#MOGA! Objectivists for SECESSION?

Bruno Turner's picture
Submitted by Bruno Turner on Wed, 2017-10-04 23:17

From Youtube:

Catalonian SECESSION! Tribalism? Economics?
And police FORCE! What about the No-Go Zones?

Yaron Brook says European secessions are tribalist. Do you agree? Do you disagree?

Make Objectivism Great Again!

I'll see you on solopassion.com

Remember to Like and Subscribe. I appreciate your support!

Let's have a discussion about this issue. What do the rationally passionate and passionately rational folks at SOLO think?

Premise Checking on Mises

Mark Hunter's picture


Ludwig von Mises is less than consistent when it comes to the subject of immigration but he’s worth reading when he’s on our side. The following is from Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition (quoted by Ilana Mercer in “Nation, State & Mass Immigration”):

In the absence of any migration barriers whatsoever, vast hordes of immigrants … would … inundate … America. They would come in such great numbers that it would no longer be possible to count on their assimilation. If in the past immigrants to America soon adopted the English language and American ways and customs, this was in part due to the fact that they did not come over all at once in such great numbers. The small groups of immigrants who distributed themselves over a wide land quickly integrated themselves into the great body of the American people …This would now change, and there is real danger that the ascendancy – or more correctly, the exclusive dominion – of the Anglo-Saxons in the United States would be destroyed.

This was written in 1927 (in German, later translated into English) when immigration meant European immigration; it applies all the more to Third World immigrants who don’t belong here at all. Trouble is you can find pro open borders quotes in other work by Mises.

More details on Austria

Bruno Turner's picture

From Michael Walker at the White Advocacy website American Renaissance (bold added):
(source: https://www.amren.com/commenta...)

Sunday’s parliamentary elections were called in the wake of a scandal, resignation, and realignment that culminated in the breakup of the governing coalition of the socialist SPÖ and the conservative ÖVP. It was brought to an end by the resignation of Vice Chancellor Reinhold Mitterlehner of the ÖVP. Following his sudden departure from office, and the refusal of the new ÖVP leader to continue in coalition, Chancellor Christian Kern was compelled to call an election. The reason for Mr. Mitterlehner’s resignation was a sign of Austria’s shift rightwards in recent years. He was “fed up,” he said, with the coalition government’s “failure to tighten immigration laws.”

Immigration dominated the elections. Austria is traditionally a very law abiding country, and crime and immigration are closely associated in people’s minds, and with good reason: Statistics from the Austrian Criminal Bureau in March 2016, for example, indicate that among Algerian asylum seekers between 2003 and 2014, there were over 150 criminal charges per 100 claims for asylum. Nigerians were in third place with just over 125 charges per 100 claims for asylum. Over 14 percent of the official population of the republic is now of foreign extraction—the majority non-European. At the beginning of 2016, the population of Austria was 8.7 million, an increase of 115,000 since 2015. Ninety-eight percent of the increase is due to non-Austrian births. The total population is increasing annually by 1.35 percent, while the ethnic Austrian reproduction rate is at break-even. Moreover, these official statistics do not take illegal immigration into account, and according to the popular newspaper die Presse, as of 2010 there were probably 100,000 illegal immigrants in Austria. The numbers today could easily be over a quarter of a million. In 2015, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in defiance of EU law, her country’s law, and all sanity, instructed that border controls be lifted to allow “refugees” from Syria into the German Republic. Many of them passed through Austria and others remained there.


Sebastian Kurz’s rapid rise to power has been even more astonishing than that of France’s Emanuel Macron, whom he in some respects resembles. (Like Mr. Macron, he has fashioned a personality-based party, moving away from local constituency-based and seniority-based candidate selection). Appointed in 2013 as Europe’s youngest foreign minister when he was 27 years old, in 2016 he demanded the closing of the Balkan route for migrants and a ceiling on the number of refugees permitted to enter Austria. The Balkan route has seen up to a million migrants from the middle East (nobody knows the exact figures) in less than two years. The border was effectively closed in 2016, mainly, it would seem, thanks to Mr. Kurz and his good relations with politicians in neighboring states, notably Croatia.

Mr. Kurz has also brought a new expression into public debate in Austria: “political Islam,” which broadens the category of Muslims the state should reject to include not only terrorist sympathizers but Muslims promoting pro-Islamic political change. His program calls for closing what he calls “politically Islamic” schools.


All this will be welcome to the Visegrád nations, whose hard line against migrants is now likely to have new backing in the EU. The pressure from internationalists, especially in Berlin, against their closed border policies has been immense. These results should help counterbalance the pressure from Berlin to accept EU-designated migrant quotas. By the same token, this is bad news for those who want an “open boarder,” Europe and the “free movement of peoples.” Austria is due to take over the presidency of the European Council, but nobody had expected the presidency to fall into the hands of a critic of mass immigration.


