How exactly does Bryan Caplan differ from Cultural Marxists?

Nick Land has up an excellent post pointing out the absurdities of Bryan Caplan’s libertarian suicide race, which brings up another question.

How exactly does Bryan Caplan differ from Cultural Marxists?  Let’s look at similarities:  support of mass Third World immigration into the West: check; war against the biological family:  check; hostility against ethnocentrism (esp. among whites): check; bleeding-heart sentimentalism about how “bad” it is in Third World and how it’s Westerners’ moral imperative to let the Third World move to the West: check.

At the end of the day, the fanatical libertarianism of Bryan Caplan seems not to differ much from Cultural Marxism in that they both have the same goal:  the destruction of the historic West.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “How exactly does Bryan Caplan differ from Cultural Marxists?

  1. A commenter left this at Outside In:

    SCENE: The Caplan Household, as Junior arrives back from school.

    *Junior comes through the door, and sees Bryan Caplan playing with another child, one of indeterminate Asian ethnicity*

    JUNIOR: Dad, what’s going on?

    CAPLAN: Don’t call me that anymore. I have a new son now…Ming.

    JUNIOR: What do you mean?

    CAPLAN: Well ex-son, Ming is just the more efficient choice. If you look at these indifference maps, you’ll see that my utility is maximized when I use Ming as my son over you. He’s just a more efficient choice, ex-son. I spend much less on child care, and he is happy eating a bowl of rice a day. And he takes care of himself, not only meaning he’s going to be a much better libertarian son than you’ll ever be, but also allowing me to post more on my blog about how things like “borders”, “nations”, “cultures”, and “family” are all just irrational thoughts that keep us from total efficiency.

    *camera cuts to a close up of Junior crying*

    *cue asthmatic laughing of live audience full of jorts-wearing libertarians*

  2. An excellent and pithy summation of the grand strategy that has been embraced and relentlessly implemented by a grand alliance of the cultural & classical left-wing Marxists, Zionist neocons, and — to use Lenin’s favorite label — an assortment of “useful idiots,” made up of dysfunctional, suicidal, and bleeding-heart White “liberals.”

    No matter where they may be found on the political spectrum at any given time, they are out to destroy what remains of Christianity-based (no hyphenated “Judeo-Christian oxymoron here) Western civilization of the Caucasian White race, whose numbers are fast declining (currently about 15 % of the global population) in all the formerly solidly White-inhabited Europe, North Americas, Australia, and New Zealand, due to

  3. He’s also a pacifist, just to complete the idiocy trifecta. Any country that was foolish enough to adopt Bryan Caplan’s recommendations would be destroyed in a matter of days, possibly hours; a country would actually be better off adopting genuine, Soviet-style Communism than Caplan’s nonsense, and that’s saying something.

  4. I think the root of the problem lies in Caplan’s dogmatic utilitarian individualism. He believes in the good of Homo economicus-type selfishness for individuals, which is why he wouldn’t behave according to KK’s story, but he doesn’t have a good concept of collective interest, so when it comes to entities beyond the individual, he defaults to Singerian universalism, which is why he’s indistinguishable from your average American liberal when it comes to immigration and foreign policy.

  5. Imagine a nation where, when you turned 21, you had to either leave (minors are considered their parents’ chattels, not citizens) or sign an oath to put the interests of other citizens above the interests of foreigners in various ways, including registering for the draft and agreeing to serve. I suspect that one of the things that Caplan has trouble accepting is the idea of having a moral obligation that one did not agree to explicitly and voluntarily. Radical libertarians don’t want to think of nations and governments as having moral standing, but I don’t think they have this problem with marriages or various kinds of clubs. I think the way to talk to libertarians is to frame a “nation” as a weird kind of club.

  6. They don’t necessarily have the same *goal*. Some libertarians are well meaning, naive, individuals who just so happen to be struggling with a serious case of autism spectrum disorder. They don’t necessarily intend the disastrous consequences that would happen if their policies were implemented in the real world, where neurotypical people exist.

    But their policies would produce the same *result* as those of the cultural marxists, so they should be treated with a similar level of hostility.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s