Monday, March 23, 2015

Libertarian Bionationalism: An Ideology for a New Ascendancy


A free, prosperous, and glorious country that reverses dysgenic demographic decline and enters into demographic ascent could be ours.  If you’d like to be able one day to call such a place home, then I invite you to become a fellow soldier in the ideological battle for a new ascendancy.  There is an ideology that extols freedom, prosperity, and glory – and nourishes the genetic roots that grow the values it champions.  This ideology deserves a proper name. 


It is not conservatism.  Conservatism implies a backward-looking revival of former traditions.  As it’s practiced in America, political conservatism is little more than progressivism on a lag.  An American conservative today embraces most of what Progressives championed in the recent past – Social Security, Medicare, Voting Rights, Civil Rights, Disabled Rights, Gay Wedding Cake Rights, and other invented rights that require legions of federal bureaucrats to enforce.  Only a small segment of conservatives, who might be called paleo-conservatives, reject the progressive’s panoply of positive rights and favor returning government to its constitutional functions. 

Those who identify as reactionary or neo-reactionary might reject the entire Enlightenment worldview that informed America’s Founders.  Some neo-reactionaries favor returning to monarchy; others to some form of feudalism.  Some NRXers seek to install a social order underpinned by Orthodox Christianity.  Others look back even further, to pre-Christian paganism. 

How far back in history do you look for ideological inspiration?  How much of a reaction against modernity do you desire?  These are questions that presuppose conservatism as the operating paradigm.  But in my view, conservatism in all its subdivisions and degrees – from neo to paleo – is failed and flawed. 

An ideology of ascent should be forward-looking, not reactive – defined not based on what it opposes but what it seeks to achieve.  That doesn’t necessarily entail the rejection of traditions that have heretofore shaped our cultural and political institutions.  But it does entail the rejection of traditionalism as a primary ideological orientation.  We seek to chart a path to a future that is superior to both the present and the past.  We yearn to live in a nation of rising freedom, rising IQs, and rising standards of well-being. 

Computer technology and biotechnology will make such a glorious future possible.  But it won’t be realized without the ascension of a new kind of nationalism.  A nationalism that eschews authoritarian impulses and suffuses itself instead to the principles of liberty.  An enlightened nationalism that is validated in reason, guided by science, and informed by the biological realities of human nature and its racial variations.

Such an ideology deserves a proper name.  Unfortunately, there’s no ready-made, widely accepted term for it.  Rather than try to coin a neologism that lacks common currency, I’ll employ a compound noun that names the three most essential components: libertarian bio-nationalism (LBN).  The term libertarian bio-nationalism has the advantage of being precise (unlike vague left/right labels) without being tied to a particular time, place, or person.  Any country – from the United States to Sweden to Japan – can adapt LBN to its own particular bionational identity. 

I grant that the label “libertarian” is imperfect.  “Libertarian” has acquired some unfortunate connotations due its appropriation by left-libertarians, anarchists, and methodological individualists who dogmatically cling to a biophobic blank-slate conception of human nature. 

I believe that “libertarian,” which shares the same etymological roots as “liberty,” is worth reclaiming from the mis-appropriators.  A political libertarian seeks self-determination within a particular geographic area.  A nationalist seeks self-determination for a particular geographic area.  Thus, libertarian nationalism is a logical union.  I’d argue that libertarianism and nationalism are not only compatible, but mutually reinforcing and mutually necessary. 

Libertarians need nations.  No amount of theorizing about imaginary anarcho-capitalist legal agencies has ever brought down a government.  Nobody in power fears being overthrown by anarcho-capitalists.  But nationalists have overthrown governments.  Nationalists do strike fear into the hearts of the ruling elites of many countries.  Nationalism is powerful because it is more than a set of abstract ideas.  Nationalism harnesses the power of a population’s identity and concrete interests.    

Libertarian nationalism is freedom through power.  Without nationalism, libertarianism is little more than the weak pleadings of inefficacious idealists.  With nationalism, libertarianism becomes an ideological force with the tangible capability of sustaining itself. 

Libertarians need nationalism.  Nationalists need libertarianism.  And libertarian nationalism needs a biocentric metaphysic.  A nationalism based solely on faith or tradition or language or historical borders gives leftists the ability to posture as the champions of science, progress, and a better future.  In reality, so-called progressives are the arch enemies of a free and open society.  When it comes to the heritability of IQ differences among different sociobiological populations, progressives deny science and seek to ban its dissemination.  In the name of equality, they demand that Western nations genetically and culturally retrogress into Third World nations.   The ideology of human progression is libertarian bionationalism. 
 
I grant that a government constrained by libertarian chains would have less capacity to effectuate demographic improvement than an unchained authoritarian government.  A fascist dictatorship could institute coercive eugenics programs that would, in theory, raise the national IQ faster and more dramatically than any set of voluntary incentivizes.  But a government that treats its own people like domesticated livestock inverts the very concept of human ascendancy.  We don’t exist for the purpose of improving the gene pool.  We seek to improve the gene pool because it will make our lives better.

Monday, January 26, 2015

Time to Get Serious

 

In 2014, it was Time to Move On.  I stuffed everything I owned into my car and hit the road.  A few weeks later, I sold the car and set sail for Asia, then made way to Europe, then back to the United States.  In all, my World Demographic Decline Tour took me to 12 U.S. states and 21 countries.  Since October, I’ve been living in northern Idaho. 

When I talk about the problems of Diversity, my opinions derive from empirical evidence and direct experiences.  I’ve documented Diversity directly from the ghetto in south central Los Angeles and from the South Side of Chicago – places where few whites who say Diversity is a strength would ever venture into on their own.   I’ve ventured into the bowels of Philippine cities that most American Diversiphiles have never heard of, where mine was the only white face in sight.    
 
In 2014, I experienced a lot.  And in some ways I accomplished a lot.  I produced 138 videos documenting my travels.  Not all of those videos contained serious educational or ideological significance.  Some did, or so I hope.  Whatever their value, you probably won’t be seeing more travelogue videos from me this year.   
 
In 2015, it’s time to get serious.  My goal this year is to transition from being a roaming documenter of demographic decline to an advocate for a future that might be and could be.  I seek to communicate, to a wider audience, the necessary foundations for a free, prosperous, and glorious society that enters into demographic ascent.  I think the best way to formally lay down this intellectual infrastructure is by writing a book. 
 
It’s not going to be a book about demographic winter, or the death of the West, or the fall of civilization.  Books have already written on those subjects and videos have been made.  As for my Demographic Decline videos, some people have commented that they are too depressing.

Demographic Decline 2015: Death Spiral

This line of criticism contains some validity.  Wallowing in defeatist pessimism won’t save civilization.

The other downside to drawing attention to our impending demographic doom without providing constructive solutions is that the extreme undesirability of our present course will provoke some people into advocating radical authoritarian policies.  That is a dead end.  Policy prescriptions that repel most sensible white people will serve to strengthen their relative affinity for the status quo. 

 By contrast, simply informing whites that their demographic decline will result in them being relegated to minority status accomplishes something useful.  It makes them more receptive to policy ideas from the right and more inclined to oppose leftist race-leveling programs such as Affirmative Action.  
 


As I see it, documenting demographic decline is necessary but insufficient.  Identifying what’s wrong with our present state of racial affairs won’t be my book’s central focus, but doing so will provide important context for my arguments.  I’ll also need to back them up with hard facts and relevant scientific studies.  To illustrate some of my points, I may sprinkle in anecdotes from my travels and museum visits.  

It won’t be a dry, academic tome. The book won’t be aimed at academics per se. The target audience will be people of reason who value freedom and prosperity but don’t yet grasp the underlying importance of race and inheritance.

I’d like to be able to focus full-time on this project. However, I don’t expect to get an advance from a publisher or make enough money off book sales to replace the income from my current job. So this book will have to get written in my spare time. I resolve now to create more time for writing by eliminating distractions and curtailing my activity on YouTube. I will still make videos, but less frequently. I may spin off videos or articles deriving from the book as sections of it get completed.

I’m guessing I can get the book finished before the end of the year. Maybe I’ll be able to do it before the end of the summer. Maybe it will take significantly longer. Regardless, I won’t rush it out in order to meet a deadline. I’ll publish the book when and only when I am satisfied that I have achieved my goals to the best of my ability.

There is path that leads to a free, prosperous, and glorious society in demographic ascent…

Friday, January 16, 2015

Schiff Predictions and Bitcoin Bubble Revisited

Peter Schiff had predicted that in 2014 the Fed would stop tapering and reverse course, launching additional QE.  At the time he was making these predictions, I called him out. I suggested he'd likely be proven wrong.  He was proven wrong.

Do I think he owes me an apology?  (He stated that I owe him a legitimate apology!)  No.  A vow to stop making rash predictions would suffice.

A few years ago, I made some rash predictions about the silver market that were proven wrong.  I learned my lesson.  Has Schiff learned his?

On Feb. 8, 2014, Schiff put out a video (featuring his CNBC interview on Feb. 4) titled Market Headed Lower Until Taper Reversed.  That was right near the lows for the year in U.S. stock indexes.  The market headed higher, and the taper wasn't reversed.

 
 
On Dec. 28, 2013, I uploaded a video called Bitcoin: A Mania in Nothing.  That was right near the top in Bitcoin, which I warned was in a mania that would end badly.  Did I accurately call the top and predict Bitcoin's subsequent fall by more than 70%?  In all honesty, no. The neat timing of my video's release at the top was as much luck as skill.

That's how it is with "successful" prognosticators.  Sometimes good luck  makes them look smart.  But no one can outsmart the market consistently.  Peter Schiff demonstrates the validity of this generalization via his track record as a contrarian forecaster.