I appreciate you calling out the need to read the classics. It was actually reading Plato's Republic that put the death nail in any attraction Libertarianism had for me.
Someone told me that Plato's Laws are superior to the Republic, but I haven't had the time to jump in to verify that.
And the sad irony is that it took (for me) reading the Republic open my eyes to the mind-breaking difficultly of making a "good" government and thus showed the ridiculous nature of any sort of abstracted "solution."
Which is why I'm now dismissive of libertarianism/socialism/communism as they are trying to impose an abstract on reality rather than submitting to the fact that there is a reality or nature that you have to contend with that doesn't fit into perfect categories.
I remember I left one comment on one post telling you that libertarianism is a dead end. I’m glad to see you’ve finally broken with it. It only serves as a needlessly limiting ideology right now.
Ya... I could always sense there was something deeply wrong or missing about libertarianism... But could never put my finger on why.
As soon as you notice its geneology of thinkers has no attachment via intellectual or ethnic heritage whatsoever to the founders or men who ever fought for liberty, suddenly it all lines up.
Right. Especially when the bulk of the big names in libertarianism from the 20th century onward are of a certain ethnic group. It may seem grug to some, but it should make you think. What attracts them to libertarianism so much? And the answer should be quite obvious. These same people, like you hinted at, give us a false account of American history in regard to libertarianism as well.
How does a Movement with a 90% white support base wind up with a 80% Jewish intelligentsia, when Jews are 2% of the US population?
How does that happen? It almost seems mathematically impossible, no matter what your theories on racial IQ (evidence is very thin for Ashkenazi being higher IQ than common white subgroups like Scandanavians)
The Answer has to be subsidization, nepotism, and cancelling of non-jewish thinkers... Indeed you Can watch libertarianism coordinate with other ideologies to squeeze out and freeze out more Gentile movements and subsets like the Paleo-cons at various points, and you can see a long line of cancellations of various libertarian and liberty minded Gentiles overtime that just never hit the Jewish libertarians, even as the Jewish ones seem to always land teaching positions and institutional gigs.
Realize how violent the Iliad or Sagas, or Le Morte De Arthur is...
and then realize that every modern piece of media you've ever watched or read basically existed to turn you into a pussy who thinks "violence is never the answer"
Like the iliad reads like Verdun, DOOM, or a small white boy child playing with endless amount of army men:
B. Afraid to inspire and lead via irrational and tribal means
2.) No sense or ability for aesthetics. It’s Ayn Rand and that’s it for literature except when that dorky guy at Hillsdale awkwardly claims Tolkien was a libertarian
The wilting at anything martial or tribal I can't stand about libertarianism, and it's so consistent despite being completely unjustified in their own theory.
Collective struggle, armament, violence, etc. Is perfectly justified within their own theory and certainly by the founders.
Indeed the actual structure of the Continental army was almost perfectly Anarchocapitalist.
All volunteers who signed limited term contracts which not even Washington violated. As soon it was up you could leave with pay, no extension not even in emergencies... but for the term of the contract you could be shot or hanged for desertion, cowardice, forebearance etc.
This actually almost screwed them a few times, but certainly helped them in others.
1. A. B. All of that is refuted by the american revolution. I agree with Kulak's reading of modern libertarianism, but that doesn't undo it's origins.
2. Why would we expect an economic/social theory to be an art movement? I get that art movements are typically associated with political ones but they're not the same thing.
My Hudson Valley WASP family was totally taken in by this slop. Reading the New York Times on the shitter in the morning for their daily instructions and the New Yorker during the weekends. Just pathetic. These nerds control us like no group has ever controlled another before in all of history, and I include the Helots. The Helots rebelled.
BTW, Milton Friedman's doctrine of stockholder primacy is the reason the already out of control at the time Corporations accelerated pell mell into the destruction of the U.S. manufacturing base. It was the genesis for the worst abuses that we see have come to fruition today. Unmooring the corporation from its responsibilities to the community laid the foundation for the destruction of the U.S. Middle Class and began shutting the door to class mobility. Greed is not good. And Covetousness is a sin. Damn that guy!
Shareholder primacy would have actually made sense (Executives are agents of the true owners, stockholders)... If it wasn't an immediate justification for short-termism, and low time preference stockprice chasing.
No Public company runs itself the way an actual sole-proprietorship or private family company would that is just looking out for its main interests.
.
We have no problem with owner primacy when it comes to private coporations and private property... The owners of gorgeous old victorian houses don't have to run their household for the public interests... and there's no problem with that, because they have time preferences longer that a 3 month reporting cycle, and a 3 year CEO position, and so won't tear the whole thing down and sell off the bricks to meet a monthly revenue target.
