Category Archives: Transhuman News

These days, libertarianism tends to be quite discredited. It is now associated with the goofy candidature of Gary Johnson, having a rather narrow range of issueslegalize weed! less taxes!, cucking ones way to politics through sweeping all the embarrassing problems under the carpet, then surrendering to liberal virtue-signaling and endorsing anti-white diversity.

Now, everyone on the Alt-Right, manosphere und so wieser is laughing at those whose adhesion to a bunch of abstract premises leads to endorse globalist capital, and now that Trump officially heads the State, wed be better off if some private companies were nationalized than let to shadowy overlords.

To Americans, libertarianism has been a constant background presence. Its main icons, be them Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard or Friedrich Hayek, were always read and discussed here and there, and never fell into oblivion although they barely had media attention. The academic and political standing of libertarianism may be marginal, it has always been granted small platforms and resurrected from time to time in the public landscape, one of the most conspicuous examples of it being the Tea Party demonstrations.

To a frog like yours trulyKek being now praised by thousands of well-meaning memers, I can embrace the frog moniker gladlylibertarianism does not have the same standing at all. In French universities, libertarian thinkers are barely discussed, even in classes that are supposed to tackle economics: for one hour spent talking about Hayek, Keynes easily enjoys ten, and the same goes on when comparing the attention given to, respectively, Adam Smith and Karl Marx.

On a wider perspective, a lot of the contemporary French identity is built on Jacobinism, i.e. on crushing underfoot organic regional sociability in the name of a bureaucratized and Masonic republic. The artificial construction of France is exactly the kind of endeavour libertarianism loathes. No matter why the public choices school, for example, is barely studied here: pompous leftist teachers and mediocre fonctionnaires are too busy gushing about themselves, sometimes hiding the emptiness of their life behind a ridiculous epic narrative that turns social achievements into heroic feats, to give a fair hearing to pertinent criticism.

When I found out about libertarianism, I was already sick of the dominant fifty shades of leftism political culture. The gloomy mediocrity of small bureaucrats, including most school teachers, combined with their petty political righteousness, always repelled me. Thus, the discovery oflaissez-faire advocates felt like stumbling on an entirely new scene of thoughtand my initial feeling was vindicated when I found about the naturalism often associated with it, something refreshing and intuitively more satisfying than the mainstream culture-obsessed, biology-denying view.

Libertarianism looked like it could solve everything. More entrepreneurship, more rights to those who actually create wealth and live through the good values of personal responsibility and work ethic, less parasitesbe they bureaucrats or immigrants, no more repressive speech laws. Coincidentally, a new translation of Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged was published at this time: I devoured it, loving the sense of life, the heroism, the epic, the generally great and achieving ethos contained in it. Arent John Galt and Hank Rearden more appealing than any corrupt politician or beta bureaucrat that pretends to be altruistic while backstabbing his own colleagues and parasitizing the country?

Now, although I still support small-scale entrepreneurship wholeheartedly, I would never defend naked libertarianism, and here is why.

Part of the Rothschild family, where nepotism and consanguinity keep the money in

Unity makes strength, and trust is much easier to cultivate in a small group where everyone truly belongs than in an anonymous great society. Some ethnic groups, especially whites, tend to be instinctively individualistic, with a lot of people favouring personal liberty over belonging, while others, especially Jews, tend to favor extended family business and nepotism.

On a short-term basis, mobile individuals can do better than those who are bound to many social obligations. On the long run, however, extended families manage to create an environment of trust and concentrate capital. And whereas individuals may start cheating each other or scattering their wealth away, thanks to having no proper economic network, families and tribes will be able to invest heavily in some of their members and keep their wealth inside. This has been true for Jewish families, wherever their members work as moneylenders or diamond dealers, for Asians investing in new restaurants or any other business project of their own, and for North Africans taking over pubs and small shops in France.

The latter example is especially telling. White bartenders, butchers, grocers and the like have been chased off French suburbs by daily North African and black violence. No one helped them, everyone being afraid of getting harassed as well and busy with their own business. (Yep, just like what happened and still happens in Rotheram.) As a result, these isolated, unprotected shop-owners sold their outlet for a cheap price and fled. North Africans always covered each others violence and replied in groups against any hurdle, whereas whites lowered their heads and hoped not to be next on the list.

Atlas Shrugged was wrong. Loners get wrecked by groups. Packs of hyenas corner and eat the lone dog.

Libertarianism is not good for individuals on the long runit turns them into asocial weaklings, soon to be legally enslaved by global companies or beaten by groups, be they made of nepotistic family members or thugs.

How the middle classes end up after jobs have been sent overseas and wages lowered

People often believe, thanks to Leftist media and cuckservative posturing, that libertarians are big bosses. This is mostly, if not entirely, false. Most libertarians are middle class guys who want more opportunities, less taxation, and believe that libertarianism will help them to turn into successful entrepreneurs. They may be right in very specific circumstances: during the 2000s, small companies overturned the market of electronics, thus benefiting both to their independent founders and to society as a whole; but ultimately, they got bought by giants like Apple and Google, who are much better off when backed by a corrupt State than on a truly free market.

Libertarianism is a fake alternative, just as impossible to realize as communism: far from putting everyone at its place, it lets ample room to mafias, monopolies, unemployment caused by mechanization and global competition. If one wants the middle classes to survive, one must protect the employment and relative independence of its membersbankers and billionaires be damned.

Spontaneous order helped by a weak government. I hope they at least smoke weed.

A good feature of libertarianism is that it usually goes along with a positive stance on biology and human nature, in contrast with the everything is cultural and ought to be deconstructed left. However, this stance often leads to an exaggerated optimism about human nature. In a society of laissez-faire, the libertarians say, people flourish and the order appears spontaneously.

Well, this is plainly false. As all of the great religions say, after what Christians call the Fall, man is a sinner. If you let children flourish without moral standards and role models, they become spoiled, entitled, manipulative, emotionally fragile and deprived of self-control. If you let women flourish without suspicion, you let free rein to their propensities to hypergamy, hysteria, self-entitlement and everything we can witness in them today. If you let men do as they please, you let them become greedy, envious, and turning into bullies. As a Muslim proverb says, people must be flogged to enter into paradiseand as Aristotle put forth, virtues are trained dispositions, no matter the magnitude of innate talents and propensities.

Michelle The Man Obama and Lying Crooked at a Democrat meeting

When the laissez-faire rules, some will succeed on the market more than others, due to differences in investment, work, and natural abilities. Some will succeed enough to be able to buy someone elses business: this is the natural consequence of differences in wealth and of greed. When corrupt politicians enter the game, things become worse, as they will usually help some large business owners to shield their position against competitorsat the expense of most people, who then lose their independence and live off a wage.

At the end, what we get is a handful of very wealthy individuals who have managed to concentrate most capital and power levers into their hands and a big crowd of low-wage employees ready to cut each others throat for a small promotion, and females waiting in line to get notched by the one per cent while finding the other ninety-nine per cent boring.

Censorship by massive social pressure, monopoly over the institutions and crybullying is perfectly legal. What could go wrong?

On the surface, libertarianism looks good here, because it protects the individuals rights against left-hailing Statism and cuts off the welfare programs that have attracted dozens of millions of immigrants. Beneath, however, things are quite dire. Libertarianism enshrines the leftists right to free speech they abuse from, allows the pressure tactics used by radicals, and lets freethinking individuals getting singled out by SJWs as long as these do not resort to overt stealing or overt physical violence. As for the immigrants, libertarianism tends to oppose the very notion of non-private boundaries, thus letting the local cultures and identities defenseless against both greedy capitalists and subproletarian masses.

Supporting an ideology that allows the leftists to destroy society more or less legally equates to cucking, plain and simple. Desiring an ephemeral cohabitation with rabid ideological warriors is stupid. We should aim at a lasting victory, not at pretending to constrain them through useless means.

Am I the only one to find that Gary Johnson looks like a snail (Spongebob notwithstanding)?

In 2013, one of the rare French libertarians academic teachers, Jean-Louis Caccomo, was forced into a mental ward at the request of his university president. He then spent more than a year getting drugged. Mr. Caccomo had no real psychological problem: his confinement was part of a vicious strategy of pathologization and career-destruction that was already used by the Soviets. French libertarians could have wide denounced the abuse. Nonetheless, most of them freaked out, and almost no one dared to actually defend him publicly.

Why should rational egoists team up and risk their careers to defend one of themselves after all? They would rather posture at confidential social events, rail at organic solidarity and protectionism, or trolling the shit out of individuals of their own social milieu because Ive got the right to mock X, its my right to free speech! The few libertarian people I knew firsthand, the few events I have witnessed in that small milieu, were enough to give me serious doubts about libertarianism: how can a good political ideology breed such an unhealthy mindset?

Political ideologies are tools. They are not ends in themselves. All forms of government arent fit for any people or any era. Political actors must know at least the most important ones to get some inspiration, but ultimately, said actors win on the ground, not in philosophical debates.

Individualism, mindless consumerism, careerism, hedonism are part of the problem. Individual rights granted regardless of ones abilities, situation, and identity are a disaster. Time has come to overcome modernity, not stall in one of its false alternatives. The merchant caste must be regulated, though neither micromanaged or hampered by a parasitic bureaucracy nor denied its members right for small-scale independence. Individual rights must be conditional, boundaries must be restored, minority identities based on anti-white male resentment must be crushed so they cannot devour sociability from the inside again, and the pater familias must assert himself anew.

Long live the State and protectionism as long as they defend the backbone of society and healthy relationships between the sexes, and no quarter for those who think they have a right to wage grievance-mongering against us, no matter if they want to use the State or private companies. At the end, the socialism-libertarianism dichotomy is quite secondary.

Read Next: Sugar Baby Culture In The US Is Creating A Marketplace for Prostitution

Dec 1, 2016Andr du Ple

Here is the original post:
6 Reasons Why I Gave Up On Libertarianism

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

by Ram Jayaraman

It seems nowadays that people cannot have a conversation about politics without setting fire to any possible notion of perceived tranquility. Debates seem to irrevocably devolve into ad hominem assaults. However, in the interest of tranquility, I ask that you humor me while I try to describe my political inclinations, and why I think libertarianism is essential to free thought.

The concept of libertarianism is eponymous. At the core of the movement is the idea that ones liberty must be unfettered, necessarily unrestricted provided it does not interfere with the liberty of another. Very broadly speaking, this aligns mostly with the social perspectives of modern liberalism and the economic perspectives of modern conservatism. However, there is an important distinction that must be made which is best highlighted through example. Take the recent gay marriage ruling, for instance. The socially conservative stance, owing primarily to the philosophical tenets set forth by the Judeo-Christian pantheon, posits that marriage is an institution between a biological man and a biological woman. The socially liberal stance posits that marriage is an institution of love and therefore is not confined to heterosexual norms. In contrast, the libertarian stance is simply that the government has no business telling you who you can or cannot marry in a consensual relationship. At first glance, one would argue that the liberal and the libertarian perspectives are synonymous. However, upon closer inspection, this argumentation is deemed specious. Under liberalism, marriage between homosexuals is permissible; id est there exists an implication that the government is allowing its existence. Alternatively, libertarians advocate that the government should not have any leverage to regulate the institution of marriage. This example highlights, in brevity, what libertarianism is: provided I am not harming anyone else, the government should not act to restrict my agency.

Let us take this example a bit further. Assume that someones family does not condone homosexuality and views the practice as an abomination against God. He considers it nothing less than mortal sin, and to those for whom he cares, he vehemently preaches these beliefs. In the system of libertarian thought, his views are irrelevant. Regardless whether he thinks that LGBTQ+ people are destined for eternal damnation, their activities do not disrupt his agency. If one were to assume that these two constructs are mutually exclusive, consider this. The libertarian party has been pro LGBTQ+ rights for decades longer than either of the current duopoly. However, at the time, a sizable proportion of libertarians did not personally espouse gay marriage; they just advocated that they had no business enforcing their beliefs on others.

The current system of political duopoly in the United States has developed the false notion that the government need function as a moral executor. However, morality is relative. Our cultures and our beliefs are relative. My criteria for morality is not necessarily congruent to yours. As such, assuming that neither of our practices harms the other, there is no logical reason that the government should interfere. In the common vernacular, there is no logical reason, within the sphere of libertarianism, to enforce punitive measures for victimless crimes. Moreover, there is also no need to enforce such measures resulting from differences in morality that do not result in a disruption of individual agency. This notion is antithetical to the current paradigm of the duopoly, culminating in the development of a false binary with regard to political ideology.

The hypocrisy of the political binary can be evidenced as follows. Currently, liberals appear to have a disdain for firearms, yet they also believe that Muslim people are not responsible for the acts of war that terrorist cells commit under some perverse banner of Islam. In contrast, conservatives tout the existence and usage of firearms, yet they believe in the restriction of Muslim entry to domestic territory. Statistically, an infinitesimal percentage of firearms that are used in the United States are used for nefarious purposes. Statistically, an infinitesimal percentage of Muslims act in the name of terrorism. If one claims that the potential damage of an event outweighs the statistical insignificance of its occurrence, this would logically imply that liberals would deny Muslims entry to the United States. Analogously, if one claims that the statistical insignificance of an event outweighs its potential damage, this would logically imply that conservatives would allow unbarred entry of Muslims into the United States. Obviously, this is not the case. Both parties exhibit hypocrisy in their logical reasoning.

In summation, here is why libertarianism appeals to me. I barely know what is best for myself. Why on earth, then, would I try to enforce my views on other people? Obviously, there are far more intricacies that cannot be described transiently, but the core of the philosophy remains. Your thoughts are your own. A political party does not own my ideologies. Why should they enforce them upon me? Let me think, and Ill let you think. Thats what libertarianism is: freedom to think, freedom to act, and freedom to be. Liberty.

libertarianLibertyphilosophythought

Read more here:
The Necessity of Libertarian Thought - The Libertarian Republic