How and Why I Changed My Position and Focus Towards US Immigration Policy


I’ve always been kind of an open borders guy. The ideal of it seems to have always precluded me from analyzing it closely, while by the same token, making it easy to dismiss even cautious arguments as xenophobic, racist, or both.

In a nutshell, I’ve always held that the problem with immigrants—”legal” or otherwise—sucking from the social teat is a problem with the social teat, and not immigration per se. If there weren’t all these “free” social benefits, then what’s the problem? Problem is, there are, and they’re not going away any time soon.

So now I find that my argument is quite bright eyed, superseded by numbers and proportions. Mathematics, basically. It took all of 6 minutes to completely change my view and also my focus. It’s a video, but it’s not an anti-immigration video. Rather, it’s a factual presentation of what amounts to pissing in the wind on US immigration policy—the implication being that the problem of vast poverty must be tackled at home, not here, and not Western Europe.

The scale of it is so ridiculous that in the four times I watched the video I just shake my head. What the fuck was I thinking?

Now, understand that I don’t see it as any individual’s duty to stay put and work for greater prosperity where they are. It’s their life and I can’t begrudge anyone for trying to improve their lot in it. However, the immigration policy here and elsewhere in the developed world seems to have gone from poor, hungry, downtrodden to relatively best & brightest, and what does that do?

Well, it removes the best people from the worst problems so they can come here and contribute to our economy, leaving those from whence they came worse off.

So, I began chewing on what to do that might be effective. I mean, our fucking, pathetic leaders have been dumping “aid” money at our expense into complete and obvious kleptocracies for decades. So do some of the big “charities” whose executive staffs rake in millions in compensation. All a big wink-wink, nod-nod scam.

But you can do something individually if you care about the problem and its massive scale. And guess what? You can make money doing it.

I’ll tell a little story first.

Way back when, like 2008 or so, I and an employee of mine at the time embarked on doing a startup company—a peer-2-peer lending platform, where I burned through $250k of my own and friends and family seed capital to create a consumer-2-business application where knowledgeable individuals could participate in loans to small businesses, incorporating a sophisticated algorithm. One could bid for amount and positioning in a loan that simulated 1st, 2nd, and 3rd position mortgages at different rates of return…and many other criteria. Think of it like a Kickstarter, but where instead of various perks, you get your money back, with interest, if the deal succeeds.

Small businesses are very underserved by banking products. Basically, under $250k, and it’s personal loans, not true business lending. Above that, banks base lending decisions on the P&L and Balance Sheet of the business.

At the time, there were two startups where people lend to other people. I tested out both Prosper and Lending Club with $1,000 in each of them. They lend to average consumers for any random reason. Our variant was to offer a platform where they could lend to small entrepreneurs, with a focus on specific knowledge. In other words, while you might not be a great angel or venture capitalist investor, you very well may have specific knowledge as a customer or employee in a particular business niche that does actually make you a competent investor in that specific area.

For example, those of you who hang around all the time in independent coffee houses might know a thing or two about a good loan application vs. a bad one. Or, you were an employee of some thing or other and might find good lending opportunities for folks running businesses in those areas.

Long story short, I lost money in both Prosper and Lending Club. Not much, but the losses on bad loans (I had substantial diversity, like a $50-100 slice in 10-20 loans on each platform) outweighed the returns on good loans. This is exactly why our model was lending to entrepreneurs, by folks with some special knowledge of the business as customer or employee. We gave maybe 30 VC presentations all over the Valley. A few nibbles, but the farthest we got was with Howard Heartenbaum and Andy Rapport of August Capital. Howard was bad cop, Andy good cop. They were really good to us. First the pitch, two more meetings for details, due diligence; but in the end, Andy said he could make a lot of good arguments to invest, but too many against investing.

The bottom line, and the chief reason everyone passed was that our technology was too complicated. I pleaded over and over again to look at the success of the many online trading platforms, even for complex options and derivatives—which I had actually done myself full-time for a few years—but to no avail.

So that was that.

I tested another platform too: Kiva. Only put $200 in it, $25 participation in 8 loans to some of the poorest people on Earth. Care to see how it went?

Screen Shot 2015-12-02 at 1.30.00 PM

Yep, got back 100% of capital. This is, however, a charity; but a damn brilliant one, because it allows you to use your charity dollars over and over, and your only loss is interest (plus diminishing value via currency inflation), or the rare capital loss which on average is about .75 – 1.25%. So, at it’s worst, you lose $1.25 for every $100 you lend out.

But what if you could make up for both, plus make some money?

John Christiansen and I had a nifty little exchange in Facebook this morning in response to a proto-version of this post. Turns out, some credit card companies offer up to 5% cash back for payments to qualified charities that match certain parameters.

You can actually get pretty good “interest” with credit card cash back. US Bank has a card that lets you get 5% cash back on $2000 spending every 3 months for “charity” and Kiva counts. If you do 4-6 month loans its pretty good annual yield for pretty minimal risk (if you choose good field partners).

He cites this:

It’s long been an open secret in the travel hacking community that US Bank credit cards which have “charity” as a bonus category also bonus loans make through the micro-lending site This is one of the first hacks that I took advantage of, since if you’re using a US Bank Flexperks Travel Rewards credit card you can earn 3% cash back or 6% back in paid airfare by making Kiva loans. Many of those loans have repayment periods between 4 and 6 months, so if you have cash that you’re willing to tie up in these loans, you can earn a decent annualized return, even if you’re just redeeming your Flexpoints for cash back, instead of airline tickets.

I can hear the gears churning. No shit, you can make better than average returns for proven safe investments—Kiva has lent out $785 million with an average loss of under 1%—while helping the exact sorts of people that need help where they are, and it’s not handouts that just perpetuate dependance.

There’s even some question as to your returns being taxable, since generally, credit cards rewards are seen as discounts, not income (but, of course, if this catches on, the kleptomaniacs will put a stop to that).

Let’s run through a scenario I cooked up. Suppose you have a substantial, diversified investment portfolio? What if you took $100K and devoted it to Kiva? There’s even a platform to help make lots of loans in batches. So, you get that US Bank CC, fund $100K of loans with it, pay the bill with your investment account, then get $5,000 back.

As the loans are being paid back, you fund new loans with the credit card while you pay the bill with your proceeds. Alternatively, you could pick loans with short payback periods of 4-6 months, and end up paying some interest on your CC, offset by the cash you get back.

The bottom line is that this is a clear means towards helping people where they actually are, doing great, and making a little money at it, and somewhat forgetting about the whole immigration deal, save for the relatively few refugee and hardship cases.

Put a think on it.

Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. The cost of two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance the travel to write, photo, and film from interesting places and share the experiences with you.


  1. John on December 2, 2015 at 14:25

    Thanks for the shout out!

    The catch on the credit card – $2000 spending per quarter. $400/year return.

    • John on December 22, 2015 at 11:54

      I dug a little deeper. If you want to get bonus rewards on more than $8000/year this is the card to do it on:

      Earns 3x points on charity (Kiva) – appears to be uncapped.
      If redeeming as cashback its 3% return on your loans., but if redeeming as airfare they’re worth double, so 6%.

  2. Daniel F on December 2, 2015 at 22:19

    I had been hoping for weeks that Richard would address the question of immigration head on. The reason is that Richard is the most persuasive — perhaps the _only_ persuasive — proponent of true anarchy (or “anarchism” maybe sounds less loaded and is less confusing to people) that I have ever read. Maybe Nock is up there too. But he didn’t say “fucktard” enough and was less entertaining. Even relatively intellectually hefty independent minds such as Keith Preston have left me unsatisfied and unconvinced in the presentation of their philosophies: Preston never really makes it clear what anarchy really _means_ to him, it’s always undefined. Richard does, and eloquently and persuasively at that.

    Despite all of that, and the intellectual appeal of it, I still never have become fully persuaded by the argument. And the reason was the topic Richard addresses here: immigration. A more fundamental way of thinking about it without mentioning a particular policy is to say the reason was biology, Darwinism, group differences. So I, intellectual reasons, wanted to understand how Richard fit that question into his anarchism.

    Nature (fauna) obviously resolves its immigration “problem” through anarchy: no government or policy from above dictated that this group of birds would thrive here, and force out that other similar but weaker species, or that lion gets to lounge wherever the fuck it likes it whereas gazelle are skittish and get grazing privileges only when they can sneak them in, or that the cuckoo leaves her egg in some unsuspecting “cuck’s” nest. And natural anarchic immigration does not have to involve strife: the species spread themselves out where they can thrive all over the world. This all is anarchy at its finest in the state of Nature.

    But Man’s anarchy (anarchism) is a different … uh … animal. The anarchy of a Richard Nikoley or an Albert Nock is a _gentleman’s_ anarchy, an anarchy that presupposes and is based upon the Golden Rule, the non-aggression principle, non-coercion. Sure, this anarchy also accepts the use of force as self-defense when needed. But the very possibility of an anarchic philosophy comes about through the idea of non-violence.

