IPFS Larken Rose

More About: Racism

In Defense of Bigots

This may come as a shock to collectivists, but narrow-minded, prejudiced, rude, stupid bigots have the same rights as everyone else.
The recent television discussion between Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul) and Rachel Maddow (collectivist propagandist) has gotten a lot of attention, and has prompted a flood of comments from people who don't know how to think. Personally, I think Rand deserves some criticism for his comments ... for being too civil and too "moderate" with the state-violence-worshiping hostess. To the question of whether a restaurant owner has the right to have a "No blacks allowed" policy, the principled answer would have been, unapologetically and unconditionally:

"Yes, a restaurant owner has the absolute right to serve and not serve whomever he damn well pleases, for any reason or no reason at all. An owner can say 'No blacks allowed,' or 'No whites allowed,' or 'Only atheist albino midgets allowed.' It's his damn property, and no one--not you, not me, and not any collective or any 'government'--has the right to initiate violence to FORCE him to do whatever WE think would be the polite, fair, noble thing."

It's bizarre how statists--those who advocate that the violence of
"government" be used to fix every "unfairness" they see (or imagine)--are the ones who most often claim to be "tolerant." To "tolerate" something doesn't mean to approve of something, or to support it--it only means to let it exist. Therefore, the bigot who chooses not to deal with his money, or on his property, with a particular racial or religious group, but who doesn't go onto their property to harass or attack them, is being 100% tolerant of them. On the other hand, Rachel Maddow, and millions of other well-indoctrinated collectivist Americans, who seek to have "government" forcibly impose their version of "fairness" on the bigot, are being completely intolerant. Ironically, they feel good about it, and consider themselves compassionate and morally superior for wanting to introduce violence into the situation, via "legal" coercion.

I wonder what Comrade Maddow would think if the Department of Fairness determined that she was spending too much of her money at white-owned businesses, and commanded her to change her evil ways. Would she suddenly recognize the principle involved here? How about if the Fairness Fascists told Black Entertainment Television (BET), or the NAACP, that they were required to hire more whites, and were commanded to stop trying to target their services towards one particular racial group?

The principle is not complicated: You get to decide who you will associate with and trade with, and I get to decide who I will associate and trade with. And yes, some people--quite a few, in fact--will make choices that you or I would find stupid, or even offensive. You have the right to not patronize businesses you don't approve of. You have the right to publicly criticize their practices. You have the right to encourage other people to boycott such businesses. But you do not have the right to choose what is to be done with someone else's property. The notion that the collective has some right to forcibly impose its beliefs on every individual is infinitely more destructive than letting people be stupid with their own property.

Exactly what threat is posed to society by some racist dude who won't let people of another race onto his property? Damn near none. (And how many customers do you think the guy would get anyway?) His choices of who to associate with, and who to trade with, are his--and his alone--to make. That is true of everyone, of all races and religions.

In contrast, an enormous threat is posed to society by people thinking that they have the right, via "government" mercenaries, to force people into associations and trades those people don't want to make. You can call it "affirmative action," or "anti-discrimination laws," or some other euphemisms that make you feel better about it, but what you are advocating is adding violence into a situation to try to achieve whatever you deem to be "fair." And if you think that using the state to force people to deal with each other is going to lead to peace, love and harmony, you're a bonehead. Do you really think the KKK guy with the "government" gun pointed at his head is suddenly going to start loving black people? Of course not. Getting "government" mercenaries involved will only exacerbate the problem.

And don't think the tyrants don't know this. What those in "government" have done in the name of improving "race relations" was designed to forever divide the races, and to keep both sides forever begging "government" for its blessings and preferential treatment. The result is perpetual strife among the citizenry, and increased power for politicians.

Keep in mind, slavery lasted as long as it did only because it was sanctioned by "government." How long do you think slavery would have lasted if there was not a national network of "law enforcement" using violence against those who attempted to free slaves? And the Jim Crow "laws" were edicts from the tyrants, forcing business-owners to discriminate. Remember the Rosa Parks incident? It was the result of a "law" mandating racial segregation on busses.

