The stench of Neoconservatism was intolerable for many right-libertarians and so they went to the alt-right side of the fence. The realization that the alt-light are simply Neocons has likewise struck The Rebel’s viewers and, seemingly, some of their contributors too.
The divisions marking the political landscape of today’s West are reaching 1930s clarity. I see the enormous chasms which have fractured libertarianism as a microcosm of the political divisions forming across the West in toto. Yes, chasms—plural!
Most are familiar with the massive shift left by the omega males within libertarianism. The most notable figure to launch himself proudly atop the platform of left-libertarianism being Jeffrey Tucker. It was only a few months ago that Antifa was disrupting campus talks by libertarian conservatives speakers, such as Milo Yiannopolis and Gavin McInnes, alongside the larger scale inauguration riots etc. Tucker has also been on the SJW warpath against Richard Spencer and libertarians who identify with the identitarian message of the Alt-Right.
But, it was a grave mistake for any idealistic libertarians in the Alt-Right to assume the Alt-Light (McInnes et al.) were on our side, just because we shared punches from the left. The enemy of our enemy is not our friend and never was! Tucklypuff and the other ignorant SJWs can screech away; their threat is both obvious and banal. The really subversive threat to the right has been the faux-right and, yes, Neocon threat of the Alt-Light.
The sifting of the wheat from the chaff was inevitable among the Right, as we were pushed further right. How far was one prepared to go to assert national stability and which lines would one cross? As the writers of South Park recently noted, politics has become so absurd, so hilariously changeable, that satire has become impossible. “Shit got real,” is the expression, I believe. For Right-libertarians, it began with campus flyers at the University of Kansas which declared the most extreme of libertarian thought (anarcho-capitalism) as being neo-nazi code. “Alt-Right, anarcho-capitalist, “MAGA,” “men’s rights activists”—neo-nazis all, according to the flyer. But, as an English libertarian, the joke could be heard from greater heights than mere campus politics. The British government had the same idea!
The Home Office became a precursor for neocon attacks on the Alt-Right, including libertarians such as myself who associated ever more strongly with it. They sank £60 million into an advertising campaign by the prominent M&C Saatchi to “combat right-wing extremism”—essentially, the above list! It should go without saying that the Alt-Right aren’t neo-nazis; a recent article at altright.com echoed the words of another from Politico:
What the alt-right has taken from Europe starts with the philosophy of aristocratic traditionalism [Emphasis mine]—in its Romantic, modernist and postmodernist strains. Building on that, it adds principles of Europe’s identitarian movements, which promote anti-immigration policies in the language of ethnic self-determination.
Traditionalists (or, rather, Archeofuturists) who celebrate hierarchy and wish to maintain national character through limiting immigration? If these are mindless skinheads, I daresay the Home Office could find plenty of them among the majority of Britons who believe multiculturalism and other cultural Marxist movements have been a failure. Certainly, this describes most right-libertarians. Yet, for better or worse, the same torrential nonsense has been flowing from the Alt-Light “cultural libertarians” and “civic nationalists” in the U.S. This has left an impassable gap between the true Right and the cucks, prepared to stand firmly on neocon ground, punching right in a vain attempt to find acceptance with and minimize the blows from the left-libertarians.
The advantage of being rid of the neocons is obvious. The Rebel Media is the exemplar in this regard— hypocritically sending their commentators to Israel to discuss how wonderful Jewish ethno-nationalism is, whilst having Jay Fayza explicitly declare European ethno-nationalism to be “stupid.” The dislike ratio on that video certainly indicates that most weren’t falling for it and could see through Ezra Levant’s biased, Zionist, neocon propaganda. Nevertheless, the Neocon faction within fracturing libertarianism has become the beast which must be named, as this dying dragon still represents a great threat. So, let’s name it!
Gavin McInnes, another Rebel regular was the forerunner for the Alt-Light’s backsliding—the same major rift at The Rebel was already experienced at ProudBoy Magazine. CRNT magazine is a work in progress, following the split of ProudBoy from McInnes’ Trump-supporting “proud boys”; it was suspected that there was an element promoting Zionism under the guise of anti-Islam with long-term goals of subverting the anti-war, anti-Zionist sentiment within the Alt-Right. The stench of neoconservatism was intolerable for many right-libertarians, and so they went to the Alt-Right side of the fence. The realization that the Alt-Light are simply neocons has likewise struck The Rebel’s viewers and, seemingly, some of their contributors, too.
Right-libertarian reporter Lauren Southern hadn’t been with The Rebel a year but, now, she has quit, stating that she is “a believer in the media just being about truth and the viewer . . . totally unfiltered.” She didn’t give too much detail but, of course, she doesn’t need to.
Lauren posted a video of herself discovering her genetic heritage, using one of those tests you can order through the post. These are very popular with American followers of the Alt-Right, who want to understand their make-up and ancestry better; this revealed a deep interest in gene realism, bubbling beneath the surface. Over the months, her videos attacked leftists’ derisive misuse of certain terms, seemingly in defence of the Alt-Right and even sought to defend Richard Spencer, Millennial Woes, and Pepe the Frog. Did she go to Israel to promote how wonderful their ethno-nationalism was, whilst decrying white ethno-nationalism? No. Gavin McInnes, however, stands in stark contrast.
Gavin McInnes is far from quitting The Rebel. After his hopes for a future with Fox were dashed, career prospects require his allegiance to Ezra Levant, it seems. Thus his backtracking and almost politician-like public apology for comments he made about the “brainwashing” trip to Israel, to clarify his real beliefs. Of course, he insists his request not to take comments he made regarding the Holocaust-deniers side of the argument out of context were really meant to cover absolutely everything he said in that leaked video before arriving at that topic:
This is basically a brainwashing trip. I think that the Jewish, Israeli government paid for this. We had donors too but I think that they were mostly Israelis that assumed we were going to listen to all this shit we get fed. And that is having the reverse effect on me—I’m becoming anti-semitic.
It’s been a long time since I’ve seen backtracking like Gavin’s, upon his return to the U.S. You could almost see the stripes the producers left on his back. Gavin has placed himself firmly in the camp of the neocons for his career’s sake. But for those libertarians who are clued up on the genuine demographic issues relating to maintaining a free and high trust society in the West, everything left of the alt-right is destructive cultural Marxism, whatever name it goes by. We will not be fooled twice.
In 2011, Pfizer, the manufacturer of Viagra, investigated counterfeits by buying them online and testing their contents buy generic cialis online safely
buy priligy 30 mg x 10 pill This varies from man to man, depending on how your body reacts to the drug, and on what dose you take
Our ED combo pack is a great deal soft tab cialis Analysts have tempered expectations in India for a drug that has been a driver of profit for Pfizer elsewhere
“Everything left of the alt-right is destructive cultural Marxism, whatever name it goes by.” Could not agree more.
Libertarianism is my way, but can’t work unless we have a common culture and understanding ” white state”. White nationalism first then libertarian!
Lauren posted a video of herself discovering her genetic heritage, using one of those tests you can order through the post. These are very popular with American followers of the Alt-Right, who want to understand their make-up and ancestry better;
I know this will get lost in the comment deluge, but people should not be getting 23andme tests to see how white they are or what kind of white they are. 23andme (or similar companies) will not hesitate to turn the info over to the gov’t if the gov’t asks for it, and who knows who else they will gladly sell your info to in the private sector. If you consider yourself white and appear white to others, leave it at that.
China experimented with Taoism which is supposedly like libertarianism. Didn’t work for the Chinese. It’s a tried and failed ideology. I dunno why we English insisted on attempted the experiment yet again. We lost our children’s future in the gamble.
Libertarianism, like all ideologies, is akin to a virus. It can only infect others, cannot sustain a civilisation.
I’m no Archeofuturist, but I am a Traditionalist. I desire a durable polity and a durable nation that can preserve the things I value, adapt to a changing environment, and not commit suicide. I’m also rather a Luddite. Technological advance is only necessary for pursuing power relative to foreign competitors. Otherwise, technology could certainly be a threat. That’s not to say all “tech” is equally dangerous.
No oversimplified ideology can offer durability.
One fatal urge of white people is to find a system of thought that encompasses all realms of humanity experience.
This is what those German Idealists were trying to find, that prime symbol or principle.
Libertarian ism is a one of those ideologies.
We are gonna have to face the fact that we will need to craft certain frame works that take precedence over other frameworks.
Cultural Framework (fascism) >/= Political framework (anti-democracy, anti-liberalism) > economic framework (free market, free enterprise)
It’s just the drive to religion. Whites are very religious. Even this weird “secularism” is often quasi-religious in its desperate attempt at meaning outside the religious.
Whites are always trying to take the moral position too, morality deriving from religion.
It used to be said by the stupid Far Right how whites should never complain about being discriminated against, because we’re some sort of conquering people. Their idea of “white pride” was we had to all declare ourselves superior to others… Complete failure. Pride is supposed to be irrational, as a mother loves her child despite not being the objective “best”.
My point is just that whites are always embracing some stupid concept or other, just as you say. All we ever really had to do was to defend identity and to rally to our interests. Every dumb tribalist understands this instinctively. Jews are in some ways a good model, though Jews seem to embrace dual morality which is repulsive. So, we shouldn’t be so extreme as Jews.
Tying “libertarianism” to “nazis” is an old trope. Back in the 70s. George (((Steiner))) did us the service of including Stirner’s The Ego and Its Own in his “Readings in Fascist, Racist and Elitist Ideology” series. Actually, most of the other books are handy anthologies of Rosenberg, Gobinau etc. But why Stirner? Some academic looking to pad his resume contributes an Introduction based on his own book that tried to squeeze Stirner and Dostoevsky together. A valuable review at Amazon says:
“The underhanded way that this book tries to place even the smallest bit of responsibility for the “70 million…dead through war, revolution and famine in Europe and Russia between 1914 and 1945” (page 7) at the feet of Stirner–while at the same time omitting any hint of Marx’s responsibility–is patently disgusting.
“Pointing out that Stirner’s preferred method of social change is insurrection and self-liberation–as opposed to the political action and violence preferred by the left–Carroll, in his introduction, asserts, “Stirner has by default Rightist tendencies.” Furthermore, that Marxists, therefore, have the “right” to make the argument favored by demagogues and ideologues throughout history: “He who is not with us is against us.” (page 13)
“What such an argument reveals, without even meaning to, is the fundamental inadequacy of the right-left spectrum. Carroll can sense this (on page 16, for example, he says “Stirner is one of the men who defy political classification; the orthodox categories break down.”), but he apparently doesn’t have the ability to break free of it. It would seem that, to him, our only choices are the dictatorship of the proletariat on the left hand, or the dictatorship of the total state on the right. The autonomy of the individual is out of the question. It takes the one-dimensional thinking of an authoritarian Hegelian to posit such a false dichotomy, as if fascism and socialism were our only options.”
The killer for Libertarianism in any mostly White society is immigration. Libertarians will almost always come down on the side of businesses being free to hire and fire whomever they want in a free market for labor with willing labor.
Poorer non Whites will usually, always decide to enter a White society and work for low wages for a while until they get set up and bring in their entire extended family, tribe, the entire slum populations of San Paulo Brazil or Mogadishu Somalia.
There will always be some idiot rancher, business owner like Cliven Bundy or Libertarian true believers like Ron Paul And Rand Paul explaining that this mass migration of willing “workers” is good for our country/societies and any minor problems associated with this mass migration are caused by too much government, the welfare state etc.
It’s really no use trying to use reason with these Libertarians. I note that so many Libertarians are/were Jews – Ayn Rand Milton Friedman etc.
One of the ugliest, lying Jew libertarians is the Wall Street Journal’s Tamar Jacoby. She apparently saw the Libertarian Light on the road to her Damascus (St. Paul/Rabbi Saul of Tarsus) when she walked across the street from the Left Marxist New School of Social Research to the Wall Street Journal.
Tamar Jacoby demands total open borders immigration for the USA, Western Europe, Australia and the UK – but she also supports Israel as a Jewish ethno state. She doesn’t see any contradiction.
She’s a Jew.
Sam Francis condemned secession in an excellent essay. He said that even if some polity managed to arise in the US, it would still have to resolve the core issues that led to America’s decline.
In 1790, we were 70% English, 100% white (citizenry). Only whites (including Jews in some states) could even become citizens. In 1965, we were 89% white. Today, we’re majority nonwhite among the young (the future). That is a brief time period, and the core problems that caused us to desire cheap labour in the form of slaves and cheap workers need to be addressed.
So what does a Libertarian think of someone of say an 80 IQ who is just not smart enough not to be a danger to not only himself but society at large in a world where all the drugs, prostitutes and weapons you want are readily available?
Dumb pie in the sky shit. And has the filthy paw of the Jew all over it.
I think the Alt-Right would be a more viable movement if it wasnt so anti-semitic and so purity oriented. Leftists are parasites because they eat their own competing on who is the most ideologically pure.. i believe this will be the tragic downfall of the Alt-right and perhaps its not even a downfall but the barrier preventing the movement to grow. I dont think ethno-nationalist ideas are crazy at all and i think a viable movement could be contructed but you need allies and u cant seem hateful or set on purging the impure from your movement
We all know who Our Greatest ally is, just Google it.
I don’t trust anyone who thinks ‘anti-semitic’ has any legitimate usage.
Zionism and Jew worship destroyed the Bush family. You lose with it in the long run no matter how much credibility and resources it gains you in the short term. Ethno centrism for Whites will happen, even if it takes the boomers dying off first.
The Alt Right is a broad tent, I hope (being pretty much a Libertarian Nationalist myself, as Lauren Southern described herself in the Rubin interview pre her leaving Rebel). I agree with Murdoch Murdoch: “Our enemy is anyone who opposes the 14 words”. That should be a pretty easy test for anyone – if you support white genocide, you’re not on our side (incidentally that includes genocide of Slavs/Russians, too).
White people will make just about any economic/governmental system work, be it Stalinist police state or Free Market laissez faire. We can fine tune the government AFTER the ethno state is secure. Look at the Jews, promote Socialism in Israel, help each other out, then debate policy once the Race is secure.
What Libertarians fail to understand is that their philosophical outlook of letting people die in the streets does not appeal to most White people, or most people anywhere. A Libertarian is fine with letting working class Whites kill themselves due to Opiod addiction.
The failure of Libertarianism owes to its own rigid ideology which worships markets above a nation or a race. This is why Libertarianism has gone nowhere in the past 50 years.
>> We can fine tune the government AFTER the ethno state is secure.
>> their philosophical outlook of letting people die in the streets
It’s trivial to find the bad in any political ideology. What’s bad is not necessarily what defines a view, and obviously is not what is good about it. Libertarianism is utopian because it can’t happen, but it is clarifying in ways that no other view is. I did my 7 years absorbing Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell and wouldn’t be what I am without it.
Political rule entails gross violations of morality, by necessity. Libertarians are revolted and quit the battle. Machiavellians embrace it and dominate the world. Everyone else is in denial. It can’t hurt to assimilate the truth before you take action. I think.
No, white people cannot just make any system work. That’s impossible. The reason white people are successful is because we adhered to valid systems of thought and behavior. If white people jived around all day like Africans or acted like Confucians, we would not have civilization.
Obviously I’m not referring to African spear chukkers or Mandarins cramming for civil service exams. Whites had decent standards of living in different systems of European political thought, from East German Stalinism to Swedish democratic socialism, to Swiss confederation.
Whites did NOT have decent standards of living under East German Stalinism. Where are alt-righters getting this crazy idea? The East Germans were impoverished, and their way of life imposed by the Soviets was notoriously corrupt. That is why integration with West Germany after Berlin Wall came down was notoriously difficult. Swedish success is merely an invention of the international Marxist propaganda machine. The Swedes weren’t swimming in wealth or great comfort at all. They undertook a tremendous liberalization program in the 1990s because their socialism was under threat of collapse.
Regardless of what anyone says, when resources are tight, it undermines a population’s morality and work ethic, and socialism is a Ponzi scheme that impoverishes people on its way to collapse. None of these schemes by any country on earth would have even lasted as long as they did if not for free market America powering innovation of new technology and new things. The rest of the world is parasitic off of America, including white Europeans.
White DNA is not magic. Go read about life during the 30 Years’ War.
“The East Germans were impoverished”
Their living standards were certainly not on par with the average middle class American, but calling them impoverished is a bit of a stretch unless you’re referring to the early post-war period.
“if not for free market America powering innovation of new technology and new things.”
I would say the competition between nation-states, namely war or the threat of it, is the greatest force for innovation, not capitalism. Much of the technology we use today was created during WW2 or the Cold War. And the R&D for these technologies were often funded by the state. The internet is a good example of this. Even the Soviets could come up with some very good weapon systems, as well as an impressive space program.
“The rest of the world is parasitic off of America, including white Europeans.”
I would say the rest of the world, including the US, copied quite a bit of German technology created under National Socialism. Even going so far as to using German scientists and engineers for their own programs.
“White DNA is not magic”
True, but it’s shown to be on average a lot better than most other DNA. Would you rather live in East Germany or Mexico? East Germany or Bangladesh? East Germany or Saudi Arabia? East Germany or Zimbabwe?
“Their living standards were certainly not on par with the average middle class American, but calling them impoverished is a bit of a stretch unless you’re referring to the early post-war period.”
I think most Americans think East Germany was literally North Korea or some shit because there were so many people trying to defect to the BRD to escape the Stasi police state. But by the time when Honecker came to power in the 70s, East Germany had a functioning economy, there were shortages of goods like cars, not basic necessities.
Cars are basic necessities. If you don’t understand why cars are so important, your views on subjects like economics and national power are not valid.
The difference between East and West Germany was so great, it is regarded as THE paradigmatic example of socialism vs. capitalism in the field of economics.
If cars are basic necessities, then why is car ownership far lower in Germany, France, South Korea, and Japan than in America?
“The difference between East and West Germany was so great, it is regarded as THE paradigmatic example of socialism vs. capitalism in the field of economics.”
Thus concludes our High School history lesson on the Cold War.
If cars are basic necessities, then why is car ownership far lower in nations with mass transit like Japan, South Korea, Germany, and France than it is in the United States? You have a very American outlook and bias towards everything, the use of cars, the degree of socialism in an economy, the ability of the free market to fix things.
I sometimes wonder what would of become of the DDR if Otto Strasser had taken up the regime’s offer to play a role in East Germany’s development.
Strasser would have been given a puppet apparatchik job. That was Friedrich Paulus’ fate. Paulus ended up a Volks Polizei Police Inspector.
Just no. East Germany was poor relative to West Germany. We have the economic data. It’s not even in dispute. In fact, the difference was so great, it was visible to the naked eye upon crossing the border.
The competition between nation-states that you referred to is an important super-structure that makes freedom possible, but it does not drive innovation outside of the national defense sector, and the vast majority of innovation occurs outside of it. The internet was an exception. Even there, the government only developed the initial networking. Most of the development (including http) was developed by the private sector, and it could not be otherwise. Weapons and space programs are important elements of nation-state competition, but again, they are separate from and do not generally cause innovation in the rest of the economy, which is where most economic activity is. Most innovation is private sector.
The US is responsible for the lion’s share of technological and other developments in existence, not Nazi Germany or even German scientists. To the extent that Germans or others innovate, it is often done in the United States, where they have the ability to do so because of our free markets. Major innovation doesn’t occur where people are not free to create it or where they are not free to profit off their work. That’s just a fact.
White DNA is certainly better, but it cannot magically override the laws of nature. Life under most stages of socialism in white countries would certainly be less unpleasant than life under socialism in non-white countries, but that doesn’t make life under socialism good, and socialism is always is doomed to fail regardless of where it is implemented. It just takes longer for it to die in white countries, but die it does.
If white countries are successful, it’s because we are doing something right, not because our DNA made wealth and achievement fall out of the national greatness tree. One of the crucial things we are doing right is establishing economic and political freedom.
“Just no. East Germany was poor relative to West Germany. We have the economic data. It’s not even in dispute. In fact, the difference was so great, it was visible to the naked eye upon crossing the border.”
No one is arguing that point. The point is that for some reason East Germany was a much better place to live than Cuba or Cambodia. Why do you think that is?
The choice for us is not between East Germany and Cuba/Cambodia. The choice is between East Germany and West Germany.
It is incumbent on the alt-right to be intellectually innovative if we are to conquer the future. We can’t do a copy-paste of the intellectual systems of ages past (national socialism vs. capitalism w/open borders) onto our age. We have to develop a philosophy that merges the realities of race/ethnicity AND the principles of nature that have been discovered by white civilization over the centuries. Failure to do this will mean failure for our people.
Where has anyone said that they want to recreate the Stasi and live in an East German style state? And West Germany had its share of evil socialism too, read about it here.
You are not going to get anywhere with this line of argumentation. West Germany was far, far freer than East Germany. Therefore it was wealthier. The end.
“but it does not drive innovation outside of the national defense sector”
Actually it does. You don’t think jet engines, computers, radar, GPS, the internet, jerry cans, synthetic rubber, etc. have uses in the private sector?
“The US is responsible for the lion’s share of technological and other developments in existence”
In existence? Really? Pretty sure Europeans from many countries have invented quite a bit over the last 200 years. Have we invented more since the end of WW2? Yes, because everyone else was busy rebuilding their countries for a long time. We were largely untouched by the war compared to everyone else, and many bright people came to the US after the war.
“Life under most stages of socialism in white countries would certainly
be less unpleasant than life under socialism in non-white countries”
That’s not what I asked you. Most of the countries I listed are not socialist. But I have a feeling that you have an extremely narrow, libertarian definition as to what constitutes genuine capitalism.
“not because our DNA made wealth and achievement”
White countries are successful because Whites evolved in Ice Age Europe. We are very good at planning ahead and delaying gratification. Everyone had to do their part for the group to prosper. As a result of thousands of years of natural selection Whites typically have more respect for law and order and a good work ethic.
“That’s not what I asked you [whether life is better under socialism in white countries or non-white countries].”
Perhaps not, but that is the argument that was made to defend the notion that white people can make socialism work. It is the central point of contention. Many alt-righters are ignorant of the history of this debate and say stupid things like East Germany had a good economy. These kind of arguments are self-discrediting and are no better than the libertarian claim that everyone is ultimately better off if we unilaterally implement total free trade with other countries because it frees Americans to work in higher-paying industries.
“Most of the countries I listed are not socialist.”
Yehuda Finkelstein was using them as examples of the success of socialism, so I addressed them. There are degrees of government control, and quantification or categorization of different countries is difficult. The task has been made infinitely more difficult because an army of leftist organizations have worked around the clock for decades to put out deception that hides the damage that leftist economic policies cause and ignores the wealth that is produced when markets are made more free. The right-wing has few assets to contradict them, and most right-wing think tanks are actually controlled by neocons, who are stealthily trying to promote socialism. As a result, countries and industries get labeled socialist even after they liberalize.
Nevertheless, the principle remains: Socialism is detrimental to human life. People are harmed by it no matter where it is implemented, to the degree that it is implemented. Richard has this rationalistic notion that if you make people pay for other people’s things, it’s gonna somehow make them more racially conscious and good-willed toward their own race. Systematically taking the fruits of people’s labors doesn’t make them more enlightened and benevolent. Socialism turned countries corrupt and malicious because people were forced to make unethical choices to survive and maintain…
This was not sustainable, and eventually, socialized countries were forced to liberalize or crash. Western European countries always chose liberalization (enacting free markets). Non-white countries almost never chose liberalization to any significant degree, or chose the opposite (cf Zimbabwe and Venezuela for extreme examples). Some people want to ignore this inevitable choice-making and point to the years before the choice was made to tout the supposed success of socialism. But always look at what eventually happens to socialism. Countries had to liberalize or collapse, even white countries.
“You don’t think jet engines, computers, radar, GPS, the internet, jerry cans, synthetic rubber, etc. have uses in the private sector?”
Even if we accept that government created and developed all these things (it didn’t), that is irrelevant to the question of socialism. Just because the government has to do national defense and there may be incidental technological benefits to the private sector doesn’t mean that government control of all sectors would be beneficial. It would be a total disaster. Government cannot create most things that humans need and want. Government should do what it must do for national defense and not try to take over private sectors. The national defense sector is the only sector the government should control as a sector.
“We were largely untouched by the war compared to everyone else, and many bright people came to the US after the war.”
Okay, but why did Russia need major U.S. money DURING the war? Why weren’t they already wealthy?
“As a result of thousands of years of natural selection Whites typically have more respect for law and order and a good work ethic.”
Yes, including respect for natural law. It took centuries for whites to discover and implement the principles of economics. Some people on the alt-right are now proposing to jettison them overnight because they don’t understand all the steps in the cause-and-effect chain of white civilization: Motivated and capable whites –> natural discovery –> implementation –> successes –> civilization.
I hate to break it to you but capitalism as we have known it is not going to last forever. That’s one of the few things Marxists were right about. In the future very few people are going to have jobs as we understand it today. Eventually automation and AI will take jobs from the vast majority of the population. This is going to happen whether we like it or not. Think of how many millions of truck and taxi drivers are going to be out of work in the next 20 years because of driverless cars. There is not going to be enough programmer and technician jobs available for everyone, and most people don’t have the aptitude for those jobs anyway. We will probably still have markets in some form though. The book titled The Lights in the Tunnel deals with this subject in great detail, but I have not gotten around to reading it yet even though I do own it.
And what exactly do you mean by socialism? Socialism has two basic definitions: 1. worker or state control of the means of production (USSR) 2. the redistribution of wealth for social welfare programs. Every civilized country has at least some of the latter, including the US. Healthcare is not like any other commodity. You have a choice as to what kind of phone you want to buy, or whether you want to buy one at all. But if you need your gall bladder taken out you don’t have a choice. You get it removed or you die. And everyone is going to charge you a fortune for it. Healthcare has extremely inelastic demand. And insurance for healthcare is retarded, as Richard explained it’s not really like any other insurance, which is why it’s a failing system. I think one of the great strengths of the Alt-Right is that it typically avoids any economic dogmatism, which is a huge weakness of both Communism and Libertarianism. We simply support what is best for the nation-state.
Capitalism will last as long as the people have the will to keep it. Just because the robots are coming doesn’t mean the end of work. People are still going to have to work or die. That is another law of nature. The top ten percent of the population cannot provide a universal basic income for the rest. It can’t happen, and you are living a dangerous fantasy if you believe otherwise. It’s not even a question of will. The math does not work. I am not being dogmatic on this point. Neutral people have looked at the numbers. It’s not even close. If the government tries to force it, the top ten percent will mostly quit, and most of the right will just go civil warring. (If you don’t see that, you don’t understand your fellow Americans).
You also seem to have an invalid view of the source of work, the notion that jobs exist in finite quantity and the problem is everyone getting one. In reality, jobs are created through innovation and entrepreneurship. As long as there are productive thinkers, there will be job creation. People are going to have to start learning to think more abstractly in the future to earn a living. It is a skill and requires practice.
Your argument about healthcare not being “like” other goods and services is an old leftist fallacy. So what if health care demand is inelastic? First of all, it’s not as inelastic as you seem to think it is. Secondly, being inelastic doesn’t mean it is not subject to economic forces. It is subject to economic forces. These two points would be obvious to all if our medical system weren’t as socialized as it is, but at any rate, there are other inelastic goods and services, and no one complains about them. But people seem to feel entitled to rob others if they have a health problem, and it is bizarre. Pay for your own damn health care. So what if it costs a lot? It’s not going to kill you to lose that money. Even bankruptcy won’t kill you.
What will kill off a people is 1) socialism, because wealth supports life and therefore less wealth means fewer lives can be sustained, and 2) Lack of enforcement of moral standards. The population must constantly, emphatically be reminded to man up and take responsibility for their own lives instead of lapsing into degenerate, hedonistic, self-serving complainers. To indulge people’s whining over their bills is to create and breed, over time, a subhuman race that sees itself as victims of the universe and is unfit for existence. Richard’s argument to “just give people what they want” is corrosive and short-sighted. Civilization was built and can only be maintained through manliness, independence, courage, self-respect, and associated traits. Socialized-anything undermines these traits.
Finally, if you think the concept of health insurance is “ridiculous,” you are the one engaging in dogmatic thinking. There is nothing wrong with health insurance. People should be free to sell it, buy it, or reject it. Civilization is not going to hell because of health insurance.
Lol you wrote all that for nothing. Listen, you are a Libertarian and I’m basically a fascist. We will never see eye to eye on economic issues, or most issues for that matter. You’re going to have a hard time in the Alt-Right. I personally hate Libertarians. I hate them just as much as I hate neocons and SJWs. I think you’re a bunch of cosmopolitan faggots who read too many Jewish books. Most of the Libertarians I’ve known had everything handed to them and thought they were tough self- reliant, individualists. If the US does finally see a civil war I’ll probably be fighting dickheads like you along with commies and cuckservatives. You talk a lot about nature, but you don’t seem to have ever given much thought into how we evolved. We did not evolve as wondering hyper-individualists. We evolved in tribes. The tribe provides you with security, order, and community. And sometimes you have to give something back to the tribe. The nation-state is the extension of the tribe.
Your arrogance is astounding, young one.
1) I didn’t write it for you. I wrote it for anyone who may be reading this, so that they may see the truth behind our civilization’s power.
2) I grew up with little in a small Southern town, and I went into the Army. I have lived an austere life, and everything I have was hard won.
3) More Jews have gone against me and tried to destroy me than you can shake a stick at. You talk about cosmo faggots who read too many Jewish books, yet you are advocating the philosophy of a radical anti-white Jewish cosmo faggot, Karl Marx. This is fundamentally incompatible with the spirit of the alt-right. I have been reading the comments section on this site. The number of paranoid, hot-tempered, nasty personalities here suggests a bit of Jewish DNA in your faction. Not understanding practicality is also a Jewish trait. Maybe you all should listen to what others have to say about it instead of relying on your high verbal IQ.
4) You do not actually advocate giving back to the tribe who provide security, order, and community. You advocate giving to the weak and parasitic members of the tribe. Why is that? Do you think you may need the help? You lecture about hyper-individualism, but I wonder if you are not primarily concerned with your own source of income. Of all the things that fascists should advocate government crack-downs on–porn, drugs, the arts, entertainment, general degenerate behavior–you save your wrath over a free paycheck for cretins and weaklings. Some fascist you are. Your way would degenerate white people very quickly. For his part, Richard Spencer needs to reconcile his Nietzschean conception of Chad Nationalism with this sacrifice-for-the-pathetic-and-sinners Christianity impulse he seems to be allowing people to lapse into with his universal health care stance.
5) The West’s rise is predicated on individualism, properly understood. There is no successful group if the individuals in it are dead, broken, or constantly ridden. Individualism doesn’t mean you are not concerned for your kin and race. On the contrary. The more you value your own life, the more you *should* value them. But intentions don’t override reality, and if you really want them to rise, you have to put in the mental effort to understand grand scale cause-and-effect, and you have to have the guts to implement it even if it seems cruel or heartless on the surface. There is no way around it. Our ancestors knew this, and they handed us a powerful and wondrous legacy, a great civilization undergirded by centuries of learning from their hard efforts. Who are you to say they were wrong?
Here’s the bottom line: Fascists need this wisdom. It will make them stronger. What I have pointed out, is the source of Western civilization’s power. Eliminate it, and the people of the West fall. Like it or not, I’m not going anywhere, and we are going into this fight together. All hands on deck is required for what’s coming. Everybody’s observations and experiences matter.
Gas yourslef, you filthy libertarian faggot.
That’s not what Hitler said to my mother.
East Germany had the Ninth largest economy in the world by the late 70s, an AMAZING accomplishment given the fact that they lived under Stalinism along with the Russian stripping their economy bare as war reparations (the Soviets even tore up the train tracks and shipped them to Russia). You are making it sound like the DDR was some third world shithole. It wasn’t America with white picket fences and Cadillacs, but they did have apartments with most housing featuring modern appliances, and guaranteed maternity leave for mothers (very important to stop people from defecting to the BRD).
White DNA isn’t magic, but smarter races tend to learn from their mistakes. Its why the Chinese aren’t under Maoism, the Japanese left their feudal isolation, and why the West overcame Sectarian wars like the Thirty Years’ war.
You must be young. Life in East Germany was horrible. No one in their right mind would want to have lived there rather than the West.
Where have I said that life in East Germany was better than life in Western Europe? You miss my point completely.
You are wrong. Communism worked in East Germany because they were German. If the Communist would have captured West Germany then the entire world would be communist today. Communism doesn’t work in Cuba because they are Black and it only works a little because the leader and those running the place are White (ish). Communism works, somewhat in China and Korea, because they are Asian. It would never work in Niggergeria because they are niggers. Pretty simple.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Whites did NOT have decent standards of living under East German Stalinism. Where are alt-righters getting this crazy idea? The East Germans were impoverished, and their way of life imposed by the Soviets was notoriously corrupt. That is why integration with West Germany after Berlin Wall came down was notoriously difficult. Swedish success is merely an invention of the international Marxist propaganda machine. The Swedes weren’t swimming in wealth or great comfort at all. They undertook a tremendous liberalization program in the 1990s because their socialism was under threat of collapse.
Regardless of what anyone says, when resources are tight, it undermines a population’s morality and work ethic, and socialism is a Ponzi scheme that impoverishes people on its way to collapse. None of these schemes by any country on earth would have even lasted as long as they did if not for free market America powering innovation of new technology and new things. The rest of the world is parasitic off of America, including white Europeans.
White DNA is not magic. Go read about life during the 30 Years’ War.
Yes that sums it up very well. I totally agree.
And your solution is to put them in straight jackets and pay for their hospitalization. The majority of people (like you) are clearly idiots.
1 comment Libertarian Sperg.
I think it attracts free thinkers who want out of the modern neoliberal system.
I fancied myself a libertarian a year ago because I simply believed that everyone was a Marxists faggot. Let me keep my money so I can escape, and don’t tell me what to do seemed liken solid philosophy.
I would however serve a nation state. The only problem is I’ve still yet to meet a handful of men who value blood and ideals over money and comfort.
If you read Aristotle’s Politics, the people in the little city states will form one type of government, then rebel to form another type, so forth. They don’t commit ethnic suicide just because of a change in government.
I used to be a fan of Bill Whittle and pjtv. Where do they fit into all this? Bill Whittle seem to have good instincts but also getting his money from the wrong source, thus nutering him and chaining him down with never trump neocons like Steve Green and Scott Ott?
We’re barely limping along, relying on populism and the discontent of the White proletariat masses and then we have the ancaps and neoreactionaries enter the stage, preaching about respecting our betters and that we’re just envious of the elites for their ability to brown-nose and sell out their own race better than us.
Never met a libertarian who didn’t have a rich mommy and daddy.
Never met a libertarian who wasn’t a sperg.
Never met a libertarian who wasn’t actively derailing a national-socialist movement.
Toss them in the bog.
National socialism is essentially the general wellfare state and corporativism. This is a catastrophy for a people long term since it moves the lojalty of the people from one another to the state. And corporativism lets the state permeat all of society, coopt everything and squeeze civic society out of existence. Sweden is the prime example of this. The social democracy of sweden was very similar to national socialism.
Yes, I remember 20 years ago thinking the Swedes had made National Socialism work. But really they were degrading their own population to a point where they would accept their own replacement.
They also infantalized the Swede. Really. What they did to the psychology of the Swede is a crime.
Us dissidents in sweden stand completely alone. And against courts that are politicized. And against leftwing extremists that are supported by both the media and the state. Every organization that any swede has ever been a part of has been turned against him. Much of this is the result of corporativism.
Another ill effect of the long reign of the social democrats is that us swedes started identifying ourselves with the state. Rather than as a people. Citizenship and swedishness became identical in our minds. Even today there is a ludicrous and very strong message of “the new swedes” or “becoming a swede”. Imho, this is a huge problem when a people should be realized through the state and the state should be the embodyment of a people, as is the idea in both fascism and in the nation state itself. Imho, a people need to be somewhat in opposition to the state it lives in. Except in a nationstate in wartime. THEN fascism and war socialism and national socialism is the natural order of things. In peacetime howerver other measures are needed to stop the rot.
Not too different to the old Soviet Union.
Same but different.
That’s a fair critique of NS. I have a healthy respect for the National Socialist German Workers Party, and a sympathy for Adolf Hitler in particular, and I understand that many of our White Nationalist brothers are genuinely committed to NS; I respect that. But one thing that folks seem to gloss over is that NS is just as capable of being a nanny state as any other strong centralized government. In the future, I’m sure we’ll be hashing some of these things out, and that’s good. White Nationalism itself is a broad tent, although if we’re committed to securing the existence of our people a future for White children, we’ll figure it out.
At the same time, the only independent civic society that remains in sweden and that has existed for a long time, are the national socialists or close derivatives thereof, most clearly expressed in the Nordic Resistence movement. Somehow national socialists are much better at organizing and fighting than others.
At least thats the only totally independent civic socity i know. Everytihng else get little state grants and have little chores to do for the state. For example, the hunters association decide wether someone is eligable to apply to the police for buying a rifle. The heimat association get state money and has state apointees in its national council, and could thus be turned against the weakly national party of the Sweden Democrats in the election 2010. The labour unions, the church, everything, is turned against us. Explicitly. Loudly. Vehemently.
The main problem with social democracy in Sweden is that the leaders all sold their people down the river for a hand full of shekels. Its a human flaw that happens everywhere though the Swedes being Swedes do not like to admit it much less let the world know that they are just as corrupt and human as everyone else.
We will never have a perfect society but we can at least hang traitors and that means near all Swedish politicians, police chiefs, military brass, corporate heads, and so on. They should all hang and I pray everyday that the day of the rope approaches for those traitorous vermin.
Yeah it was national-socialism that caused the catastrophe known as Sweden. Only Libertardianism could have saved them.
Well, the general wellfare state and corporativism made us swedes defenceless while it made sweden strong. Once libtardianism broke through the outer shell, nothing remained to resist it.
I expect US money is behind much of why Europe is so suicidal. Post WWII we had the world’s only economy. And we used that power to destroy Europe.
Progress! You’re welcome 🙂
Those who resist the destruction of Europe must be “Nazis”! We fought WWII to defeat “Nazism” (nationalism). Or so we’re told.
Yea, well, sometime during the 20th centuary the runners of their global sea trading empire moved their base of operations from London to New York. So, yes, US power has been pivotal for this. But its not really the US.
That’s true to an extent, but it’s a mix of causes.
I would say capitalism left us vulnerable in many ways. So, both systems then leave a people vulnerable.
With socialism, there’s strength until the state machine is broken, as you say.
We need communities, extended families, decentralisation, tradition, some sort of institutions that are outside the market (such as monasteries): and somehow that has to all work within an economy.
And I don’t like democracy. We could have a mixed system that includes an aristocracy that’s kept poor.
Voters either work too much, so they have no time. Or they’re just stupid and lazy, so they generally don’t know what’s going on. Democracy has them blame themselves, and it’s easily manipulated by media and otherwise by money.
An aristocracy can only exist when war is the purpuse of the state. And this model died in the west in the horrors of world war one.
I always keep evolution in the back of my thinking. And we as a species have evolved with the constant threat of war and with starvation as a natural part of our lives. War is what makes the elites need the people and what gives the elites virtue and acceptance by the people. But the world has changed, with our technology im not sure this model is possible anymore.
Every polity should be built to endure, hence built for war.
Aristocracy means “rule by the best”. As such, a group of priests could be an aristocracy. You can have any such group provided it is not defined by its wealth and cares for the polity/nation and not solely for itself.
Regarding war, we still compete. War hasn’t ended.
And man is a social being, and we seek meaning and purpose in life. As such we still have drive to care for a group of people.
I don’t say that you’re entirely wrong, only that truth can be lost in the details.
I hear what you’re saying, Vincent, in the generalities, although I think you may not have met many Libertarians. I was a card carrying member of the Libertarian party for a couple decades; my parents are firmly working class folks. I don’t know what a sperg is, but if it’s anything to do with Jews, well, that ain’t us either. As for derailing a NS movement, well, free markets tend to eschew government meddling and artificial engineering of the economy. Ultimately, I think where Libertarianism fails is *not* in the commitment to a free-market economy (i.e. one in which citizens are largely unfettered by the State to buy, trade, sell as they please), but rather in the naive assumption that every human is essentially equal and therefore interchangeable. This is why the open borders non-sense would CRIPPLE a Libertarian-lead government; massive non-White immigration would NEVER operate the way we libertarians would imagine and Whites, once again, would pay for it one way or another. That said, it is curious why the Alt-Right has indeed gained so many Libertarians. I suspect it has to do with the fact that Libertarians are realist when it comes to economics (state artificial engineering does not work and has never worked) and when you begin to apply that realism to *race,* certain things start clicking… certain things begin to make sense that did not make sense before.
In short, I agree that White people – because of our race’s inherent support for and attraction to order and stability – can make any economic or political system work. I would just caution that as Libertarians are naive about immigration, likewise it is naive to think that NS is not able to become a nanny state and regulate the shit out of its own people.
>> it is curious why the Alt-Right has indeed gained so many Libertarians.
This applies to me, so I can answer. I think you’re more or less correct about this being an issue of “seeing reality”. In the early 2000s, because of 9/11, I and a number of other conservatives realized that pretty much everything we wanted from “our party” was simply not going to happen, ever.
When everything is a lie you gotta figure out what the hell is the truth. It is natural to end up going down to the roots of things as you go through this process. I ended up at Lew Rockwell for years because there was no one else simply acknowledging basic reality.
But of course, what can you do with libertarian politics? I don’t begrudge anyone who checks out entirely from the system because being involved violates their morality and their dignity. It takes time to come to terms with contradictions.
Libertarians have generally already cast off a large part of a false paradigm already. Once a guy has done that once it is somewhat easier to do it again.
Well said regarding how we’re just limping along. It’s so infuriating to hear them defend wealth inequality.
Machiavelli, Aristotle, Belloc, countless others have warned how wealth inequality leads to instability.
Libertarians believe the solution is to just convince people how extreme wealth inequality is a good thing. That will never work!
*Some* inequality is a positive, sure.
Libertarian values helped America when it was low population density still requiring settlement. And slave plantations functioned essentially as nobles in resisting government power, just as nobles resisted their kings in Europe. But today we live in a very different situation.
I’m so done with Gavin McCuckis. Yes, we Nazis took everything he said out of context. Funny how the piece was completely unedited, not a jump cut to be seen. But we on the Alt-Right are truly sorry for actually believing what you clearly said Gavin. But don’t worry it’ll never happen again. Asshole!
Unless you’re of the Hoppe, Cantwell variety I don’t know how you even reconcile any of this in your head. I guess I can see the Hoppe thing working out as its basically neo-feudalism and monarchy.
I like what Bill Hicks said .. ‘there are no lines.. erase all the lines’ … isn’t that how ‘free thinkers’ should be thinking? http://sackvilleuncensored.blogspot.ca/2017/03/exploring-website-for-altrightcom.html
new… in Canada… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4GDDGvbjfA
I wonder how many of Gavin’s young fans are now second guessing their allegiance to the Proud Boys. He’s made himself out to be such a basic bitch Republican, his goyim followers must be looking for something else.
Did anyone every have any “allegiance” to McInnes, much less the “Proud Boys?” I occasionally watch a McInnes video on youtube because he’s sometimes funny, but I’ve never taken him as some sort of intellectual thought leader. He’s just a comedian.
What kind of faggot calls himself a “Proud Boy”?
a cock of the walk
The only things McInnes will be remembered for are sticking things up his ass and sticking his tongue down Milo’s throat. If that is someone’s idea of a serious movement or revolution, then he’s your guy. If we need an orifice to stick or shove something into, we all know who to call.
Worse, he’s a Canadian.
Libertarianism has always been an ideology only functional within an in group, this universalizing of the idea to all people under all circumstances is LITERALLY RETARDED. Libertarianism requires an appreciation for context: history, geography, and population. Some countries just can’t ever be libertarian by their situation (Russia and China are prime examples) while other (mostly geographically isolated or protected) countries can foster and thrive upon such policy (Britain, Australia, America). Of course Libertarianism still suffers from other problems such as tolerance for degeneracy.
Libertarianism is the right wing yin to the left wing Communist yang. Both visioms are overly idealistic and doomed to failure.
I’ve always said that libertarians and communists “live” in the same world but reached the opposite conclusions.
libertarians and communists are all collectivists, you wanna shoot for a bit more freedom and little less dogma if you think about it … the opt-out-ists probably have it right … they’re not fond of clubs and groupthink, there are more them than the zealots anyway.. always was that way… its just those commies make so much noise.
without a body in the middle .. they would be dead though .. the body in the middle is the shizzle eh Finkelstein?
Any universal system is doomed to failure.
Universialization of any idea is retarded. Our ability to create and maintain moral valuesystems evolved to make groups function better internally in order to compete better against other groups. Making such systems universal is absurd.
I was always under the impression that Omega Males are so far off from the competition for the alpha that they reject the concept as a whole and are just about destroying it as well as the society it upholds. Like “Omega man” in Corringtos Book fights everyone else.