    And here we get to the crux of the matter. Anarchy that is defined by the law of the jungle is simply a different thing than what the “anarchy of man” should be. Rape, pillage, parasitism, invasion and genocide are not part of the anarchy, or anarchism, of man. (Hopefully, this is not too “No true Scotsman-y”; I am drawing a clear line between two concepts of anarchy: one in nature, one a political philosophy.)

    But given Darwinism, biology and group differences, unrestrained immigration is invasion, it is war, it is the law of the jungle. It is not what anarchy (anarchism) as political philosophy is about.

    It always amused me that many of the most self-satisfied “paleo” types, who pride themselves on their adherence to science and a belief in evolution when it comes to the digestive tract and which form exercise is most effective, and most mimics “what our ancestors did”, yet who are also unrepentant liberals when it comes to the biology of race, the biology of man, the reality of group differences. They will deny that Pakistanis in say, Rotterham England, to pull up a random example, are any different — biologically — than an Anglo-Saxon whose genes traced themselves back to thousands of years of isolation. I take my “paleo” pill undiluted: it must include an honest accounting of all aspects of TENS: human groups differ, in some ways radically. Doesn’t mean we can’t get along but there is nothing to be benefitted by denying the reality.

    I agree with Richard’s statement — and the sentiment behind it — that “I don’t see it as any individual’s duty to stay put and work for greater prosperity where they are. It’s their life and I can’t begrudge anyone for trying to improve their lot in it. ”

    But on the group level, immigration is invasion, immigration is war.

    I do not object to our immigration policy because of “brain drain” or how unfair it is for a poor society to lose their best. I object to it because I believe in the right of all organic societies to preserve themselves, including the one that is rich and successful. If a certain group, say the Swiss, have created an exceptionally peaceful, productive and harmonious society, it is an evil for that society to be disrupted by the invasion of an outside people. I don’t care if that invasion comprises the “best and brightest” of the emigrating group. The “best and brightest” from Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Nigeria will still represent a radical disruption and upheaval to, e.g, Swiss, or Swedish, or British, or American society.

    While this evil has been visited upon these societies as a result of _government_ policies (but certainly not representing the popular will) and thus it may be argued that I missing the point: anarchy is most emphatically _not_ to blame here, some will say. But to return to the point above concerning nature’s anarchy vs. anarchy of man, the immigration (read, invasion) of different group’s of people into a different society is nature’s anarchy, the anarchy of the jungle, as we will see played out in the generations to come.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 3, 2015 at 10:18

      Hey Daniel.

      Well, first, you flatter me. Thanks for that.

      I began to write a comment to nit-pick and clarify a few things but it got so long and involved I figure I’ll put it up as my next post.

      Thanks for contributing to my never ending stuggle to explain anarchy…oh, anarchism…in a way any non-fucktard can understnd. :)

      I’ll shoot the link up when I’m done.

      • Daniel F on December 3, 2015 at 15:09

        Thanks, Richard. Looking forward to the post.

        When I made my comment, I was a bit concerned that you would unload on me for implying that you are a gentleman. :)

      • Richard Nikoley on December 3, 2015 at 15:44

        Oh, and I didndn’t get it how I wanted before it became too enticing to not parade a couple of fucktards for fun.

        So, that’s latest post. Will get the other one up tomorrow, which likely ensures some level of crafy sleeplessness, tonight.

      • Richard Nikoley on December 3, 2015 at 15:17

        Nah, that always depends on who you ask.

    • John on December 3, 2015 at 10:45

      The non-aggression principle is the key.

      I think Molyneux does a great job of explaining this – start with and focus on the moral question and worry about the solution later. Basically, if violating the NAP is immoral, than government by definition is immoral, and you must eliminate the immoral problem without worrying about the solution.

      He uses the slavery example – if you’d have told people “when we get rid of slavery there will be giant machines that run on the juice of ancient dinosaurs to do the work of slaves” you’d have sounded crazy – the solution can sound crazy or be unpredictable before it happens.

      • John on December 4, 2015 at 05:50

        he has discussed differences in many videos but here are some.

      • John on December 4, 2015 at 05:55

        “Why black athletes dominate sports”

        I’ve seen him say repeatedly things like “commenters keep getting mad that I talk about race and IQ but I’m just presenting data and evidence so don’t get mad at numbers.”

