Be A Creator, Not a Spectator

Often we are distracted by what happens in the political world. We let what others do affect us as individuals. We allow someone we’ve never met to determine our identity.

Morever, there is a tendency within libertarianism to criticize, but not create, build, or produce. We emphasize what we oppose, but not what we love and cherish. Mockery and sarcasm are great if you’re a hipster libertarian, but that’s not the kind of man I strive to be.

A recent essay by Jack Donovan aptly describes him:

I want to go out on a limb and stand for something. I want to spend my life making something beautiful that I really believe in. I want to inspire people — not just make them giggle. I want to challenge them to become superior versions of themselves — instead of just feeling superior. It’s important to recognize what is wrong with the world around you, but until you transcend that dissatisfaction and begin working to create something that you think is right, you are merely a spectator, not a creator.

We should all aim for greatness in our lives, whatever it is we feel called to do. We should endeavor to better ourselves and to ignore or sidestep the state when it attempts to interfere. We should not stand and wait for obstacles to disappear. Even as we fight to remove them, we continue onward with our life objectives.

That is what it means to be truly free.

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

Is Liberty Compatible With Nationalism?

C6RFBE9WMAAkLXH.jpg large.jpg

Site-note: The rise of Based Stickman and the propaganda art created mere days after his arrest is a textbook case of what I described in my essay the  American Troubles

Lately, I’ve seen people posting a 1944 article written by Ludwig Von Mises titled “Liberty Opposes Nationalism.” The essay itself is very good, and I highly recommend you read it. However, like so many works of literature, it was a product of its time and must be applied within that context in order to understand it and its relevant to our modern political issues.

First, I want differentiate two forms of nationalism and clarify which one Mises is referring to. One type of nationalism places primary emphasis on promotion of a specific culture and interests.There is nothing about this that contradicts or opposes libertarianism.

The other definition is that of a general political concept that provides the foundation for the nation-state.

This is the definition Mises uses in his critique.

The principle of nationality does not represent the liberal solution of the international problem. The liberals urged self-determination. The principle of nationality is an outcome of the interpretation which people in Central and Eastern Europe, who never fully grasped the meaning of liberal ideas, gave to the principle of self-determination. It is a distortion, not a perfection, of liberal thought.

I have no qualms with what he goes on to write in the rest of the article. My problem is that people posting it are using it as anti-nationalist literature within our current political scene, when the alternative is even worse for self-determination.

We have to keep in mind that Mises wrote this at a time when the political debate was one of nationalism versus local autonomy. Nationalism was a movement toward bigger, more powerful states.

World War 2 represented the height of nationalist thought, a movement which had started during the 19th Century. Lincoln had waged war to preserve the American Union. Nationalists in Italy and Germany had also undermined the various regional governments and centralized political authority.Otto Von Bismark was the father of the welfare state.

Mises rightfully said this type of government was antithetical to the concept of individual liberty, because it forced association based on nationality, and should be opposed.

No one is arguing against this. Even nationalists such as Vox Day concede that as a system it is a “necessary evil.” But that isn’t the existential question before us currently. The fight has changed. It is between globalism and nationalism. You may not like either side, but that is the conflict at hand. Ignoring this makes libertarians irrelevant to the discussion.

So the question is, which ideology is more likely to eventually lead to liberty later on, if that ideology triumphs? Under which government would libertarianism be most likely to survive and possible gain the ear of its leader?

This is where right and left libertarians part ways, even though the answer should be obvious to all with the intellectual honest to admit it.

Simply put, nationalism is a decentralized, small government ideology compared to globalism. Nationalists want a nation-state. Globalists want a one-world government. The latter creates a larger state than the other. This is as self-evident as anything could ever be.

Since libertarians are opposed to the state, logically we should prefer smaller governments over larger ones and view it as a progressive step towards an even smaller state.

For the life of me, I cannot even begin to understand how some libertarians such as Jeffrey Tucker condemn nationalism, yet think a global, unelected bureaucratic shadow government in the form of the Deep State is preferable to a constitutionally-elected nationalist who can still be held accountable for his actions and impeached and removed. One might as well have sided with the British Empire during the Irish War of Independence, because the Irish rebels desired to create an all-island state.

Within the context of the early 21st Century geopolitical fight, if nationalism is defeated it will be no victory for liberty. It will only be a triumph for those who think nation-states are too small of governments and offer insufficient power for its leaders. I cannot think of a more unlibertarian outcome.

