Weimer America

Ryan Landry at the Daily Caller welcomes you to the nightmare that is the United States and the Western World.

On the drive to work, NPR airs a story about a transgender four year old. The S&P 500 hits a new high, but your coworkers’ adult children live with them. Your social media feed reveals a nonstop war of words over any issue. Not a soul in D.C. seems to want to fix anything. Berkeley’s streets look like a deleted scene from a Mad Max film. You go to bed knowing the next day will bring the same. It’s morning in Weimerica.

We live in a degenerate age that is sold as progress. Every boundary is pushed: divorce, illegitimacy, gay marriage, transg, soon to be followed by polygamy, bestiality, etc. This is not progress, just change. This is not new, only new on our shores. We live in the United States of Weimerica.

…..Weimerica will come to an end, and when it does, someone must be there to restore order.

And we all know what the Weimer Republic of the 1920s led to in the 1930s.

Either America falls like the USSR or Roman Empire of old, or it takes it cue from Germany and engages in a massive reactionary movement toward the Far Right. Newton’s Law of motion about equal and opposite reactions applies to mankind and the course of history as much as it does to physical objects.

What happens next is as inevitable as it was preventable. So when it happens, don’t let anyone tell you different.

Posted in Central Government | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Punch A Nazi

Posted in humor, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Refuting Criticism Of The Non-Aggression Principle

A few months ago I critiqued an article at Faith and Heritage regarding libertarianism. Venturing through their site once more, I came across a 2014 article titled Open Borders, but No Freebies”: Refuting Wilson’s Libertarian Position on Immigration. The author, who goes by the alias Nil Desperandum, demonstrates a profound ignorance regarding the application of the the Non-Aggression Principle and, like so many before him, insist on treating libertarianism as though it were a complete moral theory.

How many more times must we point out that it is limited to the use of force, and nothing else?

In a subsection of the article titled “The Falsity of the Nonaggression Principle,” he writes (bold emphasis added):

Now would be a good time to mention that the NAP is a demonic falsity born of the Enlightenment, and that libertarianism, or “classical liberalism,” is equally antichristian. The nonaggression principle teaches that all aggression is immoral, where “aggression” is defined as initiated violence towards a person or his property. This qualification of initiated violence is important, as NAP adherents believe in the legitimacy of violence exercised in self-defense – yet only for that reason.

Aggression is unjustified violence against an innocent person or their property. That is rather important to mention, wouldn’t you think? If I shoot a man without just cause, it’s murder. If I shoot a man trying to stab me, it’s self dense.

As you can probably already guess, the author will not offer any pretext upon which aggression is or is not justified, having inferred that aggression is acceptable under certain circumstances.

He goes on:

Though it is ordinarily applied in discussions respecting the civil realm, the NAP is by its nature a comprehensive principle, and its comprehensiveness helps to display its errors. Observe the erroneous consequences of the NAP in its implications on family or domestic government: per the NAP, not only would slavery be immoral, but all parental discipline as well. No physical harm can befall any individual except in self-defense, and children are not excepted; this undermines any parental rights to corporal punishments. Hence “voluntaryists” today actively discourage filial discipline as a violation of children’s rights. Even worse than the degradation of family government, however, is the havoc this principle wreaks upon the divine government itself. God’s justice is retributive,1 but the NAP plainly requires any violence initiated by God to be out of self-defense, which of course would never occur.2 Frankly, if this proposed principle for all human authority flatly contradicts the execution of God’s moral governance, and if there is to be some kind of analogy between divine and human governance, then such an enormous point of disconnect should cause alarm in all NAP proponents.

Slavery immoral? Perish the thought!

The author confuses force or violence with aggression regarding child discipline; because parents are caretakers or stewards of their offspring, they hold a special relationship over them in which certain types of force or violence are justified.

Further, even libertarians who oppose corporal punishment admit that it is difficult to conceive of an entity that would intervene on the child’s behalf without resembling a state.

As for his argument about God and self-defense, let us grant that the NAP has theological implications. His point is still absurd. Not only does justice by its very nature permit, if not demand the use of force to carry out its decrees, but the Bible teaches that God created everything. Ergo, everything that exists is his property and can be done with however he pleases. The verse “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and compassion on whom I have compassion,” is the declaration of a property owner regarding his property.

Furthermore, under Christian doctrine, no one is innocent in the eyes of God, so nothing God does is a violation of the NAP.

The author writes further:

On to civil polity. The NAP is likely applicable to the civil realm only if it is postulated as a general principle for the divine and domestic governments as well – for, inter alia, the nation is an outgrowth of the family, and human authority reflective of the divine – but regardless, we can still criticize the obvious falsity of a merely civil NAP without recourse to such reasoning. The argument is plain and conclusive: Scripture contradicts it. The Old Testament case laws include numerous instances where “victimless crimes” are punished, and therefore where the civil government commits violence against individuals for reasons other than self-defense.3 A shining example of such aggression against nonaggressive behavior is the execution of sodomites commanded in Leviticus 20:13. Unless a libertarian would strive to present these laws’ motivating principle (general equity) as related solely to the temporary and ceremonial character of theocratic Israel, and as entirely unrelated to the general moral principles of national well-being and government – a hard argument to make – he must concede that Scripture provides us with moral principles by which the civil magistrate is to punish “victimless crimes,” and hence to violate the NAP.

The author is confusing man’s perspective with God’s; a sin is not by its very nature an act of aggression against man, but it is against God, for it is a misuse of his property, i.e. the human. Not I nor anyone else have the right to carry out wrath and judgement on God’s behalf, unless He specifically authorizes it or commands it.Has this author received a divine message commanding him thus?

God’s commandment in these instances cited above applied to a theocracy that was directly governed by God himself; it had no earthy king and no ruler until the time of Saul. That God ordained or approved of certain practices within that theocracy is irrelevant to modern governance by men with neither direct nor indirect divine inspiration or guidance.

Yet even if this scriptural argument were unconvincing – along with the historic practice of Christendom, and even the rest of the world, in refusing to implement this utopian dream – the very fact that civil (not merely divine) justice is retributive should cure the NAPster of his delusion. The Word of God accords with natural reason in presenting the primary end of justice as vengeance, the infliction of suffering as recompense for a past evil committed, proportionate to the nature and heinousness of that evil. This is displayed in God’s moral government and is imaged as well in human civil government: the magistrate “is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13:4).

Someone please explain how Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were ministers of God. If they are not the magistrate, then who is, and how do we know this?

Libertarians, inasmuch as they truly cleave to the NAP, have no category for this. They deny that any individual could ever have a right to inflict retributive suffering upon another individual, so insofar as civil governments truly punish anyone and do not solely defend, libertarians must reject this God-given role for the state as well.

And the author cannot explain why Stalin wasn’t a minister of God, and if he wasn’t, then who was during the 70-year communist regime in Russia? And how do we determine this?

I have a feeling we already know the answer.

At best libertarians can posit fantasies having the appearance of civil retribution, as is present in all “social contract” theories: an individual, having the God-given right to inflict violence and death on himself as he wills (he doesn’t), delegates this right to a violence-inflicting institution, promising to accept penalties for ill behavior in exchange for that institution’s protection from others (why not just pay them?). To make this less repugnant to common sense regarding the nature of society, libertarians then hold that all children in a society, in their choice upon maturation not to depart from that institution’s general jurisdiction, thereby “implicitly contract” the same arrangement as their imaginary forebears. Among other flaws, never mind that such a dire choice – leave or submit – is itself imposed upon their precious individual rights!

Enough with this falsehood. The NAP generates the Jacobin breakdown of all order, and the libertarianism which feeds on it must perish with it.

Christian libertarians believe that no man owns another; all are owned by God. If someone sins against God but violates no other man’s rights, then the matter is between that individual and God.

The author above heavily insinuates that some men are divinely appointed to rule over others, and that those destined to be ruled have no right to resist their enslavement. Conveniently, I’ve never encountered such men who believe they were divinely selected to serve as the slave to another man.

Kinists such as this author would be pleased to know his disgust for libertarianism is shared by Pope Francis; the same man who welcomed millions of foreigners hostile to Christianity recently warned of an “invasion of libertarians” (was there ever a more foolish man ever to reign over the Vatican?)

