!

I don't completely agree with Adam but I do on this point. People who move here and get welfare or other services are not stealing. They are dumb, they don't know where it comes from. The IRS and other people running the government entities are the ones stealing.

If I am a known thief in town and you just move here and I say "Hey buddy, I am just a nice guy, I sell all new people to town a beautiful 75" TV for only $20. Do you want it?" and you buy it, you are not knowingly part of my criminal enterprise. Now if you purposely know, then sure. I don't think people who are low IQ AND uneducated have thought one second about how government even works.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2018 at 3:26 PM, barn said:

Up until today, I have NEVER skipped listening/watching(a third) ANY FDR video/audio before,... drumroll... ta-da! 1st for everything and it's especially memorable. Not sure if Adam would be happy to know the why's, but to the mighty FDR community I think it is good if I share. In brief, of course...

Same here. It was painful to listen to.

I remember Milo saying "Atheism is so boring". Anarchism/libertarianism is every bit as boring to me at the moment.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

I don't completely agree with Adam but I do on this point. People who move here and get welfare or other services are not stealing. They are dumb, they don't know where it comes from. The IRS and other people running the government entities are the ones stealing.

This is about 50% of the whole discussion, the other 50% is the fact (that Adam brought up in the beginning) the government is the real initiator, not the immigrants. When Stefan responded with "but immigrants bring in more crime" Stefan is making a collectivist argument AND a strawman. (Illegal) immigrants coming into the country are not the real initiators in this situation, not even when we accept that they generally bring in more crime and have higher rates of crimes within their own population/group. The real initiators are the immigrants who commit [immoral actions], so not all of them. That is the mistake and strawman Stefan made.

In this debate Stefan has subjectivized UPB and until he rectifies this, I, unfortunately, cannot take his word too seriously anymore.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

I don't completely agree with Adam but I do on this point. People who move here and get welfare or other services are not stealing. They are dumb, they don't know where it comes from. The IRS and other people running the government entities are the ones stealing.

If I am a known thief in town and you just move here and I say "Hey buddy, I am just a nice guy, I sell all new people to town a beautiful 75" TV for only $20. Do you want it?" and you buy it, you are not knowingly part of my criminal enterprise. Now if you purposely know, then sure. I don't think people who are low IQ AND uneducated have thought one second about how government even works.

So taxation is not theft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote Milton Friedman :  "The Government is People."  The government is a conceptual entity that describes people who use force to get what they want.  Get rid of those people and you get rid of the government.  It's not the other way around.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole argument is based on practical reality or ascribing to an untested moral theory without any practical consideration.

Jos Van Weesel, the Feds already screen out criminals and only permit noncriminals (I am not claiming they do that perfectly) but I’m guessing you are okay with borders preventing violent felons? Even the post screening immigrant population still has more criminality. I understand the moral argument that by limiting someone entry that you want us to presume innocent, but not the practical consideration. The Bill of Rights applies to US citizens, and we US citizens consent to presume innocent the other 300 million US citizens. We do not presume 7 billion people are innocent and risk our safety and finances to guard their freedom and we know they do not consent to reciprocate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kokesh doesn't mind allowing socialist leftists to take power because he believes having borders is morally unprincipled... Ok. If your idea for ethically achieving utopia involves genocide,  you should probably go back to the drawing board. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jpahmad said:

So taxation is not theft?

Taxation is theft. The IRS and government agencies collecting and enforcing collection are the thiefs, not Jose blow drinking a cerveza and busy planning a family get together for his daughters quincenera.

If I robbed a bank and I said "Hey jpahmad, I did it for you!" Are you now a thief?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The federal borders are private property jointly held by US citizens and we jointly agree thru our representatives to bar access to noncitizens almost always. We never try to stop noncriminal US citizens from departing federal borders and associating with anyone they want, they just would rather not die to random cartel shootings in Chihuahua, Mexico, and if it would be alright with you both they and I would rather they not be shot in Yuma, AZ, thank you very much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The real initiators are the immigrants who commit [immoral actions], so not all of them.

Illegal immigration is an immoral action in itself.

