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.
It is a good idea when analyzing any social phenomenon or institution to look at how it is viewed in the present context by various groups in society and ask why they hold the view that they do. This can be a revealing exercise. If we know about the ideology of a certain group, and we know their general opinion of a certain institution, we can put them together and perhaps see something in that institution that we may have missed if we were to rely entirely on our own reactions, perspectives and prejudices. (MFW Standpoint theory.)
When it comes to capitalism today in the West, we can safely say that it is viewed in a poor light by the liberal intellectual establishment, commonly referred to as the Brahmins. If you are a former libertarian turned reactionary, I urge you to put aside whatever perspective bias you may be suffering from after years of imbibing Rothbard and living inside the libertarian echo-chamber. Pick up the NY Times and see what people with actual power in society today think of capitalism. It’s an interesting contrast from the endless praise and even outright worship it gets from the bow-tie/fedora sect.
Art by Steve GREENBERG. Of course.
Q: Why are the liquor store, projects, and quickie loans on the Republican side?
A: The negroes can’t afford to live in the white Democrat side. LOL when you realize that the Democrats achieve what white racial separatists desire, and with efficient cars to boot!
The Caucasian ethnic group has long amused itself with creative story telling, a habit forever immortalized by the countless religions, epics, novels and plays put down to paper by creative light skinned humans over the years. The art of the narrative is so ingrained in white culture that virtually any situation, no matter how trivial, becomes a riveting drama in the hands of whites. (Try turning on the television, for example.)
Formerly the white man was emotionally invested in his various Abrahamic religions and pursued all manner of heroic, imminently entertaining conflicts in the name of self validation in the face of God. Unfortunately this show was cancelled because a handful of frumpy atheists thought it was too violent for young audiences. Thankfully, another story had been put down to paper long before the death of God: This one was called “The Struggle Against Tyranny” and it found a very large audience. But after a couple centuries or so of defeating all the Evil Bad Guys, this tale had begun to grow rather stale. After all, one could not very well rail against tyrannical despots while living comfortably in a Democracy™ where the individual himself was theoretically responsible for public policy in some fashion or other. The fact that Democracy™, cast as the most moral system of government ever devised, played the role of hero in the story of The Struggle Against Tyranny further complicated matters.
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.”
Three cheers for democracy in action!–yes, that’s what they called it. I recently received a letter in the mail from my credit union informing me that elections for the board of directors are coming up, and that it is very important for me to carefully screen the candidates and to ponder–with fear and trembling–the most suitable ones. They even had a list of recommended candidates–candidates that are on the cutting edge of faggotry advocacy, and so on. Of course, we all know that democracy is supposed to be an impartial process by which the originator of the election is not at all supposed to be involved in the process due to conflicts of interest, but I guess there’s an exception for everything. “I MEAN, THESE CANDIDATES WERE JUST SU GUD WE HAD TO STRONGLY, STRONGLY RECOMMEND THEM.”
It is indeed a melancholy object for one to consider the topic of abortion in these “United” States. Hundreds of years trading blood and lives in the name of progress (not always a fair trade), yet still we drag along the flotsam of a past best left forgotten.
A strong minority, comprising tens of millions of our “fellow citizens,” still harbor misplaced nostalgia for a time when a woman had no say in whether or not she must endure the presence of a parasitic life-form within her own person.
Consider it: our female population, living the honest, equal, and consumptive existence guaranteed to all Americans (as well as some others), would instead be relegated to mere breed stock for the nation. Such thinking is a barbarous relic, anathema to any true American. I sometimes wonder if these Fox News-types sing the Horst Wessel Lied when we’re not paying attention. Susan B. Anthony, bless her, must be spinning in her grave.
Across America the Progressive chant goes unchallenged: “DIVERSITY IS OUR GREATEST STRENGTH.” But America’s strength is derived from a Caucasian heritage. We live in a country whose power came from white nationalism and that same power now wanes because of diversity. Just look at the 1790 census. As most Progressives will criticize, voting was originally restricted to white landowning males. Society has changed considerably since then, the franchise has been expanded and as Reactionaries know, this is a twisted and deluded sense of “progress.”
The reason why America and the Western world are wealthier and more successful than swarthier countries is fairly obvious: biology trumps sociology. Political systems mean little if you’re working with sub-humans. Whites can prosper even in ridiculous governments like Soviet-style Communism. Whites are innovators, creative geniuses. Mathematics, science, architecture, engineering, philosophy, you name it and white people are most likely at the forefront of the field. Plastic, televisions, wireless communication, aircraft, much of modern medicine, computers, all were invented by white men.
Translation: After (Ron) Paul, Dildos.
Ron Paul, our generation’s William Jennings Bryan, has largely run his course. The man who for decades bravely griefed Congress and disrupted Republican Primaries, now talks shit about dead people on twitter. He who lives by the troll dies by the troll, I suppose.
Following his not-so-stellar progress in 2010-11, these actions certainly don’t surprise me; here was a man ultimately less interested in cultivating a meaningful counter-narrative, and more interested in pissing people off before collecting his Congressional pension.
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.