This is the first part in a two-series I’m putting out articulating a new direction for my writing, either at this blog or on another site.
I’m at an interesting point in life right now.
At the moment I am actively trying to avoid social media, inasmuch as it is possible for a person working in the media can (not very well). The totality of what I continuously see and hear and read around me is enough to drive a person to the bottle for life. Every day I get up and go online and read something that makes me wonder if I truly am either insane or in the midst of a nightmare. True, it provides a lot of great content for this blog, but there is a price to pay. I’m a highly opinionated person, but due to where I live, where I work, and other external factors, mostly I’m forced to keep my thoughts to myself, save for a select group online I converse with.
This blog mostly acts as an outlet to prevent me from going insane.
The price paid for this is sheer exhaustion, emotionally, spiritually and otherwise. I enjoy ranting as much as anyone, but at a certain point it feels like I’m throwing rocks at the Moon to make it go away as it keeps getting closer and closer to me.
It’s reached the point where I don’t want to know what’s going on around me. I don’t want to hear about the latest inane policy or law our government’s proposing or planning, because every time I see the masses rallying around their respective ideological flags. I don’t need to go into details, because at this point, if you need to be told what’s wrong, you probably won’t listen anyway and it’s a waste of time to talk to you.
I don’t debate on Facebook, but my newsfeed is full of anti-intellectual posts and arguments and memes from all sides . I cherish the opportunity to have an actual discussion with someone who is steeped in history, literature, philosophy, and logic enough to foster a lively discussion, rather than a ego-based debate.
But they are rare.
The Current State of the Liberty Movement
But what really makes me want to avoid reading anything about the government is the responses I see in the liberty movement, including the libertarian movement. We’ve certainly made inroads in recent years, but frankly every single step we take we seem to take three steps backwards.
My question is where is this all going? What progress are we making? At what point are we going to start effecting the ideals we profess so bravely online? When am I going to see those ideas play out in real life?
I ask because it seems that much of it is turning into a country club-style conversation in which the same ideas are brought up again and again, or highly hypothetical situations are debated endlessly. Or there is political activism but it doesn’t cut to the root of the problem.
Meanwhile, outside Rome continues to burn all the more brightly.
Another problem is that libertarianism is not a political ideology or system. It tells you the truth, but it does not tell you what to do. It goes back to the concept of taking the libertarian red pill.
For me, I wish to use libertarianism to protect and preserve my culture, my values, my traditions, and my religion (I will go into more detail about this in Part II). But the liberty movement has too many unplugged individuals running around aimlessly because they didn’t know what it would cost them to take the red pill. Or, they regret taking the red pill and want to hook back up into the Matrix.
And even if they claim to adhere to the NAP, their agenda is diametrically opposed to mine. This is why so many of them keep trying to get their version of The Vision inextricably linked to libertarianism itself.
Recall what Kevin Carson wrote in his article at the Center for a Stateless Society titled “The End of Libertarians.”
The version of libertarianism preached by these people is dying, because it’s the ideology of a dying (and rightfully so) demographic. Whether we let them take the entire movement down with them, or whether we make ourselves relevant to a larger world of people outside a tiny privileged group, is up to us.
Yes, you guessed correctly. The “rightfully dying demographic” are “20-something middle-class white males” like me. This is their vision for the libertarian movement.
There is a reason why so many white men became ethno-statists and Trump-supporters (and thanks a lot for that, by the way). Only cuckolds (this includes Carson, who is himself a self-hating white man) continue supporting a movement that has members openly cheering the extinction of certain people without being openly condemned and ostracized from the group. Forget lacking empathy; how about not fantasizing about people’s deaths? Did I ask too much?
Sure, Carson might be in the minority when he says this, (or not) but even if this were true, it is just one of innumerable things I hear, from white male privilege myths and immigration to cultural values and religion that show how trying to maintain a “libertarian movement” is guaranteed to fail in the long run. There are far too many who think being libertarian means ignoring all differences between people, that language doesn’t matter, that culture doesn’t matter, that gender is a social construct. They think anarchy means no rules, no hierarchies, that everyone everywhere around the world is the exact same and thinks the same and shares the same basic views. They stubbornly refuse to see how democracy and the welfare state creates problems for open borders and think any protests to the contrary is socialist. They care more about promoting polyamory than they are about self-defense or creating a culture of resistance against state tyranny. They buy into the whole #BlackLivesMatter nonsense rather than highlight how giving certain people state privileges to shoot and kill others is the root cause of the problem (and that the stats don’t fit the narrative?). They scream bloody murder over Trump’s presidential candidacy right before they dismiss all the underlying problems that have directly contributed to his popularity. They’re more interested in supporting Obama’s hell-bent campaign to bring in Syrian refugees from a country he bombed and helped form a terrorist state than they are about the fact that our colleges are churning out future zombie voters who oppose free speech, think that all men are potential rapists and that women are being brutally assaulted in droves on university campuses. They’re not particularly concerned about in the Soviet-style marriage system we have in place, and even when they admit it reluctantly, they insist that the men opposing it also hate women.
The implications for this are huge: It means that for many in the “liberty movement,” their values and beliefs are currently being promoted through the state’s violence and aggression. More likely than not, when the state goes to fulfill more of their goals, in violation of the NAP, these “libertarians” will either remain silent in complicity or actually rationalize the actions.
The thick/thin debate is a great example. How reliable do you think they’re going to be when we go to fight these injustices? How surprised should we be, then, when great men like Ron Paul are ridiculed by hypocritical nobodies in the movement via open letters and basically told they need to shut up and stand aside?
As CJay Engel wrote at Reformed Libertarian (emphasis mine).
This, is the Progressive Libertarian war on the Old Guard. We must be honest with ourselves. We must see this trend as reflective of the world in general. The new libertarian tendency sits in the context of society at large: those with traditional views on things, who are wary of the Progressivist takeover of culture, are not to be accepted in polite society. They are outcasts, not only in the libertarian world, but in the world at large. Your religion, your views on morality, your standards of virtue have no place in Progressive Utopia. Flee or die.
Frankly, it’s more than I can stomach any longer.
It has become self-evident that if people like myself want to use libertarianism to preserve our culture, our values, our traditions, and our religion, then it is time to break off and form our own movement, because any libertarian whose goal is to destroy these things or directly oppose me in my endeavor is an enemy and should be regarded as such.
The fact that someone follows the NAP does not make them an ally or friend. An enemy of yours who is a libertarian is still an enemy; they’re just not a criminal.
It reminds me of what the Israelites said after hearing King Rehoboam declare how he would continue his father’s oppression of them.
“What share do we have in David,
what part in Jesse’s son?
To your tents, Israel!
Look after your own house, David!”
And that is exactly what I think we should do. It is what I’m going to do.