Realistically, there are four options:
a) A heterogeneous society with an heterogeneous ideology (Brazil, current state of the US)
b) A heterogeneous society with an homogeneous ideology (the civ nat conception)
c) A homogeneous society with an heterogeneous ideology (the West before immigration)
d) A homogeneous society with an homogeneous ideology (the Nazbol ideology)

a) is what we have right now. Doesn't work, can be discarded.
d) requires massive amounts of state force and causes untold number of deaths

The real question is if b) or c) are to preferred and which is easier to achieve.

At a first glance, b) seems to be real attractive. You have a mix of people, united under a common narrative (American Dream). However, if you take biology into account, you will notice that this can't work, unless you use force to make sure everyone follows the ideology and the people that live in your country are able to understand abstract principles and that they are willing to adher to them. Given the United States' large number of African Americans and Hispanics this is nearly impossible.

This leaves c) as the only viable option for the West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Taxation is theft. The IRS and government agencies collecting and enforcing collection are the thiefs, not Jose blow drinking a cerveza and busy planning a family get together for his daughters quincenera.

If I robbed a bank and I said "Hey jpahmad, I did it for you!" Are you now a thief?

If you give the money and I accept it.  Then I am a thief.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jpahmad said:

If you give the money and I accept it.  Then I am a thief.  

So you are saying everyone who regularly buys things at swap meets and flea markets and such are ALL thiefs. If one buys enough things from places like they they will eventually buy at least one stolen item. That would make them a thief. Even though they have no involvement in coercive activity and no knowledge of it.

So if you ever shopped at walmart you are a thief too. They get tax money in subsidies, they use that money to lower the costs of their goods. You buy discounted goods, discounted using tax funds. Anyone who ever shopped at walmart is a thief.

I am not buying your logic. I don't think someone who is only committing what is believed to be a legal and consensual and voluntary activity can be accountable for theft. For example if you own a car and its parked in your driveway with the key in it. You are inside taking a shower. I stop a guy named Joe on the street and offer to sell the car for $1000. He agrees. I hand him the key and he drives off. Joe did not steal the car, I stole it and sold it.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jpahmad said:

If you give the money and I accept it.  Then I am a thief.  

Can't argue with that, except if coerced. (I assume you didn't mean to say there was any. Free choice 'n all.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ofd said:

Illegal immigration is an immoral action in itself.

Realistically, there are four options:
a) A heterogeneous society with an heterogeneous ideology (Brazil, current state of the US)
b) A heterogeneous society with an homogeneous ideology (the civ nat conception)
c) A homogeneous society with an heterogeneous ideology (the West before immigration)
d) A homogeneous society with an homogeneous ideology (the Nazbol ideology)

a) is what we have right now. Doesn't work, can be discarded.
d) requires massive amounts of state force and causes untold number of deaths

The real question is if b) or c) are to preferred and which is easier to achieve.

At a first glance, b) seems to be real attractive. You have a mix of people, united under a common narrative (American Dream). However, if you take biology into account, you will notice that this can't work, unless you use force to make sure everyone follows the ideology and the people that live in your country are able to understand abstract principles and that they are willing to adher to them. Given the United States' large number of African Americans and Hispanics this is nearly impossible.

This leaves c) as the only viable option for the West.

The idea of American Dream is easily taught. It just hasn’t been taught in public schools in almost 50 yrs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ofd said:

Illegal immigration is an immoral action in itself.

Realistically, there are four options:
a) A heterogeneous society with an heterogeneous ideology (Brazil, current state of the US)
b) A heterogeneous society with an homogeneous ideology (the civ nat conception)
c) A homogeneous society with an heterogeneous ideology (the West before immigration)
d) A homogeneous society with an homogeneous ideology (the Nazbol ideology)

a) is what we have right now. Doesn't work, can be discarded.
d) requires massive amounts of state force and causes untold number of deaths

The real question is if b) or c) are to preferred and which is easier to achieve.

At a first glance, b) seems to be real attractive. You have a mix of people, united under a common narrative (American Dream). However, if you take biology into account, you will notice that this can't work, unless you use force to make sure everyone follows the ideology and the people that live in your country are able to understand abstract principles and that they are willing to adher to them. Given the United States' large number of African Americans and Hispanics this is nearly impossible.

This leaves c) as the only viable option for the West.

Ehhh... I think all will involve blood, sweat, and tears to create due to the boiling and ever-escalating tensions but not all are equal and some perform better than others.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by "ideology" though; do you mean "culture"? I.e., values?

If so than C might be exemplified by Russia which has its own "ethno-states" (i.e. each ethnic group has its own territories and varying levels of autonomy under the federal government). D is basically 90% of the world with varying results. Japan is an easy example of D. I think D is most preferable if the culture is moral and the people are smart. A is basically a boiling pot left alone for too long while B only works with a very strong ideology/culture like Islam (on the bad end), Catholicism (on the good end), or general Christendom (somewhere in between). An easy example is Europe at large. Many different races but similar cultural values due to a shared umbrella religion which has sanitized war greatly since the Dark Ages (until WWI and II when atheism/secularism began to rise in earnest) and kept the Europeans as "civil" as they could be relative to what they had and the alternatives around at the time. 

I think B is my preferred goal but it requires all the races be of European/Oriental (i.e. East Asian I have not given up Stefpai's half-hearted crusade to revive the word as a moniker for Chinese/Japanese/Korean) due to the requirement of both empathy (a largely European and some Oriental phenomenon) and reasonable intelligence. 

D and my vision of B might not be very different depending on the definition of "race" involved (I am talking Germans, North Slavs, South Slavs, Celts, etc. etc. not just "Europeans" since not all Whites are equal nor the same across ethnic lines) but the idea is that a strong unifying culture set (like Christianity in general) can tame ethnic tensions (which may have been seen in the case of Germany, Russia, or France) and slowly but surely meld them harmoniously (i.e. mutual consent not violence/rape or whatever).

A and C are both hot beds for civil war (or at least secessions). Cases in point: Yugoslavia (for A), pre-Civil War America (for C). Yugoslavia had 3 separate but unreconcialible ethnic groups while C arguably had just one (American=odd mix of English, Celtic, and German) but two very different cultures (Free WASPy North versus Late Roman South).

Therefore either B or D is preferred for long term stability, with me leaning towards D as if the races are too different biologically than that alone might result in long term problems (and inabilities). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The idea of American Dream is easily taught. It just hasn’t been taught in public schools in almost 50 yrs. 

What else was different 50 years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

So you are saying everyone who regularly buys things at swap meets and flea markets and such are ALL thiefs. If one buys enough things from places like they they will eventually buy at least one stolen item. That would make them a thief. Even though they have no involvement in coercive activity and no knowledge of it.

So if you ever shopped at walmart you are a thief too. They get tax money in subsidies, they use that money to lower the costs of their goods. You buy discounted goods, discounted using tax funds. Anyone who ever shopped at walmart is a thief.

I am not buying your logic. I don't think someone who is only committing what is believed to be a legal and consensual and voluntary activity can be accountable for theft. For example if you own a car and its parked in your driveway with the key in it. You are inside taking a shower. I stop a guy named Joe on the street and offer to sell the car for $1000. He agrees. I hand him the key and he drives off. Joe did not steal the car, I stole it and sold it.

The immigrants know they are here illegally.  Every day they spend using public utilities, roads, education, whatever, is a day that they are stealing products and services from the Americans who are forced to pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2018 at 10:21 AM, jpahmad said:

The immigrants know they are here illegally.  Every day they spend using public utilities, roads, education, whatever, is a day that they are stealing products and services from the Americans who are forced to pay for it.

I don't know if you remember before you considered government but I am sure before you did you didn't understand the concept either. If I do agree with what you are saying I would also say just as much you would know walmart relies on government subsidies and shopping there is also theft.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

If I do agree with what you are saying I would also say just as much you would know walmart relies on government subsidies and shopping there is also theft.

