In Part I I repudiated the view of fascism that Chase Rachels and I shared when he published “Fascism is a Step Towards Liberty” in 2018. Had Rachels himself done so, I probably would not have bothered. Not only has he not, however, his view of fascism has grown significantly more favorable since. Based on recent Twitter and Telegram conversations with him, he now not only believes that fascism is necessary to halting the Great Replacement, but that libertarian activism is not currently worthwhile for related reasons. Rachels, to the extent he is still politically active, has therefore now thrown his lot in with the fascist movement, while to his credit remaining a destinational libertarian. This part, therefore, will explain why I have done something quite different.
In Part I I described my experience as part of a fascist organization, in which I realized that even the aristocracy among fascists are pigs. That organization, which was primarily online, was not the only one I associated with, however. A friend of mine became a member of NSC-131, a New England-based street activism organization. At the time, NSC stood for Nationalist Social Club – Anti-Communist Action, a direct counter to Antifa. Although I was never a member I did meet them in person several times. The leader and I got along well despite our opposing views on political economy. I liked that despite the obvious reference to national socialism the organization’s name, the cheeky twist suggested a big tent approach focused on opposition to globalism and communism rather than promotion of socialism but for white people. Despite my doing them several favors, my friend brought to my attention that many of them were talking ill of me behind my back, partly because I’m half-jewish, which I’ve never been secretive about, but mainly because I’m an outspoken opponent of socialism, national socialism being no exception. I have always welcomed criticism, provided that it is honest and straightforward. Badmouthing behind my back, however, suggests inability to cope with one’s sacred cows being challenged. A good nationalist embraces good-faith argument over political economy because that’s how policies that are good for the nation are brought to light. He does not treat his political economy as religious dogma. I used to be a classical liberal but logic and evidence changed my mind. Despite the difference in socioeconomic character between NSC and the secret society I was a member of, what they had in common was a cultural of passive-aggressive brittleness when it came to legitimate differences of opinion. Many in nationalist circles try to shut down arguments over economics and religion, claiming that they’re trying to stop “infighting”. Some of these attempts are well-intentioned but counterproductive because economics and religion are far too important to ever stop fighting about. Furthermore, some of the most effective fighting forces in history have had combat training so fierce as to be deadly. Ferocity in good faith combat is as virtuous on the ideological level as it is on the physical level. Many of these suppression attempts are not well-intentioned, however, because the people behind them who say “we all need to stop infighting” really mean “we all need to stop infighting and agree with me”. They do not want to honestly persuade opponents into agreement, however, but intend to simply impose their views on their opponents by force when the revolution goes kinetic. We see this even within exclusively fascist movements in instances like the Night of the Long Knives. Their insistence that “we don’t have time to argue about this” is that of a hustler. It is the moral duty of conscientious nationalists not to let our movement be taken for a ride, because that ride can be on a road to perdition. Indicative of this, NSC has since changed their name to National Socialist Club and their tagline to “anti-capitalist, anti-communist”.
Let’s explore the difference in character between the fascist and libertarian movements in greater depth. The first thing to point out is that what matters most is policy. It is theoretically possible for a society to be ruled exclusively by government of left-libertarians but its policies will still be significantly better for the nation than fascist ones because the policies are grounded in fundamental facts of reality. Although the personal values of such government’s officials would be unhealthy, the policies of such government would be almost identical to that of government of right-wing libertarians because there is really only one core libertarian policy set. A difference in immigration policy would be that a left-libertarian government would treat the right of invitation as equal to the right of exclusion. This vulnerability would be countered by large scale covenants prohibiting invitation of undesirables, which any libertarian government is obligated to enforce. This would be somewhat more costly than a blanket prohibition on high-risk foreigners or a system where property values were protected (including from ethnic diversity of any kind) by default. It would be far from ruinous, however, and less costly than fascist immigration policies that likely inhibit healthful cosmopolitanism and restrict natives from leaving when it suits them. So even on the issue that most divides left libertarians from right, the one that fascists have the greatest basis for attacking the libertarian movement on, left-libertarians would ultimately be better than fascists.
