Much ado has been made recently in the left wing of the “liberty movement” over the fact that men are its predominant constituents. Much speculation has been devoted to how women might be sold on the virtues of freedom and liberty, thus cleansing libertarianism of the stain of inequality that has long befouled its name.
Unlike “libertarian feminists” or even regular libertarians, I think women are absolutely right to hate freedom. There are reasons they do, and those reasons have served them well. Women’s sensibilities are wholly appropriate; to women. They just shouldn’t, under any circumstances, be given the power to impose them on men. As the old cliche goes, what’s good for the goose isn’t necessarily good for the gander, and vice versa.
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.
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.
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!
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.”
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).
“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.”
The beginning of man’s decline.
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.
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.
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.