What if libertarians wrote about Michael Lind the way he writes about libertarians? This post gives Michael Lind the Michael Lind treatment.

Progressivism has long been a cover for the most vile forms of misanthropy. Early 20th century progressives were generally eugenicists with a soft spot for fascism. W. E. B. DuBois said that fascism was “absolutely necessary to get the state in order” in Germany, and even as late as 1937 was still saying that Hitler’s Germany was more democratic than its immediate predecessors. In 1933, Lowell Thomas was defending Mussolini in film, while Columbia Pictures produced advertisements saying that fascism “might be the answer to America’s needs”.

Fast forward to today, and we find racism alive and well on the pages of Salon. Michael Lind wants national purity, and he’s willing to make the rest of us pay $70 trillion a year to get it.

Just what is it Lind opposes when he opposes open borders? As “bleeding heart libertarian” philosopher Jason Brennan says,

Many on the left in American and European politics claim to care about the poor. But their hearts bleed for the American and European lower classes—that is, for people who are wealthy by world standards—not for the world’s poorest people. Most people on the progressive left actively try to restrain the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people from making life-saving and life-changing trades with willing employers. They thus condemn the world’s poor to death and misery.

Libertarians have long been the champions of the global poor. They repeatedly challenge the Left and Right: everyone matters, not just people from your own country. We need to stop worrying so much about enriching the rich, but instead worry about making sure the poor don’t get left behind.

But, as you’ve no doubt seen, Michael Lind attacks libertarianism–the only philosophy that champions the poor–every chance he gets. As Lind says, the problem with libertarianism is that it thinks “you can’t prefer the well-being of your own country’s disadvantaged to the global poor”. But, Lind says, maintaining a modern tax-and-transfer entitlement state is impossible with mass immigration. Michael Lind says we have to choose: either A) enrich the world’s poor, or B) tax Bill Gates to make sure Lind’s rich children get “free” university education and healthcare.  Lind’s choice: screw poor people. They aren’t Americans. What matters is making sure that the global 1% pay off the global 5%; the other 95% be damned.

Don’t be fooled by Lind’s pretenses at altruism. It’s surprising that some libertarians are naive enough to fall for the insincere claim that Lind’s nationalist socialism is motivated by concern for the domestic relatively poor. Lind doesn’t care about those who are genuinely poor. He’s perfectly happy for them to suffer, starve, and die, so long as they suffer, starve, and die on the other side of the fences he wants to build. No, Lind’s politics is a manifestation of hate for those above and below. He envies those who earn more than he does. He wants the government to take their money and give it to him. And he hates those below him so much he doesn’t even want to let you pay then to mow your lawn. Lind’s politics is nothing more than selfishness, envy, and racism in disguise.