Yeah, subsidies that I paid into as a taxpayer (whether willingly or not).  So I'm just getting back what's rightfully mine by shopping there.  This is much different than someone using government subsidized goods and services who did not pay any taxes (Illegal immigrants).  You're "gotcha scenario" is a false equivalency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jpahmad said:

Yeah, subsidies that I paid into as a taxpayer (whether willingly or not).  So I'm just getting back what's rightfully mine by shopping there.  This is much different than someone using government subsidized goods and services who did not pay any taxes (Illegal immigrants).  You're "gotcha scenario" is a false equivalency.

Not really. Most people don't pay taxes and you cannot take taxes paid vs benefits received and calculate what you may take because it is only partially fungible (federal vs state vs local vs other local etc) and often not measurable. If I pay $10,000 in taxes, how much can I buy from walmart before I get more than $10,000 in benefits back which would then become theft? You cannot measure that. Plus calculate in things like use of roads etc. But again, most people pay net negative into the system, they would all be stealing, whether they are a citizen or not.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2018 at 10:40 PM, smarterthanone said:

So you are saying everyone who regularly buys things at swap meets and flea markets and such are ALL thiefs. If one buys enough things from places like they they will eventually buy at least one stolen item. That would make them a thief. Even though they have no involvement in coercive activity and no knowledge of it.

So if you ever shopped at walmart you are a thief too. They get tax money in subsidies, they use that money to lower the costs of their goods. You buy discounted goods, discounted using tax funds. Anyone who ever shopped at walmart is a thief.

I am not buying your logic. I don't think someone who is only committing what is believed to be a legal and consensual and voluntary activity can be accountable for theft. For example if you own a car and its parked in your driveway with the key in it. You are inside taking a shower. I stop a guy named Joe on the street and offer to sell the car for $1000. He agrees. I hand him the key and he drives off. Joe did not steal the car, I stole it and sold it.

jpahmad was actually correct, if you steal for him and you give him the money, he is not necessarily a thief.
If he does accept it but doesn't know about the thieving, he isn't a thief (or shares any responsibility)
But if he does know where the money came from and still accepts it, he is a thief, too.

Moral responsibility requires knowledge of the actions committed.

But I share your stance, if an immigrant comes into the country not being consciously aware of how the system works and the implications of how it works (taxation is theft) then he is not a thief.

On 1/10/2018 at 10:43 AM, ofd said:

Illegal immigration is an immoral action in itself.

Eh.... what is the reason behind that? Are you conflating legality with morality? Because then I think you're on the wrong forums.
Please tell me if I'm wrong, which I'm hoping for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Eh.... what is the reason behind that?

Tresspassing is both illegal and immoral.
 

Quote

Are you conflating legality with morality?

Nope. There are four sorts of actions: illegal moral, illegal immoral, legal moral, and legal immoral. No need to worry.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this right.  It is the stance in this thread that illegal immigrants are just innocent idiots that don't know that they are stealing anything.  Is this correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jpahmad said:

So let me get this right.  It is the stance in this thread that illegal immigrants are just innocent idiots that don't know that they are stealing anything.  Is this correct?

No!!! Definitely not. Ignorance of the law is no excuse; and that is doubly true of moral actions! It may be less evil for me to kill someone by accident ("how does a gun work? Whoops...") than to do so with intent, but it is still evil and I need to repay that somehow (how I don't know so I'll keep my hands off of dangerous looking tools I have no experience with). 

And I doubt illegals aliens are THAT dumb. They may be statistically retarded but even apes know the rule of the jungle and if an alien is wiling to use might to justify his "right" then he ought to be held accountable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ofd said:

They tresspassed public land without the consent of the government.

Do you need consent of the government to smoke pot or to say whatever you want?

3 hours ago, jpahmad said:

So let me get this right.  It is the stance in this thread that illegal immigrants are just innocent idiots that don't know that they are stealing anything.  Is this correct?

Yes. When did you learn tax was theft? Or was it so obvious that in elementary school you little 4th grade butt was like "Mommy this is stealing don't send me to school!" Also don't forget most people are dumber than you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Do you need consent of the government to smoke pot or to say whatever you want?

How is that related to tresspassing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.