My biggest complaint about the shareholder/board model is that it reduces all communication about value down to a single stat: profit. And the only real form of market feedback it allows for is encouraging investors to dip in and out at will, never forming any real bonds with the organisations they supposedly own.
By contrast, community based lending encourage more local ties and a broader appreciation of value than just "number go up."
Interesting essay, well researched and innovative.
BTW Ayn Rand was not a 'libertarian thinker'.
In her own words - Libertarians are ‘not defenders of capitalism.’ and ‘Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism ... because libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people.’ "
She was initially cordial towards libertarians, that much is true.
I describe this in more detail, with sources, in my essay, 'FutureDad 60: Libertarianism v Objectivism'.
I was raised by parents who insisted on the Classics, including Latin with rigor and Biblical reference level Greek - but most importantly with reading the Founders and regarding them as the largely rough hewn men they were, as opposed to the saccharine versions of the titans taught in schools since forever.
I was fortunate career wise to be able to go the same route for my sons.
As a result, we all share a similar worldview - we are lifelong outsiders.
I appreciate your writing and this subject fascinates me - libertarians are like evolutionists - it must be, because it is. Madness.
I appreciate you calling out the need to read the classics. It was actually reading Plato's Republic that put the death nail in any attraction Libertarianism had for me.
There literally not a dime's worth of difference between jewish supremacist 'libertarianism' and jewish supremacist 'Platonism'.
Being ruled by sexual perverts and intellectual fops is not a fit way of life for Whites, especially White men.
Plato is interesting because the dialogues are invaluable but Socrates and Plato's actual program is so debatable and suspect.
Indeed various theories have posited Plato reversed the sides of various conversations to hide what Socrates and the school were actually arguing for.
Someone told me that Plato's Laws are superior to the Republic, but I haven't had the time to jump in to verify that.
And the sad irony is that it took (for me) reading the Republic open my eyes to the mind-breaking difficultly of making a "good" government and thus showed the ridiculous nature of any sort of abstracted "solution."
Which is why I'm now dismissive of libertarianism/socialism/communism as they are trying to impose an abstract on reality rather than submitting to the fact that there is a reality or nature that you have to contend with that doesn't fit into perfect categories.
I remember I left one comment on one post telling you that libertarianism is a dead end. I’m glad to see you’ve finally broken with it. It only serves as a needlessly limiting ideology right now.
Ya... I could always sense there was something deeply wrong or missing about libertarianism... But could never put my finger on why.
As soon as you notice its geneology of thinkers has no attachment via intellectual or ethnic heritage whatsoever to the founders or men who ever fought for liberty, suddenly it all lines up.
Right. Especially when the bulk of the big names in libertarianism from the 20th century onward are of a certain ethnic group. It may seem grug to some, but it should make you think. What attracts them to libertarianism so much? And the answer should be quite obvious. These same people, like you hinted at, give us a false account of American history in regard to libertarianism as well.
How does a Movement with a 90% white support base wind up with a 80% Jewish intelligentsia, when Jews are 2% of the US population?
How does that happen? It almost seems mathematically impossible, no matter what your theories on racial IQ (evidence is very thin for Ashkenazi being higher IQ than common white subgroups like Scandanavians)
The Answer has to be subsidization, nepotism, and cancelling of non-jewish thinkers... Indeed you Can watch libertarianism coordinate with other ideologies to squeeze out and freeze out more Gentile movements and subsets like the Paleo-cons at various points, and you can see a long line of cancellations of various libertarian and liberty minded Gentiles overtime that just never hit the Jewish libertarians, even as the Jewish ones seem to always land teaching positions and institutional gigs.
Boy Kulak do I feel called out for wasting so much of my youth reading sci fi and fantasy instead of the Classics.
Realize how violent the Iliad or Sagas, or Le Morte De Arthur is...
and then realize that every modern piece of media you've ever watched or read basically existed to turn you into a pussy who thinks "violence is never the answer"
Like the iliad reads like Verdun, DOOM, or a small white boy child playing with endless amount of army men:
https://x.com/CCrowley100/status/2016660674697437634?s=20
Problems of libertarianism:
1.) Can’t give rise or sustain itself
A. It finds the martial spirit too cringe
B. Afraid to inspire and lead via irrational and tribal means
2.) No sense or ability for aesthetics. It’s Ayn Rand and that’s it for literature except when that dorky guy at Hillsdale awkwardly claims Tolkien was a libertarian
The wilting at anything martial or tribal I can't stand about libertarianism, and it's so consistent despite being completely unjustified in their own theory.
Collective struggle, armament, violence, etc. Is perfectly justified within their own theory and certainly by the founders.
Indeed the actual structure of the Continental army was almost perfectly Anarchocapitalist.
All volunteers who signed limited term contracts which not even Washington violated. As soon it was up you could leave with pay, no extension not even in emergencies... but for the term of the contract you could be shot or hanged for desertion, cowardice, forebearance etc.
This actually almost screwed them a few times, but certainly helped them in others.
This video captures it very well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5nMDMTFNgY
It might be an issue that they don’t truly understand Washington
I love that channel; the Belasarius series (and music) was one of my favorite series they did.
Basically Jewish to its core
1. A. B. All of that is refuted by the american revolution. I agree with Kulak's reading of modern libertarianism, but that doesn't undo it's origins.
2. Why would we expect an economic/social theory to be an art movement? I get that art movements are typically associated with political ones but they're not the same thing.
My Hudson Valley WASP family was totally taken in by this slop. Reading the New York Times on the shitter in the morning for their daily instructions and the New Yorker during the weekends. Just pathetic. These nerds control us like no group has ever controlled another before in all of history, and I include the Helots. The Helots rebelled.
Same here in Ireland. Whole sections of society base their entire knowledge of the world off RTE and the Irish Times.
If it didn't show up in one of those it didn't happen.
“Free to Jew” am I right folks?
That's terrible.
He who would pun would pick a pocket, sir.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-aPp7Kiiyg
Truly the worst
Nice article
BTW, Milton Friedman's doctrine of stockholder primacy is the reason the already out of control at the time Corporations accelerated pell mell into the destruction of the U.S. manufacturing base. It was the genesis for the worst abuses that we see have come to fruition today. Unmooring the corporation from its responsibilities to the community laid the foundation for the destruction of the U.S. Middle Class and began shutting the door to class mobility. Greed is not good. And Covetousness is a sin. Damn that guy!
Shareholder primacy would have actually made sense (Executives are agents of the true owners, stockholders)... If it wasn't an immediate justification for short-termism, and low time preference stockprice chasing.
No Public company runs itself the way an actual sole-proprietorship or private family company would that is just looking out for its main interests.
.
We have no problem with owner primacy when it comes to private coporations and private property... The owners of gorgeous old victorian houses don't have to run their household for the public interests... and there's no problem with that, because they have time preferences longer that a 3 month reporting cycle, and a 3 year CEO position, and so won't tear the whole thing down and sell off the bricks to meet a monthly revenue target.
My biggest complaint about the shareholder/board model is that it reduces all communication about value down to a single stat: profit. And the only real form of market feedback it allows for is encouraging investors to dip in and out at will, never forming any real bonds with the organisations they supposedly own.
By contrast, community based lending encourage more local ties and a broader appreciation of value than just "number go up."
I hadn’t realized that was Friedman.
Interesting topic. About the same when I was younger. Can’t stand libertarians anymore.
"...We knew which of our Professors were HIV positive from a lifetime of bending over for “networking” and career advancement"
That explains poor Mr. Peterson.
Not finished yet, but as a USAian former libertarian, you've already provided ample food for thought.
RTWT for certain.
Terrific essay! This is the content I crave most from you; sorry, not at all interested in your erotica aspirations—lol.
I’ve been cynically saying for the longest time now that the entire Left/Right discourse (both msm and mam) is nothing but Jews arguing one another.
Interesting essay, well researched and innovative.
BTW Ayn Rand was not a 'libertarian thinker'.
In her own words - Libertarians are ‘not defenders of capitalism.’ and ‘Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism ... because libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people.’ "
She was initially cordial towards libertarians, that much is true.
I describe this in more detail, with sources, in my essay, 'FutureDad 60: Libertarianism v Objectivism'.
https://futuredad.substack.com/p/futuredad-60-libertarianism-v-objectivism?r=59rk8t
Myself and most of my current friends were all Libertarians in the early 2000s. Then we all grew up.
I was raised by parents who insisted on the Classics, including Latin with rigor and Biblical reference level Greek - but most importantly with reading the Founders and regarding them as the largely rough hewn men they were, as opposed to the saccharine versions of the titans taught in schools since forever.
I was fortunate career wise to be able to go the same route for my sons.
As a result, we all share a similar worldview - we are lifelong outsiders.
I appreciate your writing and this subject fascinates me - libertarians are like evolutionists - it must be, because it is. Madness.
Libertarianism lives on in neoreaction. Yes, freedom of association and NAP means mandatory free helicopter rides and swimming lessons for communists.
That's the best thing I've read in a long while. Bravo!