Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
This is a pretty common sentiment in a lot of other countries, not just the United States. There's an ongoing culture clash between coastal elites and the countryside everywhere.

Here's a map of the recent Turkish referendum, which decided the question of whether to replace the parliamentary system with a presidential one, and thereby give more powers to the executive. The "Yes" vote squeaked by with a small majority thanks to voters in the more Islamist and conservative heartland, in large part because the would-be president was also a Muslim conservative.

Brexit also surely comes to mind.

Displaced workers and the economy are surely important factors, but I agree that a lot of it is racism and exaggerated fears of 'change' (read: homosexuality in media and immigrants). I'll listen to counterarguments, but I also believe that a lot of it is pure tribalism against distant power centres that are perceived as different rather than simply indifferent; and there are plenty of historical examples of countryside people switching to a clashing ideology out of resentment for the central government. End's rhetoric about "demonic" and "pagan" liberal elites certainly illustrates that point.

I've also always suspected that much of American libertarianism is simply disguised nativism; the hostility towards immigrant workers is entirely uncharacteristic for an ideology that promotes the freedom of movement of capital. Even the Tea Party was more than about defending "free market" principles, but also included agitation and support in favour of the paternalistic American military state. These people take a kinder view to government interventionism when it takes the form of building border walls—Rush Limbaugh is quintessentially this type of person.
Glad and yet not glad to see my theories vindicated yet again. What you pointed out was/is within the realms of possibility in regards to my own theories. Sadly, those were the negative possibilities. Nobody wants to be a Cassandra, yet I seem to be one yet again.

In regards to the libertarians. It isn't disguised, it's just the logical outcome of that ideology.

People naturally prefer to live among their "own" as it were. As I've said many times before, the only thing that "trumps" ethnicity/race is religion. Only a common deity can unite those of different looks and languages in any meaningful and lasting way. I refer you to Hans-Hermann Hoppe and his concept of "covenant communities". That's what a libertarian society/utopia ultimately looks like. It comes complete with the "physical removal" of anyone who isn't on board with the covenant of that particular region. The Catholic community holds belief in Catholicism to be mandatory. As does the Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, etc. They can all live next to each other in almost perfect harmony despite what you may think. Just so long as they all share the "pacifist" modifier if ya catch my meaning. All would, in this example, be so absolutely confident in their convictions that they saw the conversion of all the others as a mere matter of time. A decade, a century, they'd all be ultimately certain that they held closest to the "truth" and thus, given enough time, the others would come around. Why kill the ancestor of a future brother/sister in the one true faith after all?

Now, if one of those was a "militant" community things get a bit interesting. Jihadis and Crusaders can war all they want until one conquers the other as they'd doubtlessly agree to, but if they tried to make the pacifists choose, well, that'd probably get them all to join hand in kumbaya and fight against the crazies who obviously lack the necessary confidence in their convictions to be considered true believers in their faiths!