      • Daniel F on December 3, 2015 at 20:06


        Regarding Molyneux (whom I only recently learned about; enjoying his videos), I think he — like almost all libertarians — makes the error of not understanding or accepting the reality of race. Hyper-intelligent, hyper-rational libertarians such as Molyneaux, tend to imagine the world as composed of people just like themselves: people may be “ignorant” (i.e. not have the facts), but everyone is rational and intelligent, human equality being a given to them. But the fact is not all individuals are intelligent or rational. Moreover, and this is the key point, intelligence and rationality are not evenly distributed across all populations.

        This is often ironed over by talking about culture (and, again, “ignorance”) : culture creates problems. Iraq has not easily adopted democracy and enlightenment ideals because they don’t “get it” yet. But what is culture if not a function of the people who comprise it, i.e. the biology? (And I know it isn’t _all_ biological; but it does factor into the equation as a more than trivial factor.) Dams are part of beaver “culture”, and nests of bird “culture”, just as — not to put too fine a point on it — cathedrals are part of European culture and grass / mud huts, of African culture. (I’m saying this to make a point and describe a reality; I am not a reductionist and I also believe in the dignity and sovereignty of all peoples.)

        First, one must understand reality before one knows how to act (I just rewatched Richard’s VIMEO about Anarchy Starts at Home). If biological race is a reality, then Molyneauxian libertarianism breaks down. It’s not at all a matter of “who’s better” or whose more intelligent. Heritable traits, including intelligence, need to be understood in order to understand human conflict: Is one group more altruistic, more trusting of outsiders? Is another more tribal, with different moralities for whether one is dealing with tribe members or outsiders? If so, bringing these groups together will _on average_ create strife and conflict. At the _group level_ if not (always) at the _individual level_.

        Libertarianism and people like Molyneaux overestimate the ability of reason and open-society principles to ‘govern’ the world. Take note that rationality and open-society principles are every bit as “culturally” contingent as the beaver’s dam. You assume them in other people (and in other peoples) at a risk.

        Thus, with apologies to Joseph Stalin, may I propose “Anarchism in One Country”?

        (And with hat-tip to Steve Sailer and John Derbyshire who both borrowed Uncle Joe to coin the phrase “libertarianism in one country”.)

      • Daniel on December 4, 2015 at 06:05


        Thank you for the links and the correction. I just started watching his stuff and obviously spoke too soon. I stand by my point about libertarians in general.

      • gabkad on December 4, 2015 at 17:43

        John, it’s probably not ‘the juice of *ancient* dinosaurs’ but you certainly are a visually impaired possibly modern dinosaur. Have you ever looked at the images on ‘People of Walmart’? The majority of ass hanging out, gut hanging over, breasts all over the place people have white skin. Geniuses right? Stand proud beside them.

      • John on December 4, 2015 at 20:03



        How do the people of Walmart have anything to do with ending slavery by focusing on the moral issue instead of the solution to “who will pick the cotton”?

        It seems you’re insulting me and I don’t understand why. I would not expect from your past comments or our previous conversations here that you would find the ending of slavery because it is morally wrong a controversial idea.

  3. Rob on December 2, 2015 at 23:00

    After watching the video I was trying to figure out the best way to accomplish what he speaks about ‘over there’. It seems to me the best way would be to bring in smart people from around the world, educate them in contract law, accounting, finance, engineering and then FORCE THEM TO GO HOME. When I went to the college, Walmart had something called Walton Scholars from Latin America…did something similar. The problem is, many never want to leave. If we want to improve poverty around the world and stop the influx of immigrants, the brain drain must stop.

  4. Peter on December 3, 2015 at 13:30

    I think the presenter in the video is making a bit of a straw man argument. Who says we allow immigration as a means of reducing poverty in the world? My understanding is that our immigration system is designed largely strengthen our own country. This was especially important during our westward expansion, as we were ‘filling up’ our piece of the continent. It is now important in the face of a low and decreasing birthrate of our citizens. Add to that the tendency, as the presenter argued, for these immigrants to be highly motivated and often quite well educated and skilled.

    Taking in refugees is a somewhat different matter. These aren’t people who are primarily or just poor. They are people fleeing conditions that present the threat of imminent persecution and death. Many return to their countries when the threat is gone.

    That said, I agree that the only effective way to combat world poverty is in the countries where the poor live.

    • Daniel on December 5, 2015 at 18:23

      Did you ever stop to think that immigration can be a _cause_ rather than a cure for low birthrates? Middle class Americans pay increased taxes for programs that are used disproportionately by immigrants, they pay increased property prices and property taxes to live away from people who they don’t want to live near, they spend more of their lives commuting and working as a result, and thus they also can afford to have fewer children and mentally don’t want to have more children.

      Low birthrate does not necessitate immigration anyway: Japan is doing just fine without it. We make no efforts to ensure that the immigrants are skilled. The vast majority are unskilled third-worlders. As given that STEM-related salaries are going _down_, we should not even be importing “skilled” workers to take those jobs from citizens at lower rates. That is a scandal and a betrayal of the American worker.

      The “refugee” narrative is a scam. There is zero vetting of these people. They are, for the most part, economic migrants who “want a better life” (i.e. they are “white supremacists” per my other comment in response to gadkad). This is a Trojan horse that will transform our society for the worse. There are dozens of Arab and Muslim countries that are _not at war_. Why are those countries not taking in refugees who would, presumably, be much much, more assimilable in those societies? Why are Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Argentina, Brazil, etc etc not taking in any refugees? Only Western countries, and only the absolute best of the best of those. They want welfare in the countries that they know are softened up mentally to take them.

      Poll after poll for decades has showed immigration to be extremely unpopular among the citizens of both the United States and Europe. This mass migration of people is being inflicted upon the citizenry without their consent. This is why democracy is a joke. Clearly against the popular will, politicians and elites do it anyway. It’s a tragedy and it will not end well.

      Finally, it is not our obligation to fight poverty in other countries. Read that sentence again and understand it before accusing me of being callous.

  5. Sharyn on December 3, 2015 at 13:56

    I’m kinda happy about the influx of European immigrants and refugees that landed here (NZ) after WW2 – just for starters, they introduced decent coffee and wine to a tea and beer quasi-English culture. I’m also grateful to live in a tolerant, multi-cultural society. That would not be the case without immigration.

    • Doug on December 4, 2015 at 04:49

      “That would not be the case without immigration.”

      Are you sure you want to go that far?

      • Sharyn on December 4, 2015 at 19:08

        In our girls’ home class at high school there are students from Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, Ethiopia, Britain, India, and Thailand. All from immigrant families. A huge change from when I was at school and there were only Pakeha (NZ European) and Maori students. So yes, I support immigration and the diversity it brings, assuming reasonable integration.

  6. gabkad on December 5, 2015 at 04:37

    John, seems there’s an aspect of ‘white supremacy’ going on. If that’s not the case, then explain.

    • John on December 5, 2015 at 07:11

      Ok. I’ll explain why that’s not the case, though you’re making the claim, without explaining why from my words you think ‘white supremacy’ is going on.

      The aspect of what I said you apparently have issue with: I was addressing the pushback to ending slavery was and should have been trumped by the moral question. Slavery is wrong! All questions about “but if we end slavery, how wil . . .” are irrelevant to something that must end on moral grounds.

      Then I linked to some discussions about race and differences in things like IQ and athletic ability. FWIW the IQ data presented in those videos shows that whites do not have the highest IQ on average, and one is titled “why black athletes dominate sports” which pretty clearly demonstrates that it is not about why white people are better.

      I said nothing about whites being superior – I can possibly see why you might get that from Daniel’s comments but not mine. The videos seek to develop a better understanding of why various groups perform better on intelligence tests, and what can be done. They discuss how people start throwing ad hominem attacks anyone says “hey this study demonstrates a racial difference” because apparently shouting “racist” is more important than finding out what’s going on (sound familiar?). Is it genetic? Parenting? Environment?

      The point is to figure out what can be done to address the problems that come with large “groups” not integrating in the society they enter. The current mainstream solution of calling everyone “racist” who attempts to fix the problem and continuing to throw money at people based on their skin color to achieve “equality” has been a huge failure.

      • gabkad on December 5, 2015 at 11:16

        I didn’t use the ‘r’ word. And if it’s Daniel with the superiority complex, then okay.

        Far as I’m concerned the implications are that Africans and African Americans are better at athletics but have lower IQ. Unfortunately the Trinidadian athletes are not as good as the Jamaican athletes, so it might not just be about physiology and anatomy (since not only were the slave origins of each population the same, as were the slaves brought to what is today the USA but it seems coaching and training has something to do with it.)

        And this stuff about Chinese having the highest intelligence? There’s so damn many of them, you can pick and choose. I’m sure the ones who live in villages growing their own bok choy and shitting into the pig enclosure may not have stellar IQs.

        Richard’s blog attracts some really unsavory White Supremacists occasionally based on whatever topic he writes about. So based on today’s blog post, the uneducated who can justify their prejudices have crawled out of the woodwork. Get out of the basement and start experiencing real life. Don’t rely on assholes making videos to determine what is YOUR personal experience on this planet.

      • John on December 5, 2015 at 11:54

        You are being hypocritical.

        You’re accusing me of being prejudiced. Then you’re leaping to conclusions, using all sorts of stereotypes to lump me in a derogatory category based on not I’ve said, but your interpretation of the implications of my words and citations.

        “Start experiencing real life. Don’t rely on assholesmaking videos to determine what is YOUR personal experience on this planet.” You’re being judgmental and hyperbolic. Drawing conclusions about who I am, again, not based on what I’ve said (which you have not addressed).

        And if I believed, which I don’t, that “Chinese” were universally of higher IQ or “blacks” were all better athletes, those would contradict the idea that I’m a white supremacist. And what is up with
        claiming certainty that Chinese who are “shitting into the pig enclosure” have lower IQ?

        Take a look in the mirror. You know nothing about me or what I think, yet you’re accusing me of white supremacy, basement dwelling, and telling me I should go hang out at Walmart where “the majority of ass hanging out, gut hanging over, breasts all over the place people have white skin. Geniuses right?”

        Quote my “white supremacist” language like I’ve quoted your white-generalized insults.

        I like you but what the fuck.

  7. LeonRover on December 5, 2015 at 06:04

    ”Sola dosis facit venenum”

    applies to immigrants as well as fructoxe.


  8. gabkad on December 5, 2015 at 12:36


    The first sentence I wrote there was this: ‘I didn’t use the ‘r’ word. And if it’s Daniel with the superiority complex, then okay.’

    These videos you linked are nothing but poorly veiled white supremacist justifications. Because someone can speak English well, talk about DNA, and ‘look intelligent’ therefore they are not into white supremacism? Only redneck yobos are unsophisticated enough to be labeled as ‘white supremacists’?

    BTW I’m sure you must know that redneck was a derogatory term used by black slaves about white slaves (of which there were plenty.)

    • John on December 5, 2015 at 13:09

      You’re talking about white supremacists but not talking about people being racist? I was not saying you used the word – excuse the quotation marks used to illustrate the point.

      I didn’t say I agree with the videos – I posted them to say Molyneux discusses the issue.

      As to the videos, if your paragraph labeling them “thinly veiled white supremacist justifications” were a comment on YouTube he would reply “not an argument.”

      I am not a white supremacist. I grew up in a unique area, surrounded with and friends with people of all colors from all over the world. None of us ever seemed to have any concept that there was a difference because of our skins. I didn’t learn how serious people are about race until I moved in my 20’s and various people started telling me I was different because I am white. Honestly, the first time a Spanish speaking person called me “white boy” and made fun of me I was confused – none of my friends from South America or Cuba or anywhere else had ever indicated that they viewed us as different because of color. My close friend from childhood had a white dad and a black mom and I didn’t learn until 10 years later that some people still viewed that as unusual.

      I see a lot of divisive behavior in various groups and it sure as hell is this me causing it or participating.

      Whenever someone accuses me of racism (this is the first time anyone has called me a white supremacist) I tell them they’re full of shit, explain why they’re wrong, and often can point to they’re “pot:kettle” comments pretty easily.

      • John on December 5, 2015 at 13:10

        Ignore grammar errors phone doesn’t like things like “their.”

  9. Daniel on December 5, 2015 at 18:06

    “White supremacy” has two main meanings or implications by those who throw the term around.

    The first is that those who espouse such beliefs want to rule other “inferior” peoples. For anyone who is paying any attention whatsoever to the identitarian and ethnic-based nationalist movements in Europe and the US, this is laughably ignorant. What all of the “white supremacists” are saying is “leave us alone!” “Let us have our own countries! Just like Japan, and Korea, and Africa, and everyone else.”

    The other meaning is a belief in the supreriority of white or European peoples. Well, if look at revealed preference, rather than what people say, then most of the world is “White Supremacist”: they fight tooth and nail to emigrate to white countries. They use electricity, the internal combusion engine, jet engines and other such tranportation devices, not their own traditional ones; they use Western medicine, not their own traditional ones; they use the fruits of sceince; they attend Western universities or create institutions that mimic them, etc. God, all the “cultural appropriation”!

    What I’m writing here is true in a way, but I am also just baiting an obvious idiot like gadkad. The world is complex, people are complex; I judge everyone individually in my interactions with them. Group averages are group averages, individuals are individuals. But, nonetheless, the group averages exist. Cannot ignore either one.

    Intelligence test for you, gabkad: define in one word what John meant by “ancient dinosaur blood”.

    • gabkad on December 5, 2015 at 19:00

      Daniel, I take exception to being called an ‘idiot’. This conversation is finished.

      • Daniel on December 5, 2015 at 19:11

        Here are some of the name-calling appearing in your comments above:




        “white supremacists” (which I showed why is a completely absurd label)



        people who “crawled out of the woodwork”

        people who don’t “get out of [their] basement”

        I somehow managed to keep going. Have a nice day.

    • John on December 5, 2015 at 21:41

      There are certainly people who fit that first definition, as in, there are white people who want to be rulers of the races. Not good. you sort of dismissed that group as nonexistent but people like that exist.

      I don’t care what color or background or culture or whatever anyone is who wants to come to America. As long as they want to join society. I don’t want anyone to “leave us alone” (as Americans, not as whites) unless they threaten our core values like freedom of speech. I’ve got as much problem with whites from Britain coming and bitching about 2nd amendment as I do with Muslims coming and bitching about cartoons of the prophet. It’s not because I have an issue with people having those views. It’s because I don’t want them trying to impose their will on me.

      Gabkad, I still like you!

      I hadn’t seen the video I posted on blacks in sports. It contradicts the assertion you made that the implication is blacks are better at athletics but lower in IQ. They discuss and dismiss the idea, and cite evidence that contradicts that implication they conclude that various capabilities are not some zero sum game.

      • Daniel on December 5, 2015 at 22:30


        People in the first category could be counted on the fingers of one hand. “White supremacy” of that sort is a bogeyman dragged out to shame European people into not having any pride in themselves as a people. There are more Hispanic supremacists (La Raza) than white supremacists, yet no one seems concerned with them. Ever talk with a nationalist Japanese or Chinese or Hindu person? Talk about supremacism. The fact is, only White people are shamed into not taking pride in themselves, and they have a lot to be prideful of.

        May I also note that gabkad’s “contribution” here was to completely derail what had been a dispassionate, respectful and interesting conversation between you, me and some others about a number of topics ranging from political philosophy to the state of nature to the issue of average differences among humans.

        She stuck her nose in, not to offer any substantive value or contribution to those topics, but to say “I smell crimethink! Explain yourself!” You (John) then spent the next five comments defending yourself from insinuating substance-free allegations by someone offering nothing to this conversation. Kudos to you for putting it back on track. But I must say that the thought police and school marms such as gabkad do not deserve any attention. I don’t care whether what I say is “white supremacist”; I care whether it is _true_ or not. The gabkads want to shut down conversation that makes them feel uncomfortable. Feelz, not truth is what matters to them.

      • John on December 5, 2015 at 23:35


        I agree with most of what you say in the above comments and thank you for the compliments. I was just illustrating that the group does exist, but I agree that it must be small. I have never met a single white person who had subjucatory desires for other races.

        Yes – truth! And not unfounded accusations, hypocrisy, and other nonsense.

        As to whites having a lot to be proud of, I don’t necessarily agree. I’m am proud of nothing by virtue of my skin color that I did not personally contribute to or support. I think people get caught up in pride of things they haven’t done, and rest on others’ laurels – finding a common identifier like color or nationality enables people to feel good about that which they have not done.

        I’m proud to support and defend freedom of speech today, but I am not proud to be part of “white people” or “Americans” who drafted the first amendment long before I was born. Just like how I don’t feel shame to be part of “white people” who commit mass murders, because their crimes have nothing to do with me by virtue of skin tone.

      • Richard Nikoley on December 6, 2015 at 12:54

        “As to whites having a lot to be proud of, I don’t necessarily agree. I’m am proud of nothing by virtue of my skin color that I did not personally contribute to or support. I think people get caught up in pride of things they haven’t done, and rest on others’ laurels – finding a common identifier like color or nationality enables people to feel good about that which they have not done.”

        Pet peeve. It’s most pronounced in sports fans yelling “we’re number one!”

        Yes, feel fortunate to identify with, be an associate of on some level, but this vicarious pride—as though what someone or other group actually accomplishes somehow makes you look good and accomplished is tantamount to theft.

  10. jonw on December 6, 2015 at 07:48

    I haven’t formed a fully examined philosophy on immigration and its effects with respect to anarchy.