Now, do you really think that the establishment Democrat party which pushed for those segregation and other racist "legislation" suddenly grew a conscience when the "civil rights movement" expanded? No, they just found a new way to control and subjugate people, black and white. The racist, divisive, oppressive "Jim Crow" type policies were replaced by racist, divisive, oppressive "civil rights" legislation. (Heck, they didn't even always change the faces. Try doing an internet search for Robert Byrd--U.S. Senator and former KKK big-wig--and the term "race mongrels," and see if you still believe that the Democrat party establishment has the best interests of black folk at heart.)

(As an aside, I find it very impressive that way back in 1865, Frederick Douglass, a former slave, could already see that "government" efforts to "help" the freed slaves was a really bad idea, and that the best thing the politicians could do was nothing. Regarding the politicians' "attempt to prop up the Negro," Douglass implored them to simply "Let him alone," and "Let him fall if he cannot stand alone!")

In short, if you want to be tolerant, open-minded, compassionate, and peacefully coexist with people of all colors, creeds, etc., then you need to recognize that "government" is always the enemy, even when it pretends to offer "help." It will always try to pit you against some other group, and will always try to use differences (or make differences) in order to increase its own power. It will always add threats and coercion to the situation--that's all it ever does, and all it can do (that's all "law" is)--and that is not the way to achieve harmony, justice, or fairness.

"Government" is the enemy of blacks, the enemy of whites, the enemy of humanity. But as long as the people keep falling for the tyrant tricks--as long as we keep crying to the control freaks in "government" to forcibly impose our preferences and beliefs on everyone else--then human society will be nothing but a cage full of squabbling brats, all whining for the jailer to whip the other prisoners harder (which is pretty much what every election is).

The other choice--and I realize this is pretty darn radical--is to accept
the fact that ....

5 Comments in Response to

Comment by Larken Rose
Entered on:

The trouble, "Flajann Marcus," is that this is where the debate between statism and freedom MUST take place, precisely because it is how the control freaks seek to whittle away at the PRINCIPLE of freedom. They point to some grouchy, obnoxious, bigoted boneheaded, that almost no one wants to be associated with (including me), and say, "Surely THIS guy needs to be straightened out by the law!" Likewise, when the talk about raising taxes, they always bring up evil corporate executives with their zillion-foot yachts, and say, "Surely it's okay for 'the people' to take some of THIS guy's money!" When they want to silence dissent, they bring up some yammering KKK twit, and say, "It's okay to make HIM shut up, right?"

The point is, when advocating every step towards totalitarianism, the statists will always use examples that would tempt people into abandoning the principle. And if we go noodle-spined when they do--as I think Rand sort of did--then we have abandoned the principle. And after that, we have NO rational basis for opposing tyranny. "I"m for limited oppression" is not good enough.

And yes, it is annoying to have to defend some pretty obnoxious people. So it is important to emphasize--maybe more than I did--how much we DON'T LIKE the choices those folk make, while insisting that those choices are still THEIRS to make. Furthermore, it might be good to emphasize that using violence in defense is just as important as NOT using it for aggression. For example, if the bigot with the restaurant decides to go onto a Dermal-Pigmentally-Hyperendowed-American's property to harass him, that changes everything. Then the bigot may need to have a serious discussion with a Mossberg 12-gauge.

Speaking of which, I need to finish another article, about how blacks so often get treated by their "protector" "government." While the statists want legal intervention to intrude when violence is unjustified, they also want blacks who really are being oppressed to NOT resist. Nice hypocrisy. Malcolm X, when he got over being a racist himself, got it right: if "the law" doesn't make justice, the people should damn well make it themselves.

Comment by Flajann Marcus
Entered on:

I have to say that, in principle, I agree with most of the points made here, but perhaps this is not the way to win over many to the side of freedom.

Personally, I would not want to associate with anyone who did not want to associate with me -- for whatever the reason. What would be the point?

If a restaurant did not want to cater to me due to my... See more dermal chromatics, why would I want to eat there? Perhaps they spit in my food, or put something nasty in it? Who knows? I'd rather know that up front, and the sign hanging on his front saying "No Blacks Allowed" or "No Atheists Allowed" would save me the hassle.

However, the whole issue of discrimination is very politically charged and would give the excuse for many to dismiss us as "racists" or "bigots".

It's the same reason the "Free Town Project" in New Hampshire got derailed. If we want to spread the ideas of true Freedom and Liberty to those sitting on the side lines, perhaps we don't want to start shouting stuff about freedom to have "donkey sex shows."

What makes this especially touchy for me is my own experiences with dermal chromatic discrimination. Many in the past phoned 911 on me just do to that aspect alone. And one such incident was particularly devastating.

The whole "dial 911 if you see someone that looks 'suspicious'" bit is a complete wash, and it's no fun at all being constantly  harassed by police due to no fault of my own. The worst of it led to my arrest at a restaurant where I took my entire family of wife and 3 kids! Yep. I was arrested right in front of them. In Nashua. Because some inebriated bitch of a patron went berserk over my dermal chromatics. Well, it was a mass hole. What the hell are they doing coming to New Hampshire? Maybe we should post "No Mass Holes allowed!" at the border. But then we'd miss out on all those Mass Hole Dollars being spent in our tax-free stores. So we learn to "tolerate" them.

And then there's the Nashua Police.

So even though I may agree in principle with this blog, that particular issue is a big turn-off for me. Bigots who dial 911 at the mere sight of me is not exactly whom I want to be going side by side with on our fight for Freedom!

Comment by Frank Martinez
Entered on:

she is an Idiot ,  and she a taco short of a combination, I think she is the one that is a racist, As Morgan Freedman once said "how to fight racism, is to stop talking about it". end of story, but some idiots like Rachel, just like to kindle a fire that is been dead for some time.  and I not saying its totally dead, but,because we all have some racism in us, sometime against our kind of people, it will never end, but to promote it openly like Rachel, I think she is trying to push the race card so as to slander Mr Paul.......  In my book its a dead issue. and I did not hear of any restaurant discriminating anybody lately have you????


Comment by Freed Radical
Entered on:
Spot on essay as usual, Larkin! "Civil rights" laws are all about the application of government violence to divide and conquer the Sheeple. Rand Paul was much too wimpy in his response to Maddow's lame ambush, and Ron has already addressed this issue effectively many times without taking a lot of heat for it. Ron always stuck to the freedom principle and scared the collectivists away by pointing out the coercive roots of "civil rights" legislation. Lew Rockwell re-ran Ron's excellent 2004 piece on this very subject today. Ron made no apologies for his position, and this is why he consistently wins the argument and scares the hell out of the collectivists.


It's becoming readily apparent that Rand is not Ron--He has taken a weenie position on war and is apologizing for what could have been a principled position on civil rights like a pussy. If Rand had stuck to his guns like his Dad, collectivist media hack Maddow would have been made to appear the statist shill that she is and would have slunk away with her tail between her c*** lips like the bitch that she is...

You miss the larger point, Grand Poobah--The State doesn't really care about the particular corporate or sole proprietor structure of a business. They will act like they own your private property regardless and screw you any way they can. I do understand your philosophical point about corporations though. There is certainly no reason why evil and negligent company owners should be able to hide behind their corporate skirts when they harm people.


Comment by Doug Nusbaum
Entered on:

A corporation is a creature of the state. Yes, if it is your business --- that is a sole proprietorship or partnership --- then you can do whatever you want. But if you go to the government and ask for the privileges from the state in the form of becoming a corporation, then you should be prepared to live under whatever rules that the government wants to impose.