This article was inspired by Anenome’s brilliant piece here. Perhaps I can not say that I fully agree with him and the way that he has presented his arguments – it may even be possible that ideologically speaking, I actually stand somewhere in between Anenome and the alt-right… I’m not entirely sure yet, but there are some things that I am certain about, and I would like to talk about them a bit more on here.

 

On one hand, virtually everything that Anenome has to say about IQ is true and shouldn’t be overlooked by the alt-right; for instance, his comments on illusory-superiority and the bias-blind spot, or the very factual observations that a great proportion of leading or prominent socialists had high IQs, and that an almost equally great proportion of leading or prominent people with high IQs were fervent socialists.
On the other hand, he does largely overlook undeniable statistical correlations that suggest a link between growing low IQ population and the expansion of the state, much despite the accuracy of the aforementioned observations.

A conclusion might be drawn that the State has an unstoppable and inevitable tendency to expand endlessly, and in order to keep doing so, it’ll target every single demographic and employ all means available to it.

An argument can then be made that low IQ demographics are more widely available to government, and/or simply easier (and cheaper) for the government to manipulate to its advantage – this is probably true, so the best counterargument that I can come up with is: does it really matter? Should this really affect how we act and what strategies we employ in order to remove or minimise the government?

I mean, one of the strongest arguments that exists against government is the inefficiency and counterproductivity of central planning (both social and economic), as opposed to the spontaneous order produced in a system of completely voluntary association. Can central planning of the population (whether through an innocent immigration policy, or something more sinister such as eugenics; the same principle applies no matter the means), in an attempt to increase the average IQ of the population, really ever lead to less government, or will it instead create (or maintain) a society that is highly dependent on and even demands more central planning?

By the way, I don’t classify voluntary and contractual agreements between property owners as a type of “central planning”, so of course I don’t oppose all and any kinds of border control or migratory restrictions, just the ones that are imposed by a racketeering band of violent monopolists.

Now sure, I won’t deny the alt-right claims that importing low IQ groups is a strategy that the leftists in power are using to preserve their hold on government, that it is destroying (what little is left of) american culture, and that we can either stay on this path of self-destruction which will mean the end of the US as a global power, or we can elect a strongman who will stop and maybe even reverse this process…

But if we go in the latter direction, and assuming that this has all the effects that alt-righters think it will have… What do you think happens then? Here’s my prediction: cultural and economic collapse is prevented (but not really, just postponed), a semblance of peace and relative prosperity is restored, the country is no longer up in arms and looking for radical alternatives… And what then? I’ll tell you what then: business as usual. The average joe once again stops paying any attention to politics, and the usual, same old career politicians come back in, taking advantage of the return to widespread complacency, putting the government’s expansionary cogwheels back in action, and most probably, starting a gradual return to do whatever policies help a government grow, including, presumably, the import of low IQ groups.

So here’s the analogy I always bring up: Lets go back to the bare basics of economics, and look at business cycle theory… When do you think, if ever, would be the best time to convince the masses to support abolishing fractionary reserve banking (or central banks in general, for that matter): during a boom, or during a bust? During which of these two phases are people most receptive to arguments against “the system”? Which of these two phases is best to get people riled up and political?

But the analogy doesn’t end there, in fact, it is remarkable how far you can compare financial booms and busts to cultural booms and busts: Yes, you can “avoid” a recession by enacting stronger monetary policy. Central banks do this all the time, bloody self-congratulatory pricks… But what exactly does this accomplish? A few more months or years of living in a bubble, and a much worse burst at the end of it, resulting in aggravated financial woes, particularly to the lower and middle classes, and a much longer recovery period for the overall economy, as a much greater quantity of malinvestments are liquidated and reinvested during the much-dreaded, but necessary, correction phase.

So, to sum this up: Yes, we are facing a cultural crisis that is leading to an inevitably painful collapse. Yes, we can push back this collapse by adopting a stricter immigration policy. But no, we can not avoid it, and the longer we try to avoid it, the more devastating it will be in the end.

On the other hand, central banks usually take advantage of economic recessions to justify new financial regulations and granting themselves the ability to perpetuate the problem by starting a new cycle. Ultimately, the unfortunate truth is that while we can’t (as much as Chicagoites might insist to the contrary) force the Fed to implement better sets of rules that won’t cause recessions, we haven’t been successful at abolishing it either.

The reason for this is because right now, our grassroots action is weak, we libertarians just don’t know how to use the media to our advantage, direct an efficacious civic protest, and effect political reform. So much so, that central banks are actually able to take the chaos that they themselves create and manipulate it to their own advantage better than we are able to use it against them – even when it is actually incredibly simple to demonstrate who is really at fault and propose an equally simple solution to the problem (abolish the Fed).

But mark my words, if there ever is a successful campaign that actually manages to abolish the Fed, it will not be during peaceful and prosperous times – it will be right after a painful recession the likes of which we’ve last seen in 2008. And this is the reason why we libertarians should consider stopping to try and make the federal government less burdensome or more sustainable, and instead focus on real issues such as the devolution of powers; fighting for the right of self-determination at the most local level possible, even if we have to start with states rights and work our way downwards from there. Liberty will emerge from localism and decentralisation, not centralism and immigration policies.