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:


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:




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

Cosmopolitan Libertarianism And The “New Man”


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purely rational freethinkers (always the opposite), reject the mythology of religion and faith, and give up their outdated ethnic or nationalist or cultural alliances for the new hyper-individualist creed.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

A Means, Not An End

The writer at the Individualist has responded to my response. It is a lengthy post, but I want to focus on his final point, because it really gets to the heart of the disagreement between us (bold emphasis added).

You don’t want libertarianism. Not really. It is no more than a vehicle for you; a means to a conservative end. You don’t cherish liberty. Not really. It is no more than a means to a conservative end. Not an end in itself. Not a value in itself. Would be that the state gave you exactly the conservative society you clamor for, you would worship the state.

Come out of the closet already.

That is a rather strange accusation to make. Of course libertarianism is a means to an end to me, as it should be for anyone. It is a political philosophy concerned with the appropriate use of force, not a religion. Being free for the sake of being free is an incredibly nihilistic way of looking at meaning and purpose in life.

Liberty is the highest political end, but it is not the highest end.

This is precisely what Gerard Casey explained in his book Libertarian Anarchy (bold emphasis added)

It is important to realize that libertarianism is not, nor is it intended to be, a complete moral theory. Much confusion will be prevented and many possible objections can be summarily deflected if this point is appreciated.

A society built solely on libertarian principles would be just but there can be few libertarians who would see the libertarian principle as the end of a complete human life and not just as the minimal preconditions for such a life.

This view of the philosophy was also shared by Murray Rothbard (bold emphasis added):

The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that there are libertarians who are indeed hedonists and devotees of alternative lifestyles, and that there are also libertarians who are firm adherents of “bourgeois” conventional or religious morality. There are libertarian libertines and there are libertarians who cleave firmly to the disciplines of natural or religious law. There are other libertarians who have no moral theory at all apart from the imperative of non-violation of rights. That is because libertarianism per se has no general or personal moral theory.

Libertarianism does not offer a way of life; it offers liberty, so that each person is free to adopt and act upon his own values and moral principles. Libertarians agree with Lord Acton that “liberty is the highest political end” — not necessarily the highest end on everyone’s personal scale of values.

As I said before, libertarians don’t have to champion anything outside of the NAP to be a libertarian, nor do they have to like anything valued by other libertarians. In fact, they can hate and despise beliefs held by other libertarians to their heart’s content, so much so they don’t want to even associate with them.

But that isn’t the debate at hand. The question has to do with political relevancy and, more importantly, what type of society complements libertarianism the best.

Deist observed what should be self-evident – a libertarian society would theoretically “allow” any lifestyle, but practically speaking any society that adopted it would naturally curtail certain behaviors and encourage others – or die out. Those who hold these values will find the most appeal in libertarianism, because it offers the best means to the ends they want.

As Jude Blanchette writes (bold emphasis added)

F.A. Hayek stated that one of the gravest errors of contemporary juridical opinion was to assume that all “laws” arise out of legislation. In fact, proper legislation simply codified laws that were preexistent. Societal laws (be they customs, mores, dress codes, cultural conformity) are the private sector’s method of regulating behavior. They act as voluntary surrogates to state compulsion.

Libertarians like Mises got this—they understood that the voluntary society has a way of weeding out aberrant behavior.  Far from being the playground of licentiousness, the liberal commonwealth breeds an atmosphere in which tolerance and diversity are balanced with values and mores.

The idea that libertarianism should or will be equally as appealing to those who prefer a variety of vice-based lifestyles as much as conservative ones, or that a stateless society would value all lifestyles equally, is the result of thinking strictly within the theoretical realm.

So to return to the Individualist’s final point:

Would be that the state gave you exactly the conservative society you clamor for, you would worship the state.

Come out of the closet already.

Perhaps I best be rehearsing my Butters-style government prayer of exaltation in anticipation of that glorious day.

