The longbeards, as they were to be known, was a tribe of the very early Middle Ages. What we know of their fifth-century origins comes from the Origo Gentis Langobardorum, a short 7th-century, Latin account offering the founding myth.
Regarding the Winnili: their ruler was a woman called Gambara; they were about to enter battle against the Vandals; they went to Odin and his wife Frea for help; Frea suggested that the women of Winnili tie their long hair in front of their faces such that they pass as men with beards in the battle.
At sunrise, Frea turned her husband’s bed so that he was facing east, and woke him. Godan [Odin] saw the women of the Winnili, their hair tied in front of their faces, and asked “Who are these longbeards?”, and Frea replied, since you named them, give them victory, and he did. From this day, the Winnili were called Langobardi, “longbeards”.
And these are known to us as the Lombards.
No Longer Anonymous
Anonimo Lombardo (no longer to be an anonymous Lombard: from now on to be known as Gambara, a woman of the Winnili), posting as Anonymous October 21, 2017 at 8:57 AM in the comments for my post regarding Hoppe. I tried ignoring it…but, well you can read the comments to see why and how I changed my mind (more like changed my mood; if it is important for you to understand what I mean, take a look).
If I am going to spend energy on her comments, I felt I should at least both learn and offer to the readers something of the history.
Gambara doesn’t like Hoppe; that’s fine with me and I suspect fine with Hoppe (like Gambara would be the first in line for this!). But this isn’t really the issue. Gambara doesn’t like Hoppe for things Hoppe hasn’t written (or at least nothing cited in my post) and doesn’t like Hoppe for reasons that fly in the face of reality.
Bear with me; I don’t like this any more than you do.
Hoppe is a mess…
Now…you tell me…would you keep reading this comment – the very opening sentence – after you just wrote 2000 words for a post labeled “I Love Hans Hoppe”? I need more mood-changing liquid….
– about gays/women / blacks / minorities… rights: you do not have to be of those categories to advocate for special rights. In addition, not every gays/women/blacks/etc… advocates for those kind of fake rights.
Hoppe, in confusing gay people and gay rights advocates, rises animosity against the wrong targets.
Has Hoppe limited himself to these targets? Does Hoppe ignore the abuses of other groups, include white males? Gambara would know that the answer is a resounding “no” if she would read what was written.
Do You Promise to Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth…? Even though Gambara’s statements are true, they are not the whole truth. Four things are quite true: first, these groups all successfully demand fake rights; second, white males are the only group not only disallowed from demanding special rights but forced to accept special abuses; third, anyone who denounces this (even on libertarian grounds) is labeled a racist, a homophobe, or a white supremacist (just ask Gambara, she will do this shortly); fourth, the state uses all of this to its advantage.
– there are not only people who advocate for gays/blacks/women/ minorities/etc… special fake rights, but also a lot of people who advocates for special fake rights for white, hetero, Christians, men, and families… those people are often part of the Alt-right, isn’t that a problem for Hoppe? mumble… mumble…
I am having a hard time finding any laws on the books that give fake rights to “white, hetero, Christians, men, and families…” Are there laws on the books that give rights to whites because they are white; heteros because they are hetero; Christians because they are Christian; men because they are men; or families because they are families?
OK…I will allow for three such laws…but not more. This in comparison to 2,438,745,666 laws in favor of these other “groups.” That Gambara is a stickler for the trivial – you will never hide a needle in ten-dozen haystacks that is outside of her vision. But…well, she did walk with the gods.
– Immigrants don’t have to be productive, they only have to live without violating the NAP, in so far as libertarianism is concern.
There are two groups of non-productive people that I know who are not violating the NAP…actually, one. I was going to include the bums who sleep over the subway grates for warmth, but they are trespassing. So, only those who live in totally voluntarily funded shelters qualify. We will examine this shortly.
Many people are unproductive in society. But if other people voluntary pay for them, there are no NAP violations.
