LIBERTARIANISM IS PLUTOCRATIC COLLECTIVISM: A RIPOSTE TO JEFFREY TUCKER

by Richard Wolstencroft

Let's talk about Libertarianism and one of its charismatic figures, Jeffrey Tucker from the American Institute for Economic Research. I am Facebook friends with the bow-tie-wearing don, and I have been studying his ideas and his views as they present themselves to my enquiring, inquisitive mind.

ARE WE RIGHT? (PART III)

 This is the concluding part of a three-part article. Go to Part I. Go to Part II.

by James Lawrence

It is time to deliver on the promise of this essay – which is, of course, an answer to the great question contained in its title. Can our movement honestly lay claim to the Rightist tradition of the West, which in turn leads back to the roots of our civilisation? Or do we represent a shallow, transitory and chimerical reaction of older Leftist ideas, like nationalism, against newer ones like multiculturalism?

In short, can the Alt-Right really call itself the True Right?

CONTRA COSMOPOLITANISM

by James Lawrence

  

In common with many others in this movement, I see European racial self-defence as the foundation of the Alt-Right. This does not mean, as some would have it, that this foundation is also the pinnacle, or that the Alt-Right can be reduced to it and nothing else. But in a future where the European people have been replaced, and the civilisation of Europe no longer exists in any form distinct from the modernist anti-culture to which it gave birth, everything else good and true on the Alt-Right ends up reduced to so much meaningless blog chatter.

However, I have long been aware of a serious shortcoming in ethnonationalism, which runs through all of its discourse like cracks in a wall. On the one hand, most if not all of the ethnonationalist charges against ‘foreigners’ (blacks, Muslims, Jews etc.) are both carefully reasoned and backed up with solid facts. On the other hand, cheek by jowl with these, we find statements and assumptions about ‘our own people’ (white Europeans) that are not only arbitrary and slapdash, but do not even accord with basic common sense.

CAN'T HAVE LIBERTARIANISM WITHOUT NATIONALISM

Confused multiculturalism seeking the wisdom of nationalism.

by Rik Storey

On the anniversary of 9/11, President Obama called for the US to embrace diversity.

The reason multiculturalism makes my blood boil is, whilst I am a libertarian, I am also strongly nationalistic. Many libertarians confuse nationalism with collectivism, statism, and racism; the implication being, if you’re an alt-righter and share nationalistic sentiments, you’re no libertarian. They assume we are delusionally taking personal pride in the historical achievements of long-dead, successful European people. That is, we forget our individualistic selves and imagine a racial collective which can take credit for the achievements of others who share certain genes. But, that’s not why I’m nationalistic at all.

IN DEFENCE OF STATISM

by Colin Liddell

"Every anarchist is a baffled dictator" ～ Benito Mussolini

My esteemed colleague Andy Nowicki has just penned an interesting piece denouncing certain perceived proclivities in the motivations of members of the Alt-Right in distancing themselves from Libertarianism. His article "In Defence of Anti-Statism" draws attention to two factors that supposedly drive anti-Libertarian tendencies in the Alt-Right, namely a wish to signal "intellectual maturity" and a desire to bluster about the up-side of authoritarianism. In particular, he takes issue with the notion that some people want to rule.

These observations are sure to prove controversial as many of the best and brightest on the Alt-Right found their way here over the loose and shifting sands of the Libertarian desert. I expect triggering aplenty and the rustling of jimmies.

IN DEFENSE OF ANTI-STATISM

by Andy Nowicki

Among alt-right commentators today, there is a general trend to sneer at libertarianism, as well as its more radical incarnation, anarcho-capitalism. The ultimate source of this cultivated sensibility seems to trace back to two main motivations:

THE WHOLE OF THE LAW

The Political Dimensions of Crowley’s Thought

by Keith Preston

The fame of Aleister Crowley is principally derived from his reputation as a notorious occultist. It is this reputation that has made his name legendary in numerous counter-cultural and youth culture circles, ranging from contemporary enthusiasts for witchcraft of varying sorts to purveyors of certain shades of heavy metal music.

Yet for all his status as a legendary figure, Crowley is not typically regarded as a political thinker. To the degree that his ideas are considered relevant to political thought at all, Crowley is frequently caricatured as a shallow nihilist or merely as a debauched libertine. Extremist political subcultures of varying stripes have attempted to claim him as one of their own. Whether they are neo-fascists, egocentric individualists, or nihilist pseudo-anarchists, many with an extremist political outlook have attempted to shock the broader bourgeois society by invoking the name of Aleister Crowley. This state of affairs regarding Crowley’s political outlook is unfortunate, because an examination of the man’s political ideas reveals him to be a far more profound and insightful thinker on such questions than what is typically recognized.

THE REDUNDANCY OF THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT

by Brett Stevens

We live in an age of trends. For this reason, people are constantly inventing new "movements" which claim to be different, but are at a logical level identical to the older ones. By "at a logical level," I mean comparing the structure and function or their ideas and not their surface appearance. Appearance is always misleading and geared toward concealing the fundamental sameness of things.

Currently the roiling trend on the internet is movements like the "Dark Enlightenment," "Neo-reaction" and "red pill" as well as various "third way" movements. Each proclaims itself to be a new and untested idea, knowing that its audience craves novelty. And yet, if you dig below the level of appearance and look at the structure of the arguments of each group, you find something very far from new.

However, these groups have a lot vested in not admitting this. First, they are saturated in the media of a time that demonizes certain beliefs as ignorant and bad. Second, they would lose their novelty, and thus their reason to exist as independent profit-producing entities (generally through advertising revenues from blogs). And finally, they'd take an ego hit, and who wants to do that?

UKIP IS MORE DANGEROUS TO BRITAIN THAN LABOUR EVER COULD BE

UKIP - the image is sharper than the reality.

by Jack Buckby

I know this title sounds a little far fetched for someone on the right of politics, but I absolutely believe that it is true. By no means am I suggesting that the Labour Party is good for Britain – quite the obvious actually – but what I am suggesting is that UKIP’s presence on our political landscape is adding to the problems of multiculturalism, political correctness and self hatred that have largely been implemented under Tony Blair’s Labour government.

THE CLAN vs. MODERN, STATE-DEPENDENT "INDIVIDUALISM"

by Jack Donovan

Writing for Cato Unbound, Mark Weiner, author of The Rule of the Clan, recently made several correct observations about the problem of reconciling statelessness or “small government” with American conceptions of individual liberty.

Many of my readers tend toward libertarianism, and I favor libertarian ideas by default. As a natural-born American, it’s in my DNA. You know what I’m talking about.

However, I also think it’s important to look at how the State makes this swaggering self-conception of the romantic one-against-all rugged individualist possible, and how this modern anti-clannishness actually makes the individual more dependent on the modern State.