Libertarians do not have to endorse nationalism is order to perceive globalism as the greater threat to our beliefs and the latter defeats the former.  What will leave me forever confounded are those who think nationalism is the greater evil of the two.

Those who sympathize with nationalists do not need to explain why they do so. Those who have seethe with contempt for an ideology opposed to a larger, more authoritarian state need to explain why they think larger government is less of an evil than smaller one.

To be frank, I think has everything to do with the underlying premise of those governments. Nationalism is based on the concept of national identity. Globalism is founded on the notion that everyone is the same and thus should be ruled by the same state. If you are an egalitarian libertarian involved in a revolt against nature and believe the globalist lie, you will at the very least sympathize heavily with its intent and loathe the raison d’être of the nation-state, even though it is a smaller government.

They simply hate the idea of national consciousness – a concept which would be preserved under nationalism but conveniently destroyed under globalism.

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

Some Thoughts On Nationalism

Boxer has written a very good piece on nationalism and how it may play out in the United States. A lot of libertarians want to shy away from this topic, but it is clear that this could very well be the future, and it has generated enough interest to warrant conversation rather than dismissal.

I rather like his point about white nationalists and the inconsistent definitions thrown around; there is nothing wrong with desiring to live in a homogeneous nation, but I am wary of those who wear the white nationalist label on their arm sleeve. There is a difference between taking pride in your heritage, nation, and forefathers and letting an accident of birth entirely define who you are as an individual.

Boxer writes:

The problem with nationalism in contemporary North America is the immense size of countries like the USA and Canada, coupled with the amazing mobility of its people. It used to be the case that we had regional identities, but those have largely been erased, not only through immigration, but through internal migrations. Even North American natives — white or black folks whose history in North America stretches back centuries — tend to move great distances for work, marriage, school and retirement. This leaves people uncoupled from community, and tends to deracinate even those people who sacrifice to stay on the land from which they were born. If your neighbors are constantly moving away and being replaced, then you’re still a foreigner, even if you occupy the family farm.

The centralization of capital also leads to a cultural homogenization. I remember, even ten years ago, when I’d find curious local shops and restaurants. These have largely been replaced by massive international chains. These megamarts will occasionally commercialize a reified simulacrum of some local culture, that once existed authentically, in their local branches, but the depiction is transparent and only done to maximize profits.

Thus I don’t have a lot of confidence that Bannon nationalism will be successful in saving America. If I had to guess, I’d predict that Texas and Québec would probably survive 200 years from now, but the political and social climate in the rest of North America is sorta up for grabs.

As Fred Reed wrote this week, the genie is out of the bottle regarding immigration changes; short of a gruesome conflict and/or ethnic displacement, the United States will never return to its pre-1965 demographics. It is obviously not an option for a realist or libertarian, let alone anyone with a basic sense of humanity or decency.

The only feasible and morally defensible path forward is the peaceful creation of a new nation within the North American continent when or as the USA finally dissolves.

I am growing more convinced that an economic collapse of some kind is necessary to instigate this transition. As long as the US government can print money and engage in quantitative easing, it can delay the inevitable just a little bit longer and keep the Empire afloat. People will not consider the destruction of the USA and the dissolution of the Union unless there is no other option on the table. They will have to get desperate.

I imagine that this kind of nation will take consideration some of the issues Boxer mentions when they go to craft a new trade, border, and immigration policy.

What can’t go on forever, won’t, and that day could be sooner than we think. As Vox Day noted earlier this week, there is no us, anymore.

The USA will be physically divided. At this point, the only serious questions are a) where the lines will be drawn, b) the level of violence involved, and c) precisely whom is going to be permitted to remain where.

 

Posted in nationalism, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Future Role Of Libertarianism

Vox Day was gracious enough to respond to my analysis of his 16 Points of the Alt. Right. I’m pleased to see the conversation moving forward, because I think it is important for us to know where exactly we disagree and where we see eye to eye. I don’t mind a chasm between libertarianism and the Alt. Right, but I insist that our disagreements be accurately conveyed. And the more I read and listen to those on the Alt. Right, the more I find commonalities rather than irreconcilable differences.

VD made a very profound observation we libertarians should consider well:

The core conflict between libertarianism and the Alt-Right is that the Alt-Right is perfectly willing to crush individual liberties if that is necessary to preserve Western civilization and the European nations. And that is something that libertarians are going to have to accept if they are going to remain intellectually relevant in any way, because for all that the nation-state is a necessary evil, it is to be vastly preferred to the multinational state or the global state.

And those are the three options on offer at present.

