So, according to Tucker, the “fullness of (humanity’s) fruits” is being trampled by high time preference-types for a $200 Playstation 3. Most of them are buying these deals on credit, as well. I’m sure our ancestors are proud.
This article is my attempt to start an open dialogue with libertarians in the same vein as Darth Stirner’s “Fascist Libertarianism” article.
I also see a potential alliance and compatibility between occidental traditionalists and libertarians; at least, those of a more minarchist persuasion. Google analytics and social networking tends to support this idea.
It is my intent to argue that the liberty so many seek will be better achieved within a more TRS narrative. That even if you do not fully agree or wish to reflect on such a matter, extenuating circumstances and a growing Fifth Column moves towards forcing your hand one way or another.
There has been a flurry of recent social media activity regarding one Christopher Cantwell, an outspoken and acerbic fellow associated with the post-Raw Paw liberty movement.
The cause of this kerfuffle? Cantwell committed the mortal sin of logically applying libertarian ideas outside the bounds of the Overton Window.
…Not surprisingly, jimmies have been rustled.
Response to: The 5 stages of becoming an anarchist
Maybe you’re no longer an anarchist. But TRS? NO WAY.
Some day, however, you might be.
On the road to Right Stuff, there are five stages. And unlike ancap applications of the Kübler-Ross model, you will not come out posting profile pictures looking like a goofy motherfucker.
Earlier this week, traitor and psychopath “Buffalo Bill” Manning was sentenced to serve between seven and thirty-five years at Ft. Leavenworth prison for leaking government secrets. These secrets reveal that our country does, in fact, conduct war and diplomacy.
Attentionwhore progressives have begun the process of formally canonizing this treasonous tranny; the process will likely be fast-tracked due to his trendy sexual issues. In fact, a super-duper brave Icelandic dyke has gone so far as to nominate PFC Tuck-dick for a Nobel Peace Prize.
I would rather Obama receive the award. Again.
It is a popular argument among the “classical” liberals that theirs is the correct strain of liberal thought, that the popular leftism of today has deviated too far from its roots and is no longer viable.
The classical liberal types argue that their differences in application of liberal ideals are profound; we argue that they are superficial.
That is why, in this short article, we will compare the modern liberal’s infamous “Life Of Julia” with the classical liberal’s threadbare “Free Market.”
“The Right of Private Judgment led to the doctrine of Human Individuality, and a Social Contract to restrict that individuality. Hence arose the doctrines of Laissez-faire, free competition, human equality, freedom of religion, of speech and of the press, and universal liberty.
The right of Private Judgment, naturally enough, leads to the right to act on that judgment, to the supreme sovereignty of the individual, and the abnegation of all government.”
Derived from Luther’s heresy, Liberalism is a philosophy that divides man’s natural tendencies between selfishness and gregariousness, and sets them in opposition against each other; the rights of man vs the ordering of mankind.
Let me begin by stating that I believe everyone reading this article will at least share my desire for a more orderly and prosperous society than what currently exists in the West today. With that said, my criticisms and considerations are mainly directed at libertarians.
I should preface that I myself have been a libertarian since 2007 or so. I supported Ron Paul in 2008 and would have liked to have seen him get the GOP nomination at least in 2012. Besides that I have read, watched and studied libertarian ideology since then, so don’t believe a return criticism that can be leveled at me is, “he just doesn’t understand libertarianism!” In fact, it is my understanding of the subject that informs these criticisms.
Libertarians desire a society that has more personal liberty, economic freedom and less “nanny state” molestation of the individual. These are indeed admirable goals, but their ways of achieving these are mistaken. Many think this can be done through either nonviolence and the non-aggression principle, or a sort of Fabian philosophical drift.
Seeing nothing new under the sun, I’ve come to think, as The Joker put it, “that is the one rule you’ll have to break to know the truth.” To paraphrase him, the only sensible way to live in this world and achieve your goals is not through the absence of rules(ers), but by not allowing everyone to decide on the rules.
Objectivism, to me, is an ideology best compared to a brilliant child reared in a broken home. Good genetics, poor environment. What beauty results is forever crippled by the realization of what could have been.
Many today are content with simply bashing the Objectivist ideology; it is my intent to present to you, dear reader, a more somber narrative. This is because, to me, there exists no modern ideology more incomplete, and therefore more tragic, than this one.
…Except you’re not a hero. And you know it.
Anarchy for you is a means to avoid (actual) criticism, which is to say, reflection. Anarchy is therefore a form of #postmodern #ironic living. A means to ignore that horrible stranger you see in the mirror every morning. A means to ignore your existence as a battery for the system you are supposed to hate, and yet are quietly and secretly terrified of losing. Yours is an ideological battered spouse syndrome. Get back in the kitchen.