Culture Trumps Economics

Richard Storey on why Europeans want Hungary, not Sweden:

Last month, the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London polled ten thousand Europeans in ten countries (see here) and found that the majority agreed with the statement, ‘All further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped.’  This is, of course, a far greater step than that taken by Trump; his immigration ban was simply on those countries the Obama administration had identified as dangerous.  I was fully expecting these figures to play some major role in the mainstream conversation on immigration but, sadly, the ball was kicked into the long grass.

The most interesting result of this poll was that those who disagreed with the statement never rose above 32% and, even then, this was a relatively high result from Spain.  On average then, the mainstream media can only hope to muster the support of around a fifth of Western populations; the majority would rather agree with policy ideas espoused by the alt-right or, more specifically, Hungary.

Hungary’s Prime Minister has taken an increasingly anti-immigrant stance and has challenged EU quotas in court.  Where the EU directs that states are expected to take in a certain number, Minister Janos Lazar says, ‘We shall not take anyone in in Hungary, we do not need immigration in Hungary.’  With its razor wire fencing and laws allowing for the physical removal of migrants as they enter, Hungary’s government seems to be the polar opposite of Sweden in many ways.  Not least of all in terms of how they are admired by Europeans at large.

It is rather poetic that the supposed free, democratic, and capitalist countries in Western Europe seem to almost enjoy having their immune systems weakened by the virus of cultural Marxism as they subsidize the mass immigration of hostile populations into their countries, while the once Communist Hungary staunchly says no.

Elsewhere in the former Eastern Bloc, traditionalism and anti-liberalism reign. Together with Catholic Bishops, the Polish President even declared Jesus Christ the eternal King of Poland and asked for His eternal blessings at a ceremony last October commemorating the 1,050th anniversary of their Christianization. A century after the Bolshevik revolution led to an intense persecution of the Orthodox Church, it is now seeing a resurgence in Russia and having a growing influence in Russian culture. Russia, in both its policies and philosophers, firmly rejects Enlightenment liberalism, which is undoubtedly one of the reasons why they are so hated by hysterical American Leftists.

An economy can be fixed, but it is incredibly difficult to remain a nation when you undergo massive demographic displacement. Culture and demographics trump economics; American conservatives refuse to understand this, but the Alt-Right does, which is why Conservatism Inc. lashes out at them with far more intensity than they ever attack the Left. And don't get me started on what has become of the libertarian movement.

Even though Hungary and Eastern Europe were occupied by a brutal communist regime in Moscow for half a century, they remain relatively homogenous, and are picking up the pieces as independent nations. Meanwhile, in Paris, Berlin, Milan, Stockholm, London, Vienna, and Brussels, there are heavily-armed, militarized troops patrolling public streets and sidewalks—because they refused to put them on the border.

Trump Gets His Hands Bloody

From the Ron Paul Liberty Report:

According to an analysis from Micah Zenko, an analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations, Trump has markedly increased U.S. drone strikes since taking office. Zenko, who reported earlier this year on the over 26,000 bombs Obama dropped in 2016, summarized the increase:

“During President Obama’s two terms in office, he approved 542 such targeted strikes in 2,920 days—one every 5.4 days. From his inauguration through today, President Trump had approved at least 36 drone strikes or raids in 45 days—one every 1.25 days.”

That’s an increase of 432 percent.

He highlights some of the attacks:

“These include three drone strikes in Yemen on January 20, 21, and 22; the January 28 Navy SEAL raid in Yemen; one reported strike in Pakistan on March 1; more than thirty strikes in Yemen on March 2 and 3; and at least one more on March 6.”

It looks like Trump, like his predecessor, is quickly falling in love with the drone program. Since Americans could care less about how many people the US government is slaughtering overseas, drones offer the President a discreet way to wage global war with little to no risk of US casualties or press coverage.

The most heartbreaking situation continues to be the utter tragedy in Yemen. With the initial help of the Obama Administration, the Saudis have been waging a ruthless and brutal war against their southern neighbor. Yemen, already the poorest country in the Middle East, is also being blockaded and starved.

Iona Craig at The Intercept has a detailed account of Trump's first major military operation, a bloody raid in Yemen that left women, children, and a US soldier dead. The war in Yemen, which the US press barely acknowledges, is a complicated and insane affair (like all US interventions and proxy wars). The Atlantic has a pretty good run down here.

Basically, since the US government likes to bend over backwards for the Saudi royal family, the US has been arming and funding Saudi Arabia so that they can bomb and starve Yemen, suppress a Shiite rebellion, and aid their Sunni fundamentalist allies. The US is supposedly fighting Sunni Islamic jihadists like Al Qaeda with drones and raids all over the world, while simultaneously helping Saudi Arabia back them in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere. This may not make sense to the average American, of course, but the Saudis get to expand their power while American merchants of death get to sell more airplanes and weapons, subsidized by the American taxpayer. Isn't empire great?

Sadly, all signs point to the Trump Administration continuing Obama's complicity in Saudi crimes and ramping up the war in Yemen. Trump also appears to be helping the Saudis reload and sell them more weapons so that they can help slaughter more Yemeni children. 

If draining the swamp doesn't include cutting off the world's largest financiers of Islamic terrorism, then it means nothing.

Almost two months in, although we have seen some positive foreign policy signs from Trump (backing off Syria so far, less hostility to Russia, and a general focus on domestic issues) the vast majority of the Empire appears to be headed in the same trajectory. For example, Trump wants to increase the military budget and upgrade nuclear weapons. But why??? We're in massive debt and have spent endless blood and treasure lighting the Middle East on fire and creating instability while our borders are left wide open. 

Trump got elected promising to secure the border and deport illegal immigrants, and so far Trump has done an excellent job enforcing existing immigration laws and setting a new tone about national sovereignty. Why not boost this effort by cutting the Saudi's welfare, pulling US troops out of Yemen, and hiring them as Border Patrol guards instead?

While Trump is far less bloodthirsty than Killary and his foreign policy rhetoric can be very isolationist, his early reliance on drone strikes suggests that he may only be interested in trimming the edges of a tree that desperately needs a chainsaw.

I am glad that Trump is listening to Senator Rand Paul when it comes to healthcare. Paul recently introduced a bill to Congress that would repeal Obamacare, free up the healthcare markets, encourages mutual-aid associations (a great, but forgotten, American tradition that I discuss in Chapter 10 of my book), and, best of all, is only 4 pages long.

But after talking to the Kentucky Senator about healthcare, Trump should call up Rand's father, Ron "I Tell the Generals What to Do" Paul, for real, America First foreign policy advice.

Hunter Wallace on Jeffrey Tucker, the AltRight, and Libertarianism

I hate to keep picking on Jeffrey Tucker, but he just makes it so easy. In response to an article Tucker wrote where he once-again punches Right and attacks the Alt-Right (how many times to do you ever see him go after the Left with such passion and hysteria?), Hunter Wallace at completely shreds Tucker and left-libertarianism in general.

The whole piece is worth reading, but I think this passage really gets to the heart of the AltRight critique of modern libertarianism.

The Alt-Right is proudly nationalist. Unlike Tucklypuff, we believe the United States is more than an economy. We’re not merely individuals or consumers. Instead, we are members of a nation which has a past, a present and a future. We believe in honoring the memory of our fathers. We believe we have duties to future generations. Essentially, we believe in a society made up of organic bonds – race, ethnicity, culture, religion – which make life rich and meaningful.

Tucklypuff sees a world of atomized individuals who exist in a globalized economy to peacefully consume products like large amounts of corn syrup and french fries. From this perspective, it is self-evident that importing millions of people from Third World countries into the United States is good because there are more people here working and spending money on iPhones which is growth. It is a merchant’s view of the world, but it masquerades as being “universal” on the basis of deductions from abstract theories. As our forebearers would have put it, it is a worldview of speculative theorists and enthusiasts which is untempered by the wisdom of historical experience.

The Alt-Right believes that “liberty” is a good, but it certainly isn’t the only good thing in life. Liberty has to be balanced against a basket of other public goods like maintaining a healthy culture. As Plato and Aristotle pointed out, “liberty” can also degenerate into license when taken to extremes. Cultural degeneracy in turn paves the road to tyranny by weakening our moral character.

The United States didn’t become a proposition nation based on nothing but liberal ideology until the mid-20th century. Previously, liberal republicanism had been tethered to whiteness, Christianity and the English language. It wasn’t until the 1990s that the American elite felt confident enough to jettison Christianity and Anglo-conformity in favor of multiculturalism.

Exactly. The atomized world that Tucker and his brand of libertarianism envisions is one of interchangeable economic units stripped of their culture, heritage, roots, and history.

Even a libertarian like myself (albeit, a reactionary one) can look on with horror at an ideology solely dedicated to the mass production of disposable products delivered at the lowest possible price by rootless mega-corporations and ugly factory farms—dressed up as "human liberty." No thanks.

'Vault 7' and Wikileaks

ZeroHedge has a great rundown on what Wikileaks is calling the largest release of confidential CIA documents in history. Dubbed "Vault 7," nearly 9,000 pages of leaks reveal details of the CIA's "global covert hacking program."

Some of the scariest highlights of these leaks include:

  • Turning electronic devices into covert microphones.
  • The CIA has essentially created its "own NSA."
  • The CIA, being a government program, has not only created this vast surveillance apparatus but it is also incredibly inefficient and negligent while running it. Once of these cyber "weapons" is loose, it can spread around the world in seconds and can be used by rival states or private hackers.
  • Since October 2014 the CIA was also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks, creating an undetectable way of assassinating targets. The CIA could either take over someone's car and cause it to crash, or crash another car into someone they wanted to murder. 
  • Remember that journalist Michael Hastings, who had been a thorn in the side of the national security state for years, died mysteriously in a car accident in late 2014 when his car sped up to over 90 mph in a residential zone and crashed, killing Hastings instantly.
  • In addition to CIA's main operating based in Langley, Virginia, a second major base in Frankfurt, Germany is used to run operations in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.
  • The CIA would be able to launch cyber attacks anywhere it wanted, including in the U.S., and the be able to blame it on a foreign power (like Russia!) or terrorist group. 

Since Wikileaks operates thanks to the bravery of whistleblowers, a possible Edward Snowden 2.0 is responsible for giving the information to Wikileaks for them to distribute and publish. Citing the ZeroHedge piece above, "In a statement to WikiLeaks the source details policy questions that they say urgently need to be debated in public, including whether the CIA's hacking capabilities exceed its mandated powers and the problem of public oversight of the agency. The source wishes to initiate a public debate about the security, creation, use, proliferation and democratic control of cyberweapons."

And this, thanks to Wikileaks, is just what we know now from people willing to come forward and say something. Who knows how much scarier of an Orwellian police state the US government and its covert intelligence agencies are actually running?

"Vault 7," thankfully, is supposedly the first in a series of leaks, so hopefully we will get to be able to shine more lights on the big, black heart of the surveillance state.

The only thing I know for sure is that with what we already know to be true about the nature of the CIA, covert operations, and the terrifying reality of the US government's surveillance powers, it needs to be burned to the ground.

In Another Desperate Attempt to Attack Trump, the Left Embraces War Criminals Bush, Albright

This is my first article for Richard Heathen's Liberty Machine News! I am very excited to be a new contributor to his great site.

In the article, I discuss the Left's new soft spot for former President George W. Bush, Madeline Albright's anger over Trump's "dangerous rhetoric," and how the Left's moralistic worldview is shaped by the development of cultural marxism. You can read it on Richard's site here.

You Should Have Voted For Ron Paul

I have always had a soft spot for the Lefties at Counterpunch. For years, they have been one of the few honest and principled Leftist publications: populist, anti-corporate, and, most importantly, anti-empire.

For example, when every millennial was Feelin the Bern, Counterpunch wasn't having any of it. They were very familiar with Bolshevik Bernie, and excoriated him for his support for US wars, Israel's slaughters in Gaza and the West Bank, the way he beg Lockheed Martin to make their death machines in Vermont, and so on. Even if Counterpunch was on board with a lot of what Sanders wanted to do domestically, his support for the empire was inexcusable. 

Even though we don't see eye to eye on anything other than ending the damn empire, it's hard for me not to admire their principled anti-war (and thus anti-Bernie) stance—especially when it became oh-so-fashionable to support the commie mass-murderer from the People's Republic of Vermont. They were also incredibly friendly towards Ron Paul's two recent presidential runs, and willing to overlook their domestic disagreements with Paul in order to form an anti-war coalition.

Which is why I was so excited to see another thoughtful Counterpunch piece about Ron Paul. Jonathan Taylor isn't buying the liberal "outrage" over Trump. Taylor reminds his liberal readers that someone like Trump, and the eight years of daily mass-murder conducted by Obama, could have been avoided if they had supported the only true peace candidate in the last century.

There were a few on the left receptive to Dr. Paul’s message. My support for him increased when I attended one of his rallies on my campus and noticed that his crowd was far more diverse than very fake news had led me to believe.  Tailoring his message to the college students in attendance, Paul explained that his highest priority was ending US military intervention abroad. He said that while he had a dim view of entitlements (no surprise there) he had no plans to suddenly cut them. In fact he said that would be cruel, or something along those lines, showing more compassion for the poor than libertarians are normally known for or than neoliberal Democrats actually have.

But the vast majority of people I talked to just couldn’t make this leap of faith. First of all, he was a Republican and obviously the Democratic party inspires such rapturous devotion that it is impossible to even contemplate not voting for whoever’s turn it this time round. Second, those entitlements.  I explained that Paul said he wasn’t going to cut them, at least not right away, but that didn’t matter because he was going to cut them right away according to the always accurate corporate news media and DailyKos. Third, and most importantly, the racist newsletters.

Some twenty years prior someone associated with then Congressman Paul had put out some newsletters with racist content in his name. Paul didn’t write them but likely approved them, despite later disavowing their content. The Democrats, fearing Paul poaching voters from the left enthused about his support for legalizing drugs and ending daily drone attacks, ran with this story as hard as they could. Before long, I was being told with authority that Ron Paul was literally a Nazi. (Fortunately people weren’t being encouraged to punch anyone the media called a Nazi yet since Ron Paul is rather old and frail). He is also in fact white, much like Hitler. So of course at the end of the day his main objective must be to kill Jews and blacks, possibly by cutting the Departments of Education and Energy. When I would protest this narrative I started getting righteous rejoinders, like “what are you, a (Jewish) Nazi? Paul is an old white guy from Texas. He may have racist thoughts in his head! The fact his policies might prevent wars that cost millions of non-white lives doesn’t change that fact, man.”

If the mainstream Left actually had principles and were not obsessed with "racism" and SJW identity politics, then perhaps Ron Paul would have just finished off his second term. Taylor imagines what it would be like:

Imagine a Paul presidency. If Syria is not subjected to a vicious, interminable civil war, with the US funding “moderate rebels” like Al Qaeda, Syrian refugees don’t pour out of the country into Europe. Nativism stays around previous levels. ISIS may still exist but as a smaller regional terror army, and European jihadi attacks would be fewer and farther between. As Gaddafi told the world, Libya was the bulwark stopping mass population movements and jihadists across the Mediterranean into Europe. If Libya had not been destabilized, the refugee crisis would have either not occurred or been significantly smaller in scope.

Trump’s campaign success was built in large part around his talk about immigration and terrorism, and to a lesser extent, American interventionism. Trump brutally and frankly expressed fears about what was happening in Europe and promised the public that only he would make sure it never happened here.  Whatever us educated types think about the complex relationship between Middle East conflict, mass Muslim immigration, and terrorism matters less than what the electorate thinks. And they think that these things are related to each other and thus the less we have of each of them the better off we will be.

Trump was only able to leverage that message into victory because of what was happening on the ground in Europe and the Mideast.  Each bone-chilling new ISIS video reinforced his message, and he invoked them consistently. Each news story about no-go zones or mass sexual assaults in Europe raised his numbers in the polls. Each major terrorist attack in Europe or the US brought his campaign back from the edge of defeat. Throw in what looked like honest questioning of the insanity of our foreign policies in the Middle East and an espousal of anti-interventionism , particularly in regards to Russia, whom Americans generally couldn’t care less about and would really prefer not to engage in a nuclear exchange with, and he started to look like the saner of the two candidates. Given Trump’s personality, this was a remarkable achievement. But at least here was someone who seemed to realize what a mess had been made by our Middle East policies, running against one of the architects of the mess herself.

So if you’re angry or scared about Trump right now, or praying for a Deep State coup that would destroy American democracy for once and for all, please remember that you had not one but two chances to put partisanship aside and join a movement to elect the most major party anti-war candidate in decades. And none of this would have happened.

But I forgot. Newsletters.

Taylor knows that Trump is America's reckoning. And the Left (other than the folks at Counterpunch and a handful of other honest liberals) only have themselves to blame.

Why Libertarians Should Support Ethno-Nationalism

The Hotep Nation, an association of Black nationalists and identitarians, has a couple of very interesting articles on their website discussing a possible alliance with the AltRight.

In "What is this Hotep and Alt-Right alliance?" Hotep Jesus sees Hotep and the AltRight "represent[ing] the alpha traits of their respective races. Hoteps represent that for blacks and Alt-Right for whites. The Left is quite feminine in their approach whereas they like to cry, complain, and protest but never actually want to do anything for themselves. Hotep and Alt-right want to do for self. They want independence."

On foreign policy, the Hotep echo the same critiques the AltRight have on our disastrous "invade the world, invite the world" policy consensus—favored by both Progressives and Neocons—of the last half century.

Hotep/Alt-Right are sick and tired of American people being pushed to the back in favor of foreign interests.

The Left is a hypocritical bunch. On one hand, they want to complain about Trump’s so-called “Muslim-ban” but on the other hand, they were quiet as a mouse when America was bombing and killing innocent people in these same Muslim countries.

The Left is complaining about a wall and not wanting to use taxpayer dollars to build it but where was the left when America was using taxpayer dollars for our exuberant defense budget? Nowhere! That’s where...

...The job market and healthcare system is stressed past its limit so why would we want to stress it even more? Black unemployment is double the nation average but blacks are fighting for these Mexican and Muslim foreigners, who will come to America and compete with them for jobs. Foreigners will put blacks on soup kitchen lines if they don’t wake up soon.

In Muslim countries, blacks are forced into slavery, especially the women. There is even proof of ethnic cleansing performed by Arabs to remove the African from the territories they hold. How come we never hear/see the far left blacks protest this? Because the media didn’t tell them to.

The Hispanics don’t like blacks but that’s one of those untold truths people don’t like to discuss. But of course, blacks have to play world hero and defend Mexicans against this wall. George Lopez just told us that Hispanics do not like blacks. I’ve seen it first hand. Just ask your Dominican friends – if they’ll tell the truth.

Hoteps want blacks to put blacks FIRST. How can you help others when you cannot even help yourself?

Alt-right sees this threat of borders being erased and American deterioration and they are sick of it too. This is also where they align with Hotep.

While race hustlers like Black Lives Matter push Black victimization, oppression, and Cultural Marxism, the Hotep preach the independence, sovereignty, and empowerment that can only come through racial and cultural separation.

The far-left blacks want to cry for white acceptance from so-called white supremacy. They want white awards at white award shows and white pity. Hotep wants nothing to do with these moral victories as you cannot build a nation upon a foundation of emotions.

Hoteps are sick of blacks complaining about white supremacy. Blacks talk about how their melanin is so magical but if this is true, then surely no melanin-recessive person should be able to stop you, right? Do you see how contradicting blacks are now?

Alt-Right is tired of hearing blacks cry about racial oppression, so naturally, they will support the Hoteps that push back on this type of behavior.

Hoteps believe that because of the internet, the many resources available to blacks, and the privilege of being an American, we no longer need to look to the so-called white man for help. We can do for our own. Is that so bad?

Besides, if America is so bad, why is everyone fighting to come here?

Hotep Jesus is also not buying the Leftist "outrage" over President Trump's pick for Education Secretary, Betsy Devos. He sees what government education and the forced integration of the last fifty years has done to Blacks, and sees the potential expansion of charter schools as a way for Blacks to take back control of their schools.

Currently, blacks are upset about the DeVos education decision but why? It’s absolutely ridiculous in the eyes of a Hotep because why would you complain about white supremacy then ask that same enemy to properly educate your kids? It makes no sense.

Currently, the teacher’s union has fought to limit the number of charter schools in a particular region because they want their fair share of federal funding. They’re money hungry basically.

Blacks, due to democratic brainwashing fear the charter schools because “segregation”. I’d argue that segregation is EXACTLY what’s needed. Blacks need to teach other blacks. How can a white woman teach a black child how to operate in America? They cannot relate AT ALL. The only time they relate is when a white teacher does the “dab”.

It would behoove blacks to support school choice so that blacks can build their own schools. Because of government regulations and restrictions, pushed by the democrats, wealthy blacks cannot even build the schools we desperately need.

Blacks need to teach blacks and whites need to teach whites. Not to say either cannot be taught by the other but a black child needs to be able to relate to the teacher. How many times has a black boy been sent to the principal’s office because some white woman can’t get through to him due to CULTURAL differences?

Blacks want white supremacy to teach their kids whereas Hotep says “Educate your own kids”. This is dependency versus independence. Get the book “Black America Inc.” to see how blacks were much more educated and wealthy under segregation – and how integration destroyed black economics.

"I’d rather align with a white racist nationalist than a black person that begs white people for awards and handouts from a different kind of racist—the far left Democrat," he concludes. "A black that begs from whites is still a slave and I want nothing to do with slavery."

Naturally, Black and/or White nationalism is met with tremendous amounts of pushback from both sides in our egalitarian, Progressive age. The Alright is called every horrible name in the book, while the Black nationalists at Hotep have been labeled as "race traitors." Unintelligent slurs are always hurled at independent and dissident Blacks like Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, or Walter Williams for their deviation from Progressive orthodoxy.

White nationalist George Lincoln Rockwell listens to Black nationalists address the NOI. Thankfully, neither of them got their way and we now live in an egalitarian paradise with no racial problems whatsoever.

But as Hotep Jesus points out in his follow-up article on an AltRight/Hotep alliance, there is precedence for Black and White nationalists coming together to discuss potentially mutually-beneficial separation and independence.

In 1960, when twelve thousands members of the Nation of Islam gathered to hear Elijah Muhammad and Malcom X speak, George Lincoln Rockwell (the founder of the American Nazi Party) attended and was intentionally placed in the front row. He listened to Muhammad and Malcolm X as they addressed the crowd. Rockwell was then invited to the podium and spoke fondly of the Nation of Islam, Black nationalism, and the benefits of working together to achieve mutual interests. The only thing each party agreed on was the desire for separation, and they spoke openly and honestly about sensitive issues of race and culture.

Shakur also notes that previous generations of Black nationalists like Marcus Garvey always spoke of independence, nationalism, and criticized groups like the NAACP. Garvey even held his own secret meeting with the Grand Wizard of the KKK in 1922 in order to help avoid integration!

Even if one is completely turned off by the idea of ethnic nationalism, this type of dialogue is far preferable to the forced integration—which always leads to conflict and resentment—of the democratic state.

From my libertarian perspective, it is hard to disagree with the AltRight, the Hotep Nation, ethno-nationalism, or any alliances they may form for mutual benefit. All ethnicities should have the right to form their own nations and develop political systems that are unique to their respective cultures. Unfortunately, we are (and have been) ruled by a Progressive elite that seeks globalist uniformity and corporate conformity; where every city is filled with the same McDonald's, Starbucks, and Wal-Mart, and racial spoils are centrally planned by a managerial elite.

While I tend to be skeptical of and very uncomfortable with state power (and thus generally opposed to forced segregation), libertarian ethics and private property could also serve as an ally to the goals of both the AltRight and Hotep. In a free society governed by private property norms, people are allowed to discriminate and associate as they please. Without the coercion of "anti-discrimination" laws, property owners are free to include or exclude anyone that they want. When we are actually allowed to freely associate—as we do when we go to church—we tend to organize around our own kin and culture. Across virtually all Christian sects in America, the overwhelming majority of churches are ethnically homogenous.

Should they really be forced to integrate in order to appease the liberal gods of egalitarianism and multiculturalism? Of course not. 

Well, actually, given the current state of the libertarian movement, I am not so sure. Libertarianism, Inc. sits firmly on the Left, and shouts down the Alt-Right (when they really should be natural allies) in the same way that liberal Blacks did to Malcom X, Garvey, and Hotep today.

That Guy T, who is more than willing to have have an open dialogue with the AltRight, is one of the few noticeable exceptions. He went out of his way to seek out Richard Spencer at the ISFLC last weekend. Leave it to the Black anarcho-capitalist libertarian to seek common ground with White nationalists and have more integrity than the Leftists who call themselves "libertarians."

Many libertarians—who unfortunately tend to view everyone in society as atomized individuals—may instinctively recoil at the thought of any type of ethnic nationalism. But as I explained in my chapter on immigration and diversity, there is absolutely nothing unlibertarian about recognizing the fact that we are (and should be!) more than just replaceable economics units in a capitalist cog, and that people form nations based on similar ethnicities, cultures, religions, and traditions. "Nations by consent," as Murray Rothbard put it.

In economics, the subjective theory of value also teaches us that prices in a market arise out of our individual preferences and not from any "inherent" value of a good. This can apply to cultural or ethnic preferences as well; if ethnic nationalists subjectively prefer to live in homogenous societies based on their own subjective preferences—even if that means they may have a lower GDP or fewer curry restaurants—then that is entirely consistent with libertarianism. Libertarianism and markets may feed the body, but our subjective preferences feed the soul.

Decentralized, ethnically homogenous societies create more peaceful and harmonious social orders, while multiculturalism and diversity tend to produce conflict, isolation, and less social trust. Blood and soil are natural loyalties, while the abstractions of liberalism require massive amounts of state power to implement. If libertarians value peaceful associations over conflict, and freedom over force, what is so wrong about ethno-nationalism and voluntary separation? We favor secession and decentralized governments for the exact same reason: people with different ideologies and interests should not be forced to live under the same systems of government.

If Rockwell, Malcolm X, and Garvey had gotten their way instead of liberal icons like LBJ and MLK—who imposed egalitarianism, welfarism, and forced integration at the barrel of a federal gun—wouldn't we be freer, more libertarian, and have far less racial conflict than we have today?

Trump Spares Media The Abuse They Deserve By Not Attending White House Correspondents' Dinner

After Trump tweeted out that he will not be attending the 2017 White House Correspondents' Dinner, the media were predictably quick to attack him.

This is unpresidential and just part of Trump's larger attack on democracy, the First Amendment, and the free press, cry the media. Doesn't he know that the Ruling Class are all supposed to rub shoulders with each other and, despite some minor public disagreements, help keep the welfare-warfare state on autopilot?

While the Left will undoubtedly spin this as Trump and his administration showing fear of the media and criticism, I see it as completely the other way around. Forget all of his press conferences where he hilariously berates the war propagandists and professional liars who call themselves "journalists;" all you need to do is watch Trump's speech at the Al Smith charity dinner in New York from last October to see why it is the press, not Trump, who should be afraid.

Notice all of the boo's and hissing. The media thoroughly loathes this man; Trump knows it, and revels in it. Keep in mind that this event took place two weeks before the election. He was not president yet, and every single poll in the country had him losing to HIllary. But Trump didn't offer some standard jokes and jabs, he went for the throat, and did it with a smile.

He had to have known that if he lost this election, his career was over. The media spent a year and a half before the election labelling him as Literally Hitler, and he spent his entire campaign attacking other candidates, elected officials, the media, major corporations, NATO, and the entire post-WW2 bipartisan order of globalism and the corporate state—and never backed down. He is a "class traitor," a billionaire who stepped over his fellow capitalists and the oligarchical class in order to preach off-the-cuff anti-PC populism to stadiums filled with Sam Francis's "Middle American Radicals."

If he lost, not only would his business, name, and reputation be destroyed, but his sons's and daughter's as well. 

And Trump is supposed to be afraid of the media? I mean, what are they going to say to him that they haven't already said a thousand times? I can just see John Oliver in his smug British accent: Drumpf is a Big, Bad, Orange Fascist, and did you know he is a racist too??? Sorry, but shaming us and calling us names doesn't work any more.

On a side note, we can actually look to a previous WHCD and thank comedian Seth Meyers for perhaps lighting a fire under Trump. While Meyers pokes fun at Trump during the 2011 WHCD, he says "Donald Trump has been saying that he will run for president as a Republican. Which is surprising, since I just assumed he was running as a joke."

The crowd explodes in laughter. And the look on Trump's face says, "Soon." Indeed.

CPAC Denounces AltRight as "Left-Wing Fascism," Kicks Out Richard Spencer

Well, it looks like libertarian conferences are just as bad as conservative ones when it comes to free speech and dissenting opinions.

Richard Spencer was kicked out of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) earlier today, while Dan Schneider, the executive director of the American Conservative Union, called Spencer and the AltRight "left-wing fascists," and (surprise, surprise) racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic.

Richard Spencer, a founder of the alt-right movement that seeks a whites-only state and that strongly backed Donald Trump for president, was expelled from the Conservative Political Action Conference after being criticized from its main stage, then giving interviews to a growing crowd of reporters.

“People want to talk to me,” Spencer told NBC News from outside the Gaylord National Harbor complex. “They don’t want to talk to these boring conservatives. They want to learn about ideas whose time has come, not whose time has passed.”

Spencer, who has frequently attended CPAC without incident, became a minor media sensation during and after the 2016 election. One of the first speeches at this year’s conference challenged the media to stop referring to the alt-right as conservative.

“There is a sinister organization that is trying to worm its way into our ranks,” said Dan Schneider, the executive director of the American Conservative Union, which runs CPAC. “We must not be deceived by [a] hateful, left-wing fascist group.”

Over seven tense, perplexing minutes, Schneider argued that the alt-right was philosophically left-wing because it departed from a conservatism in which “the individual” was sovereign.

“They hate the Constitution. They hate free markets. They hate pluralism,” Schneider said. “Fascists tend to want big government control.”

Richard Spencer at CPAC (via NPR).

Left-wing fascism? I know that some National Review neocon has made a lot of money pitching the idea that Dems R Da Real Fascists (Mussolini was a Leftist? Really?), but this argument is just so anemic. Liberalism is egalitarian, while fascism is hierarchical, authoritarian, and was a reaction to the Leftist/Communist terror that was menacing Europe in its wake during the 1920s and 1930s. Millions of people were slaughtered in the name of communism, and fascism sought to stop it from spreading.

This type of conservative thinking is the opposite of Steve Bannon's reverse Alynski-ism, and plays right into the Left's hands. Conservatives love repurposing nonsense Leftist slogans like fascist, racist, sexist, homophobe, and bigot, while claiming that these are actually...wait for it... left-wing values! Not only is this incredibly ineffective, but by doing this, it cedes the Left the intellectual and moral high ground and constantly moves the Overton Window Leftward.

Yes, we know, the Left are "intolerant" and unprincipled—this is why they win and conservatives lose.

According to Ben Jacobs at The Guardian, Spencer was removed from the conference at the behest of Breitbart Editor Raheem Kassam, who was visiting the DC-area conference from his home in London.

Kassam then essentially confirmed that he wanted Spencer out (just scroll down his Twitter feed), calling Spencer an "attention whore" and un-conservative while denouncing identity politics.

While appealing to "principles"—and therefore becoming exactly the stereotype that the AltRight mocks correctly as losers and failures who conserve nothing—Hunter Wallace proposed an alternative motivation for Kassam's anti-Spencer stance: money. While there is little to no money in a movement that actually seeks to conserve Western civilization, there is a ton of it in losing with "dignity."

Breitbart, which for years has been sort of a bridge between conservatism and the AltRight, is rumored to be headed in a more "mainstream" direction to distance itself from Milo and Bannon. If so, it is not surprising that one of its main editors has signaled so hard against Spencer, the AltRight, and espoused mainstream conservative talking points. I guess only time will tell if Breitbart starts resembling Fox News.

What is even more interesting than the future of Breitbart and the spat between Kassam and Spencer is the fact that whether or not you agree with him, Spencer can dominate a news or Twitter cycle just by appearing at an event. Before he was kicked out, he was swarmed by reporters who wanted to talk to him. After Spencer jokingly called Depeche Mode (his favorite band) "the official band of the AltRight," the band quickly distanced themselves and disavowed. This soon began trending on Twitter. Spencer also loves Richard Wagner, so I pray his gravestone is safe.

While Spencer was getting all of the attention and questions, the CPAC lineup has been predictable and dull. The only headlines (just like the libertarian conference last weekend!) that garnered any attention were those involving Spencer. But Steve Bannon also deserves a mention. Bannon (and Reince Preibus, but who really cares about him?) spoke for a little over twenty minutes. He defended his economic populism and nationalism, congratulated Trump for his hard work and for already keeping so many of his promises, and noted that the Establishment was not going to give up their stranglehold over the country without a fight.

He also vowed to "dismantle the administrative state." It was short, but Bannon definitely reaffirmed my belief that he will be one of the biggest factors in any successes of the Trump Administration, loves to fight, understands the enemy, and why libertarians should cheer him on despite his ideological differences.

The conservatives may still have the money and events, but their message is old, tired, and boring. They have conserved nothing, and I suspect that they know it. They do not lash out at Spencer and the growing popularity of the AltRight because they are actually offended by what they have to say; it is because they know the AltRight message can win, strikes at existential and metaphysical problems, poses solutions, has far younger adherents, and its success would mean the end of the Conservatism Inc. gravy train that lines the pockets of DC think-tanks while giving the Left every single thing that it wants.

The AltRight and identitarianism are ascending, and conservatism is fading away. The AltRight is waging a multigenerational struggle for the soul of Western civilization, while conservatism continues to preach atomization and tax cuts for their enemies. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?