Libertarians and Nationalists: A New Generation Arises
 |
Fasces at US House of Representatives |
"In a battle between
force and an idea, the latter always prevails." Mises, Liberalism [1]
The Western World is in turmoil
with over a hundred million refugees across the world coming in our direction. [2] Millions are crossing
into the USA and the EU. Nations with centuries of tradition are being
overrun. The situation is beginning to take on the appearance of one of the
great historic migrations of people, such as those that overwhelmed classical Roman civilization. Demographics are being changed as millions risk everything
to escape intolerable conditions.
Reacting, large numbers of
people of European heritage, on both sides of the Atlantic, and across the
globe in places like Australia and New Zealand, are organizing kindred and
collaborative groups to defend what they see as threats to their freedoms, their
cultures and their people.
There are several tendencies
developing in this milieu. There are Christian fundamentalists, Nordic Neopagans, libertarian techno- and crypto-nerds, conservative 'active clubs' and more
edgy rightist fight clubs, well-organized militant Nationalist groups like the
Patriot Front. There are those who position themselves as fascists and then there
are drinking clubs like the Proud Boys.
It seems that the centuries' long
political consensus in Western countries favoring personal liberty is at
risk. It was about a century and a half ago that Lysander Spooner, great
19th Century American Libertarian lawyer, pointed out that the Old World's
aristocratic tyrannies were grounded in what he called the 'four
monopolies' -- state churches, chattel slavery, the 'legal infirmities'
of women and government economic monopolies. He saw all these old
institutions collapsing. In the intervening 20th Century, with government
monopolies like the Federal Reserve leading the way, the old 'classic liberal'
ideals of liberty and free market economic progress seem unreachable to many,
especially unenfranchised mostly young men on the extremes of the political
spectrum. People have been taking to the streets, no matter which
end of the spectrum, in increasing numbers.
This has become a strong trend
and is exemplified by actions such as the World-Wide Rallies and Trucker
Convoys of 2021/22 which involved millions across the globe, but mainly in
Western countries. The lockdowns and mandates have become rallying points for
the Right in the Western world.
On a more local level, young
(predominantly) men in America and Europe are forming serious 'fight clubs' and
other active groups ('Active Clubs', the Patriot Front and the Proud Boys again
come to mind). The youth who gravitate to these alliances have a broad
spectrum of political beliefs, encompassing every nuance from an individualist
libertarian ethos through the 'hard right' of American Nationalists.
This mix can be seen in the
dozen basic principles of the Proud Boys which include several strictly libertarian
propositions (maximum freedom, minimal govt.) as well as 'hard right' positions
(closed border) and traditionalist values ('venerate the housewife') [3]
That's a wide spectrum.
Is there any intersectional correspondence between libertarian individualists
and corporatist nationalists? Can libertarians and fascists ever
cooperate on any issue?
There is in European politics the idea that there
is a 'hard line' between 'democratic' parties and fascist parties; all the
'democratic' parties agree, no matter who 'forms the government' the extreme
right will not be allowed into the halls of power. Are libertarians obliged to
honor this understanding among the statist parties? How far should freedom
advocates cooperate with people who, while expressing Western values, may be
willing to, under certain circumstances, initiate violence to effectuate change
to their liking?
This is not an academic
question since there are now a number of credible crises that may play out,
putting us all on the battlefield of a third world war.
Quite literally thousands of nationalist and other militants from all over Europe have gathered in Ukrainia, forming freikorps to fight for Russia or Ukrania. 'Nazi' regiments and 'Anarchist' cooperatives are fighting together on the Ukranian side.
The issue of alliances on the Right
has remained controversial for a hundred years and even now both sides glare at
each other across the social media, (watching each other’s edgy videos of
banner drops and protests) while at the same time each stands against the Left
as personified in groups like Antifa.
During the past hundred years
America embraced 'foreign entanglements' in World War One and the first fascist
State was founded (Mussolini's Italy in 1922). It is said that FDR and
his first cabinet were fans of fascism.
One commentator opined,
"Roosevelt himself once called Mussolini 'admirable,' adding that he was 'deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.' Mussolini returned the compliment with adulatory praise, writing of Roosevelt’s many reforms, 'Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices … Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.'” [4]
These early 20th Century machinations
suggest a 'forgotten history' that may illuminate our question regarding the
alliances on the Right and Left. Remember World War II started when both Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland.
Also consider the prior century
(the 19th of the Common Era) when the theory of the omniscient State was
developed by statists and opposed by libertarians (such as Max Weber and Lysander
Spooner).
The theory they opposed, that
the State was a special type of human organization, has very ancient roots,
growing from the 'divine right of the priest kings'. It was further
developed in Plato's Republic, which made no significant provision for free
speech and dissent. Centuries later Marxist writers proposed a 'dictatorship
of the proletariat' to overthrow classical liberal societies and their commitment to equal rights, free markets. But it was
in the early 20th Century that the concept was given a name, the State of
Exception.
What is a "State of
Exception"? It is the legal theory justifying tyranny asserted
originally by the German Jurist (and Nazi) Carl Schmitt [5] and strongly
criticized by libertarian philosopher Murray Rothbard. [6]
Schmitt saw the unlimited
powers of the totalitarian state as arising from a permanent state of
emergency, a "State of Exception" which allowed ruling elites to act
arbitrarily, capriciously and without adherence to the rule of law. He asserted
such a state justified:
1. Special
executive powers
2. Suspension of
the Rule of Law
3. Derogation of
legal and constitutional rights
More about the history of the
State of Exception in my blog, The State of Exception: Tyranny's Theory.
[7] In my view there is no 'emergency' exception to inalienable rights.
Centrally planned economies fail. World War Two discredited
fascist theory just as the collapse of the USSR a few decades later discredited
Marxism-Leninism. However, the embers of these theories remain scattered around
and flame up every so often, in 'liberated zones' or 'no go' areas in many
Western cities.
In this context, how did the two
political movements 'on the Right' react to each other over the century in
which the theories of both movements reached their fullest development? We seek
to find the collaboration within libertarian individualism and the
individualism within nationalism.
As a subsidiary issue we look at
the disconnect between Right Nationalism as a political movement and Government
Domination (Fascism, Corporatism or Syndicalism) as an economic theory.
Libertarians, on the other hand, have an 'unhampered market' economic theory
clearly at odds with fascism's central planning and enforced collaboration
between market and government.
Let's look at Ludwig von Mises,
the 20th Century's great philosopher of liberty. I note that he left his native
land, Austria in 1934, the year the Austrofascists took over. After a time in Switzerland
he spent the war and post-war years in the United States where he mentored what
has become a world-wide libertarian economic and political movement.
He pointed the way toward a
libertarian nationalist approach with his understanding of classical
liberalism’s cosmopolitanism – “nationalism does not clash with
cosmopolitanism, for the unified nation does not want discord with neighboring
peoples, but peace and friendship.” [8]
Or, as Jefferson put it,
“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances
with none.”
My blog on Nationalist Libertarianism explores this further [9]
"Peace -- Individualism -- Free Trade: lead to a libertarian world.
As a practical matter, urgent steps in that direction require a wholesale planetary divesting of authority from political systems used to micro-manage Human Action.
Every regulation abolished, every tax reduced, is a victory for humanity. The direct political program therefore must be "abolish multiple old regulations for any new one proposed" -- and the same as to taxes and bureaus."
Nonetheless, Mises was accused
of being 'soft' on fascism by various Marxist scholars, as he thought Italian
Fascism was to be acknowledged for stopping a Communist takeover there. His
condemnation of fascist policies is clear:
"That its foreign policy,
based as it is on the avowed principle of force in international relations,
cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of
modern civilization requires no further discussion. To maintain and further
raise our present level of economic development, peace among nations must be
assured. But they cannot live together in peace if the basic tenet of the
ideology by which they are governed is the belief that one's own nation can
secure its place in the community of nations by force alone." Mises, Liberalism[1]
Here Mises was applying the
libertarian Non-Aggression Principle [NAP] and condemning the pro-war policies
of the tyrannies of his time, primarily the Fascists and the Communists.
Both political movements espoused the same morality of 'might makes right' and
supported central planning and government domination over all of of social
life. Left or Right, statism supports dictatorship.
However, both tendencies on the
Right do see cultivating manliness among the youth as a significant value, in
direct opposition to the Left's championing of Critical Race Theory's offspring,
Critical Sex Theory, with its emphasis on 'metrosexual' feminized males and non-binary
or trans persons.
Why have some of those who espouse an
'Alt Right' [sometimes Alt Right 3.0] lifestyle of martial training and
activism ['Cultured Thug'] also adopted a more extreme fascist style, while others use more 'center' nationalist symbolism? Why is fascist posturing [giving what are
considered 'Roman Salutes' and the like] so attractive to some on the Right,
while others, such as libertarian youth, remain committed to peace, free trade
and civil liberties?
Both see themselves as the
'True Right'. Both seek to build lasting communities of like-minded,
self-actuated, and politically active, men and women who value individual
effort, physical prowess, and intellectual achievement.
In this way the
new Western Chauvinists stand not just against the Left, but more importantly,
stand against the globalist elite that seeks to manipulate both Right and Left,
exercising especially strong control over popular Leftist causes such as
'climate change' and 'systemic racism'. They seek to stop Agenda 2030's planned genocide. [10]
Ultimately, it is dissatisfied
individuals, engaging in Human Action, guided by Informed Consent that will set
the underlying economic conditions which will determine how the Western
Civilization will develop in the coming decades and centuries.
It was Mises who defined the
first principle of economics as "Humans act purposefully" and from
that understanding, that all Human Action is predicated on dissatisfaction.
The youth of the world are profoundly dissatisfied, none more so than
Westerners of European heritage.
Beware, as a new generation
arises.
-----
Footnotes:
[1] https://mises.org/library/liberalism-classical-tradition/html
[2] https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/
[3] The Tenets are:
1. Minimal Government
2. Maximum Freedom
3. Pro Free Speech
4. Pro Gun Rights
5. Anti Racism
6. Anti Racial Guilt
7. Anti Drug War
8. Anti Political Correctness
9. Closed Borders
10. Gloify the Entrepreneur
11. Venerate the Housewife
12. Reinstate a Spirit of Western Chauvanism
[4] https://dailycaller.com/2016/12/13/fdr-praised-mussolini-and-loved-fascism/
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt
[6] https://mises.org/library/carl-schmitt-and-murray-rothbard
[7] https://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-state-of-exception-tyrannys-theory.html
[8] L. von Mises, Nation, State, and Economy, 1919
[9] https://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2020/09/nationalist-libertarianism.html
[10] https://www.PreventGenocide2030.org
--------------
References:
https://mises.org/library/liberalism-classical-tradition/html
https://mises.org/library/mises-and-fascism
https://mises.org/library/was-mises-fascist-obviously-not
https://mises.org/library/mises-his-importance-and-relevance
https://fee.org/articles/misess-lost-papers-plundered-by-the-nazis-buried-by-the-soviets-rediscovered-by-me/