A John Galt or a Libertarian Pinochet?

Doug Bandler's picture
Submitted by Doug Bandler on Sun, 2013-09-29 01:16

I'm becoming something of Paleo-libertarian as I continue to read and think. Yes, I still agree with Rand's main points. And yes, I am still an Austrian. But I see that there is something naive and infantile about the libertarian movements in general and even the O'ist movement in particular. There are some exceptions of course, including most notably Lindsay.

I occasionally encounter a blog post from one of the many crazy blogs that I read that captures something important and conveys it well. Here is the link to one such post. Now note it is from a Royalist Race Realist. But he was a former libertarian and he still holds sympathies for libertarians which is rare for PaleCons.


Check out that title: "Fascist Libertarianism for a better world". How about that? We are definitely outside the Randroid zone here. I'm going to excerpt a little. There is alot I like in there.

I see a potential alliance and compatibility between occidental traditionalists and libertarians. Maybe this is a bridge too far, but it’s really the only way forward for the right.

"Occidental traditionalists"; i.e. pro-white race realists. They usually hate libertarians.

Creativity, innovation, free actors, decentralization, free markets — it’s all great stuff. This point is granted; spontaneous order is the best. But not always. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances.

What are those circumstances?

I understand the urge, I really do, but people are advocating purist libertarian policies at an inappropriate time. Advocating greater civil liberties and open borders in our current situation will only make things worse. We have a demographic problem. The barbarians are way past the gates; exclusion is necessary. The disenfranchisement of degenerates is necessary. The average man is not a libertarian. By empowering every individual you will be mainly empowering progressives.

See, he's right here. We are in deep shit in the West. Yet all we get from libertarian themed movements is utopian discussions of some hypothesized future. But what about now? This is what I keep asking the internet O'ists I encounter. They NEVER have an answer. We do have a demographic problem. We have a black violence problem. We have a Muslim problem. We have a hate Whitey problem. These are serious issues. But where is the discussion of them in O'ist circles.

Libertarians want the average man to have more autonomy, but they must realize that with this freedom the common man will only advocate more leftism, more insanity.

The truth of this sentence is beyond question yet would Diana Hsieh or Ari Armstrong or Craig Biddle or any of the legions of Randroid bloggers agree with it?

The problem with Mises as guru is that Misesian classical liberalism is like Newtonian physics. It is basically correct within its operating envelope. Under unusual conditions it breaks down, and a more general model is needed… Just as Newtonian rules only make sense at low speeds, Misesian rules only make sense in a secure order.

Well said. Yes, Mises, Rothbard and Rand kick ass. But...

There is a political hierarchy of needs. Starting with peace, you move to security, then law, and finally freedom. The libertarian wants to skip all the other steps (and the dirty work required in them) and hop right to freedom. We are currently engaged in a type of civil war, so we need to tackle the objective of “peace” first.

Now this reverses what most O'ists think of political development. Standard O'ism is first you establish the rule or law based on sound philosophic principles, etc, etc. Only one problem with that. It forgets about the revolution and the shedding of blood necessary to accomplish that. No libertarian society will emerge "spontaneously" or through vote. "Changing the culture" is all fine and dandy. But changing the government will involve bloodshed.

We are participants in a democratic civil war where voting wars rage between interest groups. What a grand experiment! On top of the political violence, we also have groups that literally mug, murder, and rape. Advocating libertarian policies in the middle of a war like this emboldens the warring parties and further inflames the conflict. Libertarians inadvertently encourage the opponents of order.

The Diana Hsieh's of the world will disagree with this undeniable truth. But it is still truth.

In a certain framework spontaneous order works, and that framework is one in which a libertarian-like culture has been thoroughly instilled and the rules have been clearly laid out. In the endeavor to achieve the libertarian’s vaunted spontaneous order we must first achieve ordinary, centralized, authoritarianism. Then, after this order has set in and the message has been received, the government can start to relax and society can devolve into spontaneous order. Markets can be freed, individual actions can be deregulated, and civilization can flourish.

Thus the libertarian Pinochet! Not exactly textbook Randroidism that they teach at the ARI.

If libertarianism is to be implemented it must be ushered in by the iron fist — by central planning, by non-libertarian tactics. This is the conundrum facing libertarian advocates: libertarians aren’t willing to countenance what it would actually take for their dreamworld to come true. Libertarians are anti-power and their worldview would require massive amounts of power to implement. The potent enemies of the Right are unencumbered by these moralistic anti-authoritarian ideals, and they will initiate force against you to enforce their egalitarian vision.

Jesus, am I allowed to even type these words?

Pinochet needs to become popular again in libertarian circles. A heavy-handed police force isn’t always a good idea but sometimes it is quite proper. Libertarians, with their penchant for antagonizing the police, need to be reminded that street criminals are far more likely to accost you than the cops.

True, and that street criminal is likely to be non-white to boot.

Another dominant idea that cripples libertarians and threatens the new fascist order: human neurological uniformity. Take a look around, non-whites are celebrating your disempowerment. Individualistic myopia, refusing to see groups of people as viable threats to order, is a huge obstacle on the road to the new regime.

"Human neurological uniformity". Translation, different races have different psycho-metric profiles. All races are not the same. Does this have implications for libertarianism? I wrestle with that question. But for starters, it needs to be understood that...

Libertarians are usually white males. And these white males are always baffled as to why there are so few minorities involved in their CATO clubs. The individualism that libertarians value is rare in other races, and in the fairer sex. Libertarianism is a white man’s ideology. It’s also an ideology that is partly responsible for many great achievements in human history — great increases in wealth and knowledge. Have no doubt libertarians: your ancestors built this.

I bolded that last. You get that? libertarianism, Randianism included, is largely a movement for white nerdy males. Do you see the problem with creating a society that is no longer dominated by white middle class nerdy males? What do you think is going to be the future of your libertarian movement?

Dear libertarian, take the rose colored glasses of racial egalitarianism off. Look around and see that other races don’t even disguise their hatred of you. Even though you don’t think in terms of race, rest assured that they do. Humanity is composed of a series of racial corporations. They stick together, and if we don’t… Western civilization is doomed.

I hate to say it, but there is great truth to this. White libertarians are surrounded by anti-white, anti-libertarian hatred. Jesus, we are like a tiny island in the middle of a vast fucking ocean of ignorance and raging resentment. And now here comes the really radical part...

Another wise professor of mine once said that libertarians are often right, but they’re always irrelevant. Until libertarians can come to terms with the value of fascism they will be relegated to the harmless kook bin. Working within the democratic paradigm will bear no fruit for the libertarian, another way is necessary.

Here he recommends fascism. Many traditionalists do. I'm not arguing for that but I do think his broad point is legitimate. Libertarianism will not be advanced by intellectual advocacy. Like any other successful mass political movement, it will be advanced through violence of some sort.

Libertarians must come to terms with the reactionary idea that the country might be a better place if Democracy was suspended, the Constitution annulled, and the government handed over to an interim dictator whose first act would be to impose martial law. For the new regime, consent must be manufactured out of a hostile populace. Libertarianism shouldn’t just be about proscribing certain actions of government regardless of context; it needs to be about the acquisition of power, and using it for righteous ends.

I'm at the point in my life where I agree with that last paragraph. I almost have wet dreams about it. Right now, libertarians and Randians are still taking it up their poopers from the Left and thanking them for it. The libertarian movement however excellent it is in political economy is a weak leftist-like phenomenon that conveys no sense of strength or potency. Only the nationalist movements have anything approaching balls, i.e. the Golden Dawn in Greece. libertarians and mainstream Conservatives are the bitches of the Left.

Maybe what we need is a libertarian Pinochet and not John Galt.

This post is non-ARI certified.