All joking aside, were a “conservative society” be implemented via the state tomorrow that today has rammed the Progressive agenda down our throats, I’d be as grateful to them as I am for the roads it currently “gives” me as part of its monopoly: They’re full of potholes, costly to maintain, inefficient use of my money, and poorly managed – but since they’re the only ones available and usable, I drive on them.

That doesn’t mean I want the government operating them or that they’re the best one for the job. My use is not an endorsement anymore than paying taxes means I consented to them.

I’d have better roads without the state, and I’d have a better, more conservative society without the state, too. Any “conservative society” it gives me would be substandard to the one created in a stateless environment.

I want libertarianism, but not for it’s own sake. Like most people in the world, I have higher ends I would see achieved both in my own life and in the world around me.

To borrow the “closet” analogy, those who might do well to come out are libertarians content or determined to keep the philosophy and its adherents “in the closet” to collect dust by rendering it powerless to achieve any of its goals, ineffective in reaching the average person who might embrace it, and irrelevant within the discussion of how to achieve legitimate higher ends people seek – for reasons one can only speculate.

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

A Warning, Not A Lecture

A writer over at the Individualist responds to my analysis of Jeff Deist’s “blood and soil libertarianism” speech:

What Jeff Deist did, was give perhaps the most important speech in the last decade from someone who wants to depict libertarianism as a mere subcategory of conservatism.

This is what Deist said: (bold emphasis added)

In other words, blood and soil and God and nation still matter to people. Libertarians ignore this at the risk of irrelevance.

That is not a lecture or promoting libertarianism as conservatism – it is a warning, similar to what Vox Day was getting at in his response to my analysis of his 16 Points of the Alt. Right.

It is quite simple, really. You can be a libertarian and love gay sex and ‘muh weed and hate the nuclear family all you want and think a stateless society would be full of free love parties and somehow borders wouldn’t exist.

You don’t have to like the idea of blood and soil. You don’t have to believe in God. You don’t have to like the concept of nations.

But if you want to be relevant to the political discussion going on worldwide at the moment, then you have to acknowledge that these things matter to people and be able to explain how libertarianism fits within the context of their concerns and priorities, not yours.

The fact that these values matter not to you is both true and beside the point. No one is required to care about what you believe.

This is a classic example of the market in practice. People want a certain product. Will libertarians provide what is demanded, or will they continue to fruitlessly push a product that only they themselves want, consumer demand be damned?

The latter is precisely what left libertarians have been doing, and exactly what Deist critiqued in his speech: They want people to conform to their “thick” worldview on all social, cultural, religious and moral matters, and only then can they truly embrace libertarianism.

We all know how well that has worked out.

I would add that if anyone has been lecturing anybody in the libertarian movement, it’s been the leftist infiltrators and frauds who denounced good, decent men such as Ron Paul with their pathetic open letters, declarations that white men are a “rightfully dying demographic” that needed to be pushed aside in the movement, and smearing the reputations of men such as Deist by explicitly accusing his speech as a call to systematically murder millions of people.

There has been no equivalent conduct by any member of the Mises Institute. The contrast in behavior could not be more clear.

As I said recently, Deist’s speech may well be remembered as a turning point in which libertarianism was rescued from decades of irrelevance.

Time will only tell if libertarians, regardless of their own personal feelings on these issues, will heed his warning.

Posted in libertarianism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Family And God Vs. The Mentally Ill

Mises Institute President Jeff Deist took a bit of a shellacking this week from fake libertarians who  smeared him as a National Socialist over his use of the phrase “blood and soil” in a fantastic speech.

It seems the idea that cherishing your nation, people, and homeland naturally requires stuffing Jews in ovens.

The level of kvetching among those triggered was both hilarious and disturbing. Deep down, they know exactly what Deist meant and didn’t mean, but they don’t have the intellectual gusto to admit that they’re opposed to “bourgeouise” traditional values or religion. So they lied.

So they lied.

While Deist is warning libertarians not to overlook the role of family, God, nation, and heritage, concepts that appeal to the average American who might be interested in learning more about libertarianism, Cato Institute is peddling groaners like this in an effort to cater to the mentally ill and dengerate among the society.

