Posts Tagged ‘anarcho-capitalism’

Classical Liberalism Has Died

Tuesday, November 28th, 2017

The United States founded itself on a simple proposition: by endorsing democracy, but limiting that democracy, it could avoid the extremes of both democracy and the crisis of European aristocracy, which was under assault from the rising middle class and its desire for “progress” that seemed to mostly involve selling people more stuff that they did not need.

Americans adopted a view that had emerged in France after the revolution known as “classical liberalism,” where those who thought the Left was insane (still is) decided that personal liberty was the only solution to a powerful Leftist state. By arguing not for the Right, but for the ability to be personally conservative, they hoped that natural selection would favor them and over time the civilization would shift Rightward again.

Plato wrote of this attempt by those who are still mentally organized to resist the onslaught of the “drones,” or the plebs/proles who demand free stuff from government and equality so that they can take over with their champions, who invariably turn out to be tyrants. These classical liberals — today we call them “libertarians” — hope to withstand the crisis without facing it directly. Not surprisingly, since they do not target the root of the decline, they tend to always fail.

With the Constitution, the Americans designed an elaborate series of gates and sluices that they hoped would keep the inevitable from happening. These men had read the Greeks and knew history, and so were aware that democracy by itself was unstable, but had no option for a formal aristocracy, so created instead a massive contraption to limit democracy from following its usual path of accelerating power in the name of protecting the herd, ending in tyranny, which is not so much a type of government as any government which

On top of this, they grafted a classical liberal model: government would serve as a facilitator for commerce, people would handle social problems by concentrating wealth in the hands of the able, and then social problems would be addressed through informal, business-like means. In other words: everyone gets freedom so that the good people can buy their way out of the abyss that most people naturally pursue.

This forgot that when you give people the vote, you will change them. They stop thinking about the goal, and start thinking about the compromise, or how to get enough people on their side to win whatever issue is most important to them. As a side-effect, they will create a group dedicated to being clever about political intrigue, and it will forget to worry about the effects of its actions, instead focusing on how popular those actions and therefore, how powerful it is.

Over time, every group given the vote moves into conjectural navel-gazing and over-emotionality because these tendencies manipulate groups. Whoever masters them becomes the most popular and gets the power. Democracy thus distorts us mentally and morally as well as politically. Since classical liberals depend on democracy, or at least economic democracy, they create a trap for themselves: if they prosper, they will drift away from reality, and then self-destruct, just like every other democracy in history.

During the 1990s, it looked like libertarianism — the modern “classical liberalism” — was going to be the next big thing. People liked the idea of paying less in taxes, not being responsible for social welfare to care for everyone who could not care for themselves, and removing government from the business of social engineering. Like most people, they existed in a very narrow sphere where they assumed that if they just did what was beneficial to themselves, they would succeed, and all that was required of government was to stay out of the way.

It is a tempting fantasy, but it will never succeed, because classical liberalism is entirely negative in focus and forgets what it needs to do, which is create a civilization which has purpose and standards, where the best are rewarded not just for their financial performance, but for doing the right thing. Without this constant upward pressure that over time creates a font of genius as occurred in classical Western Civilization and gave it an edge in technology and learning, societies become like their citizens, bloated and fat on a couch, addicted to distraction and entertainment, oblivious to the world outside of the apartment.

Classical liberalism proves to be as unstable as dictatorship. It enables the insane, destructive, parasitic, and morally weak to accumulate money and power by selling products to fools. They then pair up with the vast majority of people, who are fools and at lower echelons in the natural hierarchy of the group, and form a coalition designed to take from the thriving to give to the coalition. You either join or lose out, and so this gang grows like a tumor within society.

Thanks to its greatest numbers, it wins the vote, and only rare actions like the 2016 election give us a chance to hold it back, and then, usually fail because so many layers of bad policy and so many bad players have already become part of the system. Democracy self-destructs because it teaches people not to aim for honest solutions, but to specialize in manipulation, and eventually, this outlook takes over their own brains and they con themselves into a path to oblivion.