Michael Mahharrey at Godarchy explains why Francis and those who think likewise either misunderstand the philosophy or create strawmen out of it:

The non-aggression principle lies at the heart of libertarianism. It rejects the use of coercive force. It rejects the notion that I can hit you in order to advance my conception of the common good. It rejects the belief that I can point a gun at you and force you to participate in my “community.”

In essence the NAP mirrors the Second Great Commandment – love your neighbor as you love yourself.


Posted in libertarianism | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

What Ann Coulter’s Canceled Speech Tells Us

Ann Coulter was scheduled to give a speech at Berkeley, but had to cancel at the last minute shortly after the Young America’s Foundation (YAF) yanked their support due to overwhelming threats of violence from leftists and a lack of certainty that campus police would adequately protect them.

This incident tells us two very important things.

One, conservatives won’t stand up to the Left the way the Alt. Right does. When the Left threatens violence, you either accept the challenge or back down and give them command of the field.

Second, it goes to show that there is in fact a “yuge” difference between the Right and the Left, not just in terms of how they behave, but how they are treated.

No leftist speakers have to cancel because Alt. Right shitlords send death threats. No leftist groups are attacked by conservative mobs. None of Hillary Clinton’s campaign rallies were suspended due to protests to the point where she had to climb over a fence. There are no videos of right wingers assaulting old men and women.  Moreover, no government entity controlled by right wingers has ever, in recent memory, turned a blind eye or offered scant protection to leftists engaging in lawful, peaceful behavior.

All equivocating of the Alt. Right and the Left are patently false. One side has its flaws without question, but thus far they have adhered to basic property rights. The other side has not, does not, and has no intention to do so.

The idea that libertarians can maintain neutrality in this conflict is naive or merely a rhetorical weapon to keep libertarians controlled and ineffective.

Posted in cultural marxism, free speech | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Preventing The Reaction

James Lawrence at alternative-right.blogspot.com argues why leftists shouldn’t be allowed to have free speech (bold emphasis):

And this is the argument against granting free speech to the Left that I wish to emphasise above all others. Yes, leftists have almost nothing worth saying, and their mouths are stuffed with lies. Yes, the Left constantly stirs up hatred and division for no reason other than to profit from it, poisoning any society in which it gains a significant following. Yes, we are in the business of encouraging young European men to revolt against the paid thugs and lackeys of a powerful and sociopathic ruling class, and cannot in good conscience ask this of them if the only result of our victory will be to let the enemy regroup under state protection. But more importantly than all of this, in the present situation in which our civilisation finds itself, it’s simply a matter of us or them – “us”, in this case, encompassing everyone who does not submit to the leftist metapolitical fighting machine, which shows no mercy to those who see themselves as non-combatants in its war on the West. Set yourself to do anything less than smash the Left utterly and silence them for good, and it will be you who gets smashed and silenced by them – inevitably so.

The mistake by classical liberals and libertarians attempting to refute these beliefs is to ignore the environment which provokes this type of response – and make no mistake, it is a response to something.

Lawrence’s argument can be boiled down to this: Either they silence us, or we silence them. Pick one.

Most rebuttals do not address this or explain why it is not the case, and in doing so they undermine their own objective.

Merely two days after Lawrence’s article came out, the New York Times published an op/ed written by Ulrich Baer titled What Liberal Snowflakes Get Right About Free Speech defending those who wanted to bar Richard Spencer from speaking at Auburn University.

He writes ((bold emphasis added).

The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. Free-speech protections — not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities — should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.


What is under severe attack, in the name of an absolute notion of free speech, are the rights, both legal and cultural, of minorities to participate in public discourse. The snowflakes sensed, a good year before the election of President Trump, that insults and direct threats could once again become sanctioned by the most powerful office in the land. They grasped that racial and sexual equality is not so deep in the DNA of the American public that even some of its legal safeguards could not be undone.


This requires the realization that in politics, the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing.

This is hardly the first time a leftist has called for censoring people on the Right. Indeed, it has been part and parcel of their political strategy for 50 years, ever since they successfully embedded themselves within major social, cultural, and political institutions. The free speech advocates of the 1960s weren’t interested in obtaining that right for all; it was a short-term goal that, once achieved, no longer suited their overall endgame.

