This is a response to the butthurt that occurred after Northman’s recent article Women Should Hate Freedom.
In theory libertarianism is all about capitalism and the free market, both of which are dominated by white males. Men make more money than women. Women are terrible at economics and math. Despite much of society’s resources dedicated to the task of gender egalitarianism, women still fail at economics and math. This is an empirical fact. It has been shown that most women are unfamiliar with even the most basic economic concepts needed to make saving and investment decisions.
Forget the grammar in the picture–focus on the message. It isn’t enough that society bends over backwards in order to accommodate women. Third-wave feminism is about acknowledging women’s subordination, both in terms of agency and intellectual/physical ability. The acknowledgment isn’t explicit. They’ll deny it endlessly. Rather, it’s implicit, and the way it comes out is through constant over-compensation.
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.
Those that have spent time in various libertarian or anarcho-capitalist political circles have probably come across the peculiar concept of Argumentation Ethics, the logical construct developed by Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe that theoretically provides the ultimate justification for the libertarian ethical doctrine of property rights and non-aggression. This theory essentially claims that libertarian property ethics are a priori true since the very act of arguing against them must necessarily accept them beforehand. Thus it is logically impossible to consistently argue against the property ethic. The idea that notions of truth and justice are valid, universal and objective is also assumed a priori by the very act of arguing over norms, since one would have to accept the necessity and validity of these concepts beforehand or else there would be no point in proposing norms in the first place.
Hoppe explains it in his typically turgid style (feel free to skip if you take my word for it):
“…any truth claim—the claim connected with any proposition that it is true, objective, or valid (all terms used synonymously here)—is and must be raised and decided upon in the course of an argumentation. And since it cannot be disputed that this is so (one cannot communicate and argue that one cannot communicate and argue), and it must be assumed that everyone knows what it means to claim something to be true (one cannot deny this statement without claiming its negation to be true), this has been aptly called ‘the a priori of communication and argumentation.’
Girl in middle looks like Molly Ringwald.
On Tuesday July 23rd, a day which will live in infamy, Lewrockwell.com published a piece by edgytarian Fred Reed, titled “Why Sexual Integration Is A Bad Idea.”
In response to Reed’s work, three “libertarian feminists” penned an amusing retort; amusing, because their collective hissy-fit does more to support Reed’s position than his own work (which I didn’t read).
This humble article will be the type of response I do not expect to be see published on either LRC or Fred’s blog. I’ll get around to explaining why I believe this to be the case. First things first, I must dissect the choicer bits of Borowski, Reisenwitz, and Kristian’s calumnious response to Reed, a concerted effort by three women to promote individuality and feminism (lol).
Equality is the watchword and the catchword of our day. The egalitarian idea dominates the postmodern spirit. The masses approve of it. It expresses the thoughts and feelings of all; it has set its seal upon our time. When history comes to tell our story it will write above the chapter “The Epoch of Equality.”
As yet, it is true, Egalitarianism has not created a society which can be said to represent its ideal. But for more than a generation the policies of civilized nations have been directed towards nothing less than a realization of an equal society. In recent years the movement has grown noticeably in vigor and tenacity.
We are told by the intellectual establishment in the Western nations today that the best way to achieve this desired equality is to recognize and break down entrenched systems of privilege. In this context privilege is defined as:
“…a set of perceived advantages (or lack of disadvantages) enjoyed by a majority group, who are usually unaware of the privilege they possess.”
“…any right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person or group beyond the advantages of most.”
The set of circumstances in which some people and groups enjoy advantages and benefits that others don’t is a serious obstacle to social equality. It must be addressed and remedied if we are to achieve a fair and just society. Of course the question of why such an egalitarian society is desirable in the first place is never asked or answered. Equality is simply one of the divine mysteries of postmodern liberalism and thus needs no explanation and will tolerate no questioning.
“The question libertarians just can’t answer.”
Yes, yes, everyone recognizes this is a blatant, brutishly-insulting argument against libertarianism. Hell, even *I* show you silver-hoarding freakos more respect than this article.
…But doesn’t that strike you as being a little strange?
Michael Lind is both a pedigreed author and well-connected member of the Cathedral; guest lecturer for Harvard Law, the works. I am a twenty-something statist writing under the pseudonym of a Japanese video game monster… Yet Lind’s the one blatantly trolling the Paultards. Something doesn’t add up. This article is a sub-par effort by even Salon’s Vaisya standards… Salon may not be The New York Times or The Atlantic, but neither is it Cracked.com.
What I’m getting at is that in a culture driven by subliminal messaging and viral social marketing, when something is *this* obvious it shouldn’t anger you, it should alarm you.
So, if this article isn’t meant to be a valid intellectual debunking of libertarianism (and it’s NOT), then what is the purpose?
You must first crack the egg.
Credit goes to Graaaaaagh for coining the term, as well as for introducing me to the original concept.
While my fellow travelers are doing some amazing work both online and in meatspace, there are those of us at TRS that feel more could and should be done to seize the decline of the West. Why should we content ourselves with simply riding the tiger; why not work to aim the beast in a direction of our choosing?
From numerous discussions upon the subject was born Anti-Prometheism (Anti-Pro or Apro for short), a new and exciting intellectual frontier for my brothers to conquer.
The ultimate goal of this project is to weaken Western Civilization through the support and advancement of Liberal “progress” beyond the society’s tolerances, particularly within the United States. Push the idiotic narrative to such extremes, push the general population so far that for them reaction becomes blunt necessity, and not merely intellectual convenience.
See also: Vanguardism, Cadmean Victory.
Perhaps this project will strike many of my readers as being too radical (hare-brained) a means for achieving our desired reactionary ends. Why in the world should someone seek to create more of what they wish to destroy? How does one hope to kill Liberalism by making it stronger?
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.
There is perhaps nothing more detestable and toxic in present day political discourse than the unwarranted arrogance and snarky attitude displayed by conventional liberals thoroughly convinced that their oh so enlightened social views are based on science. Apparently passing high school biology, watching Carl Sagan’s Cosmos and thumbing various Neil Degrasse Tyson memes on Facebook has lead these intellectual nobodies to believe that they are qualified to speak with authority on topics ranging from biological evolution to the proper application of the scientific method. Unsurprisingly the conclusion they draw from all this scientific expertise is that non-liberal political and social views are unscientific. What a shocker.
The hysterically pathetic irony of this world view is the blatant religiosity of it. Countless debates with “scientific” minded liberals and an examination of their beliefs have made it evident that this system of thought contains a soft, nuggety core of pure theology masquerading as “science” for outside observers. This illusion of intellectual authority is further reinforced by the adoption of a pedestrian form of “scientific atheism” that allows these liberals to fancy themselves as over and above those stupid Creationists. While theist notions of “science” such as intelligent design may be laughable, this paucity of intellectual credence does not work to elevate non-religious science by default. As we will examine, supposedly non-religious science is still warped by confirmation bias emanating from a clearly defined ideology that presupposes certain premises. Unlike most scientific methods of inquiry, liberal scientism starts with certain a priori universal assumptions, akin to religious values for atheistic liberals, which are then “proven” through deductive reasoning rather than inductive science.
What are these assumptions? Why, they are the same old spooks that we have been getting from self-styled progressives for the last century or so.