I find about 400,000 live in homeless shelters in the United States. While I am certain that many of these live in shelters that are partially or wholly government funded, I will give Gambara the benefit of the doubt. Meanwhile, there are 46 million on food stamps.
Everyone can think numerous examples.
So…less than 1% lives within your reality. You call this “numerous examples”? Do you believe the data is significantly different for the immigrant population? Like in Germany today, for example?
– Sociology and psychology are good fields of research, and can give us a more realistic prospective on things. For example, theoretically you can be a racist, a homophobic, a white supremacist, and a libertarian. But reality teach us (but someone doesn’t want to learn) that very often those people – coincidence! – become violent, and – so strange! – aggressive against the categories of people they despise.
I should have begun here and if I had half a brain I would end here. Actually, I am going to end it here.
Racist: the single-most important relationship anyone enters into is that of marriage. Ninety percent of marriages are within the same race, and eighty-three percent of newlyweds are within the same race.
Homophobic: a grand total of 3.8% of the population identifies as LGBT, which means 96.2% do not.
Gambara – are you as shocked as I am that the entire United States has not spontaneously self-combusted? After all, well over 90% of Americans, on average, in their most important relationships in life act on views that you believe are “violent, and – so strange! – aggressive against the categories of people they despise.”
As to white supremacists: nine percent of Americans hold such views (and for some reason I doubt the number is this high. This means 91% do not. The media has blown up this “:white supremacist” thing beyond all reality, in order to stoke confrontation and fear of Trump and those who support him.
OK, I didn’t end it there. Gambara has added a couple more comments:
Anonymous October 22, 2017 at 1:22 AM
But I’ m glad to read unhappy answer.. with his opinions about gays and Aryans, becouse it is so clear in reading is his words that libertarians that serch for an alliance with those people are out of their minds and are proposing the complete derailment of libertarianism.
I guess it depends what you mean by “alliance” and what you believe to be important. To the extent I find people who value western civilization, patriarchal family governance, Christian tradition and morals…I will find reason to ally. I have said more than once: I would rather have Pat Buchanan as a neighbor than many “libertarians.”
I am happy to form an alliance with anyone who is against the foreign interventions of the United States government. This makes me an ally of many people who hold what I consider to be horrible views on economics: for example, The Saker. Frankly, if we can realize the taming of the Anglo-empire to even some degree in my lifetime this would be enough for me – I will live with municipal trash service.
Childish libertarians believe the world begins and ends with the NAP: as long as we believe in the NAP, all else will resolve itself. Not me.
Right libertarianism is libertarian in name only. Every time I read here I become more sure of this.
“Libertarian in name only,” in other words, pure NAP, is a world that will never exist in a world of imperfect humans. Every time I read a comment by someone who promotes such an idea I become more sure of the childish thought process behind such a sentiment.
Anonymous October 22, 2017 at 2:08 AM
I will put things in another way: libertarianism is a procedural theory of justice, it does not imply a defined state of things to reach and maintain but a procedure to follow.
Do you believe this “procedure to follow” is achievable for anyone, anywhere, regardless of the cultural soil upon which he was raised? Do you believe this “procedure to follow” can survive in any cultural soil?
Right libertarians call themselves realists, but in reality the big majority of people, think that the criteria Hoppe is proposing are repulsive, so it must be possible to be libertarian and very far from Hoppe’s view, or libertarianism is doomed. So much for realism.
You believe patriarchal family, tradition, Christian values, and western civilization to be repulsive? Curious.
In reality the “big majority of people” think that “pure” libertarians are repulsive: stand in a town square and read aloud all of Walter Block’s “Defending the Undefendable.” There is pure NAP for you. Tell them that this is the perfect world. In any town other than the completely libertine, you will be lucky to get out alive.
Gambara, you are silly and out-of-touch with reality; you have no comprehension of the value of society and culture – and the value of these to a libertarian world. Or, as Hoppe has identified those such as you: Stupids for Liberty, or a Liberallala-Libertarian.
Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.