Taking the mile-high view, classical liberalism belongs with other varieties of Leftism, or the idea that we can set up a system which rules equal citizens as a mass and have good results. Rejecting that requires rejecting the mass, and demanding both purpose and hierarchy, which in turn requires something to bond together the group that is more powerful than ideology.

For this reason, classical liberalism — the notion that we can all go our own way, and the markets will reward the good — has been replaced by roots conservatism, which holds that there is a right way for any specific society to live. Nigel Farage gives us an insight into this outlook through the contrast of centuries that reveals our decline:

Mr. Farage noted that “the values that people had back then in many ways made them better people than they are today.”

“They had quite a strong fundamental Christian belief that went right through society. They believed in country, they believed in family, and they were prepared to make sacrifices to defend the nation and to defend their people. And I’m not quite sure, 100 years on, that we’re the same society, sadly.”

…“If you believe in a nation, then you believe in belonging to something; I do think we are headed back in the right direction.”

Instead of believing in the individual, we believe in our civilizations, and through that, see the hopes of the individual having a chance of becoming manifest. That not only rejects the last two centuries and change of Leftism, but the vein of thought going back to The Renaissance™ and even The Reformation™ which insists that individuals in groups can be corralled to do the right thing.

The new wisdom might be described as organic. Individuals are cells belonging to a body, or species within an ecosystem, and so they do not have equal roles but unequal ones, which is what allows the individual to be appreciated for its inner qualities and sacrifices. This stands in stark contrast to the egalitarianism that is the center of all forms of Leftist thought.

We have spent those past two centuries trying to find some way of making democracy stable, but over time, it has become clear that it is too anarchic, and any classical liberal approach will result in the inmates taking over the asylum while the “nice people” stand by helplessly, mumbling concerns that the crowd happily ignores.

If humanity has a future, it consists of recognizing that individualism is dysfunction; none of us can go it alone and if we do, we become as self-serving as a large corporation and thus, easily manipulated. Even more, for mass culture to work, all ideas must be simplified, sweetened and made “interesting” to the point that they lose their original character.

We are coming out of an age filled with gruesome hacks like libertarianism, which attempt to both have our modern formation of society and get it to perform like a functional civilization at the same time. The last seventy years have shown us that this cannot work, and so it is time for something new.

“Modernity Is Not An Option”

Tuesday, May 16th, 2017

On Red Ice TV, philosopher Nick Land expands Neoreaction into an Alt Right critique of modernity, making for a highly interesting interview.

Land has packed every essential concept in the cluster of dissident anti-modern thought — postmodernism, aristocracy, post-democracy, religion, identitarianism and extreme libertarian anarcho-capitalist viewpoints — into a series of statements which explore the depths of each of these through their interconnections.

While this requires more time and patience than many interviews, being more of a graduate-level seminar than a pop media product, his breadth of understanding and analysis of the intersection of these different ideas makes Mr. Land’s interview an informative listen. Great to see the Red Ice crew bringing this influential thinker on-air!

Deranged Twitter Suspends Philosopher Nick Land For Unknown Reasons

Thursday, February 23rd, 2017

The crisis over social media is reaching epic proportions: these sites, which are the new public spaces of globally connected world, are technically owned by those who paid for the servers, code, electricity, bandwidth and staff to run them; however, they are needed for the free exchange of information by people worldwide.

As of today, Twitter has suspended the account of Nick Land, a paleolibertarian philosopher who writes on topics including Neoreaction and Anarcho-Capitalism or things very much like them. Many of his posts concern seasteading, economics, the downfall of liberal democracy and the rise of tribalism.

However, the glitch is that Land is not an extremist — in fact, he is the opposite, in that he approaches questions from an analytical viewpoint from a historical and economic perspective, instead of the kind of personal or ethnic focus that many have adopted. In this way, Twitter is shooting itself in the foot by removing sensible voices and allowing the emotional to crowd the discourse.

Perhaps this is a first step toward justifying further attacks on the non-Left by removing the intellectual forces that keep non-Leftist dialogue anchored, giving the more radical fringe power, so that it can then be targeted and banned. Either way, this is a great loss for all on Twitter who value thinking about the next stage of history instead of cheerleading for the recently past one.

Introduction To The Alt Right

Monday, October 10th, 2016


The Alternative Right or “Alt Right” consists of lone writers who bang out missives in the odd hours of the day and after work, expending their sparse free time on a vision of a better future. They do so knowing that their ideas are incomprehensible to most, and would be disturbing if understood.

Coming from the re-grouping of the right after the Leftward shift that followed the Second World War, the Alt Right combines elements of other anti-liberal movements — the New Right, Neoreaction, black metal music, White Nationalism, Anarcho-Capitalism, Human Biodiversity and Traditionalism — and finds the elements they have in common.

Its fundamental idea rejects centuries of thought from The Renaissance™ and The Enlightenment™ onward, namely the equality of human beings. The Alt Right sees that as a construct of human intention and social reasoning, and suggests instead that biology must be the basis of our understanding of humanity.

Where the contemporary dialogue supports the idea of universalism, or the notion that people are the same and so can be shaped into an ideal society with rules and “education,” the Alt Right sees that people and peoples are highly varied. People have different abilities, inclinations and moral characters, and this also varies in a broader frame with ethnicity and race.

Once we accept this realization, the quest against “inequality” no longer makes sense; inequality is the default state of the universe and also a necessity for change, evolution, conflict and growth. This allows us to discard the past centuries where countries have shattered themselves trying to achieve equality.

Instead it makes sense to look toward a social order where the abilities of each person are matched to a role in which that person can excel and yet be limited from doing damage by acting on questions above his level of ability. This type of internal hierarchy, which is both vertical (ability) and horizontal (specialization), creates a social order unlike the flat single dimension of equality.

As part of this realization, the Alt Right understands that different populations are not arbitrary but specific to things only they can do. For this reason, the Alt Right is strongly Nationalistic, or believes that each ethnic group thrives through self-determination, or homogeneity and command of itself according to its own standards.

Another way to view this is through the principle of self-interest: each group is different and has its own direction, and these self-interests do not combine but conflict. Diversity cannot succeed because it violates this principle and will cause only enmity between the groups involved, whoever they are.

This represents a departure from the conventional view of assessing “good” and “bad” or “inferior” and “superior” groups. In the Alt Right view, every group is superior for its own purposes and if left in isolation. When groups are combined, the unique traits of each are lost and the result is a cultureless “grey race.”

Accepting that equality is nonsense raises another question. If people are unequal, it no longer makes sense to make decisions by mass “consensus” achieved through political promises. Instead, choosing those who are most competent to lead becomes evidently sensible, and this leads away from democratic systems.

The Alt Right is divided on many questions, including what comes next, but royalism/monarchism/aristocracy have significant support because they alone allow us to step outside of the cycle of politics itself where the winning idea is that which flatters the broadest segment of the audience.

That in turn leads to some realizations about humans. Not only are we unequal, but we are not all one. Instead, we are an organic structure where different roles and abilities work together, sometimes through opposition, to achieve an ultimately positive result. Humans are not universally anything, but saying we are all “good” is clearly wrong.

From this comes the idea of hierarchy, or that society must like nature always advance the more competent in every role above others so that all may benefit from the greater competence. In this view, leadership becomes a question of ability and not mass agreement, recognizing that people in groups make “committee-like” decisions and that most people will misjudge complex issues.

With that idea arises one of the fundamental ideas of the Alt Right, which is consequentalism, or the idea that leadership acts are assessed by their effects in reality and not the human intentions, feeling and judgments which fill our heads with idle mental chatter. Reality matters; intent does not.

From this point, the Alt Right belief system transitions to Traditionalism, or the idea that there is an eternal order of human civilizations and interaction with nature and the metaphysical, and that healthy civilizations restore this constantly. Dying civilizations deviate from it and rationalize, or justify, their choices as being more “moral” when in fact they are merely compensatory.

Currently, because we live in a 70-year Leftist acceleration within a society that has been drifting toward egalitarianism for a millennium, these ideas seem incomprehensible to modern people. They have been raised in a series of dichotomies which amount to thinking the current system is good and anything else is bad.

However, as the contemporary order not only fails to achieve its objectives but leaves shattered lives and broken countries in its wake, people are thinking the unthinkable: that perhaps our comfortable order of equality, liberal democracy, diversity and sexual liberation is not just bad policy but a path to doom.

For this reason, the Alt Right invokes Nietzschean ideas and expresses questions about the collapse of Western Civilization. It not only opposes the delusional Left, but wants to remake Western Civilization into the type of eternal order that produced its days of glory, genius and excellence.

In its view, society succeeds when it has a clear purpose and measures that by results. All political systems and static moral measurements are proxies, or symbolic measurements, of this, and they are easily misdirected by the relentless changing of history and meaning that is the hallmark of the Left and other destroyers.

For the Alt Right, diversity and immigration are means the Left uses to destroy any sense of shared purpose, values, culture and heritage. This idea is borne out by historical evidence:

The era of Republican dominance in California was finally broken in the 1990s and has since disappeared into the background at a breathtaking pace. Democrats, who now command a supermajority in both of the state’s legislative houses, along with the governor’s mansion, have been forging ahead with an assertively progressive agenda on all fronts, from the environment to taxes to the culture wars.

The single most visible cause of this shift was mass immigration—or, alternatively, the failure of California Republicans to adapt to immigration—which produced a demographic transformation of the Golden State without parallel in the rest of the country. The California that elected Reagan its Governor was about 80 percent white and 12 percent Hispanic; today, those figures are 38 percent and 39 percent, respectively. In other words, California squeezed into forty years a transformation that is expected to take at least a century for America as a whole (if it takes place at all, given rates of assimilation and ethnic attrition) and which many Trump supporters clearly resent and fear.

In the Alt Right view, civilization success begins with homogeneity not just of race but of ethnicity, such that those who are from an ethnic group like Western Europeans can form a society together, but a society cannot be forged from mixed-race and mixed-ethnic populations. The California experience shows that diversity benefits only Leftism, which seems to speak endlessly of equality but always tend toward controlling, centralized authority.

With the rise of civilization comes the tendency to have purpose beyond the merely physical. With this comes an appreciation for the complexity of our world and its tendency toward positive results, even through its darkest moments. For this reason, many on the Alt Right reject atheism and tend toward a religious viewpoint.

Through that filter, life remains inexplicable when seen through the purely material, or physical, mindset. Instead, life has a purpose, although not an inherent one. We can choose any level of existence we want, but those who wish to go the farthest toward excellence and beauty strive to understand the metaphysical realm and apply its wisdom in the physical world.

As part of that drive, the Alt Right leaves behind the modern mentality of dividing methods into good and bad, and instead focuses on how those are directed. For that reason, the eternal civilization desired by Alt Rightists is entirely compatible with advanced technology, including that pushing far beyond our consumer-oriented gadgets of the present time.

This pairing seems unbelievable but fits within the futurist spirit of the Alt Right: we wish to advance civilization beyond its current stagnant stage to future greatness that marries the wisdom of the ancient past with the abilities of the distant future. As a lone standout in the Leftist The New York Times writes:

Reactionary ideas have made modest inroads in the mainstream right: The intellectuals’ case for Trump that I wrote about last week includes a thin but striking “regime change at home” thread. And they have appeal in areas like the tech industry where mainstream conservatism presently has little influence, because (like fascism in its heyday) the new reaction blends nostalgia with a hyper-modernism — monarchy in the service of transhumanism, doubts about human equality alongside dreams of space travel or A.I.

The Alt Right sees life as excellent, and not an unjust condition to be corrected as the Left does, and wants to extend this excellence into new domains. In this view, humanity is a species competing with many others among the stars to see who can produce a stable civilization that can explore the stars without self-destructing from internal conflict.

Like most things Alt Right, this breaks down conventional dichotomies. We are not struggling between oppression/non-oppression, but for competence over incompetence, and if the competence is oppressive yet geared toward our purpose, it serves our goals and is beneficial. In fact, suppression of the human tendency toward chaos may be necessary.

This runs up against the human pretense that everyone is good, and that all individuals deserve to do whatever they want. In the Alt Right world, the goal of humans is something more than themselves; we wish to achieve self-mastery through self-discipline and through that, make a civilization of excellence more than mere adequacy.

For this reason, the Alt Right remains an outsider to the politics and values of today. It accepts that condition with pride because it sees our values now as a byproduct of rationalizing decay, and instead wants to combat that decay by overcoming it through the process of aiming toward something grander, more majestic, more epic.

In the Alt Right world, only two options exist for the future. Either there will be more advanced humans who look back on this time and laugh at it, or there will be a vast cultureless grey mass who cannot comprehend any of these ideas. The choice is ours, and the future will judge us by our decision.

The alternative Right rises

Thursday, January 21st, 2016


This week, the phrase “alternative right” enters mainstream consciousness as the vested franchisees of the current system attempt to explain the dissent rising around them like a maelstrom. They wanted a handy phrase to describe the mostly young, post-libertarian conservatives who are supporting Donald Trump. Calling them racists and Nazis has failed, so there needs to be a new slur, and establishment conservatives and liberals alike would like to give the alternative right a bad name.

Most of them have forgotten the roots of the name alternative right, which finds its inspiration in the phrase alternative rock. Back at the origins of that term, it described music which could not find support in the mainstream but believed itself a legitimate inheritor of the role of rock music. In the same way, “alternative right” describes right-leaning thinkers who believe society has shifted so far to the left that truth cannot be told, so it needs a new medium.

This of course freaks out the mainstream conservatives. They are being told that, like most forms of opposition in a market, they have been bought out, and the conditions of the sale mean that they cannot discuss certain ideas. In particular, few will speak up — Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan being the most visible exceptions — to mention the logical fact that diversity cannot work, and that Leftist delight in it exists only because a Third World population is being imported to permanently skew the vote to the left. That the native population of the United States and Europe is being replaced is beyond what conservatives will discuss because they are unwilling to challenge the liberal Establishment.

The alternative right also speaks hard truths about democracy, namely that most people vote for short-term self-interest instead of what will maintain civilization, and that in groups people compromise on the lowest common denominator. Democracy does not work; the American Constitution was an attempt to limit it so that it would, but that quickly became overthrown. Now we live in a Leftist time and we are seeing the consequences of Leftism as our economies, environment and societies plunge downward into chaos, but mainstream conservatives have failed to do more than a token effort against it, collecting votes and money as The Opposition Party without opposing the core idea of liberalism — that all people are equal — at all.

Perhaps the biggest contribution of the alternative right is to mention the real elephant in the room which is the decline and fall of Western Civilization beginning with The Enlightenment™ and worsening as its ideas became more mainstreamed. The idea of human equality means that choices can be arbitrary because they are equal, which has the effect of banishing reality from the room. When the assorted fat feminists, minorities, lunatic liberals and apartment plankton millennials vote for Bernie or Hillary, they are unconcerned about the results of that act. They know what they want to be true and that is enough. Voting is wishful thinking. Naturally, with this mentality in place, the West has become unable to respond to reality and chases dreams and illusions instead of looking at hard problems.

Since the mainstream right will not mention these truths, and the Left and its enthusiastically compliant media will not mention them, actual conservatives needed another outlet. The alternative right draws together several groups — libertarians, paleoconservatives, white nationalists, New Right, neoreactionary — and unites them under the idea that our current way is dead and our conservative opposition will not stop it because it will not mention forbidden truths. As a result, there is great variation between alternative right beliefs. The leftist media and politicians will try to spin the alternative right as having “Nazi” or “neo-Nazi” origins, letting one trait speak for all others as usual, as will compliant mainstream “cuckservative” conservatives. Both groups are threatened by this outsider voice that accurately describes what mainstream politics will refuse to address.

With that in mind, we should look at some political definitions…

Useful idiots: These are voters who want to believe the least possible must be done to change anything because they are clinging to what they have. Useful idiots gush and drool over pacifism, anti-majority groups, revenge narratives and underdog success stories. Every enemy they want to believe is a friend, and every actual threat they wish to deny. UIs were originally a small group, but 200 years of liberal politics has increased their number and imported Third World peoples, who as a result of the natural selection they underwent back home, always support strong promises from government and forget when they turn out less than optimal.

Liberal: This is a deceptive word because liberalism is a spectrum from moderate Republican through full-on Communist and as power increases for liberals, they always drift leftward. Since it is a conformist ideology, it demands its adherents demonstrate it constantly, which they do by applying the same unrealistic theory — equality — in new and exciting ways. Thus liberalism always grows like a tumor, ending up in power, at which point it conveys the society into a Third World cultureless mixed-race population ruled by cynical tyrants. Liberals champion UIs by appealing to their fears and promoting them within the power structure.

Conservative: Originally, this meant those who conserved the best of the great ages of humankind, since humans have never changed in their psychology. Over time this became a defensive action to hold on to whatever recent past was less infected with liberal insanity than the status quo. As a substitute for stopping the decay of society, conservatives offer symbols of health — strong defense, growing economy and nods to theocratic ideas — but because the name of the game in democracy is having more UIs than the other guy, they reduce this to simplistic flag-waving. In addition, they attempt to woo liberals by being more liberal-like, and in the name of working within the system, generally give liberals whatever they want after a token resistance to keep the votes and donations flowing in.

Libertarians: These are people who have woken up to the fact that government constantly expands and does nothing well merely in order to justify its continued expansion, like a tumor. To counter leftism, they argue for extreme equality in the form of free markets, free association and freedom of contract, which would in theory allow people to exist with extremely low taxes and the ability to exclude ongoing social problems. Unfortunately, this does not appeal to UIs, and so this group forever marginalizes themselves, taking potential conservative voters out of the pool. It also suffers from the same problem as conservatism which is that it has not rejected liberalism, only tried to make a devil’s bargain with it, and the result is that any libertarian society will become Leftist at the first mass vote.

White Nationalists: It is tempting to understand these as a variety of conservative, but really they are a variety of liberal that instead of blaming the unbroken chain of terrible decisions made by democracy, foist the blame on one or more of the symptoms, usually African-Americans and The Eternal Jew™ (which they refer to as “The Jewish Question” or JQ). White Nationalists want the present world but with these others removed, but are generally content to keep well-behaved others like Asians around, resulting in hybridization and destruction of the white race. It is not surprising that most of these are trace hybrids from Southern, Eastern and Irish Europe. In addition, they serve an important role as bogeymen for the Left by acting out every Hollywood stereotype of Nazis, allowing both conservatives and liberals to drive the UIs closer to democracy by pointing out the craziness threatening from the wings.

Anarcho-Capitalists: Honest libertarians who feel no need to conceal their belief in Social Darwinism, AnCaps want a world without government ruled by business, figuring that the most competent in business will be more competent than mass-polling the UIs and apartment plankton. However, they forget that as long as the UIs exist in large numbers, they will buy products that flatter them, which will result in the return of liberalism and also massively crass commerce taking over culture. Some AnCaps, specifically the Neoreactionary wing, have tried to temper this with a belief in business leaders or other strong authoritarian presence, but generally believe this can be applied to small communities, forgetting that the vast masses surrounding them will simply vote to invade them and take their stuff.

New Righters: The New Right arose in France as a means of restoring traditional society without upsetting the much-beloved European socialist benefits system. To keep those two contradictory impulses in balance, New Right thinkers generally insist on strong centralized power, nationalism and a religious basis to society, forgetting that these external methods cannot be imposed without causing a counter-reaction, and that without the internal impetus to adopt them, people will merely work around them as they do most strong power. Nonetheless the New Right deserves credit for systematically dismantling arguments for liberalism, democracy, equality and multiculturalism, although only a small segment of the population can understand their theory-heavy writings.

Donald Trump voters: Anyone who wants Donald Trump as a President. This is a wide group, including mainstream conservatives, Tea Partiers, libertarians and yes, some from the alternative right, New Right and even white nationalist groups. Generally however, Trump voters are middle American types who simply do not want to be ethnically replaced and ruled over by Leftists, who have proved incompetent in every instance where they have seized power.

I hope this little summary can help our politicians and media differentiate the types of voters they will encounter.

Recommended Reading