However one interprets these election results, it is certain that the “open border” scheme for Europe has suffered a reverse. Mr. Kurz has already started talking of a plan to close the Mediterranean route, the same way as the Balkan route was closed. As minister in the last government he helped enact measures to repatriate asylum seekers who went on holiday to the countries from which they had supposedly fled as refugees. He waves aside objections that his plan to halt migration across the Mediterranean would be complicated. “It is not complicated, it is simple” he assured journalists. “Migrants crossing the Mediterranean will simply be taken back to Africa.”


A SORA exit pole should be another source of concern for internationalists. It is not the “aged and embittered,” as internationalists characterize those who voted “leave” in the British referendum, who support the FPÖ or the ÖVP. Here are the voting intentions for 16-29 year olds:

FPÖ: 30% [far right]

ÖVP: 28% [right]

SPÖ: 27% [left]

This means the most firmly anti-immigrant party got the most support.


Wacist Austria!

Bruno Turner's picture

What does this blond, blue eyed, white skinned devil think he is doing!?

President Kurz, Harry Binswanger demands an explanation! Are you wacist or something? Open Borders is a moral imperative! Are you worried about Islam or something? Yaron Brook assures me Islam is nothing more than a mosquito bite! Europeans are the real problem! Tribal, wacist, collectivists!!

"Libertarian Right"

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Lindsay -- It's a huge problem that these new-style pro-freedom parties, such as in Austria, are always called "far right". They need to be called "libertarian right", such as with U.S. Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and now Neil Gorsuch. Or with U.S. Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee. This battle for terminology is crucial. Even Donald Trump, with all his regulation-cutting, could possibly be called "libertarian right".

After this new phrase is well-established, then we need to just call these folks "libertarians". Then we need to point out how weak and contradictory is their current libertarianism, and insist that they purify.

But it all begins with getting rid of this grossly-misleading smear-term "far right".

Setback for The Filth in Austria

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Austrian voters may have stemmed the tide of low-IQ ideological aliens in the nick of time:


Premise Checking on Mises

Jmaurone's picture

I have to add that I haven't studied Mises enough to say for certain what his full, contextual views on borders and nationalism were. My main takeaway of the topic from HUMAN ACTION is the idea that a constantly-changing world requires non-static solutions, and freedom of movement; societies will atrophy under a closed system (like a biodome cut off from the outside world). Just a quick glance online seem to suggest a tug-of-war between open vs. closed border debaters to claim Mises as being on their side. Some support for the idea that libertarians view him as a supporter of open borders, while some of his own comments suggest cautions against the assumed wisdom of "the common man", and acknowledgement that not all are compatible with freedom:

"...there will "always be individuals and groups of individuals whose intellect is so narrow that they cannot grasp the benefits which social cooperation brings them. There are others whose moral strength and will power are so weak that they cannot resist the temptation to strive for an ephemeral advantage by actions detrimental to the smooth functioning of the social system. " (from HUMAN ACTION)

Quite so!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

if limited to dealing with like-minded people with compatible goals

That's the point, and I'm afraid most of us have been too slow to emphasise it in our knee-jerk enthusiasm for unbridled openness. The idea that brutes self-select for virtue is risible, since they have none. We must for ever be closed to The Filth, such as the feral Islamosavages in the no-go zones Bruno cites. Deport them!

Obleftivist Yawon, were he consistent, would have you believe the Founding Fathers were Balkanising tribalists. Deport him too! To Iwan with Yawon!!

Open vs closed borders, and guardians vs traders

Jmaurone's picture

Regarding the closed borders/selective immigration/selective society: I've seen, in the past, some people lauding the arguments made by both von Mises and Jane Jacobs, in their books HUMAN ACTION and SYSTEMS OF SURVIVAL.

Both make the argument that open societies thrive better than closed ones. (Jacobs goes a step farther and makes the distinction between guardian and trader societies.)
I've seen their arguments promoted by libertarians and some Objectivish, and I'm guessing that influence plays a large part in the current debate.

I've read both books, but it's been a while... Isee their points, if limited to dealing with like-minded people with compatible goals, but was bothered by von Mises' for what I remember as a downplaying of external threats. (Probably the same with Jacobs...At least Jacobs does recognize the need for guardians.)

Might be a good time to revisit their thesis and make a counter-argument...or, at least, put their ideas about openness, division of labor, and trade in context...

Freedom of Association -- Not Tribalism

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

As usual, Bruno is right, and Brook is wrong. Good ole' "Always wrong Yaron". Let's hear him say that three times fast! Eye

Based upon nationalism and their self-interest, I favor independence for Catalonia and Lombardy (or maybe a united northern Italy). The central governments of Spain and Italy are too bureaucratic, dictatorial, and thieving. This secessionism isn't all that much mindless emotionalism or tribalism. It's mostly logical. And the people of Catalonia and Lombardy have a right to freedom of association. And so too the various states in America -- such as Texas, Florida, and California -- have an absolute right to secede.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.