Source: Will Moyer
Though my relationship with the ideology has been stormy to say the least, I ultimately concede my politics and philosophy to be libertarian.
Despite my blatant polemics, inevitably I uphold liberty, the quality to control one’s actions, as the highest end. Human society cannot work without human action, the limitations of civilization require a degree of freedom for it’s citizenry. A coherent society must seek and maintain a middle ground between these two forces. While I maintain that our current incoherence is due to embracing individual hedonism over social standards, I cannot agree with an argument that the hierarchy must always supersede the individual. From what I have seen, to invert the poisoned beliefs underling the anarchist milieu will only serve to accomplish the very same deconstruction of both man and state.
That said, I find that there is no limit of charlatans and morons willing to remind me why I took issue with libertarianism to begin with.
If the preservation of the collective is the ultimate goal of The Right; The degeneration of the individual is the goal of The Left. Feminists channel individualism when they say that they shouldn’t have to live under the rules of Patriarchy for the sake of others, whilst those who call themselves “Child-Free” say they shouldn’t have to produce/raise kids for the sake of others. This desire for independence, almost always leads to totality.
Individualism quite frankly cannot be a functional principle for any civilization. Civilizations requires a stoic sacrifice for the greater good. Monogamy is a great example of this, after all most people at one point in their lives thought that monogamy was a scam. Why have a long term, conflicting relationship exclusively with one person, when you can have multiple, no-string relationships? Isn’t that the dream of every aspiring PUA? Why make the sacrifice of being with one person, if it means you’re going to live a boring life full of nagging and an aging woman, when you could be living the rock star lifestyle?
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.
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.
Among my supposed “fellow travelers,” one finds a recurrent theme: the cultural/economic system known as “Capitalism” is almost universally considered an ideal means toward achieving true human progress.
Some theorists venerate Capitalism as a culmination of human action, the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though sometimes amoral and conflicting, system for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the dopey and/or murderous “public sector” and often succeeding in competitions of wits with their peers (and little else).
With the rise of Democracy, the identification of Capitalism with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense, such as “Everything you love you owe to capitalism.” The useful collective term “individual” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the Capitalistic realities of a Postmodern West, a Geist without a Zeit.
“…The Americans’ ‘open-mindedness’, which is sometimes cited in their favor, is the other side of their interior formlessness. The same goes for their ‘individualism’. Individualism and personality are not the same: the one belongs to the formless world of quantity, the other to the world of quality and hierarchy. The Americans are the living refutation of the Cartesian axiom, ‘I think, therefore I am’: Americans do not think, yet they are. The American ‘mind’, puerile and primitive, lacks characteristic form and is therefore open to every kind of standardization” –Julius Evola
I am non-aggression, therefore marijuana.
Individualism is a formless quantity, like water. The individual man can thus be seen as a single droplet.