    Nationality and citizenship are entirely imaginary concepts and not necessary to civilization. They have become universal in the world because they are a great tool to allow a government to categorize and control people with boundaries and passports and such. A national immigration policy — at least as it’s implemented now and I can’t think of any way to do it except by violence and force — violates my individual rights. Because the government restricts liberty based on nationality categories, I can’t conduct a business transaction with my neighbor who lives across the border, I can’t bring him as a guest to my house, etc. If I were from Vancouver I couldn’t make babies with a woman from Seattle and establish a house together, unless we all register and pay fees to some lord or the other.

    I don’t care whether it’s good for world poverty or American culture or the economic welfare of somebody in North Dakota or Florida or whatever. I just want freedom of movement and the liberty to pursue my own affairs without molestation.

    • jonw on December 6, 2015 at 07:57

      I also don’t want to be forced to support anybody else no matter how bad a situation they are fleeing from. I’ll do good and help people on my own terms, not some policy wonk in Washington.

      How all those ideas should come together in my ideal anarchic society I’m not really sure. Like the guy said about slavery somewhere earlier, I just want the moral right thing to happen, and see what develops from there.

  11. Hegemon on December 6, 2015 at 08:18

    Daniel – what you said about contribution to topics is why I appreciate the way Richard replies to people. Take his George Takei post. The replies he got had nothing to do with what he was trying to say. So he just tells them to go away and then ignores any other replies they post. It seems mean to them because they don’t understand what he is telling them when he says Fuck Off. What he is saying is, “You’re changing the subject – you missed the point and your reply has nothing to do with what we are talking about.” I like that style, too – it saves Richard from 300 back-and-forth’s with someone who is obviously not putting forth the effort to be on the same page as the original topic.

    When Richard said, “Don’t hide charity,” the commenters read, “Don’t give charity to kids”. Not at all what Richard said. You have to always take the time to “See what you are looking at,” as an old friend of mine says.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 6, 2015 at 13:00

      Yep, you nailed it there, Hegemon

    • Daniel F on December 6, 2015 at 23:15

      Thanks, Hegemon. (Hey, wait a minute: we’re discussing anarchy as a viable political phiilsophy and here comes a hegemon to butt in! This doesn’t sound good.)

      Seriously though, Richard has taken fucktard dismissal to an entirely different level. It is essentially an art form with him.

      All I did was use the word “idiot”, almost in passing, in the context of a long (substantive) comment. Sheesh! Talk about thin skin.

      Anyway, good-willed, good faith people can and should discuss anything and keep it about substance. If they cannot, it is a waste of time.

      • Richard Nikoley on December 7, 2015 at 15:09

        “Seriously though, Richard has taken fucktard dismissal to an entirely different level. It is essentially an art form with him.”

        Like this?

        Sure, I could have laboriously explained how I like living simple, off the grid, shot some links, pointed out how at the end of the post I wrote that we have only done this rarely and wouldn’t want to do it all the time.

        …But that would have been casting pearls before swinetards.

      • John on December 7, 2015 at 15:35

        I need to take a note from that book. My lengthy comments take too much time to write.

        But I will put in the time with people I know are intelligent.

        Then again, what good is intelligence in others if it is not being applied to the issue being discussed?

        Its not my style to call people idiots, but I will raise an eyebrow when she who yells “walmart-basement dwelling supremacist” gets offended and backs out when called “idiot” by someone else. At the risk of sounding like a male supremacist(?) this seems to be done mostly by non-males.

        Hopefully someone gets some value from this exchange!

  12. Daniel F on December 7, 2015 at 05:32

    The following book released today should be of more than passing interest to Richard and the other commentators on this thread: “Cuckservative: How ‘Conservatives’ Betrayed America”.

    For Richard in particular, I note that Vox Day, who is what we might call a “former libertarian” (because of the immigration issue), says the following in the blog entry announcing the announcement:

    “More than anything, the book is about the puncturing of myths, including many myths that I myself once not only believed, but held inviolate. For many readers here, this will be a distinctly uncomfortable read, in some cases, perhaps even an infuriating one. And for those who are inclined to take some of the aspects of the book too personally, I would remind you that while the macro is not the micro and the exceptions are not the rules, it is the averages, the rules, and the macro that determine the fate of nations.”

    Note that both Vox Day and the other co-author have Native American ancestry. When they speak of the dangers of mass immigration to a population, they know whereof they speak.

    (Richard, Vox’s SJWs Always Lie is also worth reading; given your fed-up-ness with leftists, entryists, the gay thing as an agenda, etc., that is the book to read.)

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.