Sunday, April 13, 2014

Hoppeanism Or Panpherohoplocracy? — A Self-Referential Metapost, Part I

Douglas Hofstadter would be proud, or maybe horrified. Probably a bit of both. Well, in reaction to my recent post about  "Libertarianism Vs. Pseudo-Libertarianism." Countenance wrote:

From your second part, you do realize that 99% of official libertarians will not only want nothing to do with you, but denounce you as a racist Nazi fascist collectivist, don't you?

If you have some sort of rhetorical power or powers of persuasion to be able to convince people who hate us to start advocating for us, then go for it. I'll throw you a parade if you're successful. I'm not optimistic about your prospects, though.

A few other points:

1. If your horse dies, you don't waste time trying to talk him back to life. You give him your last respects, leave him wherever he fell, then go find a live horse. Your trying to convince libertarians to quit being so libertarian is like trying to wish your dead horse back to life. You said it yourself, that the forces of evil have taken over libertarianism, so let them have it and move on to something else.

2. It's not a good idea to try to blend ethnonationalism with libertarianism or try to justify ethnonationalism in libertarian terms or sell ethnonationalism as a means to save libertarian ends. That only creates a grab bag of moral and political contradictions and paradoxes. Most who try to do this, thanks to cultural Marxist pressure, will deny ethnonationalism and embrace libertarianism. The best thing to do is go with pure ethnonationalism then let everything else, including ideology and economics, fall into place. Even if what "falls into place" isn't much at all libertarian.

3. H.L. Mencken once said that the average American (and he was thinking of white people) would trade the Constitution and all their freedom for a new Ford. I'm not so convinced the average person, even the average white person, wants real freedom. Let me put it to you this way: People will willingly live under a brutal totalitarian dictatorship rather than see Social Security checks be $1 a month less this year than last year. So what to do? Don't force people to choose between a dictatorship and Social Security. Ditch economic libertarianism in favor of a mixed socio-capitalist system, meld it with the parts of what you call "libertarianism" (but aren't really) that people can get behind, all underneath ethnonationalism.

4. Modern libertarianism is about race denial, so much so that it's the sine qua non.

His opening point is dead on. "Official" libertarians (not including celebrity ditzes like Bill Maher who like to use the word now and then, but those who have actually incorporated libertarian principles from Rand, Rothbard, Smith, etc.) are, alas, pretty thoroughly in the political correctness/cultural Marxism camp, and are just as bad as liberals on issues like open borders and race. And every time one of them wanders to this blog, Godwin's Rule manifests itself instantly. These are people who find Ron Paul to be some kind of racist/fascist/whatever horror.

Poinr 1 is certainly valid. The only way I can dispute it is to say that there is, or seems to be, a large minority of self-identified libertarians of the sort who are drawn to Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, and the Second Amendment advocates who are worth persuading into my way of thinking. Clearly, many of the other sort are not.

Point 2 is hard to argue with, but I think of my own evolution of thinking. I've always been a right-winger, and I found myself nodding a lot when I first read Rothbard's For a New Liberty and L. Neil Smith's The Probability Broach. The principles expressed in these books, for the most part, I saw as entirely compatible with my devotion to Western Civilization and my conviction that only Western Civilization had the capactity to manifest these principles. Indeed, I saw libertarianism as a product of Western Civilization that wasn't exportable outside of the West. History pretty much bears this out.

Point 3, sure. I completely agree. That's certainly what happened with the Founders. They were implicit ethnonationalists (with a few exceptions and waverings). They knew all about human weaknesses, and tried to construct a system that would maximize freedom without endangering it. Most of them didn't think freedom was exportable to Europe, let alone anywhere else. And those who did think it was were blindsided by the French Revolution and mostly learned their lesson. I am completely in tandem with Countenance here — I have no plans to advocate ditching Social Security, Medicare, or most of such systems that are in place. I only want to resist additional things of the sort which are not needed, and point out that what we already have is being destroyed by corruption and an influx of Third World immigrants and our home-grown minority who are consuming and not producing. As an aside, I have nothing against the Scandinavian countries' creation of welfare states, provided that such systems don't lead to cultural collapse — and of course that they don't attract immigrants of the wrong kind, which is of course exactly what they're doing.

Point 4, I fear, he's right about. On the other hand, modern liberalism, conservatism, neoconservatism, and just about any movement in this country big enough to have a name is also about race denial. If we're going to get anywhere with anybody, we have to get around that particular superstition, and I devote a large percentage of my posts to just that. He's right that in most collections of self-identified libertarians, race denial is implicit and is a sine qua non. Since the existence of, and differences among, human races is both obvious and undeniable, we're dealing with a huge invisible elephant in the room. One of our jobs is to spray some day-glo paint on that elephant.

Conclusion: Countenance and I don't disagree in the slightest about what we need. Our disagreements are tactical. I think libertarians are worth proselytizing and he doubts it. I see it as my job to sell reality to libertarians who are open to it. Maybe there are a lot of them, maybe not. I know there are some, and it's to them I preach. The question is: is the horse dead, or just very, very sick. Maybe we can clone him.

I'll add that to me, survival is always paramount. Any philosophy or ideology that militates against the survival of the nation and race has to be modified or destroyed. Not wanting to throw the baby out with the bath, I want the self-destructive elements of all the prevailing philosophies of the West to be eradicated, and the positive parts of libertarianism, Christianity, secular humanism, capitalism, democratic socialism and whatever other ideologies Westerners embrace to be retained. Wish me luck.

I was going to go on to reply to related posts by Vulture of Critique and 1irradiatedwatson, but this post is long enough already. We'll get to Hoppeanism and Panpherohoplocracy in Part II.
Quibcag: The girl who's followed Countenance's advice and gotten herself a new, live horse was found at Danbooru


  1. You have some real graphic and artistic talent. I'm going to make sure I don't make an enemy of you.

    1. The art is swiped from Japan. The quibcags are put together by Baloo :)