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.
The rise in bad philosophy, unstable political structures and dying institutions are all directly correlated with the over-education of the masses. Simply put, literacy isn’t necessarily a good thing. Wisdom is power and power should be centralized in order to maintain authority. People who research consciously or unconsciously are looking for wisdom against their masters. Things like the Reformation, The French Revolution, the disgraces of Communism, the rise in secular liberalism, and our modern inability to mature can all be attributed to our over-emphasis on literacy.
Education is a good thing, in fact it’s a blessing that Mankind can exercise his agency in a such a manner. However a blessing is a matter of quality and not quantity. Teaching stupid people to read will only give them the “revelation” that they can and should break free from their chains. This overloads the formal institutions that seek to serve and/or regulate the masses, oftentimes to the point that the institutions bring themselves to destruction. This can be seen with industry, government, and social institutions like marriage.
If it’s not already obvious, let it be known that I’m a staunch supporter of a Western Civilization with White Man at the helm. I am also a strong advocate for the identity and unity provided by Nationalism.
Perhaps not so obvious, perhaps surprisingly, I am not an advocate for White Nationalism.
I did not come to this stance easily. Certainly, the WN ideology rings true in their arguments that Whites are currently being selectively shamed for their pride, that modernism seeks the extinction or least marginalization of Whites in their insane drive for an idealized inferiority. Only a dishonest or bad-willed individual could seriously consider the idea of a non-White humanity without shuddering.
With that said, while those who advocate White Nationalism spot the correct enemy, they fail to properly advance from their analysis.
Bulbasaur hasn’t forgotten about you, my sweeties. The right-wing hate machine is still up and running.
While the blogging side of things has been admittedly slow, the Inner Party has been busy brainstorming new directions, thinking up new projects for the future.
This article intends to share some of what has been and what is being discussed with you, the loyal reader.
Why? Because here at The Right Stuff, we are authoritarian, meaning that we base all of our actions around the somewhat novel idea that SOMEBODY has to give a fuck about somebody else for things to move forward.
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.
What if libertarianism is a useful tool for a government that avoids revolution through materialistic diversion?
What if a libertarian can be a racist or an egalitarian, a socialist or a conservative, a statist or an anarchist? What if you have been too busy arguing over who is the Truest Scotsman to notice how broken the word is fundamentally?
What if your independent and voluntary participation on an-cap/soc/nat message boards and those rational purchases of silver coins and solar panels amount to a herd mentality?
What if concepts like “individuality” are part of a manufactured narrative that serves less to empower, and more to anesthetize?
Anarchism is a nonsensical and immature political philosophy. To even call it a philosophy is probably being far too generous. In order to mitigate the inevitable bleating of “No True Scotsman” from various unwashed packs of self-styled “anarchist” rabble across the internets, allow me to define my term. When I say “anarchism” here I am talking about the utopian and fantastical ideology promoted by leftist intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky and described in the Anarchist FAQ. So yes, I am talking about your kind of anarchist Mr. Scotsman.
The theory (if you can call it that) behind anarchism is based on two interlocking principles. The first and most important is that hierarchy is a form of oppression (hint: oppression is bad, mmmkay). The second is that private property is a form of hierarchy. Private property in the anarchist view is the absolute worst form of oppression. It is the social institution that the envious soul of the anarchist rages against most fiercely. Private property is bad because it creates hierarchy in terms of relationships to specific resources. If one person owns something, then another person is necessarily deprived of it. Exclusion of anyone from anything is intolerable.
In 1680, Sir Robert Filmer wrote that the first Kings were fathers of families. This makes sense to The Right Stuff on a visceral level.
At some point in human evolution, primitive man started valuing the particular being he dumped his sperm in more than the act itself (take note, PUAs). It was at this moment that man discovered qualifiers, that man first asserted that something was “his.” Indeed, women were the first human conceptions of “property.”
Property can therefore be seen as inherently oppressive, and the basis of human civilization. Shocked? Don’t be. Reality isn’t pretty, it never was.1
Patriarchy is defined hierarchy and authority based upon this foundation, this recognition of reality. Civilization cannot emerge from the alternative; it can merely enervate itself with lies otherwise.2
Who’s down with NAP? All my homies!
Who would not be down with NAP? After all the NAP (Non Aggression Principle for noobs) is the final word. It is the answer to philosophy. It is the biggest thing in metaphysics since the number 42. It is the absolute, axiomatic ethical truth that unlocks the secret of all human behavior! Though an abstract concept, the NAP naturally inherits the properties of a universal physical law. The NAP is a law of nature unto itself. Isn’t it? To break this fundamental universal moral axiom (as I have strictly defined it within a limited context) is to betray your nature as a rational being and sin against… against… something. Right?
Right. So if you want to intellectually hamstring yourself, become a boring drone, publicly display symptoms of mild-to-severe Asperger’s syndrome, or just be a supercilious prick while intentionally alienating friends, family and colleagues, then by all means keep going down this route. And enjoy spending your weekends raging at the statist douchebags on r/Politics.
- Leftism (liberalism) seeks the enervation and eventual destruction of human existence.
- Actual Rightism (Reaction) ultimately desires authority.
- Any idea or movement that ceases promoting authority will always, ultimately collapse into leftism.
These are important, fundamental principles I believe my fellow reactionaries and anti-liberals need to internalize, lest we find ourselves following the same unfortunate (and predictable) path of the libertarian movement.
(Give it two more years, and PorcFest will be identical to an Occupussy rally.)
Accepting the axioms above requires that one re-align their understanding of historical narrative. For instance…
Aberrant societies like the Soviet Union are not par for the liberal course. In fact, leftist memes rotted the authoritarian, inherently right-wing Communist state from the inside-out. Gorbachev was not a Lenin or Stalin, and the Soviet Union that fell was not the Soviet Union that was willing to holodomor and gulag and purge to achieve it’s ends (partly why it fell in the first place).
(Yes, it is laughably retarded when people call themselves “Communist” while promoting liberal emptiness. Libertarians make better use of the Marxian dialectic, imho.)
It makes little sense expecting liberalism to logically result in Fascism or Communism. I mean seriously, who expects a Stalin or Hitler to emerge from the feministing bitches and their fat, cucked, neckbearded betas?
Authority, power, domination is the desired outcome of a sane society, and only collapses when it is poisoned by liberalism’s perverted worship of all things weak and pathetic.
In contrast, the left’s end goal is human extinction. All liberalism’s talk of oppression and equality, and their condemnation of the evils of privilege results in this embrace of death.
You value your identity more than the immigrant stranger? OPPRESSIVE FASH!