Deist should take comfort in knowing that people will probably remember his speech as the one that saved libertarianism from irrelevance over the coming decades, while Cato’s agenda will serve as nothing but cannon fodder for shitlord memes.

Posted in cultural marxism, Culture, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Gospel Message of Fake America.

This exchange the other between White House Press Secretary Stephen Miller and CNN-hack Jim Acosta demonstrates everything that’s wrong with American politics today. Rather than be an advocate for the American people, #FakeNews is a shill for what Chateau Heartiste calls the globohomo elites interested in turning America into the world’s sex slave that anybody can come inside when they want.

The argument Acosta makes is so profoundly stupid that I’m rather impressed with Miller’s restraint. Had I been in his place, I would have chewed the bastard out for wasting my time with such BS, dressed him down for interrupting me, then had him physically removed from the room.

Bear in mind these are the same people who spit on the Bill of Rights and have supported the destruction of the U.S. Constitution and its restraints on the federal government. And now they’re actively promoting soft-genocide against the ethnic group responsible for documents in the first place.

Somehow, the First Amendment doesn’t protect “hate speech” and the Second Amendment only applies to militia, and all other rights are subject to the interpretation of the modern-day ephors that sit on the Supreme Court. Our Constitution is a “living, breathing” document that changes with the times.

However, a poem (or the only section of it anybody actually knows) written by a Fake American on a statue given to us by a foreigner somehow constitutes sacred American law that cannot be questioned and must be interpreted literally – and if you don’t agree, you’re Literally Hitler.

What other poems are suddenly constitutionally-binding? Mark Twain’s War Prayer? Is Edgar Allen Poe now a lawmaker, too? What Robert Frost poem can we use in a courtroom?

The Statue Of Liberty Poem is the Gospel Message of Fake America.

Courtesy of Vox Day’s Daily Meme War:



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

The Myth of Legislating Prosperity

A persistent myth one encounters among leftists is that government action via legislation leads to prosperity. In fact, I would argue this is the defining characteristic of a leftist, albeit to some extent many among the Alt-Right; government is the source of wealth and economic development. The private sector is a necessary evil at best through which the state can create it, but it must be restricted, controlled, and regulated like a wild animal.

Examples abound. As they would have you believe it, minimum wages raise a worker’s economic status, the 40-hour work week and the end of child labor was made possible only by mandate. Without these laws on the books, we’re supposed to assume, tomorrow everyone would be paid pennies and have five-year-old children slaving away in apple fields.

All of this completely and totally ignores the actual reason why employees have 40-hour work weeks and why kids attend school today rather than work in sweatshops. Technological advances increased the productivity of workers and/or the value of a product to the point where they didn’t need to work more than 40-hour work weeks to put food on the table, nor did children have to work in tactile factories in order to help feed their families. The wealth generated by the adults, typically the father, was now sufficient.

If passing laws and regulations are what makes countries improve economically, why does the United States send billions overseas in foreign aid to Third World nations? Why do they not simply pass the same laws that we’ve had on the books for decades?

This video from Learn Liberty explains how a man’s invention of the containership drastically reduced the cost of shipping cargo around the world. All of this was accomplished through one man’s cleverness, not by a bill or regulation.

Ironically, those opposed to these positive changes to global trade were politicians and organized labor.

Years ago, Jeffery Tucker correctly identified modern progressives to be regressive technologically and economically; they don’t want to raise people’s standards of living. They don’t actually want progress to occur. Quite the opposite; they want everyone to return to “former, simpler” times, which translates into ordinary people living in squalor while a few, chosen elite get to enjoy all the benefits of a system they deny to all others.

That may sound cynical and pessimistic, but how many times must a system fail before people recognize its inherent failure? You either acknowledge your preferred policy doesn’t work and try something else, or you have ulterior reasons for pushing it apart from the “official” justification.

Posted in economics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment