Tag Archives: Liberalism

Aleksandr Dugin and the 4th Political Theory

Personal thoughts on the Stockholm attack

7 april

Pedestrians exiting Stockholm City via Skanstullsbron


As clouds grew across the sky, the City was filled with the sounds of sirens and the streets were clamped by a thousand pedestrians, exiting the city as in a great exodus. Trains and busses recalled, cinemas and theatre productions closed down, military guarding the gate to the Royal Palace, and the Riksdag (Parliament) sealed and entrapping our “representatives” behind their walls of power. It was not business as usual for the people of Stockholm.

On that day four people were killed and fifteen injured in an attack mirroring the Nice Attack on the 14th of June. Using a hijacked truck as his weapon of choice, an Uzbekistani ISIS-sympathizer took to the crowded shopping center of Drottninggatan, trying to run down as many as he could. However, unlike with previous cases, the perpetrator was not shot on sight, but instead managed to flee all the way up north to Märsta before getting caught by the Swedish authorities.

Despite warnings passed to the Swedish authorities from the Uzbekistani authorities via another Western country, the Swedish police could not verify the information.
Despite being caught in 2015 between the Syrian-Turkish border in an attempt to join ISIS, he was sent back to Sweden.
Despite this tragedy brought about by a crippling and maniacal immigration policy for 40 years, worsened by the Migrant Crisis, the Social Democratic party along with its youth organisation SSU has called for increased immigration, and the leading Feminist (Cultural Marxist) party F! (Feminist Initiative) is calling for open borders and dismantlement of the already pitiful Swedish Armed Forces.
Despite all the bloodshed and loss of lives, we hear calls of “love” and “understanding” and “protection of the free Open Society” that people like George Soros is so preoccupied with cultivating.

The event has shown that Stockholm is a most vulnerable place for these types of attacks and a prime target for future attacks. Its air of openness and humanitarian cosmopolitanism is not a power field dreamt up from Asimovian Science Fiction, that is capable of providing a protective shield against Terrorism or “the dark forces” as many of the secular establishment likes to term the Jihadi extremism or the anti-liberal tidal wave. Whatever the future has in store, the Liberal, welfare state Sweden is decomposing at a faster rate. Will it’s future be that of a Third-world country or a Rebirth?

The casualties have increased with one person: a 66 year old woman with involvement in the “environmental” Green Party (Miljöpartiet), that advocates for a sustainable future and the destruction of national borders. Two things that go hand in hand.


Svenska flaggan

Thou Ancient, thou Free

Against Libertarianism

Libertarian philosophy, which achieved it’s clearest development in the work of Robert Nozick, rests on the state of nature fantasy, conceived of by Rousseau, which conceives of man as a self sufficient automaton who rationally gives up a portion of his independence to benefit from the law and order of a just society. Thus, for liberals of all stripes, but especially libertarians, the relation between man and society is contractual, man serves society only insofar as it is beneficial to his own self interest. The conception of a cause greater than individual self interest is discarded, if not explicitly then implicitly. Libertarians may pay lip service to nationalism, community, religion or other forms of tradition, but this can only be considered lip service – their philosophy relegates these to a place of subservience to the self, and their existence is thus contingent on their being perceived to benefit a collective of this self interest. To make these tings contingent on individual interest is to remove all their significance, and to condemn them to an inevitable downfall among a mass of other superstitions which, in the liberal mindset, were only hindrances on the individuals growth.

Libertarianism differs from other forms of liberalism in that it is completely amoral. Other forms of liberalism leave a place for some kind of universal morality, generally based on universal compassion or the remnants of a Christian morality, libertarianism by contrast sees it’s amoral principles as steadfast due to their objective fairness within the conception of man the libertarian holds. This a priori, objective nature is what draws a lot of young intellectual types to the movement, they, like socialists, want an easy solution, a few basic principles which are applicable to all forms of social organisation, at all times, for all people. Taking these principles as sacrosanct, any societal problems which develop under them are seen as faults of he individual, protecting the objective rightness of the principles involved. But there will be losers under libertarianism, and these losers will be those who cannot make themselves valuable in the open market.

This is another problem of libertarianism, it is almost wholly an economic philosophy. It’s founders and chief propagators, Friedrich Von Hayek, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard and others, were economists who sought to build a wholly a priori economic science which was not so reliant on the whims of politicians and changing circumstances as Keynesianism was. Keynesianism necessitated politicians deciding when the time was right to stimulate the economy with tax payer money, and when the time was right to restrict growth to prevent eventual downfall. With an understandable and natural distrust for this kind of cynical authority, they sought to take this power over people’s lives out of the politicians hands and into the individuals, through their collective choices to supply and demand the market and thus dictate a fair equilibrium, and also to objective, fair, a priori principles, which could do the job politicians tried to do better than the politicians. Libertarianism is the philosophy of the modern automaton. The wholly individual, self seeking economic unit, the “ego and his own”, free to forge his destiny through the amoral pursuit of his desires.

But man is more than an economic unit. Who has ever seen the Individual that the libertarians speak of? Man is an aspect of, a reflection of, a creation of and an integral part of his community. Man is his family. Man is his religion. Man is his nation. Man is his ethnicity. Man is his people’s history. Man is NOT simply a pleasure seeking animal, man, as Aristotle says, is a social animal. And more importantly, man is a being who thirsts for something greater. In his day to day life, he chases one pleasure after another, life, as Schopenhauer says, swings like a pendulum between pain and ennui. And yet, there is an intuition within us all that there is something greater than the material, that there is a good or goods to be pursued, whose pursuit goes beyond any narrow economic interests, and whose pursuit we feel is the justification for this endless game of survival.

Finally, libertarianism, more than any other credible political philosophy, is anathema to nationalism. For the libertarian, every individual is equal and should be given an equal chance, there is no concern over mass immigration for within libertarianism this is fundamentally fair. Let as many immigrants come as they please, the best will be hired, the worst will not, that is what’s fair. This is also to suppose that outside of the government’s interference we can have a totally color blind world, where individuals escape the shackles of the ignorance of racism and other prejudices. Libertarianism is also steadfastly opposed to all forms of protectionism, and, in it’s usual a priori way sees Free Trade as objectively fair and right, regardless of national interest. What this unabashed free trade would mean is a fully global market and the removal of borders in any meaningful sense.

This is hardly surprising when one looks at the founders of libertarianism. Von Hayek, Friedman, Rothbard, Nozick and Ayn Rand were all racial jews. Kevin MacDonald in his book The Culture of Critique gives two characteristics of Jewish intellectual movements. They are generally internationalist in nature, and propose a world free of nationalism and national interests, and they rest on unproven, often unprovable a priori assumptions. This fits Marxism, psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School, and of course libertarianism. It is easy to see why it has attracted many prominent jews among it’s ranks, for it promises a world free of nations, free of irrationality, free of collective interest in any groups, and favours a society which would inevitably be run by a small economic elite, free from taxation or responsibilities to their host nation. Let no man call himself a libertarian who opposed internationalism, liberalism, atheism, modernism and the materialism and selfishness which accompany it.

The Psychology of Identity Politcs

It’s becoming all too common in Western political dialogue. More and more those engaging in debate focus intently on their position as part of a perceived social or economic grouping, they let this group define who they are, shape their outlook on the world and dictate their political opinions. Of course, if a policy is right it should make sense with the interests of society as a whole paramount, but to many in the regressive left, the interest of certain groups trumps the fruits of a successful society – a society of equals.

Browse social media and it won’t be long before you see the type of person who identifies themselves solely as part of a collective. It may be “The LGBT Community”, this person will repeatedly proclaim their sexuality, often in a vulgar manner, celebrate famous people who share their sexuality, have their body vandalised with tattoos proclaiming their sexuality, (presumably if they ever forget what sex they are attracted to they can look at the tattoo on their wrist and be reminded), they will judge every political party by what it has done or will do for the LGBT community, and will attack anyone who is even slightly skeptical of their idea of the good as a bigot and homophobe (I don’t for a second deny that many of them are).

Of course they aren’t generally focused solely on the issue of their own group, very often they will also champion the cause of other minority groups. They will cry outrage at how groups like the poor, migrants and women are treated, and celebrate the solidarity of all the oppressed, toiling masses as Trotsky called them, against the oppressor’s – generally the people who don’t belong to any of these groups, especially white, middle class males, and more generally anyone who doesn’t share their vision of utopia. Rarely do they engage these people in rational debate, instead they declare such a pursuit to be a waste of time seeing as the opponent is blinded by their racism, sexism, fear of ‘progress’, religious superstitions and bigotry. One wonders, if they are so unwilling or incapable of arguing for their worldview, do they have any good arguments for it? I don’t think it’s the case that there aren’t good arguments for their point of view they could pursue, rather they never really cared to think out their world view or why it is rationally the right one, rather, once they had accepted as being paramount their place within a certain social grouping, they adopted a world view to suit that position. Their politics is dictated by their focus on their own self.

This gets to the core of the issue. Identity politics are for people who HAVE no identity. They are a retreat into collectivism to deflect away critiques of these people as individuals, and place blame on whole groups with whom they can they rarely interact with. It’s an interesting mix of self-obsession paired with a complete lack of introspection; there is always some nebulous scapegoat, be it patriarchy or systems of oppression or “whiteness”, to blame for their own personal lack of fulfillment. Once something as important as politics and the shape of society becomes a tool for the fulfillment of people lacking an identity, using these as a way of grasping at something meaningful, rational debate and the pursuit of the ideal system of governance vanishes. Before one can make a meaningful contribution to these fields, they must throw off the superficial labels they identify with and become independent, moral and rational agents worthy of their stake in the democratic process.