"IN ORDER TO GOVERN, THE QUESTION IS NOT TO FOLLOW OUT A MORE OR LESS VALID THEORY BUT TO BUILD WITH WHATEVER MATERIALS ARE AT HAND..."
LIBERTARIANS SCREECH AUTISTICALLY AT STEVE BANNON
PUBLISHED: 1st April, 2017 | By Richard Heathen
A recent piece by the New York Times has libertarians up in arms and at the throat of former Breitbart CEO and current Whitehouse Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. The article in question was a piece discussing the recent debacle regarding Paul Ryan’s attempt at replacing Obamacare with a monstrosity of his own. In it Bannon was quoted as saying:
"What's that Dostoyevsky line: Happy families are all the same, but unhappy families are unhappy in their own unique ways?" ([Bannon] meant Tolstoy.) "I think the Democrats are fundamentally afflicted with the inability to discuss and have an adult conversation about economics and jobs, because they're too consumed by identity politics. And then the Republicans, it's all this theoretical Cato Institute, Austrian economics, limited government — which just doesn't have any depth to it. They're not living in the real world."
Anyone who’s spent anytime around libertarians will understand how very outraged your average libertarian will be at such comments. Both Reason Magazine and the Mises Institute wasted little time attacking Bannon for his heresy. Both publications are flagship libertarian stalwarts, yet at this point both are at least a little tired and hackneyed, with very little of anything original left to say. Truthfully this applies much more to Reason than the Mises Institute.
The Mises Institute is a purveyor of the Austrian school of economics and thus more scholarly, though their strict adherence to one school of thought makes them a tad stuffy and creates an echo chamber. This at times makes them out of touch with the world outside their intellectual debate club. While the piece by Jeff Diest at times comes off like autistic screeching, it does make sense that Bannons seeming dismissal of Austrian economics comes across to them as a rebuke of their very reason for being. The Mises piece correctly points out that the majority of the Republican Party is full of career politicians who aren’t married to any puritan ideals of Austrian economics or limited government. Most just pay lip service to free markets to get elected, then work to enfranchise their donors. I doubt Steve Bannon would disagree.
It’s impossible to know who or what Bannon was actually talking about in his sacrilegious quote. Was he talking about Paul Ryan? Rand Paul and the Freedom Caucus? Was he talking about Republican members of congress, or was he talking about members of the Republican Party in general? It’s hard to know as we’re not given a lot of context. However, what’s not controversial is that as a man in a position to exercise power Steve Bannon has to be practical and pragmatic, and a dogmatic adherence to Austrian economics is simply not pragmatic at this time. What do you suppose would happen if Bannon tried to take Walter Block’s mantra of “privatize everything” to heart? You would literally have riots in the streets. There would be mass outcry from teachers unions, labour unions, the country would come to a standstill. Why do you ask? The sad answer is because people don’t want a society based on Austrian economics or libertarianism. Libertarians and Austrian economists have worked diligently trying to sell the public on their worldview, but the public simply hasn’t bought in yet, so the idea of trying to impose such a system on people where they are both A) swayed by the propaganda of the state and its’ special interests, and B) in a position to vote it out because of their own ignorance, is foolish. The only way a society based on private property will ever exist will be through the actions of men willing to ruthlessly use force to mercilessly crush the communist agitators and their useful idiots. These people will utilize any means of violence available to them in order to disrupt and derail a society based on private property norms, as they are parasites who might not survive in such a civilization. The only way to handle these people is the same methods you use for any parasite, removal or termination. However, I don’t think libertarians have the stomach for that, at least not yet anyway…
Politics is the art of exercising power and furthering your agenda within the narrow window of possibility due to whatever the current conditions and environment offer at the moment. The best a skilled statesman can do is use the current circumstances and political conditions to push the Overton window further in the direction they would like to go. A dogmatic application of Austrian economics is simply not possible right now, unless you are willing to wage full-scale war against the communists who would oppose such a social order.
Reason Magazine on the other hand is a tired old rag that has outlived its usefulness and has become nothing but a blight on libertarianism. To be fair Reason has always leaned towards douchey hipsterism, but in recent years it’s swung even further to the left and have given dyed in the wool Cultural Marxists a platform. At this point in it’s existence Reason Magazine is carrying the water for the people who are gleefully undermining and destroying Western Civilization.
Nick Gillespie’s piece is dripping with the very same terrible and cringeworthy snark that leftist political hacks who disguise themselves as comedians spew night after night. Examples include John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Samantha Bea.
Gillespie gleefully points out President Trumps’ supposed “post factual” errors, specifically a claim that Trump referenced a terror attack that never happened in Sweden. This shows that Gillespie is either being intentionally dishonest or is embarrassingly ignorant of the subjects he’s discussing in his piece, perhaps both. During a speech on February 18th, Trump made a vague reference to something “happening last night in Sweden”, in a tweet he later clarified his comment was referencing a story broadcast on Fox News the previous evening on Tucker Carlson Tonight. Regardless of whether or not that was really what Trump was referencing, the situation in Sweden is one where sexual attacks on the indigenous population by the migrant and immigrant population is so common place, that Sweden has become known as the rape capital of Europe. One could randomly say “last night in Sweden” and have some terrible event or attack to reference, more often than not.
Over the last 2 years the problems in Sweden caused by both a policy of mass immigration from the third world, and the migrant crises have been well documented.
Ironically, while the mainstream media and political hacks like Gillespie were attempting to mock Trumps comments on Sweden, riots broke out in the immigrant enclave of Rinkeby in Stockholm, proving Trump’s point. Mass immigration from the third world is having profoundly negative consequences for Sweden.
If Gillespie was more honest, or had a better grasp on the situation going on in Sweden, he would know this. Maybe he does.
He then proceeds to exude righteous indignation and becomes incensed at the nerve of Bannon to even suggest the idea that libertarians might be out of touch, a tirade that somehow manages to swerve into gay marriage and pot legalization. The sad fact is a large number of libertarians are indeed out of touch with the problems facing the world today. They focus on irrelevant issues like pot legalization and gay marriage while all over the West governments are implementing a policy of demographic replacement and disenfranchisement of their own people. These foreigners come from places in the world that quite simply don’t have a culture of liberty. Does he believe America has enchanted soil where anyone who steps in to the United States magically becomes more libertarian, their existing cultural conditioning, tribal loyalties and grudges falling away because of the spell?
“Bannon is simply wrong that libertarians are living in a "theoretical" world of, what, exactly? Across-the-board calls for lower levels of regulation in all aspects of life (also known as believing government is trying to do too many things that should be left to businesses and voluntary groups such as churches and nonprofits)? That increasing majorities of Americans are comfortable with pot legalization and gay marriage even as they are losing trust in law enforcement, the education system, and the federal government (now headed by, er, Donald Trump and his own GOP party that can't even pass a healthcare reform bill they've been promising for nigh-on seven years)?”
As someone who’s been travelling in libertarians circles for years, I can confidently say many libertarians simply aren’t interested in achieving real results in the real world. They live in a debate club, where they reject the hard lessons of reality, (such as the role of culture and demographics in the makeup of society) and instead project their ideals on the world, seeing the world how they think it should be instead of taking it how it really is. Many libertarians don’t see that an appreciation for liberty is something cultural, unique to Western Civilization.
Gillespie than attacks Bannon for his supposed “post-apocalyptic” worldview:
His vision of a post-apocalyptic America where folks are so scared of crime that they don't walk down city streets anymore; where living standards are declining year over year in absolute terms; and where resentment against the Other is the only thing keeping hearts beating is as fundamentally false as it is opposed to a broad-based libertarianism that has always animated America.”
Unfortunately for Gillespie, the problem isn’t a “resentment of the other”. A desire to secure one’s borders and enforce immigration law is hardly an extremist position, this is something literally every other country does! Only in a society poisoned by communist propaganda could such a position ever been seen as anything other than rational. He also ignores the fact that the gap between rich and poor is rising, whole areas of the US are in decay because of globalism, (outsourcing overseas by multinational corporations) environmental regulation, (UN Agenda 21), and other government predations (central banking). The loss of economic opportunities leaves the people in those places with little means to get ahead, and where there’s poverty there’s usually crime. While it’s not controversial that overall violent crime statistics are down, it’s also true that poverty and crime are often found to correlate, therefore places hardest hit by an economic downturn might also see a spike in crime. I believe what we are seeing is a dividing of America into two worlds. One world is where the trendy hipsters like Nick Gillespie inhabit; affluent and white. Trendy cosmopolitans go to their dinner parties and reassure each other how enlightened they are. These people can afford to virtue signal and fetishize diversity because they don’t have to deal with the consequences of it. They don’t have to live the experience of being “culturally enriched”.
The other America is the “post apocalyptic” world of Steve Bannon. Bannon see’s the decline of America and all of Western Civilization and seems to be trying to reverse the trend. He sees the rising problems of demographic replacement, and the gutting of America’s manufacturing sector. It’s not surprising Gillespie wouldn’t notice the so called “losers of globalism”, the predominantly white working class. There are no social dividends from his cosmopolitan peers for noticing these poor wretches. You won’t be trendy and you won’t be able to virtue signal about how progressively minded you are to your friends on the left. You’re not going to cozy up to the culturally left establishment so long as you even acknowledge these people exist. Which is why I am not surprised that Nick Gillespie and the Cultural Marxists at Reason don’t have time for the disenfranchised white working class.
Bannon on the other hand is trying to reverse the duel tides of globalism and progressivism. While I might have my disagreements with him when it comes to the proper role of government in the economy or society at large, the fact that he’s sees the dangers and challenges we face and is fighting for the future of Western Civilization makes him more valuable than ten million Nick Gillespies’.
IF YOU ENJOY OUR CONTENT AND WOULD LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE. SIMPLY DONATE THE PRICE OF A PINT, CHEERS.