Libertarians have developed into a complicated picture unto their own. There are the hard culturally ‘left’ libertarians – the wayward libertines and left-Rothbardians, many degenerates or hangers-on to such baggage that they tacitly accept gutter law that would permit a society whose aesthetics would be trashy to the extreme. These are the C4SS crowd, the degenerate child pornographer and fondler Brad Spangler, Kevin Carson, and various ‘market syndicalists’ and ‘market socialists’ and ‘libertarian socialists’ who contend for the title of ‘left libertarian.’ There are of course the centrists, as ever, who fall in the grays and grades between designated endpoints. Most modern libertarians arguably fall in the left-center or right-center of this cultural picture. Then there are the traditionalist libertarians, more like myself, Hoppe and his PFS crowd, and some of the American Renaissance folk as well.
The first criticism of the average libertarian aside from what I’ve stated in the previous entry is their insistence upon focusing on the economic and to some extent foreign policy, and on the latter with an emphasis on pacifism or quasi-pacifism. This stems most likely from the average libertarian’s lack of historical or philosophical grounding. To them, war, struggle, and austerity are understandably anathema. Freedom and peace are good above all. They rarely ask, peace at what cost? Nor do they generally follow with how one should maintain and ensure good peace, nor do they seem to much care how one should attain a more stable demographic equilibrium. To the anarcho-capitalist or other radical libertarian, autistic economic details regarding maximizing free trade when tariffs are already generally rather low and bellyaching over the import-export bank and the like are more important than whether the population is replacing itself or whether the foreigners we’re importing will continue to perpetuate our culture and civilization – or indeed whether they’ll go into a demographic decline of sub-replacement birthrates once they get here, as most non-Sub Saharan Africans and non-Muslims do.
I am increasingly convinced that for great civilizations and nations to exist, that there is a general subconscious desire to conquest or exploration. If this need cannot be met, morale shrinks; that our high point in the space program was now over fifty years ago and everything since has been feeble attempts to recreate that with more expensive baubles and trinkets, that among other things has sapped morale from Americans and the West generally. The awe and terror of the middle of the Cold War era gave way to the contempt and trite boredom of the gadgetry-infused New Millennium. We have more processing power and nothing but frivolous shit to process. The basic gist is one must go forth and conquer or be conquered. If this is the case, and many libertarians may balk to hear it, then better to conquer than be conquered, or find some way of putting this drive to purpose that doesn’t involve so much long-term risk.
Decadents undermine civilization out of boredom and a perverse noblesse oblige to muddy hordes while complaining of various spooks. Essentially, they bitch mostly about things outside what matters, and about the things which do matter they tend to produce 'solutions' which will not work. A force almost wholly negative, except in the rare case that their repulsive behavior galvanizes people in the opposite vector, they have no place within a healthy society in mass numbers. The social justice movement from modern feminism to race hustlers and the homosexual lobbies as well as environmental groups are all good examples of these sorts. Marxists, Jacobins, and various other communists and socialists were the original archetypes.
The sorts of people described above are good consumer classes. They are the typical lay-about who is disinclined from any sort of ardor which would improve them vitally, whether it would improve their economic means or simply give interest to life and pass time. To further paint broad strokes, they are usually mediocre income earners, and when they earn high incomes it is always in rather parasitical professions detached from production per se. Usually they are hacks in their job field no less, be they hack educators, bankers, or hack media personalities, though some have able verbal skills and interpersonal networking. What pay they make, if it is exceptional, is beyond the bounds of their merit. This so happens to be the case with a certain Levantine people who are far over-represented as millionaires, influential people, and academics even when one controls for IQ and any possible early childhood environmental advantage.
Give them two options: exile and violent expulsion or death. Imagine a country with a population of, say, ten million people, that there are tens of thousands who constantly criticize the very foundations of the society and culture. The real net productivity of this subset is low. They are a low-trust people, constantly wary of the society around them. This group doesn't fit in with the rest of society. They might be ethnically distinct. Wallowing, they complain daily of the vagaries of life in this unjust society! How corrupt and abusive! Material comforts are simply not enough, their subsidies fulfilled as demanded by the humanitarian Christian ethic and white guilt narrative insufficient to sate desires for some secondary longing! Why should the rest of the society bear the cost of their misbehavior? Moreover, their languishing saps the moral and strength from the knees of an otherwise potentially healthy body. They taint the marrow, they drain the life’s blood, and what is left after some time is a clammy shell consumed with deathly pallor. There's a perfect escape: exile or force. Leave, or, ultimately there comes the threat of death. The great ultimatum. Especially when, unlike eighty or one-hundred fifty years before, they have their own large homeland to themselves.
The social center libertarians pick which parts of the Frankfurt school, post-Marxist New Left doctrine generally they like and discard the rest. They may display utter revulsion toward the worst parts, but on the whole they cede a great lot of ground and are warm to the notions aside from the few particular offenders. At least one might grant that they are not total pushovers, but they are not exactly stalwart opposition. They stand against racism, and while many of them consider the latest trends in university feminism perhaps stretching it too far, they consider women’s movements prior almost sacrosanct. Likewise, they bat not an eye at homosexual, transsexual, and other deviants’s rights. They are people too after all. I refer to these centrists ‘liberaltarians’ in mocking jest because they do tend implicitly accept most of the left’s baggage, and rarely are they conscious enough to discard more than the very worst and shrillest of those elements.
The left-libertarians are basically wholly on board with the worst of perversions and decadence which streams from shitlib media and the Post-Marxist and New Left camps of all stripes and flavors. Some of these left-libertarians, who often espouse to be market anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, and mutualists, are active contributors to the Frankfurt School-style signaling rot. Despite feverishly denying the existence of any so-called slippery slope and referring to it as an informal fallacy in passing, they affirm its reality in all discourse. Since civil rights, they have proven that they are perpetually discontented and need to push further the boundaries of decorum until gutters extend across the horizon. Equal rights weren’t enough, separate but equal wasn’t enough, integration wasn’t enough (Brown v. Board of Education, amended Civil Rights Act, expanded 14th Amendment powers), nationwide abortion imposed by fiat through the Supreme Court wasn’t enough, and all of their subsequent pet projects whether meaningless ‘assault weapons’ bans (which thankfully had a sunset clause in 2004) or queer marriage or various environmental protection legislations and regulation codes will prove insufficient for their cause. Nothing will suffice short of the desolation of productive Western European society and the subjugation of its people under third-worlders incapable of upholding that standard of aesthetic or civilization.
Men who lay with other men are not broadly deserving of death – that is not my contention, nor that they should be stripped of all rights on the sole grounds of buggery. Social shame and modest suppression to keep them in within the margins of decorum should suffice. But that they should be granted marriage, or special rights somehow is a very strange notion. Throughout history, it was rightly held that a man’s obligation was to establish and head a family, and to be economically productive or defend society. If a man was a failure in the latter, then he did not earn the privilege of begetting family and siring a line as the former; if a man was a failure in the former, it was quite likely that he was deficient in the latter. The two are entangled integrally at some point. That’s the reason married men perform better on the whole than single men by metric of income, and I suspect possibly as fighting men as well though I don’t know of any data to support the claim. Having something to lose as well as a sense of duty to the future connects you to the ghost of the tribe. Lacking those aspects, it is quite likely one will sink into nihilism and despair.
Likewise, I do not believe that degenerate gamblers, addicts, or otherwise irresponsible people with diminished faculties should be liquidated wholesale. I think that, however, as per the original intention of the welfare state, there must be an equilibrium met. The original welfare state was intended to provide benefits to able citizens and allow them many liberties, and to those unable citizens they were to be stripped of their intergenerational weapons – that is, they were to be sterilized after one child or none preferably, to prevent harm as much as possible. Even without a welfare state, sterilization programs would exist where charities and other foundations would give out stipends to degenerate women and men to disarm them and improve the stock of society. They and their children tend to represent net costs on society even when we are speaking of degenerate families of European stock, let alone ones of even lower racial stock whose aggregate IQs tend lower and whose genetic disorders tend to be worse and more costly.
The average libertarian fails to understand the above sense of unity to nation. A nation transcends dirt. That is an important maxim which one must drive home to the rootless wanderfolk of today bereft of a nation which fits them, born to a nation which to them seems utterly alien. I understand the feeling. As the US becomes more polyglot, mixed in its palette of tones and assortments of morphologies, and in its faiths than ever before, the sense of unity in nation begins to break down. Prior to 1980, the only major division in the US was between blacks and whites, with Mestizos being a relatively small portion of the population. After, they are a massive portion of the population and growing rapidly, and alongside them other splinter groups are making their way here and burgeoning. America is no longer extended family. Neighborhood is no longer trustworthy. They’re all strangers in a once familiar land.
Tied with unity comes duty. This is another concept that libertarians either miss or reject. This duty or obligation needn’t be so obvious as conscription, though serving as a conscript or militiaman is certainly one means of fulfilling that implicit oath. As one’s people defend one and one’s land, one shall join in defense of the people and the land shall they come under attack. The ‘every man fare for himself’ concept of the gutter libertarian does not fly in the reasonable nationalist mindset if there is a chance of victory. All the same, this obligation does not extend past borders, unlike some autistic deontological cuckold libertarians’s morality to include the whole of humanity to include open relatively indiscriminate borders, because one’s duty is foremost to one’s own and that which would imperil one and one’s own is necessarily in breach of that duty. Immigration continues only so long as the people crossing the selectively permeable borders are capable of assimilation and a net benefit genetically and culturally, and that they do not genetically and culturally overwhelm the natives. There is no noblesse oblige and no white man’s burden, nor any historical impropriety to set right through deference to outsiders who would dispossess us of our land and heritage.
That which is sacred is grounded in defense of the people, or one’s own ego, or some other higher ideal. But without any prospective future, with only marginalization to look forward to where all of the West looks like Brazil or Mexico at best or South Africa and Zimbabwe at worst, we are in a polarizing situation. We must move to action in the coming years or we will find ourselves in such a weak position that any reconquest will be exponentially harder than it is currently once our demographic foes are firmly entrenched in our erstwhile institutions as they degrade and crumble. We’ve coasted on the inertia of Western greatness for too long. We’ve become too soft with nigh two hundred years of industrialization, and three hundred years of massive food surpluses produced by improving agricultural technology and colonization. Yes, our foes will weaken as the institutions flounder – but we weaken as well and who will last longer in this contest of attrition? Is it worth waiting to see?
It’s understandable, too. We who’ve become soft, doughy creatures with leisure and safety and in the horrors of modern war as though it were something new in the history of warfare – I submit only the totality of the nuclear warhead is new, and all else is merely a reshaping and honing of that which preceded – this is a peculiar phenomenon stemming from the fact that every Western society is now run without exception by the bourgeois class. The old high warrior caste stepped down off its former dais slowly during the ascent of industrialization, and industrialized warfare and the nuclear age merely cemented the downfall of the imperial warrior class once and for all.
The bourgeois elite inherited the mantle of power of all the West and they have squandered it so completely that they are managing to tear apart our birthright in the matter of seventy years or so. Decadents, flagellants, Calvinists, and Semites all tear in a mad frenzy at the bloody scraps of the West to reduce it to ruin.
Gods save the West, that she may see dawn anew.