Capitalism is demonstrably shown to work. However, the attempt to intertwine the success of capitalism with the dildo granted Western society a short lived euphoria before becoming a threat to itself. I’m stating this now because for some reason, possibly to do classical conditioning, many immediately make the leap from anti-cultural dildo to inefficient economic concepts that attempt to turn the market into the church. Fascism was a demonstrable economic failure, as was communism. I know many listeners get their stupid economic information from watching hours of amateur YouTube videos praising hitlernomics (such videos may include Greatest Story Never Told, National Alliance videos, etc). We could maybe address why in fact Hitlernomics were piss poor in disective detail on another podcast, but long story short, Hitler ultimately did nothing but create a massive martial economic bubble. The economy was not built for long lasting purposes. It was built for starting a war, and winning a war. Perhaps some might argue that the Germans could maintain stability post-war by basically holding a gun to the head of the world, but that’s ultimately a ridiculous assertion. Again, topic for another time.
Classical liberalism’s champion, John Locke, was an idiot. He makes a very false assumption of humanity and Western peoples. To Locke, human and market interaction is a completely voluntary phenomenon, due to the high intellectual capacity of humans* to desire a more prosperous society through logical and peaceful evaluation. Because of this, he believed a government ought to be small, and strictly serve the whims of the populace to achieve the most prosperous and free society. He also believed all people where born into a morally equal blank state, and that all people have intrinsic value.
It sounds nice because it’s completely self-empowering. When libertarians/liberals make claims of human importance, it’s a self-valuing claim with a collective cushion; basically saying “I am very important” with safe language. Continue reading →
In our modern drug addled post-hippy youth culture, spawned from the cesspools of Woodstock and LSD drum circles of hairy White women, the concept of shitting all over the senses and perception as an enlightening and “eye-opening” experience is most certainly not a new thing. Bored White kids with little life challenge will continue to accelerate this trend, as mimicking the spiritual lifestyle of dindu shamans mowed over by the racist hand of modernity is sure to bring one to a higher plane of thought and existence. What a truly powerful thing it must be to mentally escape our oppressive construct, and set upon the great path of Juju. Pass the ayahuasca bro, I need to open my third eye.
Speaking of ayahuasca, the most fashionable path to “muh eye” as of at least four or five years ago in the West (and still going strong), is most definitely the use of the psychedelic compound Dimethyltryptamine, or DMT. Yeah, I know this topic is old, and it’s a bit random to bring this up now, but this isn’t the standard psychedelic brain raping trend. Something about this particular hippie craze is worth discussing. What has made this particular drug fashionable is it offers not only a path to “muh eye”, but to anti-religious and anti-establishment narratives. Why is this? Continue reading →
The past several weeks have seen harsh debate and a sharp divide among our inner circle. The issue? Secession. In particular, whether or not the United States as a nation is something worth maintaining. This may come as a surprise to some: the blog’s generally positive attitude regarding the United States is a minority view in our circle.
Dissent with the current trajectory has been bubbling for months: neologisms like “larping” and “Skyrimist” have not helped matters. Podcast 2 finally led to emotions boiling over. The result hasn’t been pretty.
Discussions very quickly degenerated, criticisms became personal in nature. A lot of harsh words were said; I certainly spoke my fair share. Several long time members (including the fellow who personally brought me into TRS) have gone so far as to actually sever ties. I expect things to remain tense for a while.
I don’t expect a blog post to magically mend fences. That said, I do feel this topic deserves a more even-keeled appraisal than what has been offered on the blog so far. So in contrast I will begin by presenting four allowances on the issue. The Secession Concessions, so to speak.
Ideological swaps have a common tendency: first, you experience a marked increase in positive feelings and energy towards your new ideology. Second, you disassociate yourself with your previous ideology and sling mud at it. You can’t take it seriously, so even if you have decent critiques of it, the best you can come up with–if you try at all–is a series of strawmen.
So, according to Tucker, the “fullness of (humanity’s) fruits” is being trampled by high time preference-types for a $200 Playstation 3. Most of them are buying these deals on credit, as well. I’m sure our ancestors are proud.
The Non-Aggression Principle is one of those codes of honor that gets carried out by the most naive of ideologues. The An-Caps, Voluntaryists, Libertarians, and Anti-Statists are great examples. Don’t get me wrong, these guys are perfect for identifying the reasonable corruption of various institutions, however the code of honor that they live by is remarkably unrealistic and irresponsible. An act of aggression for the greater good such as forcing someone into a straitjacket so they won’t be able to shoot up heroine would be principally immoral under these premises. This simplistic individualism they hold on to has been critiqued by various left-wing, liberal, progressive douchebags, but it has also been critiqued by those of the radical-right wing such as Bulbasaur.
The thing with the NAP that shouldn’t be neglected is that it’s reliant on the Self-Ownership Principle. The idea is that because individuals own themselves, an act of aggression upon another individual is principally a crime. This is usually applied to protect the individual from the state, but can also be applied to various other institutions, collectives, or even other individuals. With that being said the NAP is pretty brilliant as an idea, as it can be applied to various subjects and issues and still be a relevant principle. Those that support the NAP however, tend to be a little lazy on how they apply it. It’s still a worthless principle.
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.”
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).