Wanting liberty is not enough. A free society is a goal, but without a realistic plan for achieving that goal such a society will never be realized. This ought to be obvious to the point of truism, but sadly many who identify as pro-liberty, even hardcore “anarchists”, are inept or worse at actually making the society in which they live freer. Their hearts and minds are clouded with bad notions on matters germane to the pursuit of liberty, though such matters are often decidedly distinct from the pure philosophy of liberty itself.
A very bad notion indeed is egalitarianism: the putative rejection of all social hierarchy. In actuality however, egalitarians carve out an exception for a hierarchy of their own: the squelching of the benignantly natural underneath the malignantly unnatural. This carve-out is a necessary one, as the conceptual category which egalitarians reject is not that of hierarchy, but the larger category of difference itself. Difference is what defines the concept of identity, and identity is the concrete corollary of entity, i.e. existence. Egalitarians, or social justice warriors as they are more commonly called today, are people who hate existence generally and their own identity especially. They hysterically suppress the recognition of differences, between individuals and between groups, because the very existence of these differences suggests the conceptual potential of a status difference between themselves and others that is not in their favor. The natural order of things is impossible without differentiation, and this is what makes egalitarianism a revolt against nature, to use Rothbard’s phrase, 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.
SJWs may be the most strident of subversives but they are not the most dangerous. SJWs are useful idiots of globalists, those dedicated to the clearing away of the white man’s civilization and the establishment of a neoliberal world government in its stead. Obviously there is no greater nightmare for the lover of liberty than this. SJWs abhor our civilization for its beauty and achievement, which makes them eager footsoldiers for those who seek to supplant it. For all their repugnance, SJWs and their globalist puppetmasters have been beating us for more than a century. The reason as to why, in a word, is tolerance. They are supremely intolerant of opposition, while we have been tolerant of them, to the point of accepting some of them among our own.
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.
We accept only those who oppose the regime for the right reasons, those who in the totality of their being actually advance liberty on net. This criterion creates an interesting complexion to our makeup: We exclude many who identify as the most hardcore libertarians and welcome many who explicitly identify as something else. Participants do not personally need to have our founders’ exact priorities, merely the uncommon common sense not to countersignal them. We are in this regard a fairly big tent but crucially, not an indiscriminately big one. What we have absolutely zero tolerance of is cowardice. Liberty’s greatest enemies have been successful because of their ruthlessness and brutality, and can only be defeated when matched in equal measure wherever necessary.
We are not a humanist hugbox. We are an uncompromisingly reactionary vanguard. If you are a proud sovereign of your very being who is willing to do whatever it takes to secure a free future for yourself and your posterity, we want you to join us.