The Alt. Right holds no political power and exerts no influence or control over cultural and educational institutions. Therefore, for them to advocate censorship of their enemies means far less than those who do exercise power to do the same; it also matters which side drew first blood.

Under libertarianism, the only difference between force and coercion is who is in the right. Who instigated it?

And that’s the rub; the Left acts, and the Right reacts. But for some reason, too often libertarians remain relatively silent or tempered in their protestation until the Right finally reacts in full force.

This was a point raised by Henry Olson at American Renaissance. During the controversy surrounding Richard Spencer’s scheduled speech at Auburn University, Olson notes that libertarians were strangely silent about defending Spencer’s right to speak at a public higher education institution.

Libertarians like to pretend they can get along with the modern Left, mainly out of a belief that its focus on sex and drugs reflects opposition to government controls. In fact, on the road to achieving their vision of sexually and emotionally “liberated” individuals, there is no doubt today’s Left will become every bit as oppressive as their Maoist and Leninist predecessors.

Witness the cheers to which Kim Davis was put in jail for defying gay marriage. Witness the constant cries that free speech does not apply to “racists.” Or witness the Left gloating over the prospects of white dispossession—even as the South African Boers face ruthless government-backed plunder—while it cheers the importation of millions of Muslim migrants for whom apostasy is a capital offense.

Each of these should be enough to make a real friend of liberty grab a stick and join the fight against the antifa. Instead, we get mealy-mouthed false equivalencies that claim both Left and Right are equally bad. Or worse, we get silence.

I would also add that libertarians were more or less silent regarding the shameless, outright destruction of private property by antifas attempting to assault attendees of a National Policy Institute convention – but I saw plenty willing to condemn Richard Spencer for raising his glass and saying “hail Trump!”

And this is why the Alt. Right doesn’t take libertarian criticism seriously. Much of it has been a game of strain the gnat and swallow the camel. I appreciate that some in the liberty movement want to avoid labels and maintain neutrality, yet if they adhere to consistent standards they would, as Olson put it, become “a real friend of liberty grab a stick and join the fight against the antifa.”

If we are to convince those on the Alt. Right the merits of classical liberalism and libertarianism, we must first and foremost condemn those on the Left who have done much to provoke the authoritarian streak now creeping into Alt. Right discourse, ardently champion the right of self-defense against aggression of any kind, and – most vital of all – ceaselessly remind people that the Left is responsible for creating the toxic environment that makes proposals such as the one made by Lawrence sensible to men who would otherwise embrace what we preach.

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

Don’t Like Corporations? Reduce Big Government

There is a fascinating article at the New Republic discussing the inanities of the modern employer-employee relationship. However, it omits several critical facts as to why major corporations hold such control over their employees, and none of them have to do with too much freedom and liberty.

  • The sheer number of federal regulations on business that smother entrepreneurship and start ups. Big Business loves Big Government.
  • The Federal Reserve (as always).
  • How business and occupation licensing and minimum wage laws artificially “kill off” jobs they attribute to automation and robots.
  • The student loan bubble forces many college graduates to work these jobs in order to pay off loans, reducing their options at the bargaining table.
  • Health care regulations that tie your health insurance directly to your job, thus giving your boss an additional bargaining chip to hold over you.
Posted in capitalism, Central Government, central planning, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why The Libertarian Movement Is Dead

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present to you Exhibits A and B.

Brink Lindsey is the vice president of the Cato Institute, a D.C.-based libertarian think tank.  Here is what he had to say recently (Exhibit A) about Ron Paul, who did more than anyone other than perhaps Murray Rothbard to energize libertarianism in the U.S.

Speaking of Rothbard, Lindsey has some thoughts on him as well – Exhibit B.

Tom Woods writes:

Lindsey, meanwhile, has favored a strategy he calls “liberaltarian.” The left shares some of our views, so let’s hook up with them instead of with the right!

I think we can all see how that’s been going.

The rest is history; the right-wing libertarians were kicked out or pushed out of the libertarian movement and joined the Alt. Right.

Are there some principled libertarians still left in the libertarian movement? Certainly. But a handful of individuals does not a movement make.

The prosecution rests its case, your honor.

Posted in libertarianism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments