Posts Tagged ‘lolberts’

Libertarian Goes On Shooting Spree, Alt Right To Be Blamed

Monday, January 1st, 2018

It sounds all too familiar: a local man who has had a rough path through life has a dispute with a local law enforcement officer. Finally, he decides that he has had enough, and goes on a shooting spree.

Right now, the media is preparing to blame the Alt Right:

Matthew Riehl, the man accused of killing a suburban Denver sheriff’s deputy and wounding four others, is a veteran of the Iraq War who is also fond of posting alt-right memes on his Facebook account.

But if you read further, you can see that this is a dodge, since although he sympathized with some Alt Right ideas, he was a libertarian:

Specifically, the AP notes that Riehl in a December video called for “the firing of Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock” and attacked him “in highly personal terms.” Riehl also said that during that video that he would be running as a “libertarian” candidate for Douglas County Sheriff.

As always, Leftists look to any event as an opportunity to advance their narrative, even if it requires selectively choosing certain facts for their optics and ignoring the rest.

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.

Libertarianism Is A Variety Of Leftism And Should Be Avoided

Sunday, June 25th, 2017

What are libertarians? Libertarians (sometimes called “lolberts”) are classical liberals: people who believe that everyone is competent, and therefore that what the market chooses will be the best solution. They tend to be rugged individualists who want as few rules as possible regulating their conduct, including use of drugs and gun ownership.

Naturally, realists find this kind of comical. What use is liberty, when most of the people on your planet will behave simply like selfish fools? We are back to the problem with utilitarianism and democracy, which is that there is no wisdom of crowds; the crowd is a plague of locusts who will devour everything, give nothing back, and leave a ruin which cannot regenerate.

Utilitarianism, after all, sounds good on paper. You do what brings happiness to the most. Well, how do you find out what makes them happy? Simple: you ask them. But then… but then we are into the realm of what humans think, not what they do, and this is an inherently superficial realm because we barely know ourselves.

The same is true of democracy. People vote in self-interest. How the heck do they know? They guess, or “estimate,” if we are being polite, but most of these people run out of money a week before the next paycheck. And they are supposed to understand financial policy, foreign affairs, domestic tranquility, human genetics and long-term survival?

People have an inner dimension and an outer one. The outer one is easily influenced; it is where socialization rests, their reactions and fears, desires and whims, and the narrative they tell themselves about their lives, why those are good, and what they are intending to do. The outer layer is inherently after-the-fact; we observe our world and make up stories about it that make it make sense.

The inner dimension is less easily influenced. This consists mostly of urges, like a primal will to assert oneself as independent and worthwhile, a desire to do good — in some — and any intuition, concept of spirit or soul, and basic instinct to a person. This is the part of us that is both extremely “animal” and most cerebral, not as material- and event-driven as the outer layer.

Ironically, an inversion occurs here, as it usually does when we cross layers. From the outside, the inner dimension looks like the outer dimension and the outer dimension looks like the inner. That is: the part of other people that is accessible to us — their outer dimension — appears to be their actual self. We re-order reality to be convenient for our minds.

For this reason, individualism deceives us. We think we are living for our true selves, but in fact, we are living through the outer dimension of ourselves and others. This means the most malleable, least personal and most conformist parts of ourselves. Individualism inverts individuality by making us justify our “me-first” attitude in the language of others, which then destroys that individuality.

As always with human “good intentions”: it’s a trap!

Now this requires us to revisit our ideas of equality and individualism. These things, instead of liberating us, create utilitarianism, or a society devoted to minimums shared by the largest group, which is in effect a suppression of individuality. While egalitarian ideas sound good to us at first, they really reduce us to our most trivial parts, ignoring who we are.

That allows us to have some fun laughing at lolberts virtue signaling about how individualistic they are:

Libertarianism is an individualist philosophy that considers all people deserving of equal rights. In contrast, Spencer is a tribalist and collectivist whose personal commitment to identity politics vastly exceeds the left’s.

No, you are not individuals; you are conformists hiding behind “individualism” as a way of disguising the fact that you have no inner purpose or plan for civilization. You have retreated from the notion that humanity can succeed, and now all you want is your condominium and grocery store, and to hope the rest just goes away.

As people in horror movies inevitably find out, wishing the monster would go away never works. The monster here is our lack of purpose, as a species and as communities within that species; our lack of purpose arose from our dedication to mercantile matters, thanks to the rising middle class, instead of virtue or moral behavior that leads to the best results in the longest term.

We need a non-modern society. Modernity is the era of egalitarianism, which as shown above, is not about individuality but forming a superficial mass of people to mobilize toward one fascination or another. You can dress up egalitarianism in different costumes, like libertarians pretend to be frontier woodsmen, but in reality, all of it is the same.

And the term “collectivist” should cue you in that you are about to be subjected to utter stupidity. Collectivists are individuals because a mob is formed of selfish people each acting so that he gets what he wants, with the mob enforcing his right to do it. This is why mobs are known for lynchings, looting and turnstile jumping. They are formed of selfish individuals who want to avoid accountability.

On the other hand, tribalism offers us something that is not entrenched in our sick modern individualism. Tribes have an identity, which means a purpose and goal, and they have principles. Each person serves an unequal role in the tribe but so long as they help achieve this cooperative goal, they are accepted and respected as part of the community.

Tribalism requires us to reach down into those inner traits. What would we sacrifice for? What is worth dying for? At the end of the day, we rely on our intuition. Life is good, therefore something good created it. Other people can be good, so we care for them. We do not want to be placeless, identityless, and purposeless just so we can claim to be individualists. We want a place and purpose to bond us to life and make it worth living.

Recommended Reading