POWER! The #1 Law of Political Power
December 23, 2018 at 1:55 pm #89323
This guys videos are somewhat “uncomfortable” to think about, simply because they seem to deal honestly with cold, hard reality, with ZERO consideration for “political correctness”. In this video, he takes a few whacks at libertarians and “classical liberals”, which hit me right square in the nose… simply because I can’t argue with his analysis.
December 23, 2018 at 2:49 pm #89324
Money quote – The lie is, that tolerance pays off. It doesn’t. The only thing it pays off in is losing. Losing everything you value to intolerant people who don’t give a rat’s ass about you or what you value or what you care about. Be intolerant.
December 24, 2018 at 10:38 am #89325
A couple of examples of “punishment” in action –
December 26, 2018 at 6:33 pm #89326
‘A leading expert says declining fertility rates in the west should be a cause for “celebration” because migration from countries in Africa will replace native populations.’
Expert: Collapsing Fertility Rates in the West Should Be ‘Celebrated’
by Paul Joseph Watson
December 27, 2018 at 10:04 am #89327HessianParticipant
Yuri Bezmenov was correct and the left are nearly complete with their demoralization of the West.
This guy speaks some hard truths but it won’t belong until his YT, social media is shut down/de-platformed due to wrong think especially when he gains a larger audience.
December 29, 2018 at 5:07 pm #89328
Be intolerant… But don’t be a complete nutcase.
December 31, 2018 at 7:22 am #89329AnonymousInactive
Jesus Christ, is this forum really going alt-right? This guy is a white nationalist. He’s literally making the same arguments the Nazis did to conservatives in Weimar Germany, even down to the eugenics and his “scientific government” arguments.
The reasons why you may find it difficult as a libertarian or classical liberal to counterargue John Mack’s points is that mainstream libertarianism under folks such as Rothbard has effectively lobotomized much of the individualist anarchist theory they started with because it wasn’t sufficiently right wing. Rothbard, et. al. openly embraced right-wing populism to try and gain political relevance but abandoned much useful theory in the process because it ran counter to their strategy. You need to read left-libertarian or anarchist texts to fill in the blanks nowadays or it becomes incoherent; check out Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Kevin Carson, Gary Chartier, etc.
Libertarianism isn’t about whether or not you participate in the economy, it’s about individual liberty, effectively it’s economically agnostic as long as the markets remain free. The point of property rights in libertarianism is that property rights promote liberty, if you embrace liberty only because it promotes property rights it’s much easier to embrace philosophies such as fascism because they’re just as capable of preserving property, if not more so, since freer markets naturally reduce the ability of wealthy elites to retain large amounts of property.
Even our notions of “property” are riddled with statist privileges going back to the British enclosures. I’m not advocating the seizure or abolishment of private property but propertarianism does little more than maintain unnatural, statist privileges. Proudhon famously wrote “Property is theft!”, he also wrote “Property is freedom!” Property can be liberatory or oppressive depending on how the power it grants is used, its existence alone doesn’t guarantee liberty. Many folks with much property are currently using their wealth to assault our liberties, be it Google or Bloomberg.
(For the sake of brevity I’ll avoid breaking down private property, personal property, and capital, honestly debates over it are part of what make leftist discourse so bookish and only leftists usually care to learn the difference anyway.)
There is nothing prohibiting me from being intolerant of those who would restrict the liberties of me and others while not targeting writ large every non-white, non-straight, whatever group. If this John Marks actually had some life experience he’d realize that most Europeans nowadays as statist as any brown person. The only Europeans I met who had even half the concept of liberty as I did were the anarchists. Libertarianism as we know it is very much an American phenomenon – overseas it explicitly refers to social anarchism. I can be very tolerant of those different than me who share my desire to be left in peace while being extremely intolerant of those who would restrict my rights or or the rights of those within our shared society: it’s not mutually exclusive.
You can’t simply ban brown people and fix the problem. Embracing white nationalism also won’t fix declining white birth rates, the only way forward is to promote outreach to folks who don’t look like us. For example, there are many pro-gun Latinos and Asians, which would be unexpected given their countries of origin. We don’t need a full majority, we just need enough of a minority that it offsets our own declining portion of the population. If we explicitly deny them any claim to a future in our society it’s all out the window. White nationalists can’t even agree on who is really white. Do we kick out the Jews because they are “parasites” (John Mack’s term and the Reich’s) or are they white like us now, I don’t know what the current alt-right line is.
A radical liberty agenda is simply this: communities should govern themselves without federal interference, the role of state and federal government should be limited to the most basic requirements of national self-defense. How individual units within this confederation of free communities address social issues internally is their business as long as they protect mutually agreed upon (negative) rights, such as those enshrined in our Bill of Rights. If there are anti-authoritarian leftists who would embrace such a system in territories where the left holds a majority, they would be free to join our confederation. If authoritarian leftists seized power and insisted on maintaining unfree, statist societies in the areas they control we’d simply cut them off. If authoritarian rightists such as fascists seize control of a region and start restricting the rights and liberties of their residents of color or so forth we cut them off. It’s a social contract.
Switzerland is multiethnic and decentralized, so is Rojava. Decentralization of power is the only way pluralism works, our current national sickness is a result of too much centralized power and the fight for control of it. Instead of fetishizing the power to punish others we should be challenging it.
December 31, 2018 at 9:00 am #89330RobRoyParticipant
Here is a simple rule, if a noun ends in ism, ist or phobia it is more than likely to be all bullshit.
December 31, 2018 at 10:32 am #89331
My heart is firmly anarcho-capitalist, but my brain tells me there is simply no way a majority of people will ever tolerate such a level of actual FREEDOM. “Left” anything is the worst kind of bullshit… “Left-libertarian” is an absolute oxymoron.
The point Marks makes about libertarianism being a losing strategy because of some groups of people being better served (as individuals) by collectivism rings absolutely true. We have all of human history as evidence of it! We can debate ’til hell freezes about what the “solution” to that reality is, but the FACT is that some groups of people DO consistently choose collectivism over individual freedom. Too many people in the world are more than happy to steal other people’s stuff. Too many people in the world are psychos who get off on having power over others. Too many people in the world are more than happy to give those psychos power, so that those psychos can help them steal other people’s stuff – which is what government itself is all about.
We almost certainly are headed for a civil war. One could make an argument that we are already in one. We’re never going to have the anarcho-capitalist dream world, or anything even close to a tolerable libertarian dream world. I think the best we can hope for is to figure out a way to make parasitic behavior itself illegal. To some extent, I think the founding of the united States was an attempt to do just that, but obviously it has failed. I have always said, and I still believe, that I would be plenty happy if they just followed the frickin’ Constitution. The problem is that they NEVER really followed the Constitution, and it has just been slowly, progressively, continuously eviscerated over the last 200 years.
I would also be happy if somebody magically figured out a way to decentralize “government”, so that we would all be free to move somewhere where we could have the government (or lack thereof) of our choosing… But that is every bit as much of a pipe dream as thinking anarcho-capitalism will ever happen.
In reality, I think all of this stuff is little more than mental masturbation.
January 1, 2019 at 6:15 pm #89332gatlinggunParticipant
Well said Shooter. I don’t think that parasitic behavior can be made illegal. Murder is illegal and yet people still commit murder. I think the best we can do is to make parasitic behavior PAINFUL. Painful enough to be a deterrent.
January 1, 2019 at 7:44 pm #89333
…I think the best we can do is to make parasitic behavior PAINFUL. Painful enough to be a deterrent.
I think that’s exactly what Marks is talking about when he says we should be intolerant, and punish parasitic behavior.
The whole gay cake thing as an example: EVERYBODY should have the absolute right to ostracize, shun, discriminate against anybody for anything. This is what “society” is all about, and is the bedrock of every culture in the history of humankind. On the other hand, one of the few legitimate purposes of government is to punish people who actually violate other people – murder, rape, robbery, theft.
Thomas Paine: “Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.”
(I can’t help it – my inner libertarian is showing, isn’t it?)
What I get from Marks is that we should take it one step further and make parasitic behavior itself something we refuse to tolerate, by law, and/or as a society.
That idea is not really all that radical if you consider that both Democrat and Republican politicians ACTUALLY commit treason on a daily basis! I honestly do NOT think that is an exaggeration! They all take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and then most of them spend their entire careers attempting to subvert it. The problem is that the Constitution itself doesn’t really give us a good way to punish these treasonous bastards, and allows parasites to vote for them, support them, and demand that they commit treason in order to give the parasites their share of the ill gotten loot.
All this ain’t going to get us anywhere, but maybe the ideas will leak out there and have some effect on what gets rebuilt from the ashes after it all falls apart.
January 1, 2019 at 11:23 pm #89334First SergeantModerator
Alt-Right is just another made up bullshit boogeyman by the left. The same as calling everyone who doesn’t think like them a Nazi.
I am neither a white nationalist or supremacist, but because I believe in borders being enforced, true criminals being punished and want to be left the fuck alone I am considered both.
True freedom scares the hell out of people.
Signal Out, Can You Identify
Je ne regrette rien
In Orbe Terrum Non Visi
January 2, 2019 at 9:50 am #89335AnonymousInactive
I’m referring to the alt-right here because this guy identifies as alt-right, this video is a manifesto for rebranding the alt-right so it can gain more influence.
There has been a libertarian to alt-right pipeline for a while now, Richard Spencer, Chris Cantwell, and Baked Alaska (among others) were all libertarians before becoming legit neo-Nazis. If groups with amorphous makeup such as Antifa can be collectively blamed for their errors then so can the alt-right. Yes, this is a problem within our movement. If I come off as testy over this it’s because I’m a libertarian too and I’m sick of white supremacists leeching off of libertarianism for membership and influence.
If we need a simple barometer of whom we should consider “alt-right”, then perhaps it can be as simple as someone who is fine with marching with actual Nazis because they want to fight the Antifa “beta cucks”.
Look at every movement to drastically reduce statist influence in local communities and the most successful have been those along social anarchist lines – Chiapas, Cheran, Rojava, etc. A good chunk of the reason I went to Rojava is because it was the only active revolution focused on reducing the size of the state. By comparison the Free State Project has only managed to get a few state legislators elected and harass meter maids.
I recommend we study existing anti-authoritarian movements on the left and I get borderline heckled, meanwhile there’s lengthy debate over the views of some random YouTuber walking around wearing a motorcycle helmet like a white pride Daft Punk. Anybody watched that documentary Bakur I posted a link to a while back? We don’t need to cookie-cutter other movements to learn from them; rather than demand uniformity like Marxists, the social anarchist-influenced movements I cited earlier all agree that each society has unique conditions that need to be addressed independently.
There is a beautiful intellectual diversity within libertarianism and anarchism if you open your horizons, folks like Tucker, Bakunin, and Goldman wrote some of the strongest critiques against Marxism and other statist ills of the left because they were within the left when that shit started. I can understand if you’re still sketched out by the social anarchists, but if you don’t at least familiarize yourself with the individualists you’re cheating yourself, the world didn’t begin with Hayek.
“Collectivism” has always been a thing and will always be a thing. The question should be whether said collective action is simply protective or coercive. Some hippies running a commune doesn’t infringe on my liberties. A CUTT is a collective effort, if we were adamant about hyper-individualism we’d all be porch snipers.
Collective effort by any group to manipulate the violence of the state to its own ends is by default coercive. (Yes, white folks have done this too.) The “parasitic” behavior Marks keeps going on is only possible due to the power of the state to enable it. Worried about immigrants leeching off welfare? Eliminate the welfare state and the only people willing to hop across an open border would be those willing to work for it. A parasite by definition can’t survive without a host. Collective effort through mutual aid and systems of dual power are the only way we can subvert, render irrelevant, and ultimately kill the tentacles of the welfare state.
January 2, 2019 at 11:20 am #89336
January 2, 2019 at 11:38 am #89337
Some hippies running a commune doesn’t infringe on my liberties. A CUTT is a collective effort, if we were adamant about hyper-individualism we’d all be porch snipers.
Collective effort by any group to manipulate the violence of the state to its own ends is by default coercive. (Yes, white folks have done this too.) The “parasitic” behavior Marks keeps going on is only possible due to the power of the state to enable it. Worried about immigrants leeching off welfare? Eliminate the welfare state and the only people willing to hop across an open border would be those willing to work for it. A parasite by definition can’t survive without a host…
The quote above sums up my sentiments exactly!
However, now we’re back to the “libertarian movement” being nothing more than a frickin’ debate club that accomplishes diddly, while the neo-communists, unashamedly racist “brown people”, muslims, militant gender-benders, and other “intolerant collectivists” run amok. I could give a flying sh*t what all those people do, as long as they LEAVE ME ALONE. The problem is that their whole entire being is focused on specifically NOT leaving me alone!
Marks and his commentary aside, HOW does a country overcome the obvious problem that parasites vote??? The parasites vote for other parasites, who hire more parasites, who all collectively bleed the host dry. I think Marks ideas and the appeal of the “alt-right” are symptoms of the hosts FINALLY starting to get pissed off about the whole arrangement. Heck, the fact that Trump got elected as President is a symptom of the hosts finally starting to get pissed off.
I don’t think I will ever overcome my morality-based libertarian soul, which says I should defend EVERYBODY’s freedom, and judge individuals as individuals… BUT that also comes with the sickening and demoralizing realization that what I consider a moral system of government (or lack thereof) is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN, because most people do not feel the same way.
If you haven’t seen it, the video below has some great points as well. I don’t know what the SOLUTION is, but most of his observations about societal corruption and parasitism are valid.
January 2, 2019 at 11:59 am #89338
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
George Bernard Shaw
January 2, 2019 at 4:08 pm #89339Joe (G.W.N.S.)Moderator
If we need a simple barometer of whom we should consider “alt-right”, then perhaps it can be as simple as someone who is fine with marching with actual Nazis because they want to fight the Antifa beta cucks.
Works for me!
I don’t actively follow the alt-right or Antifa spinoffs beyond monitoring for potential threats. Neither have anything of value and both are filled with “useful idiots” played against each other.
Eliminate the welfare state…
I am taking this quote out of context, but the only way I see the welfare state being eliminated is in conjunction with a collapse, regardless of specifics of said collapse.
That said I have no problem with efforts try to limit it.
A quick response to your comment…
Jesus Christ, is this forum really going alt-right?
I haven’t participated in this Thread until now because I am leary of any so-called “new school(s) of thought” whether left or right. Usually it’s just rebranding of otherwise old politics.
However many need a chance to go through the labeling process as they work out various stands within their own mind.
I see no political option as the true way to continued freedom or the way to keep it forevermore.
There will always be those that seek to control others, those that like to be controled, and those reject control. No perfection with people involved.
So the pendulum will swing from good to bad and hopefully back to good, but there is no freedom without earning it.
Time will tell.
January 2, 2019 at 7:26 pm #89340AnonymousInactive
Edit: Added parenthesis around “beta cucks” in the last post because I meant that sarcastically in that context but I wanted it to be more clear that I don’t actually use that terminology seriously.I don’t think I will ever overcome my morality-based libertarian soul, which says I should defend EVERYBODY’s freedom, and judge individuals as individuals… BUT that also comes with the sickening and demoralizing realization that what I consider a moral system of government (or lack thereof) is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN, because most people do not feel the same way.
In our current “cold civil war” things don’t look so good, progressives are pushing statism from the left and on the right Trumpers seem perfectly fine with POTUS ignoring most libertarian principles on a whim, right now it’s mostly self-support. I’m a Marylander so I can understand the feelings of despair.
If things get hot being able to summarize your party’s beliefs into an easy-to-memorize platform is classic guerrilla politics, that’s the other half of the value of these conversations. Effectively any pro-liberty movement would be fighting for more federalism in right-winger, or more local autonomy in leftese. Joe’s point is valid that there’s no perfect solution, as I said in my previous post a free society might be configured differently in Wyoming than it would be in Maryland or Florida. Liberty gives different communities the freedom to pursue different strategies, our current centralization doesn’t.
I wouldn’t despair so much, there are still large parts of the country where “libertarianish” ideals have appeal. Whether we can achieve it in peacetime or in the vacuum of a civil conflict, we should feel confident in the value of our own beliefs. Otherwise we risk being subsumed by statists of whatever stripe. The biggest thing that separates “us” from “them” is that we believe that folks inherently want to be free, and the statist believes that folks want to be ruled and only dispute the best means of subjugation.
The amazing ideological diversity I saw in folks who volunteered to help make a freer society in Rojava gives me some optimism that if or when the time comes here we can ignore the smaller ideological disputes and focus on the bigger picture, as long as we pursue it in love of liberty rather than some reactionary fear or hate towards our enemies, real or perceived.
I don’t see the entire country surviving such a conflict intact, but we could very well create viable liberated areas in much of the US if things got hot. How to secure those areas, the nature of proxy warfare, etc., is a bit beyond the scope of this discussion, but yeah.
January 2, 2019 at 9:15 pm #89341Joe (G.W.N.S.)Moderator
Trumpers seem perfectly fine with POTUS ignoring most libertarian principles on a whim…
I suspect it has more to do with having been force fed Leftwing B.S. for so long they’ll except any push against it, whether real or perceived.
Now from my perspective pretty much anything President Trump does is better than what HRC or whatever loon gets the DNC nomination next would do.
Of course the typical Republican RNC nominee is almost as bad as HRC in theory and typically worse due to no intention of keeping any promises.
So Trump isn’t a solution, but even a perfect dream candidate wouldn’t be anymore effective. So we’re getting time and a interesting show to watch.
So whatever finally leads to a real active resistance to existing Corrupt Government the biggest threat is switching from one tyranny to another tyranny.
How is that avoided?
Education and discernment that just because someone is against your enemy doesn’t make him a friend is certainly important.
This is exemplified by the typical lunatics at WRSA and it’s inner circle of related bloggers.
Good ideas and some well thought out ideology won’t help win anyone over to your cause without established credibility within your community.
So what are you doing to earn this credibility in the real world?
What real solutions can you provide in times of community need?
January 25, 2019 at 6:30 pm #89342
More food for thought…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.