The Ideal Cosmo

Boxer chronicles the sad life of a divorced single mother who sells tales of her late-age promiscuity for a living (her book is titled “The F-ck List,”) though it is more likely her bills are paid for by her ex-husband via alimony.

Thus we see the deracinated, alienated, rootless consumer in action. She has no culture and no homeland. She has no sense of community, and no sense of decorum, self-respect, shame or understatement. She is the perfect citizen of our global plantation.

The only thing I would add to Boxer’s commentary is that she is the perfect candidate for cosmopolitan libertarianism. Who can forget when that young porn actress Belle whatever-her-name-was, was touted and dragged out by a variety of libertarian orgs as a champion for personal liberty?

Boxer’s “favorite elderly prostitute” also practices the ideal religion, transcendental meditation. It contains within it all the wondrous spirituality that makes SWPLs feel good, while insisting on no moral or ethical beliefs that might put a cramp on their life choices, or make other people get the guilty feelz.

Beltway libertarians overseeing our beloved philosophy within the confines of D.C. and elsewhere in the Empire of Nothing would look upon this lass and see progress. An older women who can openly talk about her post-divorce sex life without getting shamed? How is this not a step in the right direction for civilization!

Meanwhile, “blood and soil” libertarians look upon her and see tragedy and waste. Women of this age should be bouncing grandchildren off their knee and sitting beside their mate of 30-years as a quiet example to their family, not posting delusional yearnings for “fit well-dressed executives.”

Aside from perhaps no-fault divorce, none of this is directly connected to the Non-Aggression Principle. But only a fool thinks the philosophy has any meaningful application in a vacuum devoid of context. Theory is just that, theory.

Healthy societies discourage behavior detrimental to their survival and creates incentives for lifestyles that make them prosper. A dying society does the opposite.

It’s fairly evident which of those two the West is at this moment.

Advertisements
Posted in Culture, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Politicking on company time

In a recent video, RamzPaul highlights leftist hypocrisy when it comes to the ability of employers to fire their workers for their political activism. Following the Charlottesville debacle, many of the attendees were doxxed and then terminated from their jobs. All of this was done to the cheers by the Left, who suddenly developed a belief in the right of discrimination.

However, we see the precise opposite attitude when it comes to professional football players opting to sit or kneel during the national anthem as a form of political protest. Suddenly, the employees have a right to express themselves, and how dare anyone think they should be stopped!

Ironically, the two situations aren’t comparable, as RamzPaul points out. Those who attended the Charlottesville rally were not being paid by their company to work. They were doing it on their private time. The same cannot be said for the NFL players, who are protesting while on the clock. I would add that these players’ workplace is a taxpayer-subsidized building, and yet despite this form of corporate welfare, they don’t seem to be strapped for cash.

This double standard is yet another example of how the Left does not have a consistent, objective concept of rights. As the state priests, they bestow rights upon an individual according to how they fulfill The Vision.

If a person stands in the way of The Vision, then they are considered to have rights, as we see with those they declare “Nazis” as a modern form of an outlaw.

Companies have a right to fire employees for engaging in political activity on their own time, if doing so fulfills The Vision. However, if allowing employees to engage in political activism while on company time helps bring about The Vision, then it is the employee who has the right, not the employer.

Unless you understand this, the seemingly incoherent policy of the Left toward private property and individual liberty will only confound.

 

Posted in free speech, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Why I Haven’t Shut Down This Blog

I’m in a blunt mood, so bear with me.

After Charlottesville, I was “this” close to shutting down this blog. I wanted to close it and pretty much never discuss politics again and focus on other personal endeavors. It’s not because of all the de-platforming that occurred. There’s a myriad of reasons why that I don’t really care to get into here, other than to say there are much more fulfilling things in life than talking about politics.

But something keeps me from doing that. Something keeps this blog up for you to read.

One of them is the fact that I can’t keep my mouth shut, so to speak. I can’t remain silent.

A recent newsletter from Tom Woods  demonstrates why:

A professor wrote an article explaining how the destruction of social and cultural values we commonly associate with the 1950s has been devastating to many American families.

Duh.

This professor is now being accused of promoting white nationalism or white supremacy.

The accusation may shock a “normie” and inspire outrage. But if it amazes you, then you’ve been living under a rock for the last 10 years, or you’re pretending things aren’t the way they are.

The agenda of the Left is to destroy everything that made the West great.

Why?

It doesn’t matter. They want it eradicated. That includes the nuclear family.

I could never do this subject justice here, but the simple fact is that for all their talk of combating hate, if there is any emotion one would use to describe the feelings of the Left toward the 1950s, it would be pure, unbridled, uncontainable hate.

I’m talking about the kind of the hate that no communist ever felt toward capitalism, the kind of hate that Satan feels for God.

Normies pretend or pay lip service to the pretense that despite their conduct, the Left is truly about fighting racism and white supremacy, even when they know it’s all bullshit.

Everyone knows this. We all know it’s total, complete, undiluted bullshit. It’s no different than when they accuse someone of being a Nazi, when they’re really declaring them an outlaw whose rights have been stripped away.

We know that when they talk about white supremacy they’re talking about dismantling all cultural and social norms that give rise to low-crime, high-education, high-trust, birth-within-marriage, nuclear family-style communities. The kind of communities where you know your next door neighbor and you don’t have to double check the locks on your house when you go to the grocery store. The kind of community where you can drop your kids off at school and know they’ll be taught the same values by people who believe the same stuff as you, instead of learning later that day your little daughter was taught by a tyranny how to put condoms on wooden knobs. The kind of community where your daughter gets married after a brief dating stint to a respectable young man able to provide, instead of becoming the baby momma to the bastard children of a handful of cads and living off feral gummit gibsmedat.

It explains how the Left responded to this professor’s article, as Woods describes it here:

A petition in response to her column condemned her for “extolling the virtues of white cultural practices of the ’50s that, if understood within their sociocultural context, stem from the very same malignant logic of hetero-patriarchal, class-based, white supremacy that plagues our country today. These cultural values and logics are steeped in anti-blackness and white hetero-patriarchal respectability…” (and it continues like that, but you’ve had enough).

Normies had better get it into their thick skulls that the Left hates everything they claim to cherish and hold dear, and they attack it under the guise of fighting “racism” and “white supremacy.” For the love of God, stop acting like they’re well-intended or even remotely within range of a legitimate target when they say that.

Don’t think for one second that it’s about the KKK, Neo-Nazis, or even the Alt. Right. Those are soft targets that condition people for what’s up next.

Don’t pretend to be confused when having parents still married after 20 years of marriage is called “white supremacy,” and you’re told to check your white privilege because they didn’t divorce when you were three or actually tied the knot before you popped out.

Don’t be confused when black men who wait until marriage to have kids are accused of perpetuating “white supremacy.”

Don’t be confused when criticizing promiscuity is called “racism,” even when you’re calling out a white girl’s slutty behavior.

Don’t be confused when anything from the 1950s, no matter how innocuous or innocent, is deemed “racist” and promoting “white nationalism.”

Don’t be surprised when watching “A White Christmas” will one day be deemed “Neo-Nazism.”

I predict that within five years, traditional Christmas songs will be all but verboten for “perpetuating white patriarchy.”

Anything you associate with normalcy is considered white supremacy. Accept it. Deal with it. Embrace it.

Just don’t pretend it’s anything other than that.

Now you know why I keep this blog up.

Where’s the Tylenol?

Posted in cultural marxism, Culture, nationalism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 7 Comments

“Nazi” Is The New “Outlaw”

Under English common law, a man who was declared an outlaw had no rights. The pronouncement caput gerat lupinum – “may he wear a wolfish head” – meant he was to be treated like a wolf in the wild. They were persona non grata. Anyone could take from them and it was not theft. Anyone who found them could kill them and it would not be considered murder. It was a form of political and social death.

We are seeing this phenomenon, in which a society strips a person of their rights and membership in the community, play out today.

Except they don’t call them “outlaws.” They call them “Nazis” or “white supremacists.” But the intent, the actual meaning of those words and the purpose for using them, is the same.

I’m not going to go recount all the instances following the Charlottesville rally in which those who attended were de-platformed by a variety of companies and corporations, fired from their jobs, slapped with bogus charges by the police, or attacked by antifa scum that had no fear of repercussions by the authorities. Suffice to say, what occurred was a pronouncement that certain people, who had committed no crime nor were even accused of one, were caput lupinum.

Whatever you may want to think of those who attended the rally, they peacefully assembled with a valid permit backed by a federal court order. Yet the city government and police department illegally shut down the rally and forced the rally attendees to walk through hordes of counter-protesters, where they were attacked. Some were nearly blinded by acid thrown at their eyes.

None of this was of any consequence to any major political leader who commented on the situation. Nor did we hear much protestation from libertarians when the rally goers were doxxed and discriminated against. The fact that their constitutional rights were flagrantly violated mattered not, because they were “Nazis” and “white supremacists.” The tacit declaration is that those declared to be Nazis have no rights, and the implication for them is no different than it would be for the king of England to declare someone an “outlaw.” You can kill these people and steal their stuff. It’s ok. We the collective said so.

All this occurred in ways that would never be tolerated were it to be carried out by the Right against the Left.

For anyone who dare challenge this, I would simply point you to the women’s march that occurred during Trump’s inauguration. The women who went did not have their hotel reservations canceled, their websites shut down, and their youtube channels demonetized. Despite all the pearl-clutching and references to the Handmaiden’s Tale, these women had zero fear of violence from Trump supporters and even less trepidation about losing their jobs when they returned home. This is because their values and views are the status quo and therefore will not be declared worthy of an outlaw under our current regime.

When someone today is calling someone a Nazi, they are effectively declaring that their rights no longer exist. They are saying it is ok to kill someone, and those that do should not fear arrest or imprisonment. When these new “outlaws” are killed, the government will not condemn their murders. Instead it will condemn the murdered as “outlaws.”

This is why the word “Nazi” is thrown around so much. The absurd and pathetic attacks on the Mises Institute and Tom Woods are indicative of this.

The power to take away a person’s rights merely by speaking the right word is intoxicating, and for those who have little authority elsewhere in life, it may be the only instance where they exercise any form of control. It also means that others will submit to their commands, out of fear of being called one.

It is, in many ways, akin to the state priests I wrote about so long ago. These priests administer rights, but also take them away. In a religious sense, it is a form of excommunication, and similar to when the Popes of old would place a bounty on someone’s head.

We may very well reach a point in this country where murders are carried out openly and no repercussions occur to those who carry them out. It will be acceptable to burn people’s homes to the ground, harass their children, and violate their spouses. All it will take is someone – the right person – calling them a “Nazi,” and enough fools in their community willing to let these atrocities happen because, as we saw repeatedly throughout the 20th Century, they lacked the moral fortitude to do anything out of fear of being the next person to have the dreaded smear branded on their name, too.

Posted in cultural marxism, Culture, democracy, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 6 Comments

The American Troubles Has Begun

kneecappinyasay_7d8dc5689a2f5e64df1405b433e41bce

In January I predicted America’s own version of the Irish Troubles:

I suggest all the readers here acquaint themselves with the Irish Troubles. Read up on the 1969 Belfast riots, Bloody Sunday, Crossmaglen, and the ambush at Loughgall. You need to understand those events if you are to understand what will happen in this country.

We’re seeing the initial stages of the American Troubles.

…..The template is simple; extremists from one side will commit an atrocity. Extremists from the other side will retaliate. “Normies” on both sides will point fingers at each other while rationalizing or downplaying the actions of those who are acting on their behalf even as they “officially” condemn or disavow the behavior. Neither side will claim moral responsibility, nor will they attempt to deescalate.

Rinse, lather, repeat.

Now that we’ve had the Battle of Charlottesville, it is clear the American Troubles has officially started.  I believe that is what this era will be called in the future.

Where have we heard this song before?

Oh, right.

I’m not the biggest libertarian site out there.

But don’t let popularity fool you.

I know what I’m talking about.

So heed the advice I gave in January:

If you live in an urban area, my advice is this: have a plan to leave if things get ugly and stay in a rural area. It doesn’t have to be remote or even that small. What you want is a high-trust community where there is little division or tension and you will fit in well with the locals. You do not want to be in the Troubles’ epicenter, i.e. diverse neighborhoods or on the border of segregated ethnic groups.

Get a gun if you don’t have one and carry it whenever possible.

Moreover, come to terms with the fact that many people you know – friends, family, relatives, loved ones, siblings, coworkers – may be on the opposite side when things go down (ed: I am a frickin’ prophet or what?). As painful as it might be to admit, they cannot be trusted to stand with you. They will most likely not defend you or protect you. They won’t do anything themselves, and that’s the point.

Posted in civil war, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Virtue-Signalers And Pearl-Clutchers

I have a lot of thoughts about what happened last weekend. Honestly, I’m still processing it all. When I know what I want to say, I’ll say it.

In the meantime, this best describes the behavior of majority of people on social media this week:

20770482_10209516313696031_8229102223248385379_n

That’s the shot.

Here’s the chaser.

In 1850, most of these self-righteous pricks stumbling over each other to tell us how much they agree with the rest of the world on racism would have either condoned, endorsed, or tacitly allowed slavery when it existed.  Only a paltry few opposed it, and even fewer did so for moral reasons.

And this is for the people wailing about the demise of the Party of Lincoln for what Trump said:

download.jpg

 

 

Posted in civil war, cultural marxism, Culture, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Cosmopolitan Libertarianism And The “New Man”

metropolis-scientist-robot-body

The more I read Jeff Deist’s “For a New Libertarian” speech, the more powerful and eloquent I find it. I don’t know if he realized it at the time, but he delivered a powerful blow against a subversive effort within the libertarian movement by not only calling out its presence, but pinpointing it, identifying it and thoroughly describing it and its flaws.

Deist writes:

If there is one overriding point we should remember it is that liberty is natural and organic and comports with human action. It doesn’t require a “new man.” Yet libertarians have a bad tendency to fall into utopianism, into portraying liberty as something new age and evolved. In this sense they can sound a lot like progressives: liberty will work when human finally shed their stubborn old ideas about family and tribe, become purely rational freethinkers (always the opposite), reject the mythology of religion and faith, and give up their outdated ethnic or nationalist or cultural alliances for the new hyper-individualist creed. We need people to drop their old-fashioned sexual hangups and bourgeois values, except for materialism. Because above all the archetypical libertarian is presented as an almost soulless economic actor, someone who will drop everything and move to Singapore tomorrow to make $20,000 more in the gig economy.

What we have here is the “ideal man” as envisioned by what I would call “cosmopolitan libertarians” who are ultimately like globalists in that they share the exact same view of the individual.

Consequently, it completely shapes their communistic, egalitarian interpretation of the philosophy and why so many conversations between them and libertarians who are grounded in reality sound like the following:

Cosmopolitan libertarian: Stance A is the proper libertarian stance on Issue A.

Normal libertarian: But Stance A isn’t realistic for Issue A. That’s not how humans behave or think.

Cosmopolitan libertarian: Well, then humans had better change their nature, or else!

The erroneous belief in a perfectly rationale person is one of the many complaints Alt. Right figures and former libertarians such as Vox Day have held against the philosophy itself.

It’s not that I am opposed to libertarian ideals. Quite to the contrary, I cherish them as deeply as I ever did. It is merely that events, and a deeper understanding of history, have caused me to conclude that libertarian ideals are as ultimately utopian and irrelevant as communist ideals, progressive ideals, and conservative ideals.

….The key difference between the Alt-Right and libertarianism is that libertarianism insists on the existence of Rational Man. The Alt-Right observes, to the contrary, that Man is an irrational, rationalizing creature. Where you fall on that question alone will logically dictate whether you ultimately side with the libertarians or the Alt-Right, if your ideals incline towards the libertarian.

However, Deist brilliantly pointed out that this idea of a “perfectly rational” man is not a libertarian view, but that of some who, in actuality, foolishly believe such a being can be created – and if the crucible happens to be the state, so be it.

Well it turns out that’s not how humans really are. They’re fragile and fallible and hierarchical and irrational and suspicious and herd-like at least as much as they are a bunch of heroic Hank Reardens. In fact Rothbard talks about just this in his section on libertarian strategy at the end of For a New Liberty. He reminds us that it’s progressive utopians who think man has no nature and is “infinitely malleable.” They think man can be perfected, made into the ideal servant of the New Order.

But libertarians believe in free will, he points out. People mold themselves. And therefore it’s folly to expect some drastic change to fit our preferred structure. We hope people will act morally, we believe liberty provides the right incentives for moral improvement. But we don’t rely on this to make liberty work.

However, that is precisely what “cosmopolitan” libertarians rely on, because they are not interested in merely (or actually) eliminating the state. They have a “new man” that all people must become, and they’re more interested in achieving that end than ending the state.

In fact, ending the state is simply a means to that end. Not that libertarianism shouldn’t be a means to an end, as I’ve said before, but the difference is that they will have no qualms or scruples using the state to mold and fashion people into this “new man,” all while at the same time claiming to oppose the state and love liberty.

Cosmopolitan Libertarianism’s “New Man”

So what is this “new man?”

He is cosmopolitan in the truest sense of the word – an atomized individual with no ties, disinterested in his cultural, ethnic, and national past, present or future. The only world he knows or cares for, is that of the now.

He has little concern for familial bonds, creates no brotherhood, and cherishes none of his heritage. He is devoid of loyalties and devotions except as they relate to the market economy and those who serve a utilitarian purpose to him in that regard. He has no identities, save for ones based on what he consumes and purchases. Identifying by your race or ethnic group is evil tribalism, but identifying yourself as a consumer of a particular fast food restaurant’s value menu is a virtue. Cross necklaces worn as a religious symbol are dangerous, but a tacky whiskey-brand shirt is admirable. Identifying as a “European” and taking that identity seriously is tantamount to Nazism, but woe be him who thinks less of a man who identifies first and foremost as a “pot head” and dangles a bong necklace around his neck.

He rejects any sense of duty to God, family, or country, only to the customer or employer he serves. Any of these might cause him to choose them over, say, emigrating prior to the age of 35 in order to chase greater income, better perks, and a higher living standard.

His relationship with his mother and father and brothers and sisters and grandparents must be the same as they are with all others of the world, in the hopes of removing all “irrational” allegiances that might cause him to prefer them over strangers.

This “new man” libertarian may be married, but he dare not expect or maintain sexual exclusivity with his wife, for that is the another source of jealous, strife, and conflict – the cosmopolitan libertarian is one of open marriage and an “it takes a village” attitude regarding child rearing. Parents have no special claim to their child anymore than a husband and wife have a special claim to each other.

In fact, any and all forms of sexuality are to be celebrated and championed as part of his overall rejection of boundaries, and this sentiment on sexual norms, this loathing of any standards and what it testifies about the naturally-occurring inequalities among mankind, logically extends to his view of physical borders that divide rather than unite. Whether private or not, borders constitute a sense of partition, separating “us” from “them” on many a basis, including meritocracy. The belief in merit is heresy in an egalitarian paradise.

The notion of standards or requirements to enter a territory or organization, save for the rejection of standards at all, is hateful to the cosmopolitan libertarian. To him, separation of any kind, whether it in word or in action, is an intolerable rebellion against the global communal vision: We are one. None shall divide us. He envisions a world where godless creatures peacefully consume the cheapest products made possible by the market and take joy and comfort in their hedonism in order to distract from any possible competing desires that might otherwise inspire them to question their conformity and develop values not shared by those around them.

Emotionally, he is blunted. Concepts such love must be tempered, whether by drugs or other chemicals, in order to ward off the temptation to care too much about anything beyond the material that might arouse a willingness to defend things that matter on a spiritual, rather than financial level.

Ultimately, this “new man” is dead inside, a soulless wretch, because fundamentally he denies what he is and in doing so engages in a futile revolt against his own moral agency and purpose as a human being. He lives for nothing worth living for, and because he cannot love and experience the joys of life that come with a higher purpose beyond pleasing base instincts, he must envy, hate, despise, and oppose those who do.

Most importantly, cosmopolitan libertarianism’s vision is doomed to fail, unless it’s true purpose is to prevent libertarianism itself from accomplishing anything. This “new man” is every bit as utopian as his Soviet predecessor. One might as well believe in the abolition of money and emotions.

For those of you confused as to the screeches coming from the bowels of less admirable libertarian circles in response to Deist’s speech, perhaps you now understand why.

Posted in libertarianism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments