Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘libertarian’

Why The Alternative Right Will Absorb Neoreaction

Friday, May 20th, 2016

neoreaction_and_the_alternative-right

There seems to be some confusion in the media about Neoreaction and how it differs from the alternative right, as well as confusion by neoreactionaries about this is so.

Let us tackle these in reverse order. First, the media: they are cartoon makers. They make comics and call it news. They do this to fit the cognitive profile of their audience. Most people are not analytical and also, are not inclined to spend time researching and understanding political and social issues. As a result, they want bright simple colors and stories of good versus evil.

That means the media must invent “good” (human interest stories based in pity, irony and bittersweet eucatastrophe) and “evil” (anything which denies the good feelings of the audience, especially by failing to be egalitarian).

You can understand any media story in these terms. Your instinct is to believe the story is about its topic; that is wrong and dangerous to think that. What is actually true: the story is always about the audience, because newspapers are there to sell ads and never have done anything else. That is their profit model. What you pay for a newspaper is tiny compared to the cost of ads, and they mainly keep you paying for it so you do not realize that it is essentially an advertisement cloaked in the altruistic pretense of being fact-based.

As Fred says, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” This doubly applies when it comes to the news. They choose what stories to report on, and then, they choose which facts to mention, and what order to mention them in and how to present them. Hint: any activity, no matter how degenerate, can be made to seem innocent by portraying those involved as victims of some other superior force. People fear superior forces and demonize them.

Next, we move on to the question of Neoreaction and the Alternative Right: one and the same?

Perception of political theories is relative, although the theories themselves are not because they are based in method. Someone who is on the far-left will perceive the moderate left to be far-right, but it is still based in the Leftist theory, which is equality, and not the rightist theory, which is replicable results.

To your average modern citizen, because the West has been growing steadily more Leftist since the Peasant Revolts, anything to the right of a moderate Republican is “far-right,” and that area includes the following philosophies:

  • Neoreaction
  • Reaction
  • Traditionalism
  • White Nationalism
  • Pan-Nationalism
  • Alternative Right
  • New Right
  • Paleoconservative
  • Social Conservative
  • Monarchist
  • Identitarian

You will note that all of these overlap. For example, all favor Nationalism and strong hierarchy. Many favor aristocracy, such as monarchists, reactionaries and traditionalists. Some are nearly indistinguishable from one another, except for a fundamental idea or two, such as reactionaries and traditionalists. And so on. A complete definition of these is beyond this article.

What unites them is that they recognize that the “equality” method does not work and will lead — or has led — our society into ruin.

They then take different responses to this. The dissident right — you might use that as an umbrella term for the above, since “far right” implies the mix of neo-Nazi, paleoconservative, libertarian and liberal that comprises white nationalism — differs in degree and method only. Once we realize that Leftism is a dead evolutionary pathway, we must find (1) another way to take and (2) a method of getting there, which is complicated by the fact that Leftism is popular because it is illusion, especially during Leftist eras and the warm bath of their propaganda.

Within this realm, we might see Neoreaction as a response by the middle classes to the degeneration of their countries. The basic idea of Neoreaction is that we should treat government like a business, expect it to act like a business and limit it, and allow the dual forces of capitalism and free association to fix everything else. This is not far removed from the original American ideas of Thomas Jefferson, or even Jared Taylor’s notion that if we removed anti-discrimination law, this country might have a chance at survival.

These bourgeois roots of Neoreaction place it in the hybrid camp along with libertarians, which is fitting because Neoreaction is a discussion filter for getting to the next step, not the next step defined where it can then be attacked by stronger Leftist forces. I suggest re-reading that paragraph again, as it is essential to understand Neoreaction. It is a salon, not a revolution.

Your average Neoreactionary, like the middle class, wants to escape two things: the icky people who have now infested his society, and the government which has become so parasitic that it is difficult not to notice the daily blood drainage. He believes that a System can work, that the good bourgeois can form gated communities and get away from the icky people, and then the good life will return.

Your average Alt-Righter does not have this illusion. He knows that society has taken a wrong turn and that any steps down this path lead to the same place, which is a third world warlord-cum-socialist society of mixed-race people, low but “exotic” culture, and total dysfunction plus commerce. From this state, nothing important comes again as happened with the fallen Greek, Roman, Maya and Aztec empires.

The reason that Neoreaction will be absorbed into the Alt-Right, and not just by the media, is that Neoreaction is simply a discussion filter. It exists to make people feel justified in actual self-interest and saying, “No, I don’t want to go down the path to ignominious death with the rest of you fools.” Like Donald Trump, it is a pry-bar that separates those still capable of some thought from the rest who are lock-step trope-worshipers fully ensconced in the warm bath of the propaganda from the Left.

If you want a metaphor, imagine a city of utter chaos and dysfunction. On the very edge of the city, at the city wall, is a hotel. Neoreaction is the foyer; it is the reason that one steps inside. This shuts out the noise of the city and the constant propaganda broadcast by petit tyrants over its PA system. Once you are in the silence, you can start to think. Conservatism is the library; national socialism and neo-Nazism the gym; traditionalism the chapel; and paleoconservatism/social conservatism the bar area.

As you go deeper into the hotel, you will notice something: every room leads to a second hallway that connects them all. This leads to the garden beyond, which you can see through ornate glass doors… counting your steps, you realize that the garden is outside of the city. You only head down that path once you have been to all the rooms, taken the part of the puzzle from each, and assembled it in the hallway to realize that escape is the only option.

But the real journey, alas, is not in the feet but in the mind. “Escape” means that you are finally awakened from the Leftist dream. You realize that everything you have been taught since day one of your life has been tinged with a lie, and that lie is human equality. This lie is both a way of feeling better about having a civilization in decline, and a way of making you feel important for having nothing. It assuages your fears. Without it, you feel naked at first.

The basic idea of Neoreaction may be summarized as anti-ideologism. Neoreaction insists that our theory and reality be aligned, so that if some method is more successful than others, it gets the power instead of those others. This terrifies the ideology-minds, who know that their theories are not only unprovable, but not designed to be proven. They are social theories that make people feel good about themselves for believing them.

Beyond that, it is foolishness to take it literally, because it leads to more interesting places…

The Alt-Right is concerned with a singular task, possibly inherited from black metal: how to stop civilization decline and restore Europeans to greatness. Once you have separated from ideology, do you want an OK society or an A+ one?

Tradition shows us that there is a world beyond the physical and pragmatic. We need our spirits filled with transcendental beauty, and to believe in a good universe where the excellent can happen, in order to truly reach greatness. This is another step down the path.

Finally, there is monarchism: the realization that most people are obedient, foolish sheep who always choose whatever option flatters them, and that people in groups — even smart people — make infinitely stupid decisions. You either put the best in charge to rule over the rest, or the rest rule the best, and then social standards collapse to third world levels.

Beyond that, you can rediscover the wisdom that you were born having in your mind. That without someone intelligent and noble in charge, every venture from a lemonade stand to a civilization is prone to failure. That jails are not hospitals and that bad people do not go away, but need to be sent away or they destroy everything they can. That every day should be magic, filled with discovery and joy, not obedience and obsequy to those of lesser smarts.

The roots of Western decline go deep, and to really rip them out, we must go back to the founding assumptions in a cascade of bad decisions that cause us to live in illusion. Leftism is illusion like its parent philosophy Crowdism. That in turn is caused by human individualism, which legitimizes hubris and raises the idiotic above the genuine.

You will note that this decline even touches Neoreaction, the Alt-Right and traditionalism. There are those whose wisdom is authentic and those who are merely participating and attention whoring like everyone else in this society, just in a different field. “No enemies on the Right” is a tempting phrase, but really it means: no quality control. The war begins at home, first in your own mind as you figure all of this out.

This is why the Alternative Right will absorb Neoreaction: it is broader in scope and application. That suggests that something in turn will absorb the Alternative Right, which I suggest is conservatism itself, or the idea of using proven, organic methodology instead of ideology. From that point, all that is left to be decided are questions of degree, and at that point, they are evident.

Why democracy is suicide

Monday, February 15th, 2016

welcome_to_the_jungle

We live in a time of near-endless chatter, which we might define as conversation unrelated to the actual problems and solutions that stand before us. People are just monkeys, and they spend their time posturing, trying to be iconoclastic, attracting mates, jockeying for social status and otherwise engaged in activities unrelated to anything but their own individualistic needs.

That is the face of demotism, after all. Every time a group of humans gets its hands on something new, whether a government or genre of art, the herd pours in the door, each determined to use that thing as a means to the end of themselves. In the process, they corrupt it and everything falls apart.

Many people now are finally noticing that diversity is genocide for minority populations such as Western Europeans and Jews. These tiny groups, comprising 5% and 1% of the Earth’s population respectively, stand out because of their relative success not just in finance but culture, technology and learning. The rest of the world wants that prosperity and unless held back with gunfire will immigrate en masse to those countries and replace the native population. At that point, whatever uniquely allowed Western Europeans and Jews to succeed will be lost.

Among the chatter, people ask: “Why do these groups not want to save themselves?” This is a good question. After all, if Europe and the USA threw up a wall, cut bennies and freebies, and deported any people there illegally, the immigration issue would be dead within days. And yet people act as if an invisible force field restricts their mouths from saying this and their hands from acting toward it.

The answer is so strikingly simple that almost none will believe it. Democracy precludes action on real problems. It is a system of government that succeeds because it makes individuals happy in the short-term at the expense of the long-term prospects of the society. In other words, it accepts the inevitable decay, and that the herd will pour in through the door and use society for its own ends, leaving a ruin. Some argue charitably that by accepting this tendency it hopes to limit it, but no evidence for that happening can be seen.

In other words, the invisible force field that is holding us back is a lack of hope that we can change. We know that nothing obstructs the human pattern of people creating entropy by selfishness. As William Blake opines about Libertarianism, there is no hope so long as the Ego is in control:

Shortly after I began my first job in the tourism industry, one of the first sales lessons I learned was that customers are tuned into station WIIFM – What’s In It For Me? For instance nobody buys a drill because they want a drill – what they really want is a hole. When I reflect on the libertarian idea of scrapping government welfare and the minimum wage, I cannot see What’s In It For Me. I am not a wealthy man. If I were terminated from my job (or if my wages were drastically reduced), I would be screwed. This would be of no concern to libertarians, but it would certainly matter a great deal to me.

This shows us the nature of democracy as decay: by legitimizing the individual viewpoint, and enabling the individual to choose its future, democracy guarantees that society will go one and only one direction, which is toward breakdown and dissolution. Europeans and Jews cannot save themselves because in the grip of democracy, no one is considering any policy about what is convenient right now.

Naturally, anyone who has escaped from the mental ghetto of selfishness realizes that if we do not create a thriving and independent society, all that we do is for naught. But this is the mentality of a very few, maybe 1%, who can see beyond their immediate bodily pleasures and rewards. The rest are monkeys in the trees, fighting over fruit and masturbating compulsively.

One reason that movements like Neoreaction offer the idea of “exit,” or creation of small Libertarian states, is so that long-term cost can be reduced to a line-item on the yearly budget. If we had the option to move to an island without bennies and freebies, and could see how much less it cost us and how much better life was, we would immediately demand those things in our own countries via the free market. So goes the theory anyway.

Alas, it is not so: humans are monkeys, and if they had the option for a Libertarian isle, they would move there and then begin to demand bennies and freebies. This is why ancient civilizations had aristocracy and caste systems. The former put the best people in power; the latter ensured that the lower 98% had zero input in decision-making that they lacked the cognitive skills to undertake.

Capitalism usually takes the rap for this process of selfishness but the actual culprit is much deeper in the human psyche. It is our tendency toward pacifism, or avoiding conflict through bribing others as in a business deal, which produces systems like democracy. Then, our egos refuse to allow us to admit that we have created disaster, so we rationalize and resolve to ignore the crisis.

And yet as our ancestors recognized, every illusion eventually comes to a decision point. Do we go gentle into that good night, or do we rage against the dying of the light — and perhaps simply change our dysfunctional behaviors? What comes next will either be predictable slow decline to Brazil 2.0 or something we would consider unthinkable now.

As the author of that piece opines:

Here’s a brief rundown of some general libertarian proposals which will never come to pass (in Australia) — abolishing the minimum wage, eliminating government welfare, legalising all drugs, privatising the police, scrapping public education and replacing government-issued money with privately issued money. Some libertarians in countries like Australia and Great Britain are also hoping – vainly – for the elimination of all gun control.

He believes these things can never come to pass despite having been the standard only a century ago. All of them would lead to a better society — if you substitute “decriminalizing” for legalizing drugs — but people in democracy are afraid to leave behind WIIFM on the dial of their moral radio sets. This leads to the point: before we can solve any of our problems, we need to depose democracy.

At that point, a semblance of normal life can return. And then, we can focus on the real question, which is that of our purpose as a society and where the individual fits within it. But this is a bootstrapping process. Before we can get rid of democracy, we need to gather the gumption and desire to see goodness restored that is required to bypass the silly conventions of our time. For that, we must search our souls.

Blake writes an entertaining article that includes a pointed criticism of Libertarians as “weird” for having impractical ideas in addition to the above practical but “impossible” ones, and in that, he shows us the Crowd process invading Libertarianism. As a philosophy, Libertarianism makes sense; when handed to the herd, they do the usual and turn it into a vehicle for self-importance and self-expression, adulterating it beyond recognition.

Whether Libertarian or not, we all face a practical and moral question in the very near future. Survive, or self-abolish? We now know that to survive, we have to leave behind the teddy bears and magic amulets of democracy and equality. But do we have the intestinal fortitude to do this?

Unite the Right

Monday, October 26th, 2015
by Ashton Blackwell and Brett Stevens

by Ashton Blackwell and Brett Stevens

A singularity is coming: the mainstream right and the underground right are converging, but they need to do it faster. These groups share a worldview of realism which no other parts of the political spectrum possess. Both realize that Western Civilization is hurtling towards a catastrophe at the hands of the dictatorship of public opinion, and that this same force destroyed the great civilizations of the past. As Walt Kelley wrote long ago, “We have met the enemy and he is us”: public opinion denies common-sense realism because people prefer sugar-coated and flattering illusions. Gossip about the Speakership nomination, or Malia’s college party beer pong antics, dominates the headlines to hide the grim reality that we are literally fighting for our survival as a civilization.

When the Left took over through the French Revolution back in 1789, it separated politics into two groups: those who wanted to follow the “new” ideas, and those who wanted to conserve the fundamental principles and organizing behaviors that have produced the best results throughout human history. These tested precepts assume the mantle of “tradition” and history shows us that anything but this type of truth-based order will quickly devolve and collapse. Like writing code, or designing a house, you either get it right and over-engineer something to last a thousand years under all conditions, or you have created something feeble which will fail whenever Murphy’s Law comes knocking (as it does on a regular basis, that meddler!). Conservatives pursue tradition in two ways: first, they believe in reality-based common-sense engineering; second, they aim for “transcendentals” such as “the good, the beautiful and the true,” which are perpetually unattainable goals that nonetheless improve everything in quality, including life itself.

Currently, mainstream conservatives – the grassroots and the Tea Party, the smaller “conservatism lite” Establishment right-wing, and other Republican voters – define themselves as separate from what we might call the “underground right,” comprised of movements like the alternative right, Neoreaction, and the New Right. Establishment Republicans , who have adopted progressivism to fight progressivism, barely qualify as Right-wing at all, but groups with “anti-Establishment” sensibilities, such as patriot movement groups, “Middle American Radicals,” paleoconservatives, and perhaps “conservatarians” represent a rising niche of the Right. While the alternative right and Neoreaction appear to be totally different from the mainstream right, they share the overarching vision that they should live in a land that represents them. They also share some “idealistic realism”; their state vision is transcendental, but they believe that thinking about what “should” be true, is a worse way of making decisions that looking at what is true and adopting methods that have worked with that truth over time, then slowly improving the quality of results with methods specific to each local area. Both mainstream and underground right groups ally themselves with the idea of common sense: reality-based thinking. They see this as superior to progressive ideology, a vat of untested ideas advanced by conniving political opportunists as a means of seizing control through popular opinion and the chaos created through government meddling.

While important distinctions between mainstream right and underground right exist, similarities outnumber differences. Both groups advance common sense notions that intersect in the following areas:

  1. Freedom of belief. On the right, we recognize that societies are composed of individuals, and that those individuals receive their formative guidance outside of government, through their culture and religion. Individuals of higher moral character and abilities can improve the society around them by raising its standards, as we see from great people in history like George Washington, Socrates or even Ronald Reagan. Society should defend those who have higher standards, not force universal acceptance of all standards, which lowers the standard held in common. While this is inconvenient for commerce, as it means you may have to go to another store to get your gay wedding cake or birth control pills, it defends the right of people to live by their beliefs and to raise up the rest of us with higher moral standards. Moral order flows from the top down. The authors would argue that the classical liberal mandate, “don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff,” proscribes too little and has been an easy target for subversion in an effort to destroy the moral fabric of our country.
  2. Freedom of association. Birds of a feather flock together, which means that collaborative groups can establish communities that succeed and inspire us to follow their example. Ideally, this happens at a national level, and obviates the problems posed by a “proposition nation” which praises as a social good, maximum social dysfunction, acrimony and competition. Dysfunction is created when the people in a community don’t want to work or live together; look at the artificially imposed state boundaries at the Middle East, or take divorce, for example. This is like a free market for ideas: people form small corporations called communities, and if their product – the lifestyle they offer – is superior, they thrive while others lag. A lack of freedom of association means that individuals are forced to live near, work with and interact with people with whom they disagree on a fundamental basis. That denies their human right to have a set of values, morals and standards to their community. Our Founding Fathers never intended equality to be more than individuals being treated fairly under the law without regard to their wealth or status. It was not designed to allow small groups to force conformity on the rest through mandatory tolerance of activities, lifestyles and individuals they find objectionable, or to privilege “oppressed” groups to pilfer and yoke “oppressor” groups. That is all tyranny, which the Founders intended to forbid in the Constitution.
  3. Small government. This term means both limiting the economic and personnel size of government, and more importantly, limiting its scope to practical and not ideological goals. When its only role is defense and putting up roads, government does not grow, so it must invent a reason – a rationalization, justification or excuse – to expand its power. This almost always takes the form of “Think of the children!” style ideological agendas based on guilt and pity, explained in public as altruism but like most public altruism, in private a cynical grab for power like the French Revolution itself. In political terms, small government means taking away from government the ability to act for any smaller group than society as a whole. This means an end to any payments to citizens, any socialized services, and any act which benefits a small group through money taken from the whole of the citizenry. Those types of subsidy-based actions, which resemble socialism in effect if not theory, are the hallmark of civilizations which will spend themselves to their own doom by sacrificing their productive citizens to the endless parade of those who are less willing or able to contribute.

Freedom of belief, freedom of association, and the principle of small government have been gradually encroached upon, and the right leaning coalition subsequently alienated. Yet, the American spirit of resistance is stirring. The rise of Donald Trump, whatever one may think of him, may show the future of conservatism: resistance to liberal social engineering, starting by attacking the liberal policy of multiculturalism for what it is – a social engineering program to replace normal Americans, who tend to be conservative, with third world populations which tend to vote liberal as they did in their home countries. The dividing line between mainstream conservatives, who will not mention race at all, and underground conservatives, who see diversity as creating internal division and distrust, is slowly eroding. Conservatives are seeing the liberal Plan for the first time: Politicians cultivate votes by giving away free things to citizens; the media drums up stories around unjust victimhood and horrors of poverty. The voters, prone to manipulation, fear voting against these things lest they be viewed as unsympathetic. These programs grow and can never be repealed because to do so is “political suicide,” or at least, so all the newspapers say. Elites form out of those in media, government and industry who realize they can help each other by reinforcing “The Narrative” which states that popular programs lead toward progress and anything else is primitive, selfish, cruel and ineffectual. This converts society into an echo chamber where people repeat the same views as fact and, by dint of a lack of opposing voices, confirm that bias and intensify adoption of the failed policies. With no way to change direction, society collapses, and this is what all conservatives hope to avoid.

So how does the space probe of the new right interlock with the docking collar of mainstream conservatism? The alliance begins in their common sentiment of anger at being dispossessed and their ideals and dignity made the subject of mockery, and graduates to their philosophical agreements. They two groups share an outlook in common sense, and both recognize that we are no longer in the age of “politics as usual,” but fighting for our very existence against the cancerous spread of liberalism. Both groups feel, and to a large extent, are, disenfranchised. This sense of disenfranchisement can be galvanized from despair to a renewing movement, as is plainly evident with The Make America Great Again campaign.

The underground right is the missing intellectual vanguard of grassroots America – and grassroots America is the missing power base of the underground right. The majority of grassroots America understands implicitly the dangers facing the country through immigration and out of control, criminal urban populations. The underground right doesn’t have to continue to be marginal if it can dialogue with people who are frustrated by their lack of representation, and the loss of their culture and way of life. Salt of the earth, normal American conservatives, that is those in flyover country or in the South who are cynical towards government, are looking for radical political integrity. The underground right, though merely agents of traditionalism, register in today’s political milieu as radical political truth-tellers, based on their frank acknowledgment of what is and is not sustainable. The goal of conservatism is to conserve civilization—and as its parapets crumble in the West, it is in grave need of our common defense.

In defense of self-interest

Saturday, September 26th, 2015

white_resistance_to_internationalism

In an egalitarian time, the greatest sin is to withhold from someone else when you have more than they do.

While many people do this all the time, they carefully hide the fact. The most troubling circumstances resemble those in which I found myself yesterday.

At a convenience store, I purchased an item for my companion, and as we set out into the sun, a voice called out. “Sorry to bother you, sir, but I’m just trying to get something to eat…” called the plaintive soul.

Without hesitation, I said, “No.” He didn’t ask for an explanation — too many other marks coming out of the door, fattened on moon pies and Budweiser — but the reasoning is worth sharing.

Self-interest is the only moral course of action.

With self-interest, a direct correspondence occurs between the intent behind any action and its application. There are no proxies; the homeless-looking guy says he’s broke, but maybe not. The charities say the money goes to help people, but maybe not, and there may be secondary consequences. Those who give money are on a practical level chumps funding unknown evils in the name of the “good” whispered in their ear.

Further, Darwin winks at us. I use my money to the best of my judgment. Those who are poor at spending money wisely will end up being poor; those who are good, will rise. This benefits all of us by putting the most competent people both in charge of the money, and in a position to use it.

Next, I disagree with the idea of subsidy in any form. If I have to work, it is theft to allow others to skate by without it when they have need. I will spend my money on my family, and they will spend it on theirs. If an economic downturn comes, I want them starving so they bang on the doors of banks and investment houses and demand a fix. But do not steal from me. Karl Marx was right: time is money. When parasites show up and demand a handout, they are not just taking my money, but part of my irreplaceable life that I now have to work to pay for them, the parasitic bureaucrats who administer to them, and the businesses that crop up to take advantage of the free money handed out by the idiotic (apparently) voters.

There is only one legitimate use for collective income in society: toward things that benefit us all. We all take benefit from an opera, for example, pushing culture upward; we all benefit from roads, a military, courts and police. We do not all see any reward from charity, which takes from the successful and uses it to subsidize the unsuccessful like a crop no one wants to buy. And yet they grow. The more we give, the more of them there are.

This does not mean at all that I believe in Atomized Man, who owes no one a thing but himself. We all owe a debt to participate in society, and that is why we go to jobs and fund things like roads. The most important aspect of this however is the one no one mentions, which is supporting society itself — through labor. It takes work to maintain a culture, values, heritage, standards, customs and social order. These things do not show up on ledgers but they are more important than money. You can make it through a bad time with those, but not a rich time without, as our society is evidence daily.

One final reason exists for taking gleeful delight in self-interest: to do otherwise, to any degree, creates a victimhood mentality. If you give someone money, he must categorize it in his mind as either that he was wronged and is owed, or that he is a parasite. He will choose the former and the people handing out the money — all politeness — will do the same. This creates a mentality that spreads through society like an epidemic: first the poor feel wronged, then the middle class consider themselves victims, then the rich do. The problem is that victimhood is compensatory behavior. When someone feels wronged, they will “take it out” on other parties with the compensatory excuse and rationalization/justification that they were (actually) owed this, and did not receive it, so they are right in taking it. If you want to increase criminal mentation in your population, produce victims.

It is entertaining that our media is quick to defend various murderers and pedophiles with the excuse that they were abused when they were young. And yet, most abusers recreate their abuse trauma, so if possible, we should avoid abuse. Unfortunately for us, the perception of abuse — “I was wronged!” — functions exactly like abuse in the human mind. Handing out free subsidies is creating future abusers. It is immoral for the reasons stated above, as well as impractical, but it is downright suicidal for the reasons stated in this paragraph.

A victimhood mentality makes all of geared toward having non-goals. When they are at a job, and the stated goal is to make widgets, their actual goal becomes to do as little as possible to reclaim what was “stolen” from them. People pad bills, waste time, throw out working materials and otherwise sabotage society at large — which foots the bill through externalized costs — because they feel victimized. This quickly spreads to outright revenge, in which they would rather destroy everything everyone has than let another second go by without their “victimhood” being addressed.

Victim mentality creates a sluggish society. No one works toward task, but they also stop aspiring to anything beyond that theft of time and resources. They stop dreaming and hoping, and go into “resistance mode,” where like suicide bombers they simply hope to take down others with them when they go. They give up working toward anything and merely work against each other. Soon there is a giant mass of monkeys, each trying to rip all of the others off, with anyone who chooses to remain a decent person becoming the target of not just parasitism but outright violent crime. All of this arises from the welfare/socialist psychology.

White people got depressed and started dropping out of society at the point where it grew powerful governments. As the 1800s gave way to the 1900s, governments rose in power in replacement for monarchies and culture, and people became miserable. This occurred because government works through a victimhood Narrative which enables it to create victims, justify/rationalize the expansion of its power on their behalf, and then use that to force everyone else to obey and not notice its gross incompetence. When was the last time we had competent leadership? No one can remember, because it was not in our lifetimes, and in fact ended long before that.

Our current situation has us beset by parasites, most of whom do not intend to be predatory. They grow up in this society, get told they are victims, and then become addicted to the steady flow of benefits and welfare. On the other end, people become accustomed to easy jobs and stealing away whatever time and money they can, including by externalizing cost. Our current immigration crisis, as well as our constant class warfare, arises directly from the victimhood mentality created by our handouts because government wanted to be more powerful, and the voters approved it.

Self-interest includes that which benefits everyone, not just in the world of money and government, but things like the environment, natural species, clean air and preservation of culture and race. Without self-interest, those things are assumed to be someone else’s problem, and people work against them because they see any other costs as taking from what they are “owed.” Our society became hateful when we turned out back on these shared things for an endless cycle of finding pitiable peasants and trying to “lift them up” by giving them money, then finding out — it must be magic — that in the next generation there were more of them.

White people went into decline when we got into the government/welfare loop. Like bacteria or mosquitoes, our dependents multiply and drain us of energy. Soon good people stop caring, stop trying to get anything right, and finally stop reproducing and being moral. That is the condition white people were in by the time 1968 rolled around, like weakened patients watching helplessly as the host attaches. The parasite has sucked us dry and the only way to keep it at bay is to hold up the principle of self-interest rigorously in every area of life, all the time.

Conservatives rediscover pluralism

Wednesday, August 26th, 2015

ablaze_with_dissent

Conservatives and libertarians are getting excited about Allum Bokhari’s article over at Breitbar, “Rise of the Cultural Libertarians.” In it, he argues that the rising leftist wave of censorship has awakened a new movement of people who are not really conservative, but want to preserve the ability to criticize any beliefs, which includes — to the shock of our media and enfranchised political establishment — criticism of Leftist viewpoints.

Uh oh.

While this new movement, unified and galvanized by the article, seems to have great momentum, it suffers from not having conducted the approach of a philosopher: analyze things through to their ends and compare to what we know of reality. This method, the parent of its less-rigorous cousin The Scientific Method™, means that we look at not what seems like a sensible counter-argument to the dominant paradigm, but what will be the actual results of our acts as planned. This is the only form of accountability and responsibility that exits, and on this blog, we call it “Realism.”

The rising leftist wave of censorship was born of a social phenomenon known as “Social Justice Warriors,” or SJWs. These people participate in politics as an activity, generally to distract from their personal misery, usually a combination of alcoholism, social ineptitude and obesity. They are strident, angry and gather in swarms to attack all who disagree with them, knowing — like terrorists and guerrillas — that by creating a Public Relations incident, they can force the opposition to apologize, kowtow and change its policies. SJWs are effective mainly because there are always thousands of them on the internet at any given time, ready to mob attack the next target.

The cultural libertarian response is to emphasize independence of thought and resistance to any form of coercive attempt to silence others. In other words, classic American freedom. Here’s the summary from the article:

They’ve also worked out that the people leading the charge in social media mobs have vastly disproportionate influence thanks to their publishing platforms and that not only are they hopelessly out of touch with popular opinion but that their tactics are unpleasant and hectoring, often veering into outright cruelty and persecution.

…Cultural libertarians recognise that efforts to police language and expression are not only counter-productive, but also fragile. The people pushing for greater control are a small segment of the population, whose voice is amplified by media support. To fight them, all you have to do is ignore them – or, better yet, mock them.

This may sound familiar to you, because it re-capitulates what by now is an ancient defense of the right. Faced with the onslaught of the French Revolution, they retreated into “classical liberalism”: do whatever you want, on your own property, so long as I can do the same. It sounds so simple and pleasant! It even feels like a social order at times. And yet, it completely fails because it denies the need of a society to have direction: identity, purpose, values, heritage, customs and some sense of the transcendent.

In fact, the “cultural libertarian” approach can be understood as a variant of a well-known political philosophy, pluralism:

Political pluralism usually starts with the observation that there are different value systems in use in the world, and there are various positions that arise out of that observation. Political pluralism is concerned with the question of what sort of restrictions governments can put on people’s freedom to act according to their value systems. The strongest version of political pluralism claims that all these value systems are equally true (and thus presumably all ought to be tolerated), a weaker view is that these value systems all ought to be tolerated, and probably the most common version of the view is that some of these systems (the reasonable ones) ought to be tolerated.

The idea that all value systems are equally true, or at least equally valid — a social surrogate for true that purports to regulate behavior — requires us to believe we can base a society on disagreement at a fundamental level. This is not, as the Left would have it, similar to different tastes in food, clothing or attire, or even a tolerance of eccentricity (which, oddly, seems to belong to the Right). It refers to sharing the same basic values and outlook on the world, which is preferable to the alternative, which first looks like a coat of many colors and rapidly begins to resemble an unruly mob.

We can argue that pluralism could go farther and for example, demand freedom of association. With this, we would not have to hire, buy from, sell to, rent to, talk to or do business with others for any reason. While most societies view this as somewhat of a right, or at least a convention, our society sees this as troublesome because it introduces inefficiencies. If Person A wants to buy a gay wedding cake at a baker, and the one near them refuses to sell to them, they can always go down the road. But time is lost, and money is thus lost, and we lose the simple certainty of business which says we can go anywhere and do anything if our credit rating is good. A sane society would see values as more important than commerce, but pluralistic societies have nothing in common but commerce and maybe some ideology, so pluralism inevitably leads to the conditions that necessitated its creation.

Some have tried pluralism by community. In particular, the original government of the United States, and later the Confederate States of America, were committed to the idea of “states rights” or the notion that individual states could choose their own rules. This conflicted with the desire of Northern liberals to control the South, so they picked a fight over slavery because it was a polarizing issue. After that war, it became clear that states rights was a dead concept, replaced by the notion of a Single Right Way. While pluralism opposes the notion of a singular correct path, it cannot overcome the tendency of governments to make rules, laws and regulations “in your best interest” which can then compel obedience to ideological objectives. For example, a government might insist that hospitals admit anyone regardless of whether their staff wants to associate with that person or not, or demand that pharmacies sell abortion drugs in case people “need” them. Pluralism fails the more people demand function and efficiency from their society.

In addition, pluralism fails to take into account that there will be at least one privileged viewpoint: that of The Establishment™, which refers to those who work in government, media and the public face of industry. People who join the establishment are those who have a higher commitment to working within the system — and thus gaining personal success — than to any truth, purpose or ideal. When someone wants to succeed at government, he must invent new ways for government to be important so his future resume can show an addition that was uniquely his creation. In a pure pluralism, government would have one of many perspectives, but in reality, some kind of leadership will have a privileged position by the nature of having to make and enforce rules. If that leadership takes the form of a State, it will create an establishment — hereditary aristocracies do not have this problem, having barred entry to all but the truly exceptional, who are rare — as people compete for personal success. There pluralism will also die under the ambitions of individuals.

This leaves us with the perspective of pluralism as prolonged suicide. Since the Right has been demonized in the decades following the Second World War, it has focused mostly on “thought experiments” which take the form of arguments to circumnavigate the logic of the Left. As an argument, pluralism may have some success because it points to the hypocrisy of the Leftist viewpoint — but only to outsiders. Inside the Left, it is tacitly acknowledged that the one goal is egalitarianism (or “equality”) through collective altruism, which throughout history has without exception amounted to taking from the competent to subsidize the rest. For that reason, leftists do not see their jihad against non-egalitarian viewpoints as hypocrisy, since their goal is not “freedom” or even actual equality, but a subset of equality defined by its method of using subsidies. Leftists fear their own insufficiency, and create a barrier through equality which forces society to accept them as part of the in-group regardless of their personal choices. This alone, a malignant form of individualism, represents their only goal and it can never be hypocritical in their eyes.

This returns us to the question, then, of civilization design. How do we design a civilization that is improving in quality, rather than degenerating and hiding that fact behind the facade of “progress”? It starts by recognizing that the real enemy is what undoes the civilization compact, an agreement between people to sacrifice some individualism so that social order can exist. This occurs not so much because social order is efficient, or safe, but because it enables a society to rise above the norm of all but a few human groups, which is poverty and corruption through social disorder. Those who fear insufficiency want the benefits of civilization without the obligation, so they cobble together a set of ideas enabling them to have “anarchy with grocery stores”: egalitarianism, anti-hierarchy, altruism and liberalism/progressivism. This destroys the civilization compact but allows the individual to feel safer because they are included by command, and can never be found in a Darwinistic moment to have failed to live up to the civilization compact.

Cultural libertarianism represents the latest attempt by the non-Left to walk back up that path to social order. It does so by demanding that the anti-order order be weakened, but it can only serve as an intermediate step, and will fail for the reasons above and an even more fundamental one. The enemy operates by lumping together individualists into a mob dedicated to establishing individualism by abolishing standards and order; under pluralism, they will still form this mob, and then conveniently declare pluralism over and take their revenge, as they did in the French and Russian Revolutions. While the pushback against SJW ideological imperialism is a noble fight, the danger of being human is that we rely too much on methods, and then go back to sleep. In that role, cultural libertarianism serves as a proxy for the actual quest we must undertake, which is to build a society once again unified by principle and goal.

The anarcho-totalitarian parasite slave state

Thursday, June 4th, 2015

donut_subsidy_heaven

Francis Fukuyama may have been right not that we have reached the end of history, but that we have reached the end of government. That is: we have achieved the final stage of the State before the next cycle of history starts over, and government, bureaucracy and the managerial nation-state are at their highest power at this time right before the fall.

We might divide the State into three aeons. In its earliest days, from the Magna Carta to the peasant revolts of the 1500s and finally the French Revolution of 1789, the idea was what might be called “classical liberalism”: do away with leaders and objectives, and let each person make money as is convenient for him. This initiative was taken on by merchants who wanted to be free from social standards and the oversight of aristocrats; in other words, it was purely financially-driven, although it justified itself with a pretended altruistic concern for the lowest socioeconomic classes through egalitarianism.

The second season of liberalism came about after the Napoleonic Wars when liberals realized that egalitarianism inevitably descended into oligarchy because most people are not competent and/or not interested in productivity, profits and power. This meant that classical liberalism sure as the sun rises leads to domination of the many by a few who are more capable or more motivated, and as a result proves the idea of egalitarianism itself false. To avoid this, liberals added a subsidy state to classical liberalism. This new form, socialism, took the “do whatever you want” of liberalism 1.0 and fused it with mandatory state subsidies (through ownership of means of production) to produce liberalism 2.0.

After the second World War, which was mostly an outburst against the onset of liberalism 2.0 much as the Napoleonic Wars had been resistance to liberalism 1.0, the West faced a quandary: it wanted to distinguish itself from the right, but also not follow the path of the liberalism 2.0 societies which were turning into impoverished, corrupt, venal, filthy, and unproductive third world ruins around it. A visit to Russia would convince anyone that liberalism 2.0 had fatal flaws. The West then cooked up liberalism 3.0, which involved European-style socialism lite — a benefits state — coupled with American capitalism, which insisted that money be earned first, then taxed, and then distributed in such a way that it was spent instantly on fads to pump-prime the economy. Where Eurosocialism focused on education and medicine, liberalism 3.0 dumped money into the poor so they could become consumers, and generated wealth by creating a series of trends like the iPhone which increased the estimated value of the economy by sheer volume.

With the downfall of the Soviet Union in 1991, liberalism 3.0 took on its final form as the Baby Boomers took office. It has the “do whatever you want” of 1.0, the subsidies of 2.0, but the power of capitalism that won the second world war. It has however inherited the curse of all large states which is the bureaucratic-managerial layer, and its dense forest of regulation both creates jobs for people who are fundamentally useless otherwise and restrains others from taking action. The red tape chokes the economy. The result is that liberalism 3.0 is seeing a makers-versus-takers ratio shift:

Last month a record 93,194,000 Americans were counted as not being in the labor force. Counted might be the wrong word since this group is largely erased from any employment figures. In fact, this is a large reason why the unemployment rate has fallen so dramatically. Yet one grim financial reality remains. That reality includes the fact that 1 out of 3 Americans is carrying the country financially by working in the private sector.

In other words, the subsidy state has now entered its final form: it has perfectly separated the takers from makers, and has made the makers as efficient as possible. Like a good business, it takes as much as it can and expends the least amount of energy possible on its product. This kind of behavior only works in a closed system where outside forces, like invading Vandals or economic disturbances, do not intrude. Thus the cost of this high efficiency will be death.

This death may not come from without however. Most societies vanish at their own peaks, struck down by mysterious forces as if everyone just left in one bright instant. In my reading of history, the cause is not everyone leaving, but those who have the wit to notice and record ceasing to be there. They either left, died out, died by violence or were shamed into silence. That feeling pervades the West now, too. But even more prevalent is the tendency to force each person to be obedient so that they get vested in the current system, which prevents them from being its critics. “Vested” means having a job, getting paid a lot to do little, and thus being content with one’s personal status in life, even if the thunderclouds on the horizon create neurosis and stomach cramps.

A highly-regulated ideological society like the West has become, even if funded by consumerism + capitalism, seeks to reduce all people to the role of “worker” even if specialized. It likes its interchangeable parts. This creates a single path to rising which will reward competence only if it is first paired with obedience. This creates a division of the population as follows:

  Competent Incompetent
Obedient
Disobedient

These four quadrants produce three categories: desired workers (competent/obedient), workers of no particular value (incompetent/obedient and disobedient/incompetent) and workers who are an active threat (competent/disobedient). From a Darwinian sense, this represents a war against those who are capable of independent thought and action, even if they mean the best for their employers and society. As people who do not toe the line, they are a threat to the one-dimensional social order maintained by ideology, which is strictly binary: you are either obedient, or not. Incompetent disobedients are seen as unfortunates whose incompetence explains their lack of obedience, and they are easily controlled because their lot in life can always be identified as the result of incompetence not disobedience. It is those disobedient competents that are feared however.

A society in earlier stages welcomes the disobedient, because if they are competent and stay focused on the goal, their disobedience takes the form of up-ending calcified methods and inspecific goals. Their transgressions cause the system to grow stronger by challenging it where it needs to be challenged. As time goes on, however, too many people become vested and as a result, turn against the disobedient who are competent enough to state a plausible cause for their lack of conformity. This creates a disciplinarian situation where the system enforces its own order first and any productivity or effectiveness second. This is the same scenario that crushed the Soviet Union, Venezuela, the French Republic, Cuba and the pre-capitalism Chicoms. It is the long walk into oblivion and paradoxically, it comes about when a society makes people wealthy, powerful and free enough to defend their interests against any who might know better in any form.

How a conservative might implement Universal Basic Income (UBI)

Tuesday, September 16th, 2014

oasis

The hive mind buzzes lately with the idea of Universal Basic Income (UBI) or a salary paid to people for simply existing. The hype says that it will be cheaper than welfare and treat everyone well. Dissent says that it is just another freebie designed to buy votes. Both are correct to a degree.

UBI in its simplest form would be wealth redistribution at an honest level. Take from the productive, pay to the rest, and everyone can co-exist. Unfortunately, this denies Darwin and would essentially subsidize parasites until society collapses much like the Soviet Union and other egalitarian subsidy experiments.

On the other hand, like the negative income tax, it provides a more sensible vision of welfare. It would eliminate thousands of bureaucratic jobs and replace them with a simple form. It would also immediately fall prey to every scammer who could bureaucratically reanimate the dead, kidnap elderly and forge records. Then again, all welfare systems have these problems. In addition, if the benefits are good enough, people will stop going to minimum-wage jobs and costs will rise for all products which depend on entry-level labor, further taking income from the rest.

I propose a conservative vision of UBI: instead of being a universal income for just being human and “alive”, it should require a quid pro quo. That is, UBI would be a job. Citizens would receive UBI in exchange for some function of a minimal level. Instead of signing up for benefits because you are broke, you would sign up for “workfare” by which you perform a job that otherwise would not be economically sustainable.

For example, in a city like New York, many vacant lots, parking lots, abandoned buildings and neighborhoods are in states of disrepair. People could be paid UBI to curate these spaces. This role of curator is more complex than a regular job in that it does not involve narrowly defined function in a narrow scope, but involves all functions in a specific area. The curator of an empty lot would be responsible for “keeping it,” which includes mowing, removing weeds, disposing of litter, driving off homeless, and notifying the police of crimes in progress. The upside would be a safer city where no space would be truly anonymous and open for criminal activity.

Being as this is a conservative vision, however, the solution would not be central government and collective funding, but local government and local funding. Each community would pony up the funds to pay these workers in exchange for a corresponding decrease in national taxes. Ideally, a system like the original aristocracy would exist, where a local lord would own all the undeveloped land and collect taxes or rent from dwellings, which would enable this lord to offer both jobs and free housing to UBI employees.

Much as with all that we do as a society, we get more of what we subsidize. If we encourage welfare, we get more welfare recipients; if we encourage people to exchange their time for labor that benefits society, we get more engagement with society and fewer parasites. As it stands now, we have too many people in the workforce and to accommodate them employers have invented “make-work” jobs which are essentially jails where people perform repetitive functions. UBI could provide a benefit by keeping people out of the economically-competitive workforce and instead pay them for jobs which should be done, but are not economically feasible, such as conservation work, trash cleanup, removal of graffiti and vandalism, and monitoring of otherwise abandoned areas to prevent crime. In addition, UBI could pay two incomes where a wife opted to stay home and take care of the children.

The proposal articulated here will not be popular with UBI advocates. They want more welfare freebies. The entire left is a spectrum with Communism at the far end, and as it achieves more of its goals, it drifts closer to that far end. Welfare advocates want Socialism and will someday inevitably migrate that to Communism (totalitarian Socialism). Thus the thought of tying welfare to labor rankles them not because it is infeasible, but rather the opposite: it refutes their ideology by providing a working counter-example. But this form of UBI would discourage parasitism, encourage participation, and put people to work eradicating the social blight that has troubled this society for too long.

How government destroys the environment

Tuesday, September 13th, 2011

Many of us are hoping right now that humanity recognizes its vast and ongoing destruction of its environment and decides to do something about it. Most expect government to be the method.

However, the record of governments helping the environment has been a spotty one — with one exception, which we’ll cover later. Generally, government makes a big noise but little impact.

Despite the fact that the government routinely refers to “deregulation” — the reduction of its control over businesses — as a guaranteed hazard to the economy, the government’s own impact on the environment is both large and disturbing:

  • Civil liability caps for oil spills and other industrial disasters, which reduce the willingness of large oil corporations to protect against such incidents.
  • The subsidization of oil, coal, refining, “bad nuclear,” even wasteful “green” energy encourages the disruption of ecosystems and increases the net rate of harmful pollution.
  • The displacement of consumer responsibility through the introduction of a ‘regulatory framework’ – where citizens assume that the government is responsible for the environment, and that they play no role in safeguarding it – ensures that nobody ever truly takes accountability for their environmental impact.
  • The subsidization of farming organizations that use wasteful methods – the use of phosphorous-based fertilizer instead of organic agriculture, and the use of irrigation instead of environment-based agriculture – growing crops that occur naturally in a region – leads to nutrient depletion, increased deforestation, decreased crop yields, increased monopolization of farming, increased desertification, depletion of water aquifers, and malnutrition for affected populations. It is fundamentally a sign of social maladaptation, when humans attempt to irrigate an infertile area, and has a dramatically negative environmental impact.
  • The military uses more oil than any organization on the planet. I don’t believe in human-caused global warming, but if you’re still buying the government’s line on that one, that likely also makes them the organization responsible for emitting more CO2 than any other, largely due to the government’s addiction to endless war. In terms of actual environmental impact, back in reality, their large consumption of oil results in an increased rate of oil spills, negatively affecting local ecosystems and possibly entire species-wide extinctions. Also, the use of chemical warfare agents, radioactive munitions, and even traditional munitions tend to produce negative effects on wildlife, including multigenerational birth defects and the rendering of large segments of land as uninhabitable, such as in the Chernobyl disaster.
  • Displacement of consumer responsibility in terms of ‘maintaining harmony with the nature’ by the issuance of hunting and fishing licenses, allows unscientific hunting yields to be instituted, and results more often than not in overfishing/overhunting and the associated extinction of animal populations.
  • The government is known to sponsor and protect “hydrofracking” companies, including a now well-publicized relationship between Dick Cheney and the “hydrofracking” industry, designed to use hydraulic techniques to release natural gas from the earth. This results in a high degree of pollution, and the court system has paid little attention to lawsuits regarding it.
  • The employment of millions of bureaucrats imposes a large requirement for oil at present, in terms of transportation alone, and the associated power resources for their offices. Many of these organizations have no positive impact on society at all, others have less positive impact than the money that’s used to fund them would be used towards in the private market.
  • Agricultural subsidization also encourages meat consumption, which reduces nutrient efficiency by imposing such a large toll on plant populations by overgrazing, with all the associated effects, including desertification. All high surpluses of high calorie foods in general also produce obesity, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and other associated diseases, in a population unable to restrain itself from food consumption, although this is not an “environmental” effect.
  • The construction of dams leads to aquifer depletion and the disruption of local ecosystems, and the government loves building dams.
  • Non-market based road construction leads to miscalculation resulting in an increased rate of ecosystem/migration disruption, roadkill, animal population depletion, etc.
  • The employment of an air force, police helicopters, highways, and also imposes stress on animals via noise alone, which is related to decreased health and lower reproduction rates for wildlife.
  • Any subsidization of a chemical company with an environmental impact, that would otherwise have not received funding, is the government’s fault (think Dow Chemical, DuPont, etc.).
  • The government’s response to the “Deepwater Horizon” oil spill also involved the widespread deployment of highly toxic “Corexit” dispersant, which:
    1. Is known to cause mutation, birth defects, etc.
    2. Has over 200 chemicals, most of which are treated as “proprietary” and not described to the public. Many of these chemicals are non-polar hydrocarbon solvents, which have the ability to actually dissolve cell membranes.
    3. Wildlife in the region has been devastated by this response, and most workers in the area have reported serious health issues, while several described it publicly have died under mysterious circumstances.
  • The use and deployment of nuclear weapons is the single largest threat to the environment in existence, a threat that is made entirely by governments.

Far from being a savior of the environment, government represents a difficult proposition: creating a monster in order to wage war against the abuses of others.

Even more troubling is the idea that since government constitutes a single response that occurs across the board, if it fails, it fails in huge and destructive ways.

I mentioned earlier that there is one thing government can do and do well. That is conservation, or setting aside land for natural use only. That requires no additional bureaucrats or toxic chemicals.

But in the meantime, we should be wary of assuming that government is any kind of solution to our environmental woes.

Drug legalization

Friday, July 8th, 2011

The popular opinion on this topic: make drugs legal or decriminalize.

I believed that once. I figured that if people wanted to do drugs, let them and we could stop this crazy cat-and-mouse game called the War on Drugs.

Years later, and having spent a lot of time studying secondary effects, I have reversed that opinion. Drugs are an idiot magnet and we should not only keep them illegal, but prosecute users.

If you are poor, a minority, unsatisfied with your life, or are mentally ill, you are likely to become addicted to drugs. – In Mala Fide

If you want to attract more of these people, be sure to legalize drugs.

They will show up and bring their friends. Since they are not sterile, and they love to copulate (high correlation in pleasure-seeking behaviors across the board), you will soon have many more of them.

Let us flood our streets with urban trash.

Most crimes are committed by minorities—most victims are white. Most crimes are committed by poor people—most victims are better off. And about half of all rape accusations are false. – VDARE

Do we want to invite more of this behavior?

Legalizing drugs would make drugs cheaper, which would encourage people to spend more of their time on drugs. In turn, it would make discrimination against drug users a possibly illegal act. If the behavior isn’t illegal, how can we not hire or rent to them with any legal standing?

Even more, we see the social consequences of drug use. Whether drugs are legal or not, we have mothers spacing out on their kids, people passing out and driving in a stupor, incompetence at work, and any number of other problems.

If you said to me, “Can we legalize drugs for the independently wealthy and idle?” — I’d approve of that plan. No harm and no foul.

Everyone else has to earn a living, raise families, and keep themselves out of trouble, none of which they can do while on drugs.

Cops know this. They defend the drug war not just for the fat overtime paychecks, but because they know that people who tend to use drugs also tend to commit crimes and have evasive personalities.

I am no fan of modern society. I’d like to evade it too. But that’s a dead-end path, and telling good people that it’s OK to follow it is tantamount to telling them we don’t care if they live or die.

That just makes the bad stronger, just as legalizing drugs makes them think they’ve found paradise for parasites: a willing host with fat welfare checks, lax laws, cheap drugs and no consequences for their actions.

From the first article:

I’m in favor of legalizing drugs at the federal level but allowing individual states/municipalities to ban them if they like, and ending the government’s meddling in other countries’ drug policies.

Instead, let’s do it the other way around: pick a test area and legalize drugs there.

The Netherlands found their legal drug culture encouraged a total tourist mess. For the last five years, the trend has been toward increasing restriction of drug culture in an attempt to channel it into red light districts and away from the rest of the population.

Portugal legalized drugs, and while the usual suspects are trumpeting how successful the program is, I find that anything with lots of “true believers” (pre-debunking “useful idiots”) attracts lots of journalists and social workers willing to fudge statistics.

In the meantime, Portugal is going broke, its government is near collapse, and one reason for lowered drug use is that anyone who can leave is hitting the road. You don’t want to be the person stuck paying taxes when a regime collapses.

None of these people have come up with a working plan. Here’s Ferd (whose writings I normally enjoy) again:

For most of the history of European and Western civilization, people began working and raising families in their mid-teens, and those teens built the greatest culture the world has ever known. Now, in the twilight of our empire, we don’t let kids work, we don’t let them drive, we don’t let them smoke or drink or fuck or assume ANY adult responsibilities or privileges. We shuffle them into an educational system that caters to the dumbest and weakest instead of the strongest and smartest. We force them to spend four years in college, racking up tens, hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt that they’ll be paying off well into their thirties. We stand over their shoulders at all time, never letting them do anything on their own.

And then we sit around and complain about “kidults” and how the younger generations are immature and won’t grow up. HELLO! They won’t grow up because their parents and guardians and teachers won’t let them.

He has a point here, but he draws the wrong conclusion.

Fixing education is a matter of making it competitive again. College is expensive because every student carries the load of affirmative action and dumbed-down students. Make it harder to get into college, get rid of these stupid quotas, and watch the prices fall by half.

Finally, let’s let kids make more adult decisions. The problem is, as he notes:

The more degenerate and immoral a society becomes, the more obsessed it becomes with mollycoddling its youth.

Most of the options available to them out there are pitfalls. Parents are busy with work and failing marriages.

Until we clean up our society, our youth aren’t making “decisions” — they’re following impulses from media, rock star “role models,” and their peers.

I suggest we give the kids some choices to make, but only when we’ve cleaned up the mess. Further, instead of choices like “what drugs do I take?” (a moronic question) let’s give them more choices in what they study and what other activities they participate in.

You want adult decisions? It’s not how you party. It’s how you spend your time: take up an instrument, or a martial art? Double major or not? Join the officer corps?

Claiming that we’re giving kids more adult decisions by dangling drugs and alcohol in front of their faces is just silly.

People who are fucked up will always find a way to fuck up. If it’s not drugs, it’s alcohol. If it’s not alcohol, it’s overeating, or video games, or obsessively following celebrity news, or writing Wikipedia articles. If you want to stop drug abuse, you have to stop people from being fucked up.

He runs afoul of this knowledge:

The falsely-accused black man and the guilty white man form what is called a “trope”—a “storytelling device” or convention.

{…}

For example, in the case of the African immigrant hotel maid who accused Strauss Kahn, everyone has banished from their mind any previous stereotype about women in her position making things up, and replaced it with the stereotype of the vile white racist who takes advantage of minority women. (VDARE)

The pity-the-victim trope encourages us to think that people are broken, so they need some way to express their brokenness.

In realityland, we see that instead, we’re encouraging their brokenness by tolerating it, thus ensuring that we’ll get more of it.

I wish there was a nice easy answer like “legalize drugs and the problem will go away.” However, as with alcohol, drugs remain a problem and always will be. Any time you can get to a happy place in your head and leave reality behind, there’s a risk.

The solution is not to coddle that risk, but to make a clear statement: dropping out of reality is a terrible idea, and we’ll fight it wherever we find it.

If people want responsibility of an adult nature, how about this: moral choice. Drug use leads to bad things. It’s a moral choice to avoid it.

Society should not waffle on whether it’s good or bad. We should make it clear from the start: drug use leads to degenerate behavior, makes you into a wimp, and is a path to decay.

An introduction to libertarian beliefs

Thursday, September 16th, 2010

Interest in libertarianism has been rising, but the major problem anyone new to libertarianism finds is that there’s very little real information about it. There are plenty of charming political pieces extolling its virtues, but very few clear summaries of what it is.

Before we can explore libertarianism, we need to look at modern politics by their two parts:

  1. Infrastructure policy. Since economics determines how a government keeps its people alive, this generally starts with economics, and branches inevitably into a discussion of the role of government and the best ways to achieve its goals.
  2. Social policy. When culture was a stronger force in the life of a nation, this part was not needed, but since the Magna Carta it has become part of government. Social policy determines the values a party reflects and in turn, what behaviors its policies will support because more of them is desired.

Libertarianism attempts to address both forms through the idea of the individual as an autonomous agent who can behave in responsible self-interest.

The basic atom of libertarian ideal, “liberty,” means that individuals make all choices for themselves. Government does not tell them how to think, and interferes with their lives as little as possible.

While this means they are free of government control, it also implies a form of Social Darwinism, or the idea that society does not need to subsidize its poor, insane, criminal, and minorities. It needs only provide a meritocratic system where they can be free.

As a psychological outlook, libertarianism embraces a concept I find very healthy, which is that anything you desire in the world needs to come from your own labor, and that you should not expect the world to be fair or others to fix it for you. In the libertarian worldview, if lightning hits your house and wipes out everything you own, it’s up to you to find a way to fix it. If your boss is a tyrant, it’s up to you to find a new job. This is the “dark side” of liberty: you’re on your own.

Libertarian Economics

Much of the impetus behind libertarianism, which got its start in the turbulent 1960s, comes from middle class people wanting to get government out of the business of regulating its citizens, as it inevitably takes money from the productive and shifts it to those who are having trouble, while making rules that limit those who are doing well.

In addition, libertarians often came from an economics background and recognized a simple truth of governments: free markets, while they seem to reward big corporations, tend to keep money moving quickly through the economy, which enables other people to seize it and use it to make more money.

Further, markets tend to dump money toward the top of the wealth/influence scale, where it is spent in proportionately large chunks on infrastructure items like raw materials that can be converted into future sources of wealth.

Big chunks mean faster money; governments, on the other hand, tend to do popular things like hand out relatively small chunks of money to individuals, who then spend it at the bottom of the economic food chain on consumer goods (groceries, appliances, cars, electronics, fast food, booze), which do not generate future value. Small purchases mean slow money.

Central to libertarianism is the notion that the individual as an atom, or free agent addressing a small range of problems, moves more quickly than a centralized, bureaucratic, top-down government or command economy (economy where government defines the goals and reward structure based on policy). The individual in liberty is a bottom-up organizational system which is more flexible than any bureaucracy, which is why the free market for all its disadvantages is preferable to a bureaucracy.

Libertarians note that socialist and communist societies, which are built on command economies, tend to move more slowly and slow the passage of wealth through the society, which causes as its consequence an economic lethargy that none escaped in pure form, with the most notable being the Soviet Union.

On economic grounds, libertarians also tend to oppose National Socialism (Nazism) for having a command economy, but are often silent on Fascism, since it shares many of the same basic assumptions about the motion of money through an economy and the necessity of dumping wealth at the top of the economic food chain.

Social Impulse

The primary social impulse behind libertarianism is a desire to get away from the “Nanny State,” or well intentioned government that helps those who are not succeeding, and to keep those who are succeeding — and providing the flow of wealth through the nation, like a beating heart — from losing that economic mobility to taxes and obligations to the poor or “disadvantaged.” When money is kept in the market, it moves quickly; in the hands of government, it slows down and dissipates.

A good deal of libertarianism can be viewed as a middle class reaction to socialist revolution. Let’s look at how Plato describes class war in a democracy:

Now in a democracy, too, there are drones, but they are more numerous and more dangerous than in the oligarchy; there they are inert and unpractised, here they are full of life and animation; and the keener sort speak and act, while the others buzz about the bema and prevent their opponents from being heard.

And there is another class in democratic States, of respectable, thriving individuals, who can be squeezed when the drones have need of their possessions; there is moreover a third class, who are the labourers and the artisans, and they make up the mass of the people.

When the people meet, they are omnipotent, but they cannot be brought together unless they are attracted by a little honey; and the rich are made to supply the honey, of which the demagogues keep the greater part themselves, giving a taste only to the mob.

Their victims attempt to resist; they are driven mad by the stings of the drones, and so become downright oligarchs in self-defence. – Plato, The Republic

He’s describing how the middle classes who are “squeezed when the drones have need of their possessions” become “downright oligarchs in self-defense,” meaning that they turn toward a form of social Darwinism that cuts them free from any perceived obligation toward those who have less than they do.

You can see how this process, in the turbulent 1960s as the Cold War raged against a socialist totalitarian state, might be appealing. When a socialist revolution starts, wealth is re-distributed and results in the collapse of a nation; one simple fix is to get government out of the business of “fairness,” and instead to let nature solve the problem through competition, with the best rising, and the unsuccessful not being subsidized — which hampers their ability to wage socialist revolution.

Many libertarians derive inspiration from Ayn Rand, who sought a political system that was the inverse of socialism. However, her grasp of philosophy was shaky and so most experienced thinkers find her “objectivism” to be dubious at best. A better thinker might be the defender of Social Darwinism in its purest form, the feral Nietzsche.

Libertarians in the Tea Party

Much of the interest now comes in the form of a middle class revolt in the United States. Having watched government spending on citizens — entitlements, welfare, and social programs — become the most radically expanded category of government spending since 1945, the middle classes are perceiving that wealth transfer is happening.

Unfortunately for them, it’s occurring away from the productive middle classes and to the poorest citizens, who because they spend much of their income on entertainment, are benefitting the “new oligarchs” in media, Hollywood, and internet businesses — but not traditional manufacturing, agriculture and finance. This is the new face of class warfare: the ultra-rich and liberal, allied with the impoverished, against the middle classes.

As a result, many of the middle classes see “creeping socialism” occurring in government, and want to cut it off at the root by severing the umbilical cord of guilt: they want to remove the idea of obligation to those who have less, and replace it with the idea that giving liberty to each citizen is more important than trying to make each citizen solvent.

The middle classes do not want others to be able to point to them and say, “They have more than us, so should give us some.” As the fall of the Soviet Union, and the bankruptcy of European Socialist states, shows us, this is not merely a self-interested proposal. It is also cold, hard economic sense.

Socialism by subsidizing those who are not succeeding takes money out of circulation and dumps it into slow and non-essential industries like fast food and entertainment; it enriches slumlords, but impoverishes manufacturers of high-end, cutting-edge goods. Further, it produces a population explosion among those least capable of contributing productive labor, which is a death-spiral for any civilization.

Relationship to Anarchism and Classical Liberalism

The most common question asked about libertarianism is whether it is conservative or liberal. The answer is both, but that requires us to backtrack through history.

With the rise of the modern liberal democracy in France and the USA in 1789, the old political terms became obsolete. The shorthand of the French lives on today: left-wing and right-wing, which referred to where the politicians sat and thus, their friendly alliances.

The left-wing embraced the new order, while the right-wing hung on to elements of the old. Both were gradients between moderate and extreme, sometimes meeting in the center; the left would if allowed to go to its full extreme end up at pure socialism or anarchism. The right if allowed to go to its full extreme would return to monarchism and an ethnostate.

However, leftism won in 1789, which put the rightists in a defensive position. From this, conservatism was born, or the idea that we should “conserve” the good elements of the old, including culture, customs, heritage, values, religion and other things that the revolutionaries might see as “outdated.”

Over the centuries, conservatism has increasingly become a subset of classical liberalism, which is the idea that the freedom and equality of individuals is the best means of governing (a form of utilitarianism). With the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945, no political philosophy that is not based in classical liberalism has been active in any way in the mainstream.

Libertarianism is no different. Its basis is classical liberalism, or the equality and freedom of all individuals. Its methods, while similar to anarchism, temper themselves with a belief in markets and thus some form of social order, albeit an indirect form of control — individuals are regulated by self-interest more than rule of law. Some see it as a form of “anarcho-capitalism,” or using capitalism as the social order to regulate anarchy.

As a result, it makes sense to classify libertarianism as leftist more than rightist, with one caveat. Much as Christianity is a religion full of basically liberal ideas that is embraced by conservatives, libertarianism is a liberal ideology that appeals mostly to conservatives. This is because religiosity and belief in a social order outside of government are both conservative traits, and anathema to liberals.

The “Non-Aggression Principle”

In order to attempt to reconcile the split between its conservative audience and the much bigger potential audience of liberal-minded people out there, libertarians began in the 1970s to restyle their beliefs toward a leftist-friendly outlook that talked about “lack of coercion” and a “non-aggression principle.”

The feeling by most who have read any depth of historical data is that these are fond notions that exist to appeal to voters, and will not survive any real-world encounters with modern politics or the irrationality of other citizens or nations. In an age of serial killers and nuclear proliferation, they seem dated.

While the results of this gambit remain to be seen, it is worth noting that Ron Paul succeeded best in his campaign when he stuck to hard facts and infrastructure design, and lost ground when he talked isolationism and anti-war rhetoric. This at least explains the failure of his candidacy better than a search for the conspiracy that kept him down.

It is the opinion of this author that the “non-aggression principle” will increasingly be seen for the shallow marketing that it is, and rejected by libertarians among themselves if not entirely, because it has both (a) alienated conservatives who see through it and (b) failed to attract the thronging masses.

Recommended Reading