I expect most libertarians to eventually gravitate to the Alt-Right, simply because the latter is both viable and coherent, while the former is not. I hope you will note that I don’t say that with contempt, but rather, with regret.

I have reached a similar conclusion, with similar regret. However painful this conversation may be for libertarians to have, it’s something that needs to happen. History makes it clear that life choices during times such as these are not simple.

Robert E. Lee fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War despite being anti-secession and anti-slavery, because the alternative was either participating in or passively tolerating the military invasion of his home state, neither of which were morally acceptable options for him.

I have no doubt that libertarians will face a similarly vexing situation in the near future, but the current mindset I see is the equivalent to thinking the North wouldn’t have invaded and slavery would have ended if Robert E. Lee had just stayed home.

Such thinking is how we become irrelevant to those facing the same moral conundrum.

To libertarians horrified at Vox Day’s observations, I would only ask what our actual, real life choices are. To do nothing or to simply discuss these things within the safe confines of social media means we allow men of action to determine our fates.

As Aragon said in The Two Towers: open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not. So what are we going to do?

Never forget who the enemy is, and that is neo-Babel globalism in which all differences between all forms of identity are erased through the same brutal measures as every totalitarian regime in history has used to enforce their decrees. Men who are willing to fight for the West against this foe deserve support when attacked, not nitpicking or critiquing by people who won’t fight themselves.

A great flaw among libertarian thinking is that we are in total control over the circumstances in which our choices are made. This is the product of too much hypothetical, theoretical thinking. If we don’t like the options before us, we make amendments to the hypothetical until it offers a clear, morally umambigous path without forcing us to compromise our values.

There is not, and never was, a purely libertarian solution to what we face. Sadly, times of great crisis are when nuance and subtleties we strive for are least desired or appreciated.

The best hope for the future of libertarian is to act like Aristotle to whatever Alexander the Great happens to take over by curbing their rashness and tempering their harsh political policies whenever possible.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

A Libertarian Take On The 16 Points Of The Alt. Right

A Libertarian Take On The 16 Points Of The Alt. Right

(Update: Vox Day has graciously replied to my analysis.)

In libertarian circles, I sense the discussion over the Alt. Right has reached a high point. Instigating this conversation perhaps was National Policy Institute Head Richard Spencer’s appearance near or at the International Students for Liberty Conference a week or so ago.

Frankly, I’m concerned by the growing anti-intellectualism and lack of research by a lot of libertarians regarding the beliefs of the Alt. Right. Many of them, I sense, have not taken so much as an hour reading a single Alt. Right essay or listening to an Alt. Right speech. I hear all sorts of insults thrown toward men such as Spencer and others, but I have been thoroughly unimpressed by the critiques, if any, made of what they say or believe.

The movement has been around long enough and is diverse enough to warrant better descriptions than “white supremacists” and “Neo-Nazis.”

To that end, I wanted to explore the 16 Points Of The Alt. Right as written by Vox Day. My hope is that even if libertarians do not agree with them, at the very least they understand what their core beliefs are. I appreciate the fact that the Alt. Right has a somewhat vague definition, but it would be hard to deny the influence Vox Day has in defining and shaping it.

My analysis is in bold italics.

A Libertarian Analysis Of The 16 Points of The Alt. Right

  1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.

So far, so good. Nothing wrong with this.

  1. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk’s 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.

The question is, in what ways is it an alternative to libertarianism? Unlike the Alternative Right, libertarianism pertains to a narrowly defined scope of politics; the use of force. Outside of that, it has no prescribed moral, ethical, spiritual, religious, or cultural beliefs. Libertarianism by itself is not a complete moral theory, yet it also does not claim to be one.

  1. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.

The first part is fine. The second part is a bit subjective, but the concept itself is a sound one. As long as your interpretation of reality, cultural tradition, and lessons of history are accurate.

  1. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.

Libertarians can disagree or agree with this, but this has nothing to do with libertarianism, per se. It is a description, not prescription.

  1. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

The fundamental question to be asked is what does nationalism look like when implemented? Is it carried out peacefully or, if done violently, in the face of unjust coercion and aggression by enemies?

The answer matters, because if nationalism is in accordance with the natural order, then it will not require the state to enforce it; it would only require the state get out of the way and let people voluntarily form a homogeneous nation. There is nothing wrong with violently resisting state efforts to undermine voluntary nationalism or the formation of a nation. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with violently opposing unjust efforts by people attempting to carry out a nationalist policy against peaceful people or create an artificial nation.

As long as nationalism is descriptive (this is how it is), and not prescriptive (this is how it must be no matter what), then it does not violate libertarianism.

I also insist that whoever condemns the Alt. Right for nationalism remain consistent by condemning all forms of nationalism. This means any person of any ethnic group in any part of the world wishing to preserve their nation or national identity is inherently unlibertarian – of course, I would demand to know why that is the case.

Additionally, this would logically dictate that multiculturalism is the natural state of human relations and the de facto libertarian stance. Any homgenuous nation would be considered an unfree society.  If it is unlibertarian to promote a national identity and form a nation, the two pillars of nationalism, then people must exist within a multi-ethnic, multi-national environment. There is simply no escaping this conclusion.

  1. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.

Agreed, assuming this refers to globalism as a political concept, i.e. world government and centralization of political authority. Other forms of globalism that are the natural result of modern technology and voluntary human action are another matter. One could split hairs over Vox Day’s definition, but I feel no need to do so. The globalists he refers to are obviously not libertarians or pro-freedom.

  1. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.

One hundred percent agree. Egalitarianism is a revolt against nature.

  1. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.

This point is outside the purview of libertarian philosophy. Because of that, I feel no need to comment on it.

  1. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.

This is merely pointing out reality: race and culture matter. People associate with others based on preferences. Politics are one of them, but it is at the bottom tier compared to language, ethnicity, culture, and religion. It is why the libertarian movement could never be a real movement. It lacks these primary values.

  1. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.

Non-interventionism, anti-imperialism, anti-war. Nothing to complain about here, unless you’re Jeffrey Tucker and think the Deep State hellbent on a war with Russia is preferable to “Neo-Nazis” who want to avoid further empire-building exercises.

  1. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.

 It also equals censorship.

  1. The Alt Right doesn’t care what you think of it.

No point in commenting on this one.

  1. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.

Here is perhaps the greatest area of contention between libertarians and Alt. Right leaders such as Vox Day. He recently had a debate with Bob Murphy, hosted on Tom Woods’ show. To be entirely frank, I am not totally convinced either way. I obviously support the concept of free trade, but I do not believe libertarians or Austrian economists have sufficiently addressed some of the problems Vox Day has observed – if so, I haven’t come across them, yet.

I would add that nations can and have survived harmful protectionist trade policies. Other political stances such as open borders are far more destructive (see Germanic Migration). I’ll take a country with a protectionist trade policy but with secure borders over a country that has open trade and open borders – which also happens to be the policy of Hillary Clinton.

  1. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.

Anyone who thinks this is racist, is racist. If you oppose this, then you must logically oppose white men proactively promoting the continuation of their own race through procreation and their opposition to state-imposed policies openly intended to achieve their race’s demographic decline and dispossession. Libertarians do not need to champion this cause, but it is absurd to think they are forbidden from doing so because of the Non-Aggression Principle.

  1. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.

Please read the first sentence. Done? Do it again. And again, this time slowly. Now tell me how the Alt. Right is founded on the idea of white supremacy.

  1. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.

Once more, please explain how any of this is white supremacy or hateful. It’s only hateful if you believe that whites should be held to separate moral and ethical standards than every other race or ethnic group. Of course, if you believe that, wouldn’t that imply white supremacy?

So, aside from free trade and perhaps some elements of nationalism, much of what comprises the Alt. Right ideology is outside of libertarianism; it neither contradicts it nor agrees with it. The goals of the Alt. Right are not mutually exclusive of those in libertarianism.

Whatever the case, I see many similar values between the two movements. The areas of disagreement, in my opinion, are secondary and not fundamental components. There is room for friendly dispute.

It is my sincere hope that both sides can engage in thoughtful conversations and work together when mutually beneficial against common enemies. Whether anyone cares to admit it or not, it has become self-evident that the Alt. Right, whatever its flaws, is trying to preserve the only kind of civilization in which libertarianism can exist at all.

Posted in Central Government, cultural marxism, Culture, Immigration, libertarianism, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 37 Comments

Egalitarianism Is Anti-Libertarian

One of the greatest modern shibboleths is the concept of equality as defined by egalitarianism. Proponents would have you believe that their intent is genuinely good-willed. Their aim supposedly is to end prejudice and bigotry, to treat everyone equally.

However, their idealistic rhetoric does not match the brutal tactics they employ to carry out their vision for the world.

That is because when they speak of equality, libertarians often confuse that to mean “equal rights.” Their definition is far removed.

