SurrealPolitiks

SurrealPolitiks S01E009 – Free To Decline

Written by SurrealPolitiks
Print 🖨 PDF 📄 eBook 📱

New Hampshire, wherein I presently reside, is home to a political migration movement known as the Free State Project.

Many years ago, in what could fairly be described as another life, that project was why I moved to this place. It seemed at the time a viable strategy for accomplishing a worthwhile goal, and though neither aspect of this proved accurate, I have fond, if often painful, memories, as a consequence of embarking upon that journey. It’s quite doubtful we’d be having this conversation save for that choice, and so, whatever else has happened, I’d rather be here with you today than drinking myself to death in New York.

There are a lot of different conceptions in people’s minds as to what libertarianism is. One could say that the complaints I have about the movement have nothing to do with libertarianism as such, because, on paper, that’s unassailably true. Libertarianism, fundamentally, is the idea that the only legitimate use of violence or coercion is in defense of person and justly acquired property. It is not preoccupied with whether or not you approve of homosexuality, and it considers inequality a wholly natural state of affairs.

Rejecting initiatory violence, it necessarily rejects the State, because of course, that is its entire purpose and sustenance. To quote a fiery line from Murray Rothbard which illustrates our point “There runs through For a New Liberty (and most of the rest of my work as well) a deep and pervasive hatred of the State and all of its works, based on the conviction that the State is the enemy of mankind.”

Not mincing words there.

 

 

Being one who views Leftism as just such a threat, and observing that the State is Leftism’s most jealously guarded weapon, it seemed to me that Mr. Rothbard had a point. To abolish the State would be to abolish the Left, I then believed. Without the welfare state interfering in the Darwinian process to subsidize the creation and survival of unfit forms of life, without it financing the dubiously named “non-profits” and “non-governmental organizations” or NGOs, without public sector unions, public schools, armies of bureaucrats, and the air of legitimacy that State power endows their sick plans with, by which they dupe good men into their service, preying on their patriotism and sense of duty, to have police and soldiers violently impose their monstrosities upon their fellow citizens, I once thought, that, without these things, there could be no “Left”.

And at the time, I’d not have missed the Right much. I hadn’t much use for religion. I rather enjoyed my vices. Though I considered Fox News preferable to CNN, and considered John McCain a lesser evil than Barack Obama, I felt betrayed by the George W. Bush administration, and McCain’s support for bank bailouts rendered it hardly with the trip to my old elementary school to tick a box for him. Not that my Republican vote would have made a lick of difference in New York.

It seemed to me there was a lot of that going around. No chance to make a difference. Too much in common between the parties. In 2012, Mitt Romney won the Republican Primary, defeating my favored candidate, Ron Paul, handily.

Well, if Obama is Left wing and Romney is Right wing, I was going to need a third position of some sort.

And so I moved to New Hampshire and became an advocate of secession with the aim of creating from here a Stateless territory.

But it didn’t take long for me to see the problems with this.

Almost immediately upon my arrival here, I discovered a Leftist advocacy which did not endeavor to carry out its sick designs through State force. At least, not by outward confession. They purported to be anarchists. They purported to respect private property, even, but they were obsessed with homosexuals and they considered demographic disparities to be some sort of unnatural evil born of state sanctioned malice. Largely emanating from a group calling itself the “Center for a Stateless Society” and basing their supposed libertarianism on a fake economics text called “Markets not Capitalism” these raving Left wing fanatics gave the Democrats a run for their money.

Among my first interactions pertained to the death of one Trayvon Martin. This, it seemed to me, was the most libertarian of events. A man took it upon himself to guard his own neighborhood in the capacity of a volunteer. He carried a weapon with him while he did so. He was assaulted by criminal who threatened his life, and with all other options exhausted, he fired into the man who had visited this violence upon him.

George Zimmerman was put on trial for murder. He was acquitted by a jury of his peers. And the Democrat Party, and all of its many tentacles, branded him a murderous White Supremacist despite his Jewish surname and Hispanic ethnicity.

My new neighbors, who would vigorously deny any affiliation with the Democrats, said to me “It’s a crime to be black in America”.

Desirable though this may be to some, it is not actually the law here. Quite the contrary. Blacks are among the groups protected by America’s civil rights laws, in sharp contrast to Whites, who are not. And of course, my new neighbors, in all their zeal to abolish the State, thought not that this inequality was one of any priority to do away with.

And the warnings just kept coming. It seemed to me obvious that the abolition of the State would entail a martial conflict. An institution built on the premise that it has the absolute right to use force for its purposes, is doubtless going to insist that challenges to this claim will be rebuffed by such means, and a movement which saw this claim as illegitimate would by necessity be asserting that it was legitimate for them to use force to stop them.

I was hardly the only one to notice this, but I was uniquely singled out for expulsion from the Free State Project for making this observation. As if to drive home the point that there was an ulterior motive, the very next year after I was expelled, the FSP invited Larken Rose to be a featured speaker at their annual Porcupine Freedom Festival. He will again be featured this year. Mr. Rose most famously wrote an article titled, “When Should You Kill A Cop?” and this article was then read aloud by Mr. Rose and incorporated into a number of slickly produced propaganda videos advocating the slaughter of law enforcement.

I later came to suspect that my new neighbors had me spotted for a Right winger before I did. An organized effort was underway to run me out, and though it met stiff resistance, the most generous financiers were among those making the push, and I was consequently relegated to the margins.

From those margins, I observed the downfall of this movement, and found for myself greener pastures.

Next month marks the 20th annual Porcupine Freedom Festival, or PorcFest, as it is often called. This is the premier event of the Free State Project, and it once attracted libertarians from all over the world. It has declined precipitously since my departure, though I don’t think myself the cause of this, only one of many symptoms.

When I first attended, I believe it was 2011, the event was glorious. Ron Paul was on the tip of every tongue. The speakers were economists and philosophers and geniuses of various stripes. The event is set at a campground in Lancaster, New Hampshire. This place is so beautiful, though if you come from afar, you’ll pass so much beauty on the way that you may become accustomed to it by the time you get there.

Vices were indulged. I myself partook, but the event was by no means centered around this. Most political events I’ve attended serve alcohol, and it just so happened that this one also had a great deal of marijuana and mushrooms and that sort of thing. It was not made hostile to families by this, the libertarians I knew then understood that with freedom comes responsibility and that to corrupt children was no way to get along with one’s neighbors.

Gays were of course tolerated, and treated with the same respect as everyone else. Perhaps just slightly more, since they did have one event during the week specifically geared toward them. Titled “Buzz’s Big Gay Dance Party” the eponymous event was conjured from the mind of a lesbian calling herself  J Buzz Webb, and at the time nothing foreshaodwed the bitter enmity that would later emerge between us.

I had struck up a conversation with a pretty girl who was no lesbian, and we got quite friendly. She asked me to come with her to the big gay dance party and I adamantly refused. “I’m not gay” I told her. “Are you?”. She assured me she was not, in more ways than one. But it was sort of deemed that this was expected of me. That by refusing to go, I was somehow expressing disapproval, and as it turned out, I was, which I did not think to be such a big deal. Live and let live, seemed to me the libertarian way. You go have your big gay dance party over there, and I’ll keep on doing my hetero thing over here with the pretty girl.

Not such a big deal at the time. But I did meet some social disapproval, and while I thought this curious, I didn’t much care.

Later years would come to feature panels on polyamory, a degenerate sex cult which only thinly disguised its contempt for the family. “Ethical non-monogamy” they like to call it, or “Consensual non-monogamy” or ENM or CNM, all the jargon that make up the indicia of a cult. It’s a form of statism to demand your partner be faithful to you, they say. Freedom is the freedom to penetrate and be penetrated without consequence. Birth control has in the snap of the fingers abolished all the human drives and realities that once came with the burden of pregnancy, which is now seen as a harmful side effect of failing to take one’s medication. It might go without saying that gender, being an oppressive social construct, in their view, had to be abolished along with the State, and inevitably, this leads to transgenderism.

I was informed not long ago that this year’s Porcupine Freedom Festival would feature one or more of the much talked about “Drag Queen Story Hour” events which have caused so much trouble in recent years. That inspired today’s theme. I went to check the event schedule, and hadn’t spotted anything officially sponsored, but if I was sexually grooming children I might make some effort to disguise the activity myself.

PorcFest still markets itself as “Family Friendly” you see. It’s right there on the front page of the site. You wouldn’t want the parents who buy the tickets for that beautiful White child in the image to think she’d be told to sterilize herself and cut off her breasts once they arrive, so you would have to keep this sort of thing under wraps.

Not that they have been sworn to secrecy.

A woman calling herself Bonnie Freeman, who purports to be married to a friend of mine, announced on Twitter that “Also you might not want to go to Porcfest because a ton of us are planning kid-friendly drag shows on our spots.”

The Tweet was in reply to another Tweet, from an account that is now suspended from Twitter, because that’s what happens when you come up against the lobby of the Rainbow Mafia. Freedom of speech today includes sexually grooming children, but not criticism of this behavior, even under the tutelage of Elon Musk.

The good news is, Mrs. Freeman’s announcement met near unanimous hostility from the ensuing comments.

I should emphasise the near part…

Dennis Pratt was a notable exception. he is prominently featured throughout the event’s schedule on the website and describes himself as “designer (and Chef de Village) of our most recent (and most successful!) versions of PorcFest.”

He states, in relevant part, “This year some folks are “very concerned” because there might be – somewhere on the 116 acres of PorcFest – some guy dressed in drag reading Tuttle Twins to a small group of kids (whose parents consent btw.)”

Mr. Pratt assures us that nothing of the sort is on the schedule, yet, but if one were to be announced, “it would be dutifully included in the Schedule – along with hundreds of other attendee-created events.”

And if you don’t like that, Mr. Pratt has some advice for you… “If the idea that someone somewhere within a mile radius of you might be doing something that you personally don’t like, PorcFest is just not the festival for you.”

My guest this evening, disagrees.

He calls himself “N of 1” and he is the founder of something called “Liberty+“. (Gab) (Telegram)

I stumbled across it browsing the PorcFest schedule, and he’ll be hosting a talk titled Good Night Alt-Right and Hello Liberty+!

You might guess an event titled “Good Night Alt Right” with an alternative reminiscent of Atheism+, would be the perpetrators of many a drag queen story hour, but my investigation turned up a decidedly different result.

  • They state “Our long-term goal is to neutralize the effect the liberal world order (hereafter condensed to “System”) has on our lives.”
  • They describe Critical Race Theory as “europhobic pseudoscience”
  • Egalitarianism is, in their view “the putative rejection of all social hierarchy”
  • Social Justice Warriors “are people who hate existence generally and their own identity especially”
  • They say “The natural order of things is impossible without differentiation, and this is what makes egalitarianism, to use Rothbard’s term, a revolt against nature, and hatred of the good for being the good, to use Rand’s. What drives SJWs is a will to entropy, seeking always the limpid embrace of a vast undifferentiated primordial sludge. The egalitarian utopia is the heat death of the universe.“

Worth quoting at length here is are three paragraphs describing the “dead wood” of the Libertarian movement, and how Liberty+ stands in opposition to this, and then, I’ll bring in our guest.

The deadwood in today’s liberty movement are of two camps: SJWs (left-libertarians) and liberal chauvinists (who often call themselves “anti-SJW”). The former are egalitarians who view liberty as means to equality. As far as risible worldviews go, left-libertarianism is a special kind of clownage. Anyone with eyes can see that free people are not equal and that equal people are not free. While left-libertarians are a specially stunted breed of globalist useful idiot, they have within the liberty movement useful idiots of their own comprising the latter camp. These liberal chauvinists are pompous, oblivious egotists who derive an inordinate amount of self-esteem from “owning” SJWs in debate, which is at this point a facile pastime. All this amounts to is reiteration of what everyone already knows: that SJWs aren’t liberal. If these chauvinists merely confined themselves to intercourse with SJWs they’d be wasting only their own time, however, not only do they punch left but also right, denouncing pro-liberty reactionaries as “racists”, “collectivists”, or “right-wing SJWs”. In their onanistic drive to posture as big-brained, enlightened centrists too refined for the primitive pandemonium of tribal “identity politics” they unwittingly marginalize globalism’s only real opposition and massively undermine the quest for liberty in our lifetime.

The basic problem giving rise to this sorry state of affairs is the unquestioning belief that the Enlightenment, including its political philosophy of liberalism, represents a quantum leap forward in the history of ideas. The essence of its reactionary critique is this: There are many ways for a string to be flaccid, but only one for it to be taut. The absoluteness of natural law is no less singular, and due to the brutality of nature most worldviews, being copes of timorous hairless apes, are quite flaccid in many ways. The Enlightenment, though it did produce certain ideas of merit, is no exception. The worst idea it produced, however, is a very bad one indeed: That tolerance is a virtue. Tolerance is indifference to degradation, and the degradation and defeat that the liberty movement has endured over the decades is a direct consequence of its enshrinement of tolerance borne of a perceived filial duty to uphold such Enlightenment values. It is fitting that “liberalism” and “libertarianism” are cognates, as both aspire to the same ends: peace, freedom, and prosperity. The albatross of tolerance, however, is reason enough alone (though far from the only reason) to regard kinship between these views as a travesty. The foundation of liberty is property, and property is defined by discrimination and exclusion, the very antitheses of tolerance.

Liberty+ is the jettisoning of the liberty movement’s deadwood. The plus sign in our name is multilayered in meaning, but the most concise conception is this: The liberty movement plus character. We advance liberty by awarding membership only to liberty lovers of good character, which here includes objectivity about globalism’s anti-white animus and that which constitutes normal, healthy, and pro-social behavior. Anyone who apologizes for the globalists’ agenda of white replacement is not of good character. Anyone who stigmatizes an individual for availing herself of the life-saving utility of group discrimination is no better. Apart from the problems described in the preceding paragraph, the liberty movement also suffers from being simply too big of a tent due to the capaciousness of the mere desire for greater freedom as a criterion of participation. There are many bad reasons to oppose the regime well as good ones, and allowing people in for such malcontent alone causes a debilitating proliferation of satanics, degenerates, and perverts. Anyone who attempts to normalize deviant behavior, especially by representing such behavior as concomitant with liberty, is of very bad character indeed.

Intrigued by this I reached out to the website operators, and the founder graciously accepted my invitation, and with this, I welcome, N of 1.

Good to be with you this evening, sir.

 

 

If you would like to help finance this high quality production, I try to make this easy enough to do….

 

Follow me elsewhere, listen, watch, and keep in touch…

Be sure and get subscribed to my newsletter if you haven’t already, and whitelist [email protected] so I don’t end up in your spam trap!

 

Leave a Reply

Skip to toolbar