"the first steps in reinvigorating our movement comes in the realization that we have much more in common with the Alt-Right than Libertarianism Inc these days..."
THE LEFT EMBRACES WAR CRIMINALS GEORGE W BUSH, AND MADELEINE ALBRIGHT
PUBLISHED: 6th March, 2017 | By ROBERT TAYLOR
While taking a brief pause in spinning their fantastical, non-existent web of a grand conspiracy between Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Trump to undermine our sacred democracy, the media has now resorted to trotting out George W. Bush in order to try to discredit President Trump. It took barely a month for the 43rd president—who spent eight years with his disgraced head in the sand saying absolutely nothing critical about President Obama—to voice his grave concerns about the Trump Administration.
In an in-depth interview on the Today Show, President Bush expressed his dislike of Trump's "racism" and spewed virtually every other current left-wing talking point concerning "the freedom of the press," supposed Russian collusion in the election of Trump, and open immigration. The New Yorker profiled W's personal paintings. And after speaking of his fondness for former First Lady Michelle Obama (which she also reciprocates), the Washington Post ran a story highlighting the new warmth that liberals now feel for Bush thanks to Big, Bad, Meanie Trump:
Some of the rethinking of Bush stems not from anything Bush has said or done but simply from the contrast with President Trump, a comparison bolstered by his recent appearances on talk shows and in news segments.
After the “Ellen” show posted a video of the former president joking about his inner “Rembrandt” and learning to paint, viewers flooded the comments with unexpected praise.
“A few years ago I would have rolled my eyes at the [sight] of this man, but 6 weeks of Trump makes W look like a pretty decent guy,” one woman wrote. “Perspective is a funny thing.”
Added another: “I used to be a big critic of him and still don’t agree with much of what he did while in office. But, given who is now in office and how scary 45 is making the world, I’ve come to actually like this man.”
It was an idea comedian Aziz Ansari explored in January during his monologue as host of “Saturday Night Live,” the same show that spent years writing unflattering skits of President Bush and has since turned its humor to a new GOP target.
“George W Bush made a speech after 9/11, and it really helped,” Ansari said. “Things changed. … He said Islam is peace.”
The monologue came one day after Trump’s inaugural address, which took on a dark and menacing tone, echoing his campaign rhetoric, which was often critical of Muslims and immigrants.
Time heals all wounds—or is it amnesia?
Liberal hatred for Trump is so strong and bitter that even the once-hated Bush is now being welcomed with opened arms by the Left because he criticizes Trump's supposed "racism" and bigoted immigration policies.
That old hag Madeline Albright is also in the public eye again for similar reasons. The former Secretary of State recently appeared on David Axelrod's podcast to describe Trump's rhetoric and actions as " un-American, Ant-American, and very dangerous," and a "great recruiting tool for ISIS." Since her words can be used to attack and undermine Trump, Albright is of course receiving nothing but praise for her oh-so-brave opinions.
That Bush and Albright are being used as rhetorical attacks dogs against Trump—See! even a former Republican president and Democrat Secretary of State agree that Trump is bad!—reveal the absolutely sick moral code of the Left and their desperate attempts to use anything (or anyone) to try and attack the president.
Liberals may have amnesia, but libertarians sure don't. Let's not forget that that the now vaunted painter launched a war in Iraq, based on lies cooked up by neocons that had been planned for decades, that resulted in the deaths of one million Iraqis, the destruction of an entire region, millions of refugees, and a power vacuum that was filled by ISIS. Albright, in a now infamous 60 Minutes interview, justified the murder of 500,000 Iraqi children that had occurred as a result of US-led sanctions and bombings under President Clinton, saying that these deaths were "worth it."
Years later, these two lying war criminals and mass murderers now have the gall to fret over Trump's supposedly "dangerous rhetoric."
It is easy to point out the hypocrisy and criminality of politicians. But the most interesting takeaway is how these two former spear-carriers of the US Empire can be used by the Left, with a straight face, to slander Trump. Ignoring (or excusing) Bush and Albright's history of mass murder is not a problem for the Left because in their worldview, "racism" and deviations from Progressive Orthodoxy are worse sins than piling up stacks of dead, innocent bodies for power and profit. Understanding this moral outlook of the Left is crucial to first understanding, and then defeating, them and their twisted narratives that handcuff any movements towards liberty and the restoration of Western civilization.
It all began with the rise of Cultural Marxism. Marxist theory had predicted that in the event of a big European war, the working class all over Europe would rise up to overthrow the evil capitalist system and implement communism. But when war came in 1914, that did not happen. When it finally did happen in Russia in 1917, workers in other European countries did not support it. What had gone wrong? Independently, two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, came to the same answer: traditional Western culture—a unique blend of Christianity and Greco-Roman philosophy—had blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interest. Thus, implementing communism was impossible in the West until its culture was destroyed. Cultural Marxism was born.
In the 1930s, the “Frankfurt School” at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, was formed with the goal of translating economic Marxism into cultural terms. The Frankfurt School argued that culture was not just part of what Marx had called society’s “superstructure,” but rather an independent and very important variable. The working class would not lead a Marxist revolution because it was becoming part of the middle class, the hated bourgeoisie.
After fleeing Germany in 1933, the Frankfurt School reestablished itself in New York City. From there, they shifted their focus from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to destroying it in America. To do so, “Critical Theory” was invented. This involved the criticism and deconstruction of virtually every institution responsible for the rise and success of Western civilization—strong families, traditional sexual norms and roles, private property, and religion. Since these institutions and concepts have traditionally served as bulwarks against state power and social engineering, they were to be attacked brutally and unremittingly. They wrote a series of “studies in prejudice,” crossing Marx with Freud to use psychology as a technique of social conditioning. Anyone who believed in traditional Western culture was now prejudiced, racist, sexist, fascist, and mentally ill.
Theodor Adorno, a colleague of Marcuse at the Frankfurt School, argued that parenthood, pride in one’s own family, Christianity, traditional gender roles and attitudes towards sex, and the love of one’s own country are all pathological phenomena which need to be engineered, and if necessary, beaten out of people, in order to soften them up for communism.
This tendency to pathologize the opinions and cultural traditions not in accordance with its own political ends is done in order to weaken the naturally anti-communist immune system of the West, notes Nathan Bedford Forrest at The Right Stuff:
The Frankfurt School was a Jewish intellectual movement beginning in Weimar Germany, which rejected Marxist class warfare (Klassenkampf ) for cultural warfare (Kulturkampf ). Disappointed with the triumph of fascism in Europe and the rise of a totalitarian state in the Soviet Union (especially when Joseph Stalin purged the formerly Jewish-dominated Bolshevik Party), the Frankfurt School determined that the reason for Communism’s failure was ethno-centrism, anti-Semitism, and authoritarian personality traits in the Gentile proletariat. So long as these personality traits existed—which the Frankfurt School believed stemmed from childhood—the Gentile proletariat would continue to fall short of their revolution and utopia. Using Freudian psychoanalysis (itself another Jewish intellectual movement) to seek and destroy these personality traits, the Frankfurt School “pathologized” healthy and high-functioning human behavior as “ethno-centric,” “anti-Semitic,” and “authoritarian.” Only when these personality traits were removed could true Communism be achieved…
…For example, in their seminal study, The Authoritarian Personality, the Frankfurt School subjected Western culture to what they called “critical theory.” Preferring your in-group over an out-group and conforming to cultural norms is racist; not having an in-group preference and rejecting cultural norms is open-minded. Obeying your parents as a child and adopting their values as an adult is submissive; disobeying your parents and rejecting their values is free-thinking. Succeeding socially and economically is just “pseudo-success” to hide secret anxieties; social and economic insecurity is a sign of true success. In conclusion, those who are unhappiest are diagnosed as mentally healthy and those who are happiest are diagnosed with mental disorders.
The successful spread of Cultural Marxism is no accident. The Marxists, well aware that communism was not going to be implemented through a revolution of the proletariat , began their “long march through the institutions.” Traditional Western society would be subverted through the infiltration of universities, governments, churches, and the media.
These PC buzzwords that the Left throws around at anyone on the Right—or anyone who happens to notice obvious truths about sexual, racial, and cultural differences—were created by Cultural Marxists as a way to implement communism through cultural means by putting a societal straightjacket on any attempt by Europeans to defend their interests. That is all the slur of "racism" has ever been; a linguistic "kill shot" that is supposed to paralyze the Right, prevent us from taking our own sides, and provide the moral justification for anything that the Left desires.
With the decline of Christianity in the West, Cultural Marxism has become the new de facto public religion. As the neo-reactionary Mencius Moldbug has pointed out, this Progressive Orthodoxy is rooted in Puritanism/Calvinism; the traditional forms of Christianity remain, but the Triune God is replaced with the new trinity of multiculturalism, egalitarianism, and anti-racism. Racism is the new Original Sin; but unlike traditional Christianity, where we can be saved of this stain through Christ's resurrection and the Sacraments, there is no salvation from perceived Racism. Perpetual war and endless crusades must be waged, and no amount of sacrifices or apologies can ever be enough to placate this vengeful god.
Thus, any and every liberal program can be justified under this baptismal cleansing of racist sin. Affirmative action, forced integration, welfare redistribution, mass immigration into European countries, the destruction of European history and cultural icons, the removal of any Southern/Confederate statues or symbols; if racism is the worst thing in the world, then all of these policies become moral imperatives. And on the flip side, any hints of European nationalism, or anything that is perceived as restricting liberal plans to wash away our Original Sin, is met with pathologizing and cries of Hitler.
It is an incredibly effective strategy that has gained the Left immense power and silenced the Right over the last century—until now.
This is why Trump is so hated by the Left. It really has little to do with most of his economic policies, many of which if repackaged under left-wing slogans would easily be supported by the Left. The hatred for Trump has everything to do with the fact that he is the first public figure in a generation that refuses to bend a knee to Progressive Orthodoxy. Instead of apologizing like a good conservative cuck, he doubles-down. He berates the press, and does it with a smile. With every deviation from the Cultural Marxism narrative, he emboldens the Right and gives us license to stand up for ourselves. Without Trump, there is little chance that Brexit would have succeeded or that European nationalism would be on the rise.
Without the power of the linguistic "kill shot" that has allowed the Left to dominate public discourse and continually shift the Overton Window in their direction, the Left is now in the unusual position of actually having to make an argument. Since Trump, we have seen what this entails: more doubling-down on Trump-is-literally-Hitler-ism, Russian conspiracies, riots and physical violence against everyone from Richard Spencer to anyone wearing a Make America Great Again hat, and the development a soft spot for war criminals that they once claimed to hate.
The fact that Trump has turned the Left into pretzels is precisely why libertarians should support him. Yes, I know, he is not a libertarian, and he will undoubtedly kill people overseas and employ state coercion. But given that radical libertarianism is neither popular nor on the table as an option for us to support, this means that a broad culture war against the Left, combined with a shifting the Overton Window in our direction, gives us the best chance of advancing our goals. Libertarianism belongs on the Right; a private property society is inherently anti-egalitarian, hierarchical, and aristocratic, and the first steps in reinvigorating our movement comes in the realization that we have much more in common with the Alt-Right than Libertarianism Inc. these days, and should welcome the rise of a non-cucked, backboned Right as natural allies against the anti-West, anti-liberty, anti-property Left.
As libertarians, we are usually extremely well-versed in theory but tragically ignorant of meta-politics. We can debate the intricacies of anarcho-capitalism all we want as the West burns, but one of the reasons that the Left has been so successful for the last century is the insight, developed and perfected by Saul Alinsky, that principles have nothing to do with politics. Politics is about power, and preventing your enemies from acquiring that power by any means necessary. In my book Reactionary Liberty: The Libertarian Counter-Revolution, I defend a Hoppean, private property social order; but I also argue that if libertarians are to become relevant again and acquire a seat at the table, then our approach to politics must become Alinskyite and Machiavellian. This requires an understanding that we are not "above" or "beyond" Left and Right, and that the subjugation of the Left, even through the use of state power, is in our short and long-term interests.
In his defiant table-flipping of the Establishment and the Progressive Orthodoxy, Trump has begun to remove the straightjacket that the Left has foisted upon us. He is hated by the Left, the media, corporate boardrooms, university professors, pop culture, and Hollywood precisely because of his heresies against Progressivism. These anti-Trump Cultural Marxists deserve helicopter rides, not our support. If we refuse to recognize who our friends and enemies are, or even naively wish to be neutral, then libertarians give aid and comfort to those who have absolutely no moral qualms about stacking millions of bodies (or defending those who do, like Bush and Albright) in the name of fighting "racism" and destroying our civilization.
Whether we like it or not, lines have been drawn. Disagree with Trump's policies all you want, but to the Left, anyone to the Right of them is a Nazi who can be punched. Political theory matters little in a once cold culture war that grows hotter by the day. Are you really scared of being called a racist or an Islamophobe by the type of people who actually believe that Trump is a Russian agent with a golden shower fetish?
We can either continue to be holier-than-thou philosophers, unwilling to open our eyes to the existential crisis that Western civilization faces thanks to the damage done by Cultural Marxism and the Modern Left, or we can fight. With the former, we lose with only the dignity that we imagine and rationalize. But if we choose the latter, than we have to embrace the reactionary force that is necessary to defend our liberty, our civilization, and rebuild and restore all that has been taken from us.
IF YOU ENJOY OUR CONTENT AND WOULD LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE. SIMPLY DONATE THE PRICE OF A PINT, CHEERS.