Rachels and libertarians like him may counter that the preceding is a destination, not the severely sub-optimal interim we are dealing with today. Under conditions of statism, Rachels would point out, left-libertarians treat state-owned property as unowned, to which therefore foreigners have as much right of access as natives. This means that left-libertarians who have policymaking influence will do nothing to restrict access to such property. As demented as their view of state property relating to immigration is, it is not especially significant compared to their support for absolute freedom of association. Just as in the destinational scenario, people can, if left-libertarians have their way with the Civil Rights Act, form covenants that restrict the property available to be sold to foreigners to such a small amount that mass immigration is made prohibitively expensive to prospective immigrants. It means very little that immigrants have unlimited access to roads and parks when hardly anyone will hire or house them. Left-libertarians of course, would work to marketize common areas as well, which would benefit natives much more than foreigners because the former’s vastly greater resources would enable them to purchase the bulk of the offerings and thus put common areas under direct control of non-state actors. This would be a significant shift in control from a group that hates white people to people who don’t. This control would shift to a better informed population as well, because government indoctrination through the Cathedral would end. The welfare magnet is also something left-libertarians would do away with. Under such a regime, more undesirable foreigners would be invited than under our interpretation of the property norm, but not in numbers that come anywhere close to being problematic.
The preceding scenario is unrealistic but useful as a thought experiment because if we can show that an unrealistically worst case scenario regarding libertarian rule is still preferable to fascism, the more realistic scenario becomes highly preferable. Left-libertarian rule is unrealistic because (1), left-libertarians are allergic to power, and (2) left-libertarians are a decided minority. Two-thirds of libertarians are right-of-center to some degree. Recently, perhaps due to exposure to neoreactionary thought, right-libertarians have wised up to the realities of power. As a result the Libertarian Party’s Mises Caucus has pivoted to a kingmaker strategy where we leverage the power of our willingness to switch votes to reward our friends and punish our enemies both inside and outside the Republican Party. This strategy has proven highly successful with respect to Trump’s 2024 campaign. In forsaking the LP nominee in favor of Trump, the then party chair Angela McArdle was able to extract concessions from Trump, notably the appointment of a libertarian to his cabinet and freeing Ross Ulbricht. The true libertarian turned out to be McArdle herself, though a number of Trump’s other picks have strong libertarian leanings, particularly with respect to the departments they’ve been nominated for. There is also of course DOGE, which Ron Paul himself is advising. As of the time of writing DOGE is auditing the IRS itself and has indicated the Fed is likely next. Trump himself has in a short time cut a good number of federal staff and has effectively shut down USAID, one of the worst offenders in facilitating the Great Replacement. He has also cut funding to the South African government and offered Afrikaners refuge. A recent small but highly significant win has been the rehiring of a DOGE staffer who was doxxed and fired over tweets where he said he wanted the Civil Rights Act repealed, a eugenic immigration policy, that he wouldn’t marry outside his ethnicity even if paid to, and that H-1B Indians should be replaced by LLM AI and sent home. He also tweeted that he wouldn’t mind if both Israel and Gaza were nuked off the face of the earth and “I was racist before it was cool”. Trump, along with JD Vance and Elon Musk, supported his rehiring, striking a massive blow against leftist cancel culture. All three who came to his aid are much closer to libertarians than to fascists. Trump and Musk hold Javier Milei in especially high regard. Milei’s victory is concrete proof that libertarians can attain power even in the unfavorable conditions of liberal democracy, and his achievements this far despite lacking parliamentary support have shown that libertarians can wield it effectively. The same is true on a smaller scale with the Free State Project in New Hampshire.
On the subject of wielding power, an important clarification is in order: There are some who claim that that fascism is necessary because in order to defeat the left the right needs to wield power, wielding power is authoritarianism, and fascism is right-wing authoritarianism. The fallacy lies in the second statement. The truth is that the wielding of power is not a defining feature of authoritarianism at all. This false notion comes about because of a basic conflation of the descriptive and prescriptive. Many people, including many libertarians and most fascists, define authoritarianism as “when political authority acts forcefully”. This uselessly vague descriptive definition came into existence because many words with the “ism” suffix are purely descriptive and not at all ideological, words such as “magnetism”, for instance. Obviously libertarianism is ideological, however, so in a political context so too must be authoritarianism. The degree to which non-libertarian regimes are anti-liberty, however, is such a broad spectrum that “non-libertarian” is also too vague of a definition of authoritarianism. We have discovered a helpful clue in the preceding deduction, however: “anti-liberty”. While also too vague by itself to be the right definition, it highlights the inherent conflict between libertarianism and authoritarianism. The reason for the conflict is the difference in how these ideologies treat conflict between liberty and authority in a political context: Libertarianism holds that where there is a conflict between liberty (as we define it) and political authority (especially the authority of a monopolistic state), liberty ought to be deferred to. Authoritarianism holds that authority ought to be deferred to when it conflicts with anything else. The difference in how each ideology defines conflicting opposition is a significant asymmetry that authoritarians exploit through the vague definition: Whereas libertarianism applies only to the domain of law, authoritarianism can apply to all domains involving authority. A father who makes his son chop firewood with little time left over for play is also authoritarian, but what he is infringing on is his son’s freedom, not liberty as libertarians define it, because the latter is not applicable unless his son were worked to the point of injury severe enough to be considered child abuse. Authoritarians gloss over this crucial distinction, as well as the distinction between legitimate authority in non-political domains and illegitimate authority in government. It should be obvious that authority in government and other domains is necessary for libertarianism to be implemented. Libertarianism is a legal philosophy, and authority inheres in law enforcement. Law is nothing without enforcement, and enforcement requires the wielding of power. Given the proper definition of authoritarianism it should also be obvious that authoritarianism opposes legitimate authority. Legitimate authority arises under the conditions of free competition that liberty creates. A legitimate authority does not abuse his or their authority. Whether state power is concentrated in one person or dispersed among many is irrelevant where the pure philosophy of libertarianism is concerned. Many mistakenly regard monocracy as authoritarian. In cases where liberty in property is subordinated to authority, this is abuse by libertarian definition. A “strong man” who wields power against tyrannical abuses of power, both within the state and outside, is anti-authoritarian, and if he does so consistently he is libertarian.
Having properly defined authoritarianism, we now need to ask what kind of person is attracted to the right-wing version of it. Does being right-wing mitigate the pathology? It does not. When I was in my fash-friendly phase I liked to flatter myself with the notion that “right vs left” really means “right vs wrong”. Having the benefit of further reflection informed by Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations Framework, I now recognize that right and left are the political manifestations of the masculine and feminine respectively. Because politics is a domain of violence, it is natural for the masculine instinct to dominate this domain. Its dominance should certainly not be total, however. History has seen many competent female rulers, and certain feminine values such as mercy are crucial counterbalance to masculine ones. Fascism is where this counterbalance is lost. Without the anchoring of a proper object of protection (a feminine concept) men do not properly mature. Fascism is the ideology of an immature male. The neoliberal globalism of today is that of an immature woman, a feminized kind of fascism. Although fascism is to a degree a reaction against comparatively feminine ideologies, compared to the libertarian movement fascism does not even differentiate itself as more masculine. According to ChatGPT, between 20-40% of fascists come from the left. Due to ChatGPT’s leftist political bias this is likely a low estimate. In National Socialist Germany, the percentage of SA recruits that were former communists is conservatively estimated to be 70% and 63% for the SS. Regardless, the primary concern here is moral character. While ideology is not a 1:1 determinate of character, it is often highly predictive. The greater a part of someone’s overall identity, the more predictive it becomes. Fascism is a right-instinct variant of progressivism, and it is unreasonable to think that right-wing progressivists are of any better character than their left-wing counterparts. If anything, they are worse. Left-progressivism has long been the thoroughly dominant ideology of the most influential Western institutions, so nearly everyone is a left-progressivist by default. For most of those “on the left” today, however, their political views are not a significant part of their identity. Fascists today however, are hyper-political almost to a man. To adopt an ideology that is so taboo to left-progressivist authoritarianism that dominates our culture, yet itself is also authoritarian, is the behavior of someone consumed by lust for power. This is the reason why early adopters of white nationalist ideology are adversely selected. In earlier times when the cultural association between white nationalism and authoritarianism was much stronger, for someone to adopt white nationalism usually meant amenability to authoritarianism. It is important to remember that for however many bad people are in power, there are always a comparable number of enemies of the regime who are also bad. Jared Taylor has observed that early American Renaissance conferences were filled with “weirdos”. This is basically a euphemism for neonazi thugs. Encouragingly, Taylor has also observed that the quality of AmRen attendees has risen dramatically in recent years. Even more encouragingly, a soft form of white nationalism has become normalized on the American right. People like Charlie Kirk now echo talking points that his groyper critics (including me) leveled at him only a few years ago. They do not yet believe that American nationality is limited exclusively to whites but they do acknowledge the importance of maintaining a white majority because whiteness is part of our heritage and conservation of our heritage is an end unto itself. In this way, basic nationalism and civic nationalism are not inherently antagonistic.
It was not only my experience with fascist activist groups that caused me to realize just how bad fascists were but also extensive interaction with fascists on free speech social media. When I brought up why fascist policies are counterproductive to right-wing values, I received as much personal invective from them as attempt at actual argument. It was like a game show: “Today, it’s time to find out: Are you a Jew…Fed…or Faggot?!”. That I happen to be half-jewish is irrelevant here because virtually none of my accusers actually knew this or had any real reason to believe it. I also made it clear in these arguments that I was just as much of a nationalist for white people as anyone who calls himself a white nationalist. It often went beyond epithets into the territory of wishing opponents of their authoritarianism harm. Rachels and other libertarian apologists for fascism (yes there are such people; it pains me to admit I used to be one of them) claim that such viciousness is not representative of fascists on the whole. I asked several chatbots to do a survey on this using this prompt:
ChatGPT when prompted to survey fascist attitudes toward libertarians returns following the following conservative1 estimates based on historical and ideological trends:
| Attitude | Estimated Percentage |
|---|---|
| Positive | ~5% |
| Critical | ~50% |
| Hostile | ~45% |
I asked Twitter’s Grok as well, instructing it to use only tweets. Here are the results:
| Attitude | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Positive | 15% |
| Critical | 60% |
| Hostile | 25% |
Although sourcing tweets does have the advantage of focusing on what today’s fascists express, we must bear in mind that Twitter is quite censorious of fascists, resulting in a self-selection of milder fascists, and the genuinely hostile among them self-moderate to some degree to avoid bans.
I also asked Google’s Gemini. Gemini is the furthest left of the three, but what was interesting is that partly because of this, it seemed, based on its explanation of its method, to attempt to measure not what fascists say they believe about libertarians, but what they believe in their hearts. It inferred attitudes based on the principles of fascism and the historical behavior of its adherents. Here are its results:
| Attitude | Percentage (Approximate) | Description |
| Hostile | 70%+ | Fascists view libertarianism as a direct threat to their core principles. They see individual liberty as disruptive to national unity and state control. They would likely wish libertarians harm, and seek to suppress libertarian ideas. |
| Critical | 25% | Some fascists might engage in critical analysis of libertarian ideas, acknowledging certain points while ultimately rejecting them. This would be a minority, and the critiques would generally focus on the perceived weakness of libertarianism in providing national strength. They may see some economic points as useful, as long as it benefits the state. |
| Positive | <5% | It’s highly unlikely that fascists would hold genuinely positive views of libertarianism. Any apparent “positive” attitudes would likely be tactical or based on misinterpretations. For example, some fascists might temporarily align with libertarians on specific issues (e.g., opposition to certain regulations) for strategic purposes, but their underlying goals would remain fundamentally different. Also, some fascists might co-opt libertarian rhetoric for their own purposes. |
The results when viewed in the context of their methodology show a crucial phenomenon we must consider: Fascist deception. My own experience within a fascist organization awakened me to this. Fascists will feign friendship with libertarians because they can extract labor and resources from us this way. They will initially emphasize the areas of agreement and downplay the fundamental incompatibility. Over time, however, they will casually assert a bad policy as something that is taken for granted that everyone agrees with, and when the token libertarian speaks up and says “no that’s wrong and here’s why”, their true contempt for libertarians is revealed. It is telling that the segment of fascists who do not currently express hostility toward libertarians do not express hostility to the hostile fascists either. When push comes to shove, they will at best refuse to restrain the openly hostile. This is because they regard right-wing libertarians as useful idiots to be disposed of when we cease to be useful to them. Because authoritarians will never share power with us, we can never share power with authoritarians.
Fascists are not of course monolithically evil, but neither of course are Zionists. Laura Loomer has spoken out against white replacement and has criticized even many within Trump’s administrations for anti-American policies such as H-1B visas. More recently Trump fired several members of the National Security Council reportedly at her behest. As Muslims become more numerous in the West, so too do the number of jews who feel threatened by the presence of their semitic rivals. While most jews can be treated the same as white leftist ideologues who will not respond rationally, a minority will, and many among this minority will be wealthy financiers who will feel threatened by Islam’s prohibition against lending at interest. Certain fascists such as some within the TRS network however, oppose the deportation of Muslims who demonstrate against Zionism. The philosemitic BAP-Yarvin-Thiel network by contrast brings much-needed sophistication to the right, and more importantly significant influence, especially through JD Vance. Former Identity Europa leader Patrick Casey has rejected wignattery for reasonable paleoconservatism. Recently he published an article reminding the right that Trump’s deportation of leftist anti-Israel arabs is to our advantage because they are also anti-white, even if Trump’s reasons for doing so aren’t ideal. Trump’s more based successors can add anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-white, and anti-Christian as reasons later. There is already movement in this direction with the State Department’s new directive to monitor employees for anti-Christian bias. While jewish power is waning due to technological shift and the receding of World War II from memory, it remains and will remain quite significant for the remainder of our lifetimes, and much more significant than that of fascists who regard economic success as jewish grifting. While money by no means guarantees power it is a prerequisite for it, and it is therefore counterproductive to drive away potential donors. Even if you believe that there is no solution within the current political system, you still need money for to prep for race war. Obviously if race war arrives jewish donors would have no recourse anyway. Walt Bismark has pointed out that competing with jews makes whites stronger, which is one reason why he allows them in his highly successful Tortuga Society, of which I am a member. The political order we right-libertarians strive for will greatly amplify this; extracting maximum productivity from jews while making their shenanigans illegal where expedient. Fascists would throw this away out of spite.
Fascist antipathy toward economic success is evident in that they often do not even bother to smear it as jewish especially where it is enjoyed by positive influencers on the right. They take the profitability of such influencing as prima facie evidence of grift. The attacks on Walt Bismark for the profitable business features of his Tortuga Society are a textbook instance of this. This raises the very significant matter that economic success is essential to political success. Again, obviously it isn’t everything, as Trump beat Harris soundly despite having been at a significant spending disadvantage. There is still a large amount of funding that a presidential candidate needs to win however, just as there is a substantial amount of funding we require in our own lives to be successful as activists. When we’re working multiple on-site jobs just to get by we don’t have the time to join local boards or campaign for aligned candidates. When we don’t have capital to start businesses that hire our guys becomes much harder for them to spread our message without fear of employment cancellation. Fascists however, not only support a number of the existing measures that cripple our economy such as monopolized currency, socialist infrastructure, make-work programs, public health, and government housing, they support additional measures that would cripple us much further such as heavy protectionism, rent controls, minimum wage, credit card interest caps, student loan forgiveness, and mandatory family leave. Many fascists actually celebrated Biden’s eviction moratorium. Fascists dismiss these concerns as “mere economics”, trying to minimize them as “materialistic”. It should be obvious that these concerns have relatively little to do with accumulation of physical stuff. Even for weapons there are only so many you can carry on your person at once. Economics is life. The most scarce resource of all is time. Every action we take is a trade away of alternative actions in time. As Randian hero Ellis Wyatt said:
“What’s wealth but the means of expanding one’s life? There’s two ways one can do it: either by producing more or by producing it faster. And that’s what I’m doing: I’m manufacturing time.”
Given that time is money, it is trivial to see that money is also time. Demographically time is against us and we need to buy as much time as we can.
That time is against us is used as an argument that we should accept fascism as an emergency measure. This makes no sense because the property norm is more important in an emergency where the need for mitigation of scarcity is even greater, which is why laws against price gouging are so heinous. Rachels has countered this with a thought experiment at the level of individuals:
Suppose you’re hiking in an arid park with your child and he gets bitten by a rattlesnake. Nearby is a man with an ATV. The nearest hospital is far enough away that your child will likely die without motorized transport. The man refuses you the use of his ATV, however.
Rachels claims that the emergency justifies commandeering the ATV despite the property violation this entails. He also claims that this translates to the level of civilization. Both claims are dubious. First let us look at the thought experiment critically. The man’s refusal is not even necessarily immoral. If you put yourself in an environment where there is a significant chance of snakebite but a small chance that any other forms of motorized transport but his are available in such an event, then it is arguably you who is ultimately guilty of child endangerment. This is because there is a significant chance that there would be no transport available at all. The very reason why the man is riding an ATV in the first place could be because the park is too snake-infested to safely travel on foot. For this reason he might reasonably suspect that your predicament is a ruse to steal his vehicle. Perhaps rattlesnakes are in reality rare in the park. The ATV owner may not know this however. Regardless of your own degree of culpability, your child is innocent. Your child’s innocence is not however, a legal claim on anyone’s property. There plenty of abusive parents in the world but their evil can never be a legal claim on the property of others. Most abuse in the world is not even a reasonable moral claim on anyone else. To concede this premise would entail acceptance of third world refugees.
Let us now stipulate that the ATV owner’s position is morally adversarial to ours. It is still not automatic that you are morally entitled to commandeer the ATV. If you are a prominent political figure in a libertarian society, you arguably should hold yourself to higher moral standard in terms of promoting ethics associated with libertarianism (not promoting libertarianism per se; I explain this distinction in the next paragraph). An example of this would be sentencing your own son to death for committing a capital crime, as holds the legend surrounding the 3rd century B.C. Roman general Regulus. Note that I did not specify adult son either, as someone who is depraved enough to commit such a crime in childhood is arguably even more likely to be a repeat offender than an adult. Obviously there is a stark difference between the guilt of a child in this scenario and the innocence of the child in Rachels’. The point is that there is arguably an actual greater good than the continuation of your individual bloodline. Although this could be taken as collectivist (and Rachels is accepting of collectivism anyway), this is also consistent with individualist and actualist ethics. In setting a example in the most extreme circumstance of commitment to ethical principle a libertarian leader helps minimize the likelihood of statism’s reestablishment. Rachels as a Christian holds deontological ethics. Deontology is an article of faith, but faith is a virtue and even though “inherently wrong” is a contradiction in worldly terms, it is obviously also of immense societal value for its potentates to treat violation of the libertarian property norm as such. The great majority of people who reject deontology are soulless neoliberals and globalists. The ATV owner’s behavior would also need to be punished by non-invasive means. By definition, such a potentate would also have great ability to make an example of the miscreant.
Most libertarians would say that they would commit the crime of commandeering the ATV to save their child’s life and turn themselves in immediately after to pay restitution. Note that we do not in any way exempt the action from the category of a crime. The error Rachels implies with the thought experiment is that an essential part of libertarianism is it being a personal moral philosophy. Libertarianism does not entail a value judgment on the commandeering per se. The only value judgment that libertarianism consists of is a legal one, which is that all victims of property violation are entitled to restitution from the criminal, and if restitution is not made, the criminal forfeits the right to exist within that society. Punishment in such a case can be either execution or exile. Because we make no exception to libertarianism proper at the level of the interpersonal with the prosecution of the commandeering, there is not even any exception at this level that could so much as potentially justify a massive contravention of libertarianism at the level of civilization. We make laws based on everyday norms, not extreme exceptions. Even if it were a genuine exception, it does not at all follow that fascism should be supported in the current emergency. Because fascists are of such low character, any support they receive from us would likely be squandered and they will fail to defeat the globalists anyway, if the National Justice Party is any indication. Rachels should at least consider the possibility that the true stakes are zeroth positionism or bust.
Rachels’ thought experiment is one among several stress tests of libertarian commitment to property protection. Here is another:
Suppose you’re standing on the balcony at the top of a tall building. The balcony collapses and you grab a flag pole below the balcony. There is no balcony below the flag pole, however there is a window of condo at the same level. Is the condo owner entitled to prevent you from trespassing in his condo by swinging from the flag pole into it?
Under standard criteria of proportionality, the owner is not permitted to thwart your crime of attempted trespass because that would kill or seriously injure you. The restitution he is entitled to is small because the crime is small. These scenarios do not prove any exception to libertarianism; they at best refute Christopher Cantwell’s proposal that all violations of the non-invasion principle should carry the death penalty2.
Rachels’ premise is collectivist survivalism. I do not share this premise, however I can easily envision a national culture of hard social Darwinism where the legal right of property owners to defend their property always supersedes the moral right of personal preservation. In such a culture the condo owner could prevent your entry. This culture would be more conducive to survivalism than the humanitarian one Rachels advocates in his thought experiment because it would select for a high degree of risk-aversion and a low degree of the kind of empathy that could be weaponized into refugee acceptance. It would in effect create a culture more like that of the Chinese.
Whites should not be like the Chinese. The Chinese, and all other peoples should be more like us on an ethical level. To the extent other races wrong us they should be punished. What we should not do is punish ourselves with collectivist ethics. Actualist ethics are what makes us great. Imposition of fascism is the ultimate betrayal of our grand history of freedom fighting, from the Indo-Europeans to the American War for Independence. All civilized societies that have been the closest approximations of a libertarian order have been white societies. The leader of NSC-131 once remarked to me that he unironically desired a “white North Korea”. If we become North Korea, that would be the most Pyrrhic victory against globalism imaginable.
The issues of our time can be reasonably categorized as demographics and everything else. Because demographics is concretized in policies such as immigration and anti-discrimination law it is easy for nationalists to forget just how important the “everything else” category is in the aggregate. A point of agreement between right-libertarians and fascists is that America in its current geopolitical form is unsustainable. Fascists will even identify some significant factors within the “everything else” category as contributing to this. The solutions they propose are counterproductive however and when you explain why they at best dismiss the category as insignificant and at worst will treat you as an enemy despite near perfect agreement on the demographic category. Most fascists desire a breakup even though this seems to runs counter to their defining agenda of political centralization. Granted, the kind of centralization they desire is primarily over a macro-linguistic national group, but the imperialism of historical fascist regimes undermines their attempts to differentiate themselves from the centralizing tendencies of the current regime. Support of fascists also undermines credibility with conservatives who are of better character. Fascism goes not only against our heritage in the War for Independence but also the frontier spirit that characterizes the historic American nation. Conservatives may have been slower to adopt identity politics for their nation but their reluctance was mostly for healthful, individualist reasons, reasons in keeping with our national character.
Europeans are more socialist than Americans, but it is a bad idea to support fascism there as well. One reason is because Europeans are more socially liberal than Americans, but a more important reason is that fascism’s centralizing agenda runs counter to the goal of breaking up the EU. It’s a much more consistent position to want to undo the unifications of Germany and Italy as well than it is to stop at the level of their EU membership. Politically savvy pro-liberty politicians in Europe can emphasize the unfairness of their welfare states’ redistribution to aliens, while subtly promoting market reforms that will “save” entitlement programs from insolvency. Just because Europeans don’t value freedom as much as we do doesn’t mean that freedom is any less guaranteed to improve their situation in objective ways.
What does supporting versus not supporting fascism mean? Supporting means giving fascists our labor and resources. Not supporting means withholding these. We don’t get in fascists’ way when they fight other socialist gangs on the street but we don’t fund their legal defense of their fighting either. We run candidates everywhere we can regardless of whether fascists are also running. Few fascists will run for office in reality because they mostly don’t believe in electoral solutions. The Republican party will therefore never become fascist at the level so the question of voting for any major fascist party is moot. As for the unlikely scenario where the choice is between a fascist and a left-libertarian, that obviously depends on whether significant immigration reform is on the table.
Rachels has accused me of being excessively “ideological”. In truth no one is any more ideological than anyone else, because ideological just means wanting something in the big picture to be different from the status quo. Even those who think the status quo is otherwise perfect want others to stop trying to change the status quo. When people use the term “ideological” pejoratively they simply mean that they believe someone else’s ideology to be less practical than theirs. Right-libertarianism is the most practical worldview. The practicality of libertarianism lies in its grounding in general realities of the human condition such as value subjectivity. The right-wing part of the worldview orients us toward the specific values that well-adjusted libertarians see both as means of implementing our legal system and as ends our legal system furthers. Of obvious significance to the matter of implementation is choosing which among other political factions we should support. The selection standard of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is too broad because as mentioned earlier there are always at least as many bad people who are enemies of a bad regime as there are bad people in that regime (there are also good people within bad regimes we should also avoid alienating). There are many good people who should not be supported due to incompetence. Just because there are a few good fascists does not mean that the policies they want to enact are any less destructive, so want to keep them from political power everywhere we can. Fascists are even more desperate now than they were in their original form and are correspondingly hostile to libertarians. The original fascists were quite hostile enough to classical liberals; today’s fascists see libertarianism as an extreme form of classical liberalism. Despite this, I recognize that there are certain cases where fascists should not be ignored. In the scenario where they seize control of a region such as the Pacific Northwest it is rational for a faction like the Free Staters in New Hampshire to coordinate simultaneous secession from the Federal government. It is also sometimes expedient to posture as fascists in negotiating with leftists because they fear fascists more than anyone else. Fascists sometimes try to claim this as evidence that their ideology is strongest, but the reason leftists, the weakest of people, fear fascists is because they see themselves in them. Mad lust for power, no matter what the rationale, is a weakness because it is a kind of lack of self-control. It is also telling that neoliberals, who are more powerful and sophisticated than leftists, fear libertarians more than they do fascists. This is evident in this quote from Klaus Schwab:
“There is of course an anti-System which is called Libertarianism, which means to tear down everything which creates some kind of influence of government into private lives.”
He did not even mention fascism in this speech. One reason for this is because neoliberalism is similar to fascism in significant ways, such as its collusion between big governments and corporations to exert social control. They both feature freedom for the ruling bureaucracy and social engineering for the ruled. They both use demographic identity as a cudgel to rationalize and entrench their power. They are both frequently imperialist. The therapeutic and humanitarian traits of neoliberalism are what define its devouring maternalism in distinction to fascism’s devouring paternalism. The reason why Schwab focuses on libertarianism is that libertarianism in its consistency as a freedom philosophy exposes neoliberalism’s hypocrisy. Neoliberalism often purports to be a freedom-maximalist ideology, yet commits egregious violations of objective standards of freedom in pursuit of its own subjective standards like freedom from xenophobia.
If by “ideological” Rachels means to imply that what I consider to be friendly ideological territory to be small, he is also wrong. One of the defining features of my organization Liberty+ is that it is open to those who would not only violate the non-invasion principle out of self-preservation as in Rachels’ thought experiment, but who do not believe restitution is owed in a highly-restricted set of cases involving government. These include neoreactionaries, Propertarians, paleoconservatives, and national conservatives, a coalition I term “zeroth positionist”. The operative term here is “highly-restricted” because these ideologies, unlike third positionists, have a solid understanding of what government is and why it must be limited. Liberty+ is also closed to left-libertarians for the same reason it is closed to fascists: Because too large a part of their worldview is anti-liberty. Even more importantly however, my organization is closed to both those factions because of its criterion of character. Character is so important to my organization that I even exclude those who are ideologically identical to me but for whatever reason I do not trust on a personal level. Without trust, we cannot make progress toward a much better society, which is also more important than agreement on what an optimal governance structure looks like. Character and ideology cannot ever be fully separated however and there is a point where the political becomes the personal. For fascists it is personal too often. If they truly didn’t believe non-demographic issues weren’t important they wouldn’t assert their particular views on those issues in big-tent reactionary organizations in the first place. You don’t get to assert “1488” as a package deal then turn to those who push back on the 88 and say “stop distracting us from what really matters; let’s just focus on the 14”. If there is anyone who is “too ideological” in the sense that Rachels means it, it is fascists. Even from a coldly Machiavellian standpoint where zeroth positionists are nothing but useful idiots to be disposed of later, it is rational for third positionists to feign friendship with us in the interim. My experience with a third positionist organization comprising men with at least the intellectual sophistication for this approach proves that third positionists are such ideological chauvinists that they couldn’t even do this. Note that I did not limit the “useful idiots” in this case to just right-libertarians either because fascists regard other zeroth positionists as not nearly “based” enough or even as controlled opposition.
Real right-libertarian friendship with fascists has been tried. It failed because true friends hold one another to the highest of standards, which fascists cannot tolerate because the very nature of their ideology is one of low standards for both nation and state. This is no significant loss to right-libertarians because we along with other zeroth positionists are superior people. We are smarter, more economically productive, and of much higher character. Why is this so? We already know that the reason why libertarianism is so much less popular among non-whites has nothing to do with access to our literature. The level of access in the West is equal. It’s because of inherited predisposition. The same holds true among whites. People of self-esteem, those who want to maximize the actualization of their values and who have the capacity to understand the system that facilitates such actualization, naturally gravitate further and further to right-libertarianism and similar ideologies as soon as we are exposed to the ideas. Other lesser people just go: “Eww, personal responsibility? No thanks.” Fascists certainly have no excuse of ignorance considering the massive amount of time they spend arguing with right-libertarians online. Instead of graciously accepting defeat when they lose and changing their mind (or even respectfully agreeing to disagree) they just call us names. They cannot change their minds because their hearts are congenitally hardened with spite and petty resentment. Their ideology is motivated by a desire to abdicate the responsibility they bear both as individuals and as a race for bad predicaments. They seek to scapegoat and and tear down groups of people more successful than they are such as capitalists because they define their worth in relation to others. That we are presently fewer in number than third positionists means nothing because as jews have taught us well, a tiny but well-organized and motivated minority can exert massively outsized influence on society. That we are in a state of war for the future of the West does not change the equation either, as the Spartans taught us at Thermopylae. I do acknowledge however, that in the demographic big picture numbers are not nothing, full-franchise democracy remaining constant. We as reactionaries are the ones who must remain calm against this onslaught because we recognize that democracy is a sham anyway. We can obtain the requisite electoral numbers by leading the MAGA movement, the remnant of the right who had the good sense to reject fascism, even if not for reasons nearly as precise as ours. In the interim while we work to abolish democracy itself we can outpace the declining white percentage of the population through franchise restriction, gerrymandering, and county-level accession to redder states. A beacon of hope lies in the the cases of Fiji and Kyrgyzstan, whose indigenous populations were able to restore their supermajority status after becoming minorities. There was also the Spanish Reconquista, which took 700 years. Patience, not panic, is the order of the day. With vastly higher numbers of equally capable people in our own countries we have much greater wherewithal to effect the same change.
Though I have been thoroughly critical of one of Rachels’ particular views in these two articles, I want to conclude by affirming that Chase Rachels is still a hero to me. That he remains a libertarian while many other have libertarians moved in an authoritarian direction is by itself commendable, but what is remarkable about Rachels is that he remains such despite experiencing particularly appalling treatment, including being doxxed and fired, at the hands of left-libertarians. It is for this reason I am proud to have archived his Radical Capitalist blog on my website, which I highly recommend to whatever handful of my readers have not read it yet. I hope that Rachels if maintains that fascists are our friends, he can at least respect the need for zeroth positionists to have our own organizations for efficiency reasons alone; good fences and all. He is already an honorary member of Liberty+ but if he’s looking for a zeroth positionist organization with notoriety and material backing as of the time of this writing I recommend the Natural Law Institute, which I am also a member of. I am pleased to report that since the time of Rachels’ doxxing the libertarian movement has grown much more based in the years since. It has become so based in fact that I joined the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire last fall to help impose quality control on the word “libertarian”. It is too good of a word to ever give up. We amassed sufficient numbers at the annual convention in March to soundly defeat an attempted takeover by the leftberts. If a group of people as disagreeably individualistic as right-libertarians can recognize the significance of group identity and the need for team defense against collectivism, the future of liberty in the West is bright indeed.
1A request specifically for “sentiment analysis” yielded 60% hostile, however ChatGPT said that it cannot perform sentiment analysis and provided results also based on “historical and ideological trends”.
2Perhaps not surprisingly, Christopher Cantwell has become a fascist.