Libertarians speak of equality as the basis of how people should be allowed to interact with one another.Whether inequality results from this is not their concern, provided no rights are violated. Egalitarians see equality in outcome and circumstance as a human right.

The former is the foundation for human relations. The latter is the objective. One is descriptive, the other is prescription.

There are some libertarians who also espouse an egalitarian mindset. The problem is that their vision contradicts the natural order; the world is inherently unequal in regard to abilities, strengths, intelligence, culture, language, technology, and so on.

To make people equal, you must first violate their rights.

As author John C. Wright writes (bold emphasis mine):

Egalitarianism is the theory that if men differ in success or wealth or strength, popularity or fame or intelligence or moral fiber, the state must act to subsidize, reward, and uplift the failures, and also handicap and punish the successful.

Equality before the law means that each man’s innate rights to his property or liberty are protected with a blind indifference to rank or privilege. A pauper’s hovel is as protected from entry without a search warrant as much as a millionaire’s mansion. The notorious have the same right to trial by jury as the famous. The ill-spoken has the same freedom of speech as the eloquent, the fool as much as the wise cannot be forbidden from printing his views in pamphlets or newspapers, the sinner and the saint may each serve God in the denomination as beseems him best. And so on.

Equality means that each man’s home is his castle, whether hovel or mansion, and not even the king may enter without leave. It does not mean each man’s home is no worse than his neighbor’s.

Equality does not mean that, in order to make all housing equal, both pauper and millionaire now live in the same dormitory owned by Caesar and paid for by the millionaire. That is egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism, I say again, is the mere opposite of equality: the rich are singled out and subjected to special taxes, regulation, and suspicion merely because they are rich, in order to lower him to equal poverty with the poor. The fool must be subsidized at public expense on national public radio, because he cannot compete with the wise on talk raid. Black criminals and thugs cannot be pursued by the police, or shot when resisting arrest, because then the Democrat Party will organize and fund a riot, bus in thugs, and burn down neighborhoods, starting with the pauper’s hovels.

One would think that Kurt Vonnegut had the final word on the endgame of egalitarianism is in his short story “Harrison Bergeron” in which all people were required by law to be equally weak, dumb, and ugly.

Murray Rothbard rightfully described egalitarianism as a revolt against nature.

In “We’re Not Equal,” he writes (bold emphasis added):

Let us proceed, then, to a critique of the egalitarian ideal itself – should equality be granted its current status as an unquestioned ethical ideal? In the first place, we must challenge the very idea of a radical separation between something that is “true in theory” but “not valid in practice.” If a theory is correct, then it does work in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad theory. The common separation between theory and practice is an artificial and fallacious one. But this is true in ethics as well as anything else. If an ethical ideal is inherently “impractical,” that is, if it cannot work in practice, then it is a poor ideal and should be discarded forthwith. To put it more precisely, if an ethical goal violates the nature of man and/or the universe and, therefore, cannot work in practice, then it is a bad ideal and should be dismissed as a goal. If the goal itself violates the nature of man, then it is also a poor idea to work in the direction of that goal.

I would further add that egalitarianism is a modern day death cult, because when taken to its logical conclusion,  everyone must die. The only way for all men to be equal is for all men to be dead. Life is superior to death, ergo having some people alive and some dead creates inequity.

Everyone must be special, so that no one can be.

Anyone who wears equality – as defined by egalitarianism – on their sleeve might as well be wearing a swastika, because both ideologies resort to the same brutal measures to achieve their desired outcomes.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 1 Comment

Hipster Libertarianism

the_hipster_28423446164229

I was going to hold off on addressing a certain phenomenon within libertarianism until a later day, but I was inspired to tackle it now after a slew of Facebook posts appeared on my news feed from well-known libertarian figureheads complaining – unsurprisingly – about other libertarians who are examples of this phenomenon.

Augustus Invictus describes his encounter with a “libertarian” nitpicking over the proper libertarian response to someone molesting his children, claiming that killing such a person is not permitted under the Non-Aggression Principle. (I would note that this “nuanced” philosophical point would have outraged the moral conscience of the Mafia, which was not exactly a brigade of Boy Scouts).

Cantwell’s short rant conveys a well-shared frustration I have with the libertarian movement – which really isn’t and won’t ever be a real movement.

Needless to say, the people these two men describe are not libertarians – I highly doubt “Mr. Libertarian himself, Murray Rothbard would have welcome such people into his home or at his meetings.

