Weekend Interview Show

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 13, 2005, 12:34 AM | #

Thanks for posting the link.  I listened to the Sobran interview.  Joe Sobran is an excellent thinker and writer but, though I’ve tried, giving it a fair amount of thought—and though I also like Murray Rothbard a lot—I just can’t sympathize with his anarchism thing.  The set-up he favors would do away with countries, including nation-states of course.  I can’t grasp how that’s supposed to work.  Furthermore, because from a racial/ethnic point of view there will never be a one-hundred percent homogeneous human population worldwide, tribes—evolving into nation-states—will always form when the inevitable nodes of genetic and cultural inhomogeneity (which thermodynamics will preserve, as ocean currents and eddies, and weather and air streams in the atmosphere, are preserved) coalesce locally into sub-populations.  So, it becomes a question not of seeing the last of those things known as nation-states in general, to all be replaced by perfect human homogeneity worldwide (which there never will be on earth), but rather of keeping one’s own race and nation-state in the running notwithstanding the desire of another race or nation-state for the extinction and replacement of yours, out of the usual motives of jealousy, rivalry, self-interest, etc., couched of course in phony humanitarian/universalist/Christian-idealist rhetoric.  In other words, if white-Euro Christians allow their own élites like Bush, Blair, and Chirac to drive them to extinction it’s not as if afterward, once all the dust has settled, there’ll also be no Chinese any more, no Hindus, no Latin Americans, and so on, as if all these were as dumb as we were.  No.  These others will still be there and laughing their heads off at how stupid and greedy our élites were and how stupid and impotent we lower-downs were for not effectively opposing our élite classes.  It’s merely that there won’t be any more of us white-Euro Christians left.  Then, of course, the remaining races, tribes, and nation-states will try to do to each other what they did to us, and the thing will keep churning like that as the various groups jockey for position—but there will always be distinct groups. 

At the end of the interview the host, Scott Horton, explicitly disparages “the nation-state” by name, then Joe explains how, for his part, he can’t comprehend what all the fuss is about in regard to the immigration crisis, which he says he doesn’t see as a problem, for this or that feeble, anarchist-type reason which I just can’t see the merit of.

Posted by Tim on February 13, 2005, 01:39 AM | #

Actually I don’t mind Scott Horton’s interview style. Sometimes he asks the questions the man-in-the-street would ask that professional pundit-interviewers wouldn’t. For example, he asked Scott Ritter why the US authorities just didn’t fake a WMD find in Iraq to help justify the invasion. Ritter replied that too many troops and intel personnel are old fashioned patriots and wouldn’t allow that kind of shenanigan. Interesting reply. I remember people in ordinary conversation predicting the US govt would do that sort of thing, but never heard the issue addresses by the media.

Posted by wintermute on February 13, 2005, 01:56 AM | #

Sobran is an excellent thinker and writer but, though I’ve tried, giving it a fair amount of thought—and though I also like Murray Rothbard a lot—I just can’t sympathize with his anarchism thing.

Well, I don’t think we have to worry about Joe’s “anarchism” much longer - he’s apparently decided to go deeper with his reaction, and has recently begun wondering outloud if theocracy wouldn’t be so terrible?

But just what are we being warned against? What is theocracy, anyway? Its vigilant enemies never bother to define it.

[. . .]

How bad is it? Judging by, say, Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, not too bad.

[. . .]

I wonder if even life under an Islamic theocracy is the horror it’s supposed to be. Some of the religious laws may be severe, but these are apparently far fewer than the myriad government restrictions we take for granted.

There you have it - clitoridectomy, hand amputation, beheading, along with a civilization wide moratorium on human inquiry, free speech, and art are compared, favorably, to seat belt laws, red tape in general, and an overactive judiciary.

then Joe explains how, for his part, he can’t comprehend what all the fuss is about in regard to the immigration crisis, which he says he doesn’t see as a problem, for this or that feeble, anarchist-type reason which I just can’t see the merit of.

Sobran’s a mackerel snapper:

http://www.sobran.com/wanderer/w2004/w040715.shtml

Europe may have a serious problem, with its plunging birthrate and rapidly reproducing Muslim immigrants who may transform the continent. . . I can see where this may lead to difficulties.

But the American situation is different. Most of our immigrants are Mexican (or Latin American), and most Mexicans are Catholic. It is argued that they resist assimilation to American culture. Maybe so, but they are hardly likely to be loyal to the Mexican government in any way that could be subversive of American law. True, they may overload the welfare state, but whose fault is that? If the welfare state is here to welcome them, the solution is to get rid of it, as should have been done long ago. Overpopulation is a problem for socialist systems, not for free societies. In fact, the welfare system may be more destructive of the immigrants’ families than to the natives.

What are the cultural differences that are believed to be menacing to America?

[. . .]

Maybe I’m missing something here. But I just don’t feel the least bit threatened by immigrants.

Posted by Arcane on February 13, 2005, 03:19 AM | #

Wow, and I thought Sobran had gone insane with the anarchism thing… what a nut.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 28, 2006, 04:01 AM | #

Funnily enough I never saw this thread although I think I did hear the interview once (linked at Scott Horton’s site).

Wintermute’s comment about the stupidity (I can’t think of another word for it) of Sobran is absolutely spot on.

There you have it - clitoridectomy, hand amputation, beheading, along with a civilization wide moratorium on human inquiry, free speech, and art are compared, favorably, to seat belt laws, red tape in general, and an overactive judiciary.

He seems to have lost touch with reality. I once admired some of the things he wrote but he has gone off the deep end now.