The marketplace of reactionary ideas is a duopoly comprising ours, zeroth positionism, and our main competitor, third positionism. The abandonment of the broader liberty movement for the third positionist one is known colloquially as the “libertarian to alt-right pipeline”. One of the purposes of Liberty+ is to provide a haven for those frustrated with the liberty movement’s current shortcomings who might otherwise throw their lot in with the third position despite serious misgivings about that camp’s political economy. To properly critique third positionism we must first define what it is, and its nature is such that it is best understood by contrast with our own. This contrast is connoted by the labels themselves. Each refers to a fairly broad category containing multiple, highly similar worldviews of subtly differing characteristics. Zeroth positionism includes primarily right-wing libertarianism, neoreaction, and Propertarianism, while third positionism includes fascism, national socialism, and rexism. Ours is the natural way, the dao, the default, the way humans have governed themselves for almost the entirety of their existence. More than 99% of human existence in fact, has been in a state we would commonly call “anarchy”. The remaining period we call “civilization”. The rise of civilizations corresponded with the rise of more formalized institutions of government commonly called “states”. Although less competitive governments than the dominance hierarchies of the jungle, in comparison to the states of today, these states were highly limited in size and scope. Laws were promulgated organically through juridicial discovery rather than by executive fiat. The late 19th century, however, saw an acceleration of an existing trend of governmental consolidation and legal monopolization that had been occurring for the better part of a thousand years. Third positionism’s favoring of such consolidation, especially along ethnolinguistic lines, is a feature that fundamentally differentiates it from our position. One-size-fits-all government is a significant peril for any people, but it is especially noxious for europeans, who are both the most diverse and freedom-loving race, whose governments have for this reason been the most competitively structured in history. This was especially true of arguably the most heroic of european peoples, the Indo-Aryans, whose warrior aristocracy was effectively a laissez-faire meritocracy. Leaders commanded by consent rather than coercion, and their following was based primarily on demonstrated military prowess rather than birthright or demagoguery. The modern state with its attentive bureaucratic incest, welfarism, and democratic pretenses is an affront to such a culture. Third positionists view such a state as an augmentation of european nations. We recognize it as an abomination.
What is the third positionist response to the our critique? To pretend we don’t exist at all by arrogating generically reactionary values such as national sovereignty, family stability, and respect for nature, package-dealing such inarguably righteous values with the noxious political and economic ones that actually define their view and slapping their own singular label on it. To the extent they acknowledge us at all they dismiss us as lacking relevance based on their greater popularity. To this we can simply say: there are always more midwits than bigwits. Third positionism is in actuality a right-instinct variant of progressivism, and progressivism is a worldview inherently appealing to the former segment of the bell curve. Third positionism’s progressivist character is conveyed in its label (a label, which must be noted, that third positionists choose for themselves). Both third positionists and other progressivists represent their political economy as a pragmatic “third way” between capitalism and communism. The ways in which these progressivist philosophies differ are insubstantial, and this is especially true of their contemporaneous historical instances such as Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany vis a vis Progressive Era and New Deal America. They both favor a high degree of state intervention in the economy; only the specific interventions are occasionally different. They are both demotic in their need for validation in the popular consciousness, using the go-between vehicle of the modern political party. They are both criminally collectivist, it is only the collective that differs. For the third positionist it is the nation, for the others it is “society” or humanity. That the homogeneous nation is a naturally more cohesive group makes third positionism all the more pernicious, as such a nation’s higher levels of trust and lower levels of corruption partially conceals the destructive effects of its policies. It leads to the belief that socialism works when white people do it. Sociologically third positionist progressivism is a lower middle class movement, other variants are upper middle class. The former is more martial in its pretensions, the latter more humanitarian. The former views capitalism and communism as jewish and materialistic, the latter views them as materialistic in a way that has not been humanistically optimized. What they have most significantly in common is that they are mongrel philosophies held by the great muddled middle, both lacking in consistency with the divergent political instincts that flavor them.
Third positionists believe that their worldview represents a substantive difference in kind from capitalism and communism. On a certain categorical level this is true, because while the latter are purely economic stances, third positionism as described earlier packages in social stances with economic ones. On the Nolan chart (a.k.a. political compass) it occupies primarily the “authoritarian-right” quadrant. The Nolan chart is one framework among several, however, and the term “third position” does not refer to it. Its source is a differently oriented chart explained in this video. This chart sets conservatism (the first position) in opposition to left-liberalism (the second position) on the horizontal axis and libertarianism (the zeroth position) in opposition to “big government/statism” (the third position) on the vertical. In the post-Enlightenment era these dualities can be respectively categorized as liberal and reactionary. The key to resolving much confusion around these labels (e.g. how can “conservatives” be categorized as “liberal”?) is to recognize that (contra Nolan) “right” and “left” are not sets of policy positions, economic or other, but primal instincts that predict policy positions. These instincts are respectively the masculine and feminine. This is why it is overly simplistic to describe third positionists as either just “right-wing” or “left-wing”. Their emotion is masculine and right wing but their callow emotionalism is a feminine trait associated with the left. It is their failure of emotional regulation that results in the leftist policies that contravene their aims. Although the masculine instinct is much better attuned to political reality, politics being the domain of systemic violence that is almost exclusively male in practice, it is still just an instinct, and improperly understood instincts, however healthy, can trap one in ignorance and superstition. Third positionism is an ideology of ignorance and superstition borne of masculine instinct. We on the right often like to flatter ourselves that our worldview is that of mature men, but compared with the left this a very low bar indeed. We would do well to remember that political instincts are a spectrum, and many rightists hold worldviews heavily contaminated with leftism. Even the most laissez-faire conservatives of today frame their positions in terms of their consistency with liberalism, and the most instinctually illiberal of third posistionists favor political structures and policies that are decided compromises with liberalism. These contradictions betray a lack of maturity in the superficiality of thought forming them. They show that the third positionist platform is not in fact a material economic difference in kind from either left-liberal socialism or neoliberalism, it is a difference of degree and often not even a large one. Both modern conservativism and third positionism are boyish betrayals of the right to the left.
Following the libertarian to alt-right pipeline to its third positionist terminus is also such a betrayal. The draining of the of the libertarian movement by the third positionist one is a somewhat overstated problem, as many third positionists who claim to be former libertarians were really liberals, and those who were libertarians were shallow in understanding and weak in their convictions. The latter are especially ridiculous: “I used to be a libertarian but now I think it’s good for brothers to steal from each other.” The drainage is still a significant problem, however, and Liberty+ inserts in the pipeline a junction that provides a path for men of integrity to maximal efficacy as activists. Supreme though our political economy may be over all others, it behooves us to remind ourselves that political economy is a only part of our overall worldview, and worldview is only part of a man’s overall identity. There is a significant correlation, however, between political view and one’s overall moral character. Compared with other types of progressivism third posititionism may be the least of evils, but it is still progressivism, and progressivism is an evil ideology. To the extent an evil ideology is a significant part of a man’s overall identity that man is himself evil, and on the dissident right ideology tends to be quite a significant part. It is unsurprising therefore, that third positionists are by and large such a low-rent bunch. While in the abstract there is no logical reason why libertarians and third positions cannot be allies against globalism, third positionists are not logical people. For them, the zeroth positionist refusal to forsake the god of nature for that of their particular statist sect is unforgivable blasphemy. Their suicidal chauvinism in the face of white extinction is definitive proof of their wickedness. This is why one of Liberty+’s projects is a comprehensive, issue-by-issue refutation of their corrosive creed. We do not tolerate evil anywhere in our civilization and make no exception for the movement to save it. Defeating globalism for good demands the depositing of all deadwood beliefs on the right in the dumpster of history where they belong, and the virtue of carrying out to it all of third positionism’s failed and fraudulent schemes is for us here its own very great reward.