The Alt-Right are the Real Laissez-Faire

At the root of libertarianism lies the doctrine of laissez-faire: live and let live. What this means in practical terms is that the government should stay out of our business as much as possible. Libertarianism seeks to limit violence except as necessary (minarchist state) as a means to curbing even greater violence (anarchy, warlordism, and authoritarianism). Libertarianism in its purest form (anarcho-capitalism) states that the only legitimate methods of property acquisition are homesteading and trade. Everything else is an act of theft and therefore violates the NAP.

The reality of life this side of the Garden of Eden is that rights inevitably conflict and can only be resolved with violence or threats thereof. The current distribution of property rights is such that everything we own and enjoy is ours because our ancestors seized it from weaker peoples by force. Tracing the ownership of any piece of land or tangible piece of property (or its component parts) to its source inevitably leads us to some point at which someone used violence or threats thereof to acquire and maintain possession of said property. You come from a long line of primates who survived because their baboon mindframe gave them a leg up on the neanderthal version of our contemporary numales, not because their property and posterity (us) was protected by some abstract concept of natural rights. Indeed, the very existence of natural rights depends upon the ability of a people to defend them—with violence, if necessary.

In a very real and literal sense, might makes right. Perhaps not moral right in some metaphysical sense, but legal rights are certainly acquired and maintained by might. That said, might doesn't necessarily take the form of martial prowess. For example, Jews have accrued immense power and influence through taking advantage of the pathological altruism of their host goyim and leaching resources. Indeed, parasitism has become the preferred will to power of inferior races in our postmodern era thanks to the prevalence of slave morality. Whether in the form of cuckservatism or SJWism, these ideologies are all inherently dysgenic by virtue of placing constraints on the weeding of unfit specimens of humanity.

Libertarianism is a special form of slave morality insofar as it rejects the use of superior ability in one field of endeavor (military conquest) while glorifying another (shekel-grubbing). It's unsurprising, then, that we find so many Jewish intellectuals at the forefront of this movement. (See: Mises, Rothbard, Rand, Friedman, Block, et al.) In the same way, every other race tends to promote worldviews that plays toward their own comparative advantages. (Except for whites, who, thanks to our unique evolutionary past, stubbornly stick to a unilateral, pathological altruism that has put us at risk of becoming a minority in our own countries.) Nonetheless, I maintain that libertarianism is superior to other forms of slave morality, insofar as it maintains some form of meritocracy, thereby placing a hard and fast limit on the cuckoldy and dysgenics inherent in slave morality.

How, then, shall we live? Shall we form roving bands of Donovan-esque gangs, raping and plundering the postmodern Weimerican landscape like a gaggle of googles? By no means! Civilization is the harnessing of this instinct—this orangutan outlook, if you will—for the preservation and accelerated evolution of one's volk. Returning to a primitive state of societal organization is discarding thousands of years of progress—not the Progress™ of Hilary Clinton, but real progress—the progress of our people at a genetic level. The ape instinct plays a vital role in overcoming the false consciousness of racial cuckoldry, but it must not be altogether succumbed to, lest we suffer the fate of the martyred Harambe.

Civilization has actually lead to the accelerated evolution of mankind, as described in the very redpilling 10,000 Year Explosion:

Cultural innovation has been a driving force behind biological change in humans for a long time—certainly since the first use of tools some 2.5 million years ago. Natural selection acting on the hominid brain made those early innovations possible, and the innovations themselves led to further physical and mental changes.

Biological and cultural co-evolution was slow at first, at least by modern standards, but gradually things sped up. The archaeological record shows that our capacity for innovation continued to increase until, about 40,000 years ago, we were primed for what has been called the “human revolution” or the “creative explosion” of the Upper Paleolithic in Europe and northern Asia. This sudden spurt in technology and art occurred shortly after modern humans expanded out of Africa—and it too must have involved biological changes, changes that we suspect were driven in part by genes stolen from Neanderthals and other archaic humans, the previous occupants of Eurasia. Behavioral modernity led to even more change: Men made better tools and then, in turn, were reshaped by those tools over many generations. (225-6)

This explosion was accelerated with the development of agriculture in a way that altered both our culture and biology at an increased rate. Moreover, the change is ongoing, and perhaps even continuing to accelerate as technology advances exponentially. The prospects for our future as a species are unbearably exciting. (Galactic lebensraum when?) By submitting ourselves to this process, to the “natural order”—in short, to fascism—we give our people (and by extension, mankind as a whole) the best possible shot at winning the game of life.

Where we differ from cucks and shitlibs is in our acknowledgment of the nature of this hierarchy—it is violence, red in tooth and claw. Albert Jay Nock's pejorative description of the origin of the state in “conquest and confiscation” (see Chapter 2 of Our Enemy, the State) is far more apt than Rousseau's or Locke's utopian social contracts—or, even worse, Rawls' “veil of ignorance.” We simply disagree with Nock's assertion that such a violent monopoly is a bad thing—it simply is.

In conclusion, the alt-right are the real laissez-faire because we believe in letting the natural order assert itself without injecting futile utopian schemes of social engineering. The success of such schemes relies upon Jewish sociology and anthropology being true, and not merely part of a group evolutionary strategy, pursued consciously or unconsciously—to subvert gentile society and make it more welcoming for the chosen.

The libertarian strawman of authoritarianism as an instrument of chaotic violence interfering with peaceful market order is a revision of thousands of years of political thought in which right-wing politics represent order, and liberalism represents a gateway for parasitic foreigners to subvert and destroy everything a people holds sacred. The continued evolution of the white man—indeed, our very survival as a race—depends upon the rejection of libertarian false consciousness. Flawed enlightenment ideas going back to John Locke's tabula rasa will either be supplanted with traditional, hierarchical, authoritarian institutions (three adjectives sure to send any lolbertarian into a paroxysm) or our people are doomed to go the way of the Neanderthal. With us goes humanity's greatest hope of leaving an indelible mark upon not just humble Terra, but the furthest reaches of the Milky Way Galaxy.