"Reactionary" Right

Economics Political Theory
1

I was wondering what you guys think about something. Out in the ol’ Internetz, I’ve noticed a lot of former anarcho-capitalists splinter off into “reactionary right” thinking. Their primary influences seem to be some combination of Mencius Moldbug (some guy who runs a blog), George Fitzhugh a Confederate slavery apologist, Julius Evola, some bits and pieces of Friedrich Nietzsche, and apparently Ragnar Redbeard (the guy who wrote Might is Right).

This site would be typical of the stuff I’m talking about: therightstuff.biz

I guess their primary concern is societal/civilizational decline. They seem to think that feminism and liberalization (libertarianism included under that umbrella) are the biggest culprits. I think there is a lot to their criticism of feminism and I think traditional social mores do have a lot of pull to them. But I don’t see tradition as necessarily something to be respected. If you think that Aztec human sacrifice was wrong, that would be an appeal to reason or some other type of moral reasoning over an appeal to tradition. Tradition ought to be respected if it’s a good tradition and discarded if it’s a bad one, which is another way of saying that one action ought to be tolerated if it’s legitimate and not tolerated if it’s illegitimate. I also don’t think Nietzsche would too highly value anti-diversity in its polar opposite, complete conformity. I don’t believe he would be one to think of the individual as a drop of water in the collective stream, but maybe I missed that passage. I also don’t agree with their systematic analysis of human action in that all of life is a struggle of all against all and that every action is one of domination by one party and submission on the other. I have no idea where that comes from. My initial opinion is that they are short on argumentaiton and systematic analyses of human nature and big on flowery language and emotional appeals.

Anyway, those are my random assorted thoughts. I’d like to hear what you think.

2

I would bet the farm that virtually all of them are 30-something obese neckbeards. That’s what all of the ‘internet elitists’ are. Whether they are talking about abstract ideas, that they ape from others, or their anime collections. Notice no one posts a picture of themselves to reveal the perfect specimen of manliness, nor the beautiful women who are now under their spell. Just disappointment that wolves are on the lawn, and there is a whole active world out there to frighten and confuse them.

3

I would consider myself a reactionary right winger, not influenced by the people you described though.

4

And I’m not a “former” anarcho-capitalist. I consider Rothbardian ancap as a right wing counterrevolution against the progressive state.

5

As I have stated many times before, the whole left vs. right argument has been quite confusing, especially when looked at from a libertarian perspective. I am quite hesitant to call myself a “right-winger” being that I am not socially conservative, nor conservative in the sense of government. Anarcho-capitalism is something that I hold to be quite liberal, in the proper use of the term.

6

Conservative does not equal right wing. (I am a right wing radical).

And classical liberalism is considered an inherently right-wing philosophy.

7

For some reason I thought that historically classical liberalism was considered to be left-wing.

I just refrain from using those terms because typically when people think about the “right-wing,” what comes to mind are the KKK, Nazis, and the Falange.

8

You should realise that anything communists disagree with is right-wing.

9

No doubt.

10

I think that there’s a lot of really interesting phenomena that go on here, but here’s what I think generally happens:

  1. As one becomes an anarcho-capitalist one becomes increasingly radical but open to new ideas. The things which they are trained from childhood to run away from are then not nearly so scary. This is especially important that they come from the “right” side of the ancaps so that they don’t flip shit whenever they see the word “hierarchy”, as they would if they were left anarchists

  2. In response to the exceedingly leftist nature of the day they start drifting over to more anti-leftist/liberal ideals

  3. They start to see some fundamental flaws in anarcho-capitalism. Often times they become convinced through racial, sociological, or economic reasons that some other point of view is right. We can see this in the youtube user spawktalk

  4. They see their old reasons for believing what they believe as being silly since they were less intellectually developed at the time. Their extremely radical position causes them to come into conflict with people of different viewpoints. This radicalizes them further

I can’t emphasize enough how much having your position attacked can cause you to start to entrench yourself within that ideology, rather than bringing you out of it.

With all of this said that site is extremely interesting. It’s possibly the highest quality content that I’ve seen in some time and that includes libertarian sites. That stuff appears to be well reasoned, well read, and at a very high-quality of discussion. Still I disagree with much of it and I’d argue that they follow into some absurdities

I also don’t understand what the hell they’re takling about in the current article, or why they seem to be criticizing Nietzsche while at the same time they appear to be heavily influenced by him. In that first article they seem to be waving at shadows. They don’t give a clear view of what they hell “trans-humanism” is or who adheres to it.

In the end I think that race is by far the biggest threat to libertarianism as we know it. I’ve been convinced of this ever since fringelements who produced (and occasionally still does produce) quite high-quality anti-statist material turned around and started spending the vast majority of his time fighting endless battles over the source of racial IQ gaps rather than anti-statist stuff. It’s been an issue ever since Rothbard and I think that it’s just going to get worse in a time that we need it to get infinitely better.

@RothbardsDisciple

I think that exactly what the term left or right wing means is incredibly subjective and open to interpretation. I honestly think that it’s ludicrous to try to pin libertarianism down as either because it just doesn’t fit. I also don’t think that Anarcho-capitalism can be considered a “reaction against” anything. It’s especially not right wing since it’s not really trying to set up an old order or to reinstate a version of “the good old days”, nor does it have any of the markings of a truly right-wing reaction/philosophy.

Just because a system exist doesn’t mean that you have to force something into that system which doesn’t really fit.

@Aristippus

Tru dat.

11

@Neodoxy-- Rothbardians (meaning, those who accept his proclivity for the Old Right) and right wing anarchists simply prefer the value of tradition; it’s not about trying to force anything into the system of Anarcho-Capitalism. The right-wing element is simply stating that the Natural Order is inherently non-egalitarian and non-progressive.

And, personally, I do believe in setting up an old order of tradition, like they had in the old days of England, where the State was basically powerless and symbolic.

If you really want to understand the nature of my right-wing beliefs, listen to The Kinks though. :wink:

12

Yes, but that gets into a way of thinking of the right-left paradigm that isn’t in the strictly political realm and instead delves into directly social issues. For instance you can have be an anarcho-capitalist, which I argue does not fit into any paradigm, and have a rather “leftist” attitude as to how things should be structured, or you could have a “rightist” or even “libertarian” view on this matter. On these issues I’d still consider myself more libertarian than anything, although I tend slightly more towards the right. Anarcho-capitalism is indeed neutral to these topics.

I’d also like to draw attention to the fact that Rothbard also showed a huge admiration for the “old left” of Mises and Bastiat.

This is what I mean when I say that this entire way of thinking is rather messed up.

13

Overall, isn’t referencing the political spectrum pointless in a way? Politics is all about governance - which is what we are against. In this sense, we should be against the spectrum entirely.

14

Well put.

15

Well that’s true Neodoxy, I do reject Rothbard’s analysis of the “old left.” I think he was simply confused about the origin of the terms, which came about during the time of the french revolution. Basically, the pinkos won a progressive revolution to institute a radical leftist government, and the right-wingers of the time were counterrevolutionaries against the whole idea, wanting to go back to monarchy. Leftists want a revolution of bigger government, while Rightists want a counterrevolution against bigger government (how far they want to go, being a measure of their radicalism).

The history of the terms sheds light on the whole mess which you describe, and clearly shows that libertarian values are right-wing political values (although not all libertarians are culturally right-wing).

16

@SkepticalMetal

If it’s only the left-right spectrum we’re talking about then, kinda. Unless we change up the definitions of left and right and say that the farther to the right you move, the less government you favor.

17

I agree with you for the most part, Neodoxy, but could you expand on why you think race is the biggest threat to libertarianism? I’m just confused on what exactly you’re referring to (political strife, demand for nationalism and more statism, accepting racial differences leading to “alt”-rightism, etc.).

In my original post, I wasn’t really putting down the content of the site by calling it “flowery” language. It is pretty meta and pretty in-depth material. It is well-written. When I juxtapose that and some of the classic libertarian literature, it just seems to me that the libertarian literature has a better theory of human interaction. I feel like the alt-right blogosphere does a lot of asserting with loaded ideas, and that probably comes from their affinity for “mystical” writings that try and put the “magic” back into civilization.

I don’t think there was a merry time where Nietzschean ubermenschen had things to live for, besides maybe nationalist buffoons who die as a political pawn for their masters, sacrificing everything for a misguided notion. I think feudal society sucked for the majority of the people and it robbed them of their dignity as people. I think this idea that somehow if “compassionate slavery”, anti-markets, and a totalitarian regime set to enforce the old traditions and mores of this right-wing society is implemented (which is basically Nazi Germany minus the genocide), it isn’t going to lead to a lot of happiness. People, while very stupid at-large and showing tendencies toward self-destruction, will demand at least some control over the direction of their lives. Differing opinions and tastes will lead them to different avenues. You can suppress that to some degree, but it won’t be anything more than frustrating for a great share of the population. And I think NIetzsche’s ideas of struggle helped him cope with his illness and stressful life. I would differ with these guys in that I happen to think “good” struggle is something a little more benign than what they have in mind.

18

I don’t think the race issue is a threat to libertarianism at all. Political correctness and left-wing propaganda has created backlash against it. This is extremely welcome. People who are so worried about feeling and social signalling as to be scared away from libertarianism by such are thing would never be libertarians anyway. Converting the masses is impossible. The vast majority of people are completely immersed in a system of propaganda which they need for their individual and social identity. The best strategy for libertarianism is to build the small, truth-seeking Remnant, and for that to grow mostly through natalism.

19

Oh god triple response time!

@RD

I think that that is a drastic oversimplification of the French Revolution. The Classical Liberals were clearly on the left side of the isle. It just happened that when the Jacobins started going crazy that real classical liberals began to oppose them along with everyone on the right side of the table. While I do believe that Rothbard (and indeed practically all modern libertarians) overemphasizes how libertarian most classical liberals were (I firmly believe that the closest thing to classical liberals are the moderate conservatives/moderate libertarians of our day) they were clearly revolutionary for their day and opposed the real authoritarian/agrarian conservatives.

Political libertarianism means nothing culturally. It is certainly not inherently right wing, although it has classically been so.

Also I’m rather shocked to hear that you believe that Rothbard was confused about anything!

@Eric

When I say race I’m talking about something rather complex because it ties into a lot of things. Most simply I believe that the belief in “race-realism” and the belief in differences in individual behavior (especially intelligence and capacity for crime) due to race. I believe this to be extremely prevalent due to the user that I cited, historical biases of certain libertarians, biases of modern libertarians, and personal experience where I’ve seen a number of people go down that route. This might be fine by itself, but libertarianism is already seen as racist by the public and we’re seeing an increasingly minority based population. This will make any sort of racism political suicide.

“that probably comes from their affinity for “mystical” writings that try and put the “magic” back into civilization.”

This is incredibly well thought. I was amazed to see some of my own thoughts on value in modern civilization reflected within the writings of that site. I suppose it’s not too big a stretch, however, as both me and those on the site have apparently been heavily influenced by Nietzsche.

I don’t understand Nietzscheans who support nationalism as such. Nationalism and all entrenched/societal values are exactly what kill free spirits. They retard an individual’s ability to work/live/think for himself. They prescribe him a way to live which prevents his own ability to live. Indeed I certainly interpret Nietzsche as being extremely anti-nationalist and anti-prejudice. It makes sense to believe in natural community leaders, but the sort of statism and value-revival which they support would appear to be very counter to what I see Nietzsche’s vision as being, although I suppose that’s why we’re on different sides of the isle.

I wish there were more of these people. They’re intelligent and extremely opposable. This might make politics an actual intellectual battlefield again. They are everything that the early classical liberals opposed and they would make for much more intimidating opponents than most modern liberals or conservatives. I would judge these people to be on our level from what I have seen thusfar.

@Aristippus

I completely disagree. I think that some form of libertarianism either needs to become a mass movement or manifest itself as some sort of secessionary movement if it is to actually take hold. With the current groups in this world who are having children at the fastest rates this is what is going to have to happen and any association with racism could kill the entire movement. I suppose that things might look a little different on the other side of the planet though…

20

It cannot become either of those as long as statists control the media, schools, courts etc. (depending on your definition of mass movement). You have to understand that a huge amount of people don’t care for the truth, and they certainly aren’t going out of their way to find it. What matters more than that is what makes them feel and look good. And in a statist society, what makes them feel and look good is statism.

What exactly are you referring to here? The general population of the West is at replacement rate at best. Say libertarians are 0.5% of the population. If they outbreed the statists 3 to 1, they are a majority in 3 generations.

Haha I knew I shouldn’t have said I’m not American. But I’m sure I know a thousand times more about your country than you do about mine.