However, I have noticed in my own interactions with supposed libertarians a similar proclivity to restrain, restrict, and regulate the thoughts, ideas, opinions, and actions of other libertarians. They’re not interested in advancing the cause of liberty, but ensuring that libertarians behave in accordance with their mangled, idiosyncratic interpretation of the philosophy. They either turn a blind eye to violations of property rights committed by the modern Left or rationalize it somehow, then do an about-face and insist that right libertarians applaud state-financed importation of Third World peoples, a move certain to create ethnic strife and violence for the next generation.

So what is driving this behavior?

Enter The Hipster Libertarian

I was recently re-watching a great lecture/speech delivered by Jack Donovan at an American Renaissance conference a few years ago. In it, he discusses how “diversity” has actually lead to a lack of diversity in culture and art. Because art reflects values, anything in culture that conveys a sincere value, differentiating what is desired and what is not desired, is seen as subversive against the progressive god of diversity and therefore verboten.

This cultural void gave rise to the hipsters. Anything they promote or advertise is done in irony. They’re insincere, inauthentic, and disingenuous. Anything they espouse is something they are willing to disavow when necessary or convenient. They don’t believe in anything.

We’re seeing this hipster effect play out within libertarianism, in which people “practice” it in an safely ironic manner.

As I wrote a while back before the presidential election:

Frankly I’m beginning to suspect that a lot of “liberty lovers” really don’t want things to change. They don’t want the state to go anywhere. Fighting the state is their religion, adhering to the NAP through passivity is their doctrine. It is all about being “right” and virtue signaling to our enemies that we’re more righteous than they are.

Understand that libertarian hipsters aren’t libertarians. They’re anti-libertarians. They’re charlatans assuming the label for ironic effect. They don’t understand the NAP or its purpose, and they don’t care. They have no interest in reading Rothbard or Mises.

The philosophy’s only value to them is to apply it in ironic ways and frustrate true adherents by forcing them to justify everything they do while ignoring the injustice committed against libertarians by their enemies, particularly those with state power.

A common trait among a hipster libertarian is that they never take a stand for anything. They never proclaim a belief or conviction, and if they do, notice those views are always in alignment with conventional, mainstream thought on that topic.

Aside from that, their stance is always in opposition to someone else and the values that person seeks to preserve and uphold. They critique and nitpick. They’re also duplicitous. They make statements that infer, imply, suggest, indicate, and hint at something, but they never speak forthrightly. And yet, they’re quick to accuse anyone who correctly reads the tea leaves of being judgemental and misinterpreting their highly ambiguous point.

For the hipster libertarian, these discussions about the future of the West as a civilization are as serious, or trivial, as arguing over whether Han shot Greedo in A New Hope or whether George Lucas’ mangled edit of that scene decades later is the true version of what played out in the Mos Eisley Cantina.

To them, bickering over the NAP is just another insincere, frivolous conversation, the outcome of which will result in no change of character or attitude on their part.

More importantly, they will denounce both the libertarian label and anyone in the movement when it becomes expedient to do so. They’re a libertarian for the same reason they wear a fedora; it’s a trendy thing to do. But if it compromises their social standing among peers whose opinions they actually care about, they’ll remove both from their life.

This is why they are so opposed to any meaningful action by real libertarians. To them, it is all a joke, while libertarians who aim to change things are actually serious about it. What the genuine liberty lover regards as life and death matters, the hipster views as nothing more than live action role playing.

Moreover, they’re terrified of strength. They hate more than anything good men who are also good at being men – men who are willing to use violence to protect themselves and their loved ones. To a hipster, strength is frighting because it is the sign of a person beyond their control, a superior man.

These people simply need to be identified and socially ostracized by libertarians who are serious about acting out what we claim to believe. They are nothing more than anvils around our necks. The reality is that many of us libertarians can expect better allies among non-libertarians who, while not possessing a flawless political ideology, possess the moral clarity to perceive who our true and mutual enemy is and the mettle to do what must be done to oppose them.

As the great David Rocco said at the beginning of Boondock Saints 2:

There’s two kinds of people in this world when you boil it all down. You got your talkers and you got your doers. Most people are just talkers, all they do is talk. But when it is all said and done, it’s the doers that change this world. And when they do that, they change us, and that’s why we never forget them.

So which one are you? Do you just talk about it, or do you stand up and do something about it? Because believe you me, all the rest of it is just coffee house bullshit.

The time of the talkers is over.

The time of the doers is upon us.

Photo used with permission: Wiki Commons.

Posted in cultural marxism, Culture, libertarianism, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment