Nick Land has (mostly) overcome his usual obfuscation on this one

Nick Land has (mostly) overcome his usual obfuscation on this one.

jacobitemag.com/2017/08/11/psycho-politics/

Insightful critique of libertarianism. I found it a good explanation of its rapid demise over the last two years.

Other urls found in this thread:

williamgairdner.com/journal/2017/6/15/how-libertarian-socialism-works.html
williamgairdner.com/journal/2017/3/22/libertarianism-is-a-handmaid-of-the-state.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

New liberterianism will have to be based around decentralization and practical freedom, rather than than universalism and unqualified individual freedom as a virtue. One can't separate the individual from his community; attempts to do so don't acknowledge the intrinsically social nature of the human animal.

There are arguments for personal freedom and against the federal government; its just that they aren't based around the globalized, pro-corporate system that certain strains of libertarians have a hard on for.

Agreed. I see Talebian Libertarian-localism usurping the rationalistic post-Lockean Rothbard/Hoppe style as the predominant form

Its far more humanistic and -to Land's point- less WASPy

>I found it a good explanation of its rapid demise over the last two years.
What rapid demise? Libertarianism is as strong as it was before. It seems to me that all that's happened is that a bunch of alt-right idiots who were never libertarians to begin with stopped pretending to be libertarians.

The Thomas Freidmans of the world have lost huge credibility in the wake of the financial crisis, the migrant crisis, etc. Anti-statists now mostly agree in the value of national/subnational differences in culture as a way of stifling the kind of global groupthink that led to the Great Recession

Basically libertarians today don't (and shouldn't) buy into globalization the way they did in the past

Isn't Land confusing the extremely vocal militant left, right, and alt-right with the mainstream of the left, right, and Trumpists?
Isn't he also ignoring the continued presence of a valid moderate option - the Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romneys of the world? It's still possible that people will snap out of the populist madness at some point and realize that corrupt oligarchy - yes, including the "globalism" boogeyman, too - is preferable to mob rule and the passions of the idiot mass?
Personally, I think that Clinton supporters and other mainstream democrats should yield a bit to common sense and pragmatism and come out in favor of better immigration controls, as well as start using less gun control rhetoric. Meanwhile, mainstream Republican types should dissociate from neocons and social conservative extremists.
We badly need a resurgence of classical liberalism. I am cautiously hopeful that Land is wrong.
However, knowing how stupid the average American is... well, I'll just say that, as resident of the US, I am going to be actively seeking as many foreign passports as possible. Not only is America dumb on average, but it also has ugly racial tensions, a rapidly shifting economic landscape that breeds frustration, and a relatively peaceful recent history which means that the average person has no understanding of the horrors that populism, both of the left and right varieties, has historically unleashed upon the planet.

True, but I don't think that means libertarianism is weaker. If anything, it seems that libertarianism is becoming more pragmatic. Yes, I can believe in strong civil institutions and civil liberties, and reject both the left-wing and right-wing cults, yet pragmatically support decent immigration controls and certain economic adjustments that will ease the burden felt by the average person.

I think you're missing the meat of his argument. Without mentioning the word, this is another accelerationist argument. Hilary, Mitt Romney and the policies that were discussed in their time might as well have been 100 years ago.

Classical liberalism isn't just dead/dying, its anachronistic. The ship has sailed.

Most libertarians under 40 with IQs over 95 are white nationalists now. They realized their ideals could only exist in a white nation and that jews are spearheading the browning of white nations, so it was an easy transition to make. Libertarianism is a complete joke now.

I agree that this new way is better and less naive, but it is also a different ideology then the "classical liberalism" Nick Land is describing in decline. If the new way is strengthening, then the old way is weakening.

