(Speech delivered at the 12th annual meeting of the Property and Freedom
Society in
Bodrum, Turkey, on September 17, 2017)
We know the fate of the term
liberal and liberalism. It has been affixed to so many different people and
different positions that it has lost all its meaning and become an empty,
non-descript label. The same fate now increasingly also threatens the term libertarian
and libertarianism that was invented to regain some of the conceptual precision
lost with the demise of the former labels.
However, the history of modern libertarianism is still quite
young. It began in Murray Rothbard’s living room and found its first
quasi-canonical expression in his For A New Liberty. A Libertarian Manifesto, published in 1973. And
so I am still hopeful and not yet willing to give up on libertarianism as
defined and explained by Rothbard with unrivaled conceptual clarity and precision,
notwithstanding the meanwhile countless attempts of so-called libertarians to
muddy the water and misappropriate the good name of libertarianism for
something entirely different.
The
theoretical, irrefutable core of the libertarian doctrine is simple and
straightforward and I have explained it already repeatedly at this place. If
there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts or more precisely physical
clashes would be impossible. Interpersonal conflicts are always conflicts
concerning scarce things. I want to do A with a given thing and you want to do
B with the same thing. Because of such conflicts – and because we are able to
communicate and argue with each other – we seek out norms of behavior with the
purpose of avoiding these conflicts. The purpose of norms is
conflict-avoidance. If we did not want to avoid conflicts, the search for norms
of conduct would be senseless. We would simply fight and struggle.
Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, conflicts regarding
scarce resources can only be avoided if all scarce resources are assigned as
private, exclusive property to some specified individual or group of
individuals. Only then can I act independently, with my own things, from
you, with your own things, without you and me clashing.
But who owns what scarce resource as his private property and
who does not? First: Each person owns his physical body that only he and no one
else controls directly. And second, as for scarce resources that can be
controlled only indirectly (that must be appropriated with our own
nature-given, i.e., un-appropriated, body): Exclusive control (property) is
acquired by and assigned to that person, who appropriated the resource in
question first or who acquired it
through voluntary (conflict-free) exchange from its previous owner. For only
the first appropriator of a
resource (and all later owners connected to him through a chain of voluntary
exchanges) can possibly acquire and gain control over it without conflict,
i.e., peacefully. Otherwise, if exclusive control is assigned instead to latecomers, conflict is
not avoided but contrary to the very purpose of norms made unavoidable and
permanent.
Before this
audience I do not need to go into greater detail except to add this: If you
want to live in peace with other people and avoid all physical clashes and, if
such clashes do occur, seek to resolve them peacefully, then you must be an
anarchist or more precisely a private property anarchist, an anarcho-capitalist
or a proponent of a private law society.
And by implication, then, and again without much further ado:
Someone, anyone, is not a libertarian or merely a fake libertarian who
affirms and advocates one or more of the following: the necessity of a State,
any State, of ‘public’ (State) property and of taxes in order to live in peace;
or the existence and justifiability of any so-called “human rights” or “civil
rights” other than private property rights, such as “women rights,” “gay
rights,” “minority rights,” the “right” not to be discriminated against, the
“right” to free and unrestricted immigration, the “right” to a guaranteed
minimum income or to free health care, or the “right” to be free of unpleasant
speech and thought. The proponents of any of this may call themselves whatever
they want, and as libertarians we may well cooperate with them, insofar as such
a cooperation offers the promise of bringing us closer to our ultimate goal,
but they are not libertarians or only fake libertarians.
Now, “a funny thing happened on the way to the forum.” While
Rothbard and I, following in his footsteps, never went astray from these
theoretically derived core beliefs, not just non-libertarians but
in particular also fake libertarians, i.e., people claiming (falsely) to be libertarians, and
even many possibly honest yet dim-witted libertarians have selected and
vilified us as their favorite betes noires and incarnates of evil. Rothbard, the spiritus rector of modern
libertarianism, has been branded by this so-called “anti-fascist” crowd as a
reactionary, a racist, a sexist, an authoritarian, an elitist, a xenophobe, a
fascist and, to top it all off, a self-hating Jewish Nazi. And I have inherited
all of these honorary titles, plus a few more (except for the Jewish stuff). So
what funny thing has happened here?
Trying to
develop an answer to this question brings me to the topic of this speech: the
relationship between libertarianism and the alternative right or “Alt-Right,”
which has gained national and international notoriety after Hillary Clinton,
during the last presidential election campaign, identified it as one of the
inspirational sources behind the “basket of deplorables” rooting for Trump (and
whose leadership, to its credit, after Trump’s election victory, quickly broke
with Trump when he turned out to be just another presidential warmonger).
The Alt-Right movement is essentially the successor of the
paleo-conservative movement that came to prominence in the early 1990’s, with
columnist and best-selling author Patrick Buchanan as its best-known
representative. It went somewhat dormant by the late 1990’s, and it has
recently, in light of the steadily growing damage done to America and its
reputation by the successive Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama
administrations, reemerged more vigorous than before under the new label of
the Alt-Right. Many of the leading lights associated with the Alt-Right have
appeared here at our meetings in the course of the years. Paul Gottfried, who
first coined the term, Peter Brimelow, Richard Lynn, Jared Taylor, John
Derbyshire, Steve Sailer and Richard Spencer. As well, Sean Gabb’s name and
mine are regularly mentioned in connection with the Alt-Right, and my work has
been linked also with the closely related neo-reactionary movement inspired by
Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug) and his now defunct blog Unqualified Reservations. In sum, these personal
relations and associations have earned me several honorable mentions by
America’s most famous smear-and-defamation league, the SPLC (aka Soviet Poverty Lie
Center).
Now: How about the relationship between libertarianism and the
Alt-Right and my reasons for inviting leading representatives of the Alt-Right
to meetings with libertarians? Libertarians are united by the irrefutable
theoretical core beliefs mentioned at the outset. They are clear about the goal
that they want to achieve. But the libertarian doctrine does not imply much if
anything concerning these questions: First, how to maintain a libertarian order once
achieved. And second, how to attain a libertarian order from a non-libertarian
starting point, which requires a) that one must correctly describe this
starting point and b) correctly identify the obstacles posed in the way of
one’s libertarian ends by this very starting point. To answer these questions,
in addition to theory, you also need some knowledge of human psychology and
sociology or at least a modicum of common sense. Yet many libertarians and fake
libertarians are plain ignorant of human psychology and sociology or even
devoid of any common sense. They blindly accept, against all empirical
evidence, an egalitarian, blank-slate view of human nature, of all people and
all societies and cultures being essentially equal and interchangeable.
While much of contemporary libertarianism can be characterized,
then, as theory and theorists without psychology and sociology, much or even
most of the Alt-Right can be described, in contrast, as psychology and
sociology without theory. Alt-Righters are not united by a commonly held
theory, and there exists nothing even faintly resembling a canonical text
defining its meaning. Rather, the Alt-Right is essentially united in its
description of the contemporary world, and in particular the US and the
so-called Western World, and the identification and diagnosis of its social
pathologies. In fact, it has been correctly noted that the Alt-Right is far
more united by what it is against than what it is for. It is against, and
indeed it hates with a passion, the elites in control of the State, the MSM and
academia. Why? Because they all promote social degeneracy and pathology. Thus,
they promote, and the Alt-Right vigorously opposes, egalitarianism, affirmative
action (aka“non-discrimination”),
multiculturalism, and “free” mass immigration as a means of bringing
multiculturalism about. As well, the Alt-Right loathes everything smacking of
cultural Marxism or Gramsciism and all “political correctness” and,
strategically wise, it shrugs off, without any apology whatsoever, all
accusations of being racist, sexist, elitist, supremacist, homophobe, xenophobe,
etc., etc. And the Alt-Right also laughs off as hopelessly naïve the
programmatic motto of so-called libertarians such as the Students for Liberty (which I have
termed the “Stupids for Liberty” and my young German friend Andre Lichtschlag
as “Liberallala-Libertarians”) of “Peace, Love, and Liberty,” appropriately
translated into German by Lichtschlag as “Friede, Freude, Eierkuchen.” In stark
contrast to this, Alt-Righters insist that life is also about strife, hate,
struggle and fight, not just between individuals but also among various groups
of people acting in concert. “Millennial Woes” (Colin Robertson) has thus aptly summarized the Alt-Right:
“Equality
is bullshit. Hierarchy is essential. The races are different. The sexes are
different. Morality matters and degeneracy is real. All cultures are not equal
and we are not obligated to think they are. Man is a fallen creature and there
is more to life than hollow materialism. Finally, the white race matters, and
civilization is precious. This is the Alt-Right.”
Absent any
unifying theory, however, there is far less agreement among the Alt-Right about
the goal that it ultimately wants to achieve. Many of its leading lights have distinctly
libertarian leanings, most notably those that have come here (which, of course,
was the reason for having invited them here), even if they are not 100%-ers and
would not identify themselves as such. All Alt-Righters that have appeared
here, for instance, have been familiar with Rothbard and his work, all the
while the most recent presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party had never
even heard of Rothbard’s name, and all of them, to the best of my knowledge,
were outspoken supporters of Ron Paul during his primary campaign for the
Republican Party’s nomination as presidential candidate, all the while many
self-proclaimed libertarians attacked and tried to vilify Ron Paul for his
supposedly (you already know what’s coming by now) “racist” views.
However, several of the Alt-Right’s leaders and many of its rank
and file followers have also endorsed views incompatible with libertarianism.
As Buchanan before and Trump now, they are adamant about complementing a policy
of restrictive, highly selective and discriminating immigration (which is
entirely compatible with libertarianism and its desideratum of freedom of
association and opposition to forced integration) with a strident policy of
restricted trade, economic protectionism and protective tariffs (which is
antithetical to libertarianism and inimical to human prosperity). (Let me
hasten to add here that, despite my misgivings about his “economics,” I still
consider Pat Buchanan a great man.)
Others
strayed even further afield, such as Richard Spencer, who first popularized the
term Alt-Right. In the meantime, owing to several recent publicity stunts,
which have gained him some degree of notoriety in the US, Spencer has laid
claim to the rank of the maximum leader of a supposedly mighty unified movement
(an endeavor, by the way, that has been ridiculed by Taki Theodoracopulos, a
veteran champion of the paleo-conservative-turned-Alt-Right movement and
Spencer’s former employer). When Spencer appeared here, several years ago,
he still exhibited strong libertarian leanings. Unfortunately, however, this
has changed and Spencer now denounces, without any qualification whatsoever,
all libertarians and everything libertarian and has gone so far as to even put
up with socialism, as long as it is socialism of and for only white people.
What horrifying disappointment!
Given the
lack of any theoretical foundation, this split of the Alt-Right movement into
rival factions can hardly be considered a surprise. Yet this fact should not
mislead one to dismiss it, because the Alt-Right has brought out many insights
that are of central importance in approaching an answer to the two previously
mentioned questions unanswered by libertarian theory: of how to maintain a
libertarian social order and how to get to such an order from the current,
decidedly un-libertarian status quo. The Alt-Right did not discover these
insights. They had been established long before and indeed, in large parts they
are no more than common sense. But in recent times such insights have been
buried under mountains of egalitarian, leftist propaganda and the Alt-Right
must be credited for having brought them back to light.
To illustrate
the importance of such insights, let me take the first unanswered question
first.
Many libertarians hold the view that all that is needed to
maintain a libertarian social order is the strict enforcement of the
non-aggression principle (NAP). Otherwise, as long as one abstains from
aggression, according to their view, the principle of “live and let
live” should hold. Yet surely, while this “live and let live” sounds
appealing to adolescents in rebellion against parental authority and all social
convention and control (and many youngsters have been initially attracted to
libertarianism believing that this “live and let live” is the essence of
libertarianism), and while the principle does indeed hold and apply for people
living far apart and dealing with each other only indirectly and from afar, it
does not hold and apply, or
rather it is insufficient, when it comes to people living in close proximity to each
other, as neighbors and cohabitants of the same community.
A simple
example suffices to make the point. Assume a new next-door neighbor. This
neighbor does not aggress against you or your property in any way, but he is a
“bad” neighbor. He is littering on his own neighboring property, turning it
into a garbage heap; in the open, for you to see, he engages in ritual animal
slaughter, he turns his house into a “Freudenhaus,” a bordello, with clients
coming and going all day and all night long; he never offers a helping hand and
never keeps any promise that he has made; or he cannot or else he refuses to
speak to you in your own language. Etc., etc.. Your life is turned into a
nightmare. Yet you may not use violence against him, because he has not
aggressed against you. What can you do? You can shun and ostracize him. But
your neighbor does not care, and in any case you alone thus ‘punishing’ him
makes little if any difference to him. You have to have the communal respect
and authority, or you must turn to someone who does, to persuade and convince
everyone or at least most of the members of your community to do likewise and
make the bad neighbor a social outcast, so as to exert enough pressure on
him to sell his property and leave. (So much for the libertarians who, in
addition to their “live and let live” ideal also hail the motto “respect no
authority!”)
The lesson?
The peaceful cohabitation of neighbors and of people in regular direct contact
with each other on some territory – a tranquil, convivial social order –
requires also a commonality of culture: of language, religion, custom and
convention. There can be peaceful co-existence of different cultures on
distant, physically separated territories, but multi-culturalism, cultural
heterogeneity, cannot exist in one and the same place and territory without
leading to diminishing social trust, increased tension, and ultimately the call
for a “strong man” and the destruction of anything resembling a libertarian
social order.
And moreover: Just as a libertarian order must always be on
guard against “bad” (even if non-aggressive) neighbors by means of social
ostracism, i.e., by a common “you are not welcome here” culture, so, and indeed even more vigilantly
so, must it be guarded against neighbors who openly advocate communism,
socialism, syndicalism or democracy in any shape or form. They, in thereby
posing an open threat to all private property and property owners, must not
only be shunned, but they must, to use a by now somewhat famous Hoppe-meme, be
“physically removed,” if need be by violence, and forced to leave for other
pastures. Not to do so inevitably leads to – well, communism, socialism,
syndicalism or democracy and hence, the very opposite of a libertarian social
order.
With these “rightist” or as I would say, plain commonsensical
insights in mind I turn now to the more challenging question of how to move
from here, the status quo, to there. And for this it might be instructive to first
briefly consider the answer given by the liberallala, the
peace-love-and-liberty, the Friede-Freude-Eierkuchen or the capitalism-is-love
libertarians. It reveals the same fundamental egalitarianism, if in a slightly
different form, as that exhibited also by the live-and-let-live libertarians. These,
as I have just tried to show, define what we may call the “bad neighbor
problem” – and what is merely a short-hand for the general problem posed by the
co-existence of distinctly different, alien, mutually disturbing, annoying,
strange or hostile cultures – simply out of existence. And indeed, if you
assume, against all empirical evidence, that all people, everywhere, are
essentially the same, then, by definition, no such thing as a “bad neighbor
problem” exists.
The same egalitarian, or as the liberallala-libertarians
themselves prefer call it, “humanitarian” spirit also comes to bear in their
answer to the question of a libertarian strategy. In a nutshell, their advice is this: be
nice and talk to everyone – and then, in the long run, the better libertarian
arguments will win out. To illustrate, take my former-friend-turned-foe Jeffrey
Tucker’s five “Don’ts When Talking Liberty.” They are “1) don’t be belligerent; 2)
don’t presume hatred of liberty; 3) don’t presume different goals; 4) don’t
presume ignorance; 5) don’t regard anyone as an enemy.” Now, quite apart from
the fact that Tucker does not seem to follow his own advice in his belligerent
condemnation of the entire Alt-Right as liberty-hating fascists, I find his
exhortations truly astounding. They may be good advice vis-à-vis people just
sprung up from nowhere, without any traceable history whatsoever, but vis-à-vis
real people with a recorded history they strike me as hopelessly naïve,
unrealistic, and outright counterproductive in the pursuit of libertarian ends.
For I (and I assume everyone else here) know of and have met many people in my
life who are ignorant, who do have different,
un-libertarian goals, and who do hate liberty as understood by libertarians – and why in
the world should I notregard such people as fools or enemies? And why should I not hate and not be belligerent
vis-a-vis my enemies?
As a
libertarian strategy, then, Tucker’s advice must be considered simply a bad
joke. But surely it is good advice if one seeks entry into the State as some
sort of “libertarian” advisor, and this may well explain the enthusiasm with
which Tucker’s “humanitarian” libertarianism has been embraced by the entire
liberallala-libertarian crowd.
Outside egalitarian phantasy lands, however, in the real world,
libertarians must above all be realistic and recognize from the outset, as the Alt-Right does, the
inequality not just of individuals but also of different cultures as an
ineradicable datum of the human existence. We must further recognize that
there exist plenty of enemies of liberty as defined by libertarianism and that
they, not we, are in charge of worldly affairs; that in many parts of the
contemporary world their control of the populace is so complete that the ideas
of liberty and of a libertarian social order are practically unheard of or
considered unthinkable (except as some idle intellectual play or mental
gymnastics by a few “exotic” individuals); and that it is essentially only in
the West, in the countries of Western and Central Europe and the lands settled
by its people, that the idea of liberty is so deeply rooted that these enemies
still can be openly challenged. And confining our strategic considerations here
only to the West, then, we can identify, pretty much as the Alt-Right has
effectively done, these actors and agencies as our principal enemies.
They are,
first and foremost, the ruling elites in control of the State apparatus and in
particular the “Deep State” or the so-called “Cathedral” of the military, the
secret services, the central banks and the supreme courts. As well, they
include the leaders of the military-industrial complex, i.e., of nominally
private firms that owe their very existence to the State as the exclusive or
dominant buyer of their products, and they also include the leaders of the big
commercial banks, which owe their privilege of creating money and credit out of
thin air to the existence of the central bank and its role as a “lender of last
resort.” They together, then, State, Big-Business and Big-Banking, form an
extremely powerful even if tiny “mutual admiration society,” jointly ripping
off the huge mass of tax-payers and living it up big time at their expense.
The second,
much larger group of enemies is made up of the intellectuals, educators and
“educrats,” from the highest levels of academia down to the level of elementary
schools and kindergartens. Funded almost exclusively, whether directly or
indirectly, by the State, they, in their overwhelming majority, have become the
soft tools and willing executioners in the hands of the ruling elite and its
designs for absolute power and total control. And thirdly there are the
journalists of the MSM, as the docile products of the system of “public
education,” and the craven recipients and popularizers of government
“information.”
Equally important in the development of a libertarian strategy
then is the immediately following next question: who are the victims? The standard
libertarian answer to this is: the tax-payers as opposed to the tax-consumers. Yet while this is
essentially correct, it is at best only part of the answer, and libertarians
could learn something in this respect from the Alt-Right: because apart from
the narrowly economic aspect there is also a wider cultural aspect that must be
taken into account in identifying the victims.
In order to expand and increase its power, the ruling elites
have been conducting for many decades what Pat Buchanan has identified as a
systematic “culture war,” aimed at a trans-valuation of all values and the
destruction of all natural, or if you will “organic” social bonds and
institutions such as families, communities, ethnic groups and genealogically
related nations, so as to create an increasingly atomized populace, whose only
shared characteristic and unifying bond is its common existential
dependency on the State. The first step in this direction, taken already half a
century or even longer ago, was the introduction of “public welfare” and
“social security.” Thereby, the underclass and the elderly were turned into
State-dependents and the value and importance of family and community was
correspondingly diminished and weakened. More recently, further-reaching steps
in this direction have proliferated. A new “victimology” has been proclaimed
and promoted. Women, and in particular single mothers, Blacks, Browns, Latinos,
homosexuals, lesbians, bi- and transsexuals have been awarded “victim” status
and accorded legal privileges through non-discrimination or affirmative action
decrees. As well, most recently such privileges have been expanded also to
foreign-national immigrants, whether legal or illegal, insofar as they fall
into one of the just mentioned categories or are members of non-Christian
religions such as Islam, for instance. The result? Not only has the earlier
mentioned “bad neighbor problem” not been avoided or solved, but systematically
promoted and intensified instead. Cultural homogeneity has been destroyed, and
the freedom of association, and the voluntary physical segregation and
separation of different people, communities, cultures and traditions has been
replaced by an all-pervasive system of forced social integration. Moreover,
each mentioned “victim” group has thus been pitted against every other, and all
of them have been pitted against white, heterosexual, Christian males and in
particular those married and with children as the only remaining, legally
un-protected group of alleged “victimizers.” Hence, as the result of the
trans-valuation of all values promoted by the ruling elites, the world has been
turned upside down. The institution of a family household with father, mother
and their children that has formed the basis of Western civilization, as the
freest, most industrious, ingenious and all-around accomplished civilization
known to mankind, i.e., the very institution and people that has done most good
in human history, has been officially stigmatized and vilified as the source of
all social ills and made the most heavily disadvantaged, even persecuted group
by the enemy elites’ relentless policy of divide et impera.
Accordingly, given the present constellation of affairs, then,
any promising libertarian strategy must, very much as the Alt-Right has
recognized, first and foremost be tailored and addressed to this group of the
most severely victimized people. White married Christian couples with children,
in particular if they belong also to the class of tax-payers (rather than
tax-consumers), and everyone most closely resembling or aspiring to this
standard form of social order and organization can be realistically expected to
be the most receptive audience of the libertarian message (whereas the least
support should be expected to come from the legally most “protected” groups
such as, for instance, single Black Muslim mothers on welfare).
Given this constellation of perpetrator-enemies vs. victims in
the contemporary West, then, I can now come to the final task of trying to
outline a realistic libertarian strategy for change. The specifics of which
will have to be prefaced by two general considerations. For one, given
that the class of intellectuals from the tops of academia to the
opinion-molding journalists in the MSM are funded by and firmly tied into the
ruling system, i.e., that they are a part of the problem, they also should not
be expected to play a major if any role in the problem’s solution. Accordingly, the
so-called Hayekian strategy for social change, that envisions the spread of
correct libertarian ideas starting at the top, with the leading philosophers,
and then trickling down from there to journalists and finally to the great
unwashed masses, must be considered fundamentally unrealistic. Instead, any realistic
libertarian strategy for change must be a populist strategy. That is,
libertarians must short-circuit the dominant intellectual elites and address
the masses directly to arouse their indignation and contempt for the ruling
elites.
And secondly,
all the while the main addressees of a populist libertarian message must be
indeed the just mentioned groups of dispossessed and disenfranchised native
whites, I believe it to be a serious strategic error to make “whiteness” the
exclusive criterion on which to base one’s strategic decisions, as some strands
of the Alt-Right have suggested to do. After all, it is above all white men
that make up the ruling elite and that have foisted the current mess upon us.
True enough, the various protected “minorities” mentioned before take full
advantage of the legal privileges they have been accorded and they have become
increasingly emboldened to ask for ever more “protection,” but none of them and
all of them together did not and do not possess the intellectual prowess that
would have made this outcome possible, if it were not for the instrumental
help that they received and are receiving from white men.
Now, taking
our cues from the Buchanan-, the Paul- and the Trump-movement, on to the
specifics of a populist strategy for libertarian change, in no specific order
except for the very first one, which has currently assumed the greatest urgency
in the public mind.
One: Stop mass immigration. The waves of immigrants currently flooding the Western world
have burdened it with hordes of welfare parasites, brought in terrorists,
increased crime, led to the proliferation of no-go areas and resulted in
countless “bad neighbors” who, based on their alien upbringing, culture and
traditions, lack any understanding and appreciation of liberty and are bound to
become mindless future supporters of welfare-Statism.
No one is against immigration and immigrants per se. But immigration must
be by invitation only. All immigrants must be productive people and hence, be
barred from all domestic welfare payments. To ensure this, they or their
inviting party must place a bond with the community in which they are to
settle, and which is to be forfeited and lead to the immigrant’s deportation
should he ever become a public burden. As well, every immigrant, inviting party
or employer should not only pay for the immigrant’s upkeep or salary, but must
also pay the residential community for the additional wear and tear of its
public facilities associated with the immigrant’s presence, so as to avoid the socialization
of any and all costs incurred with his settlement. Moreover, even before his
admission, every potential immigrant invitee must be carefully screened and
tested not only for his productivity but also for cultural affinity (or “good
neighborliness”) – with the empirically predictable result of mostly, but by no
means exclusively, western-white immigrant-candidates. And any known communist
or socialist, of any color, denomination or country of origin, must be barred
from permanent settlement – unless, that is, the community where the potential
immigrant wants to settle officially sanctions the looting of its residents’
property by new, foreign arrivals, which is not very likely to say the least
(even within already existing ‘commie’ communes).
(Brief message to all open-border and liberallala libertarians,
who will surely label this, you guessed it, “fascist”: In a fully privatized
libertarian order there exists no such thing as a right to free immigration.
Private property implies borders and the owner’s right to exclude at will. And
“public property” has borders as well. It is not unowned. It is the property of
domestic tax-payers and most definitely not the property of foreigners. And
while it is true that the State is a criminal organization and that to entrust
it with the task of border control will inevitably result in numerous
injustices to both domestic residents and foreigners, it is also true that the
State does
something also
when it decides not to do anything about border control and that, under the
present circumstances, doing nothing at all in this regard will lead to even
more and much graver injustices, in particular to the domestic citizenry.)
Two: Stop attacking, killing and bombing people in foreign countries. A main cause, even if
by no means the only one, for the current invasion of Western countries by
hordes of alien immigrants, are the wars initiated and conducted in the Middle
East and elsewhere by the US’ ruling elites and their subordinate Western puppet-elites.
As well, the by now seemingly ‘normal’ and ubiquitous terrorist attacks in the
name of Islam across the Western world are in large measure the “blow-back” of
these wars and the ensuing chaos throughout the Middle East and Northern
Africa. There should be no hesitation to call these Western rulers what they
are: murderers or accessories to mass murder. We must demand, and cry out loud
instead for a foreign policy of strict non-interventionism. Withdraw from all
international and supranational organizations such as the UN, NATO and the EU
that intricate one country into the domestic affairs of another. Stop all
government-to-government aid and prohibit all weapon sales to foreign States.
Let it be America First!, England First!, Germany First!, Italy First!, and so on, i.e., each
country trading with one another and no one interfering in anyone else’s
domestic affairs.
Three: Defund the ruling elites and its intellectual bodyguards. Expose and widely
publicize the lavish salaries, perks, pensions, side-deals, bribes and hush
monies received by the ruling elites: by the higher-ups in government and
governmental bureaucracies, of supreme courts, central banks, secret services
and spy agencies, by politicians, parliamentarians, party leaders, political advisors
and consultants, by crony-capitalists, “public educrats,” university
presidents, provosts and academic “stars.” Drive home the point that all their
shining glory and luxury is funded by money extorted from tax-payers, and
consequently urge that any and all taxes be slashed: income taxes, property
taxes, sales taxes, inheritance taxes, etc., etc..
Four: End the FED and all central banks. The second source of
funding for the ruling elites, besides the money extorted from the public in
the form of taxes, comes from the central banks. Central banks are allowed to
create paper money out of thin air. This reduces the purchasing power of money
and destroys the savings of average people. It does not and cannot make society
as a whole richer, but it redistributes income and wealth within society. The
earliest receivers of the newly created money, i.e., the ruling elites, are
thereby made richer and the later and latest receivers, i.e., the average
citizen, are made poorer. The central bank’s manipulation of interest rates is
the cause of boom-bust cycles. The central bank permits the accumulation of
ever greater “public debt” that is shifted as a burden onto unknown future
taxpayers or is simply inflated away. And as the facilitator of public debt,
the central banks are also the facilitators of wars. This monstrosity must end
and be replaced by a system of free, competitive banking built on the
foundation of a genuine commodity money such as gold or silver.
Five: Abolish all ‘affirmative action’ and ‘non-discrimination’ laws and
regulations. All such edicts are blatant violations of the principle of the
equality before the law that, at least in the West, is intuitively sensed and
recognized as a fundamental principle of justice. As private property owners,
people must be free to associate or disassociate with others: to include or
exclude, to integrate or segregate, to join or separate, to unify and
incorporate or to disunite, exit and secede. Close all university departments
for Black-, Latino-, Women-, Gender-, Queer-Studies, etc., etc., as
incompatible with science and dismiss its faculties as intellectual imposters
or scoundrels. As well, demand that all affirmative action commissars,
diversity and human resources officers, from universities on down to schools and
kindergartens, be thrown out onto the street and be forced to learn some useful
trade.
Six: Crush the “Anti-Fascist” Mob. The trans-valuation of all values
throughout the West: the invention of ever more “victim groups,” the spread of
“affirmative action” programs and the relentless promotion of “political
correctness,” has led to the rise of an “anti-fascist” mob. Tacitly supported
and indirectly funded by the ruling elites, this self-described mob of “social
justice warriors” has taken upon itself the task of escalating the fight
against “white privilege” through deliberate acts of terror directed against
anyone and anything deemed “racist,” “right-wing,” “fascist,” “reactionary,”
“incorrigible” or “unreconstructed.” Such “enemies of progress” are physically
assaulted by the “anti-fascist” mob, their cars are burnt down, their
properties vandalized, and their employers threatened to dismiss them and ruin
their careers – all the while the police are ordered by the powers that be to
“stand down” and not to investigate the crimes committed or prosecute and
punish the criminals. In view of this outrage, public anger must be aroused and
there must be clamoring, far and wide, for the police to be unleashed and this
mob be beaten into submission.
(Query for liberallala-libertarians and the Stupids for Liberty,
who are sure to object to this demand on the ground that the police asked to
crush the “anti-fascist” mob are State-police: Do you also object, on the same grounds, that the police
arrest murderers or rapists? Aren’t these legitimate tasks performed also in
any libertarian order by private police? And if the police are not to do anything about
this mob, isn’t it o.k. then that the target of its attacks, the “racist
Right,” should take the task upon itself of giving the “social justice
warriors” a bloody nose?)
Seven: Crush the street criminals and gangs. In dispensing with the
principle of the equality before the law and awarding all sorts of group
privileges (except to the one group of married white Christian men and their
families) the ruling elites have also dispensed with the principle of equal
punishment for equal crime. Some State-favored groups are handed more lenient
punishment for the same crime than others, and some especially favored groups
are simply let run wild and go practically unpunished at all, thus actually and
effectively promoting crime. As well, no-go areas have been permitted to
develop where any effort at law-enforcement has essentially ceased to exist and
where violent thugs and street gangs have taken over. In view of this, public
furor must be provoked and it be unmistakably demanded that the police
crack-down quick and hard on any robber, mugger, rapist and murderer, and
ruthlessly clear all current no-go areas of violent gang-rule. Needless to say
that this policy should be colorblind, but if it happens to be, as it in fact
does, that most street criminals or gang members are young Black or Latino
males or, in Europe, young immigrant males from Africa, the Middle East, the
Balkans or Eastern Europe, then so be it and such human specimen then should be
the ones that most prominently get their noses bloodied. And needless to say
also that in order to defend against crime, whether ordinary street crime or
acts of terrorism, all prohibitions against the ownership of guns by upstanding
citizen should be abolished.
Eight: Get rid of all welfare parasites and bums. To cement their own
position, the ruling class has put the underclass on the dole and thus made it
a most reliable source of public support. Allegedly to help people rise and
move up from the underclass to become self-supporting actors, the real – and
actually intended – effect of the State’s so-called “social policy” is the
exact opposite. It has rendered a person’s underclass status more permanent and
made the underclass steadily grow (and with this also the number of tax-funded
social workers and therapists assigned to “help and assist” it). For, in
accordance with inexorable economic law, every subsidy awarded on account of
some alleged need or deficiency produces more, not less, of the problem that it
is supposed to alleviate or eliminate. Thus, the root cause of a person’s
underclass status: his low impulse control and high time preference, i.e., his
uncontrolled desire for immediate gratification, and the various attendant
manifestations of this cause, such as unemployment, poverty, alcoholism, drug
abuse, domestic violence, divorce, female headed households, out-of-wedlock
births, rotating shack-up male companions, child abuse, negligence and petty
crime, is and are not alleviated or eliminated but systematically strengthened
and promoted. Instead of continuing and expanding this increasingly unsightly
social disaster, then, it should be abolished and be loudly demanded that one
take heed of the biblical exhortation that he who can, but will not work, also
shall not eat, and that he who truly cannot work, due to severe mental or
physical deficiencies, be taken care of by family, community and voluntary
charity.
Nine: Get the State out of education. Most, if not all, social pathologies
plaguing the contemporary West have their common root in the institution of
“public education.” When the first steps were taken, more than two centuries
ago, in Prussia, to supplement and ultimately replace a formerly completely
private system of education with a universal system of compulsory “public
education,” the time spent in State-run schools did in most cases not exceed
four years. Today, throughout the entire Western world, the time spent in institutions
of “public education” is, at a minimum, around ten years, and in many cases,
and increasingly so, twenty or even thirty years. That is, a large or even the
largest part of time during the most formative period in a person’s life is
spent in State-funded and State-supervised institutions, whose primary purpose
from the very beginning it was not to raise an enlightened public, but to train “good
soldiers” and “good public servants:” not independent and mature or “mündige
Bürger,” but subordinate and servile “Staats-Bürger.” The result? The
indoctrination has worked: the longer the time a person has spent within the
system of public education, the more he is committed to leftist-egalitarian
ideas and has swallowed and wholeheartedly internalized the official doctrine
and agenda of “political correctness.” Indeed, in particular among social
science teachers and professors, people not counting themselves as part of the Left have practically
ceased to exist. Consequently, it must be demanded that the control of schools
and universities be wrest away from the central State and, in a first step, be
returned to regional or better still local and locally funded authorities, and
ultimately be completely privatized, so as to replace a system of compulsory uniformity
and conformity with a system of decentralized education that reflects the
natural variation, multiplicity and diversity of human talents and interests.
Ten: Don’t put your trust in politics or political parties. Just as academia and the academic
world cannot be expected to play any significant role in a libertarian strategy
for social change, so with politics and political parties – after all, it is
the ultimate goal of libertarianism to put an end to all politics, and to
subject all interpersonal relations and conflicts to private law and civil law
procedures. To be sure, under present, all-pervasively politicized conditions
an involvement in politics and party politics cannot be entirely avoided.
However, in any such involvement one must be keenly aware of and guard against
the corrupting influence of power and the lure of money and perks that comes
with it. And to minimize this risk and temptation, it is advisable to
concentrate one’s efforts on the level of regional and local rather than
national politics, and there to promote a radical agenda of decentralization:
of nullification and peaceful separation, segregation and secession. Most
importantly, however, we must take heed of Ludwig von Mises’ life-motto: Do not
give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it. That is, we must
speak out whenever and wherever, whether in formal or informal gatherings,
against anyone affronting us with by now only all-too-familiar “politically
correct” drivel and left-egalitarian balderdash and unmistakably say: “No. Hell
no. You must be kidding.” In the meantime, given the almost complete
mind-control exercised by the ruling elites, academia and the MSM, it already
requires a good portion of courage to do so. But if we are not brave enough to
do so now and thus set an example for others to follow, matters will become
increasingly worse and more dangerous in the future, and we, Western
civilization and the Western ideas of freedom and liberty will be wiped out and
vanish.