Yo Veeky Forums is for people who read books, I think you meant to be jerking it on /y/

An extremely naive way of viewing the world. If only the "experts" could circumvent the masses and implement the correct ideology of peace, love, and free markets. What most people learned in 2008, and what you have failed to learn, is that the experts have managed to be even dumber than the average person. Modern society is complex, and complex systems are outside the understanding of mere mortals. No amount of expertise can overcome this We need legal/political/cultural/linguistic/ethnic barriers in place to make sure one idea doesn't destroy all of us

>Most libertarians under 40 with IQs over 95 are white nationalists now.
It's one thing to be a libertarian who sadly accepts that libertarian ideals can probably only be realized in a society with high average intelligence, and to support better immigration controls as a result, while sticking firmly to libertarian ideals in as many ways as possible. However, the people you're talking about who "switched" from libertarianism to white nationalism are, for the most part, not people like that. They are emotionally driven alt-right idiots who briefly flirted with libertarianism without ever being committed to actual civil liberties, then bailed as soon as alt-rightism started to pick up steam.
> and that jews are spearheading the browning of white nations.
Why would realizing that make someone become less of a libertarian? Being a libertarian doesn't mean pretending that tribes tend to act in favor of tribe interests. I mean yes, if you favor expelling or murdering the Jews, you're not a libertarian. But that would be a dumb and sociopathic thing to support anyway.

Chill out, bud.

>They realized their ideals could only exist in a white nation
Pot and incest doesn't require whites only nation to implement them.

>Most libertarians under 40 with IQs over 95 are white nationalists now.
It's one thing to be a libertarian who sadly accepts that libertarian ideals can probably only be realized in a society with high average intelligence, and to support better immigration controls as a result, while sticking firmly to libertarian ideals in as many ways as possible. However, the people you're talking about who "switched" from libertarianism to white nationalism are, for the most part, not people like that. They are emotionally driven alt-right idiots who briefly flirted with libertarianism without ever being committed to actual civil liberties, then bailed as soon as alt-rightism started to pick up steam.
> and that jews are spearheading the browning of white nations.
Why would realizing that make someone become less of a libertarian? Being a libertarian doesn't mean pretending that tribes don't tend to act in favor of tribe interests. I mean yes, if you favor expelling or murdering the Jews, you're not a libertarian. But that would be a dumb and sociopathic thing to support anyway.

Nope. Don't even know what /y/ is because I'm an educated man of distinction and not some chan clown like yourself.

The thing is... however badly the "experts" are fucking things up, if the populists took over it's probable that things would get much much much much worse.

Hey look, it's that "jewish question" guy again

Thomas Freidman doesn't stand for anything. He's not a good representation of a particular view.

A couple things. Libertarians think the Fed caused the financial crisis. The migrant crisis can be thought of as the long-term result of American intervention in the middle east. Libertarians are against military intervention.

But libertarians still definitely believe in free trade and the rationality of the market. The difference between a Chinese barber and a U.S. barber is way, way less than the difference between a U.S. barber and a U.S. baker. "Globalization" isn't so much a goal as free trade. The reason why a lot of companies are becoming multinational has to do with tax laws in different countries. Barring taxes and laws, it's a lot more costly to do business in another country than your own.

I've never really been a libertarian per se but don't conflate it with something else (I wouldn't even know what to call the alternative, because they aren't as consistent as libertarianism, which is very simple).

Well, classical liberalism never was as ideologically pure as fundamentalist libertarianism is. Classical liberals are, fundamentally, pragmatists who favor having civil liberties and political/economic freedoms to the maximum extent possible.

No, I get that it's an accelerationist argument. I'm just hoping that both he and you are wrong, that only the various Internet echo chambers make it seem otherwise, and that more moderate politics still has a dominant place.
However, that might simply be fear on my part. Here's the thing - if Nick Land and you are correct, then it is time for me to start thinking about how to get the fuck out of the US. I'm ethnically Russian, and I am pretty well-read in history. I know what happens when ideological populists take over a nation. Fuck that shit.

They bailed because it was a lost cause and they were smart enough to realize that there was something much more important going on.

>Why would realizing that make someone become less of a libertarian?
Because when you realize that, you realize that people are not the same and that abstract ideals are distractions when compared to the problems groups like jews pose. A matter of priorities.

Sorry?

Abstract idealism is only something white people are interested in.

There really is no great threat posed by America's 2 million or so Jews. And even if there was, it's not nearly as bad as the threat posed by left or right wing populism. If you claim that the problem is Jewish leadership of causes like loose immigration laws and multiculturalism, then I will answer that you're conveniently leaving out the millions of non-Jews who follow that leadership, as if they were just robots. You seem dedicated to blaming specifically and only the Jews, not recognizing that those short-sighted policies like loose immigration controls are supported by many people for many reasons. The white Democrat who wants more voters... the Republican farmer in the CA central valley who hires illegals... etc.

Well, at least Land is smart enough to realize Catholics will never go along with capitalism. That's what I got from the article. He talks about ethnicity and culture but religion lurks pretty powerfully under the surface of his conclusions. Protestants are just capitalists, and Catholics (and Orthodox) just aren't.

Your estimation of the jewish population of America is as incorrect as your naive assumption that they pose no threat even though they have a stranglehold on many of America's most important institutions. For instance the media, which nobody trusts anymore because of its inability to tell the truth. Jews run every major media company. This is a big problem. Are you downplaying it because you don't understand it? And if that's so, don't you think you should become better informed about it before giving your opinion next time?

Oh hey, it's you again. I know how this is going to go. You're going to tell us all to read The Culture of Critique. When criticized, you will act smug and tell the critics to go become better informed before they dare to question your conclusions.
There's really no point debating with someone, like you, who holds utterly fixed opinions. However, I'll give it a shot...
Do you seriously think that media wasn't heavily biased before Jews became influential in it?

Think of a federal government filled with regular, unpretentious people. They would understand that they don't know what the fuck they are doing, so they would devolve as much authority as possible to state and local authorities. They would also balance the budget, because that seems like a reasonable thing to do and is similar to their own personal finances. They wouldn't get involved in foreign wars, because they are afraid of fucking up in a major way, something wars have a habit of doing. They would restrict immigration because they are afraid of massive demographic change. They would restrict international trade because "the Chinese are taking jobs". Basically, they would do all the correct things, because (here is the key) they know what they don't know. Pseudo-intellectuals in power (like Hillary Clinton) are dangerous because the have deluded themselves into thinking they have a higher level of knowledge than they actually do

No, unfortunately that is a fantasy. What actually happens in such situations is that the regular people, due to a combination of humility and being intimidated, end up just going along with what the small minority of highly driven sociopaths/Machiavellian power-seekers among them want. A few years later, you have a new corrupt elite on top, generally much worse than the previous one was.

Remind me of where I embarrassed you before? The butthurt is ongoing, I see? When were jews not influential in the media though? Jews have a millennia old reputation for not telling the truth so I don't think the point you would like to make about dishonesty among them being comparable to that of whites is going to fool anyone over 16 with a functional head on their shoulders.

It's nice to see someone else talk about how Liberalism leads to statism. Also nice to see Nick Land get his hands dirty with racial statistics and tendencies.

williamgairdner.com/journal/2017/6/15/how-libertarian-socialism-works.html

williamgairdner.com/journal/2017/3/22/libertarianism-is-a-handmaid-of-the-state.html

He goes into more detail in his books, and you could probably find more on the website there but it's an interesting topic. Something I've been thinking about a bit lately.

I remember arguing with you for over an hour here on Veeky Forums four or five days ago. You kept getting more and more angry and your arguments simple and simpler, then eventually I guess one of the mods woke up and closed the thread. I've seen you do the same thing in 5-6 threads now. Always the same rhetorical trick of acting smug and calling people uninformed.

Whether that's true or not (we have no way of knowing), the pseudo intellectual and the Trump-style politician you are alluding to are similar in that they hugely overestimate their own abilities and are prone to huge errors in judgement with devastating consequences. I suppose it's the natural byproduct of putting a lot of power in the hands of a small number of people

I suppose there's a reason you left out the topic we were discussing and are instead trying to hit on how poor my supposed showing was. A valiant man you are, eh? Glad the scalping stayed with you, chap, better luck next time.

bump