I’ve recently taken an interest in identitarianism. I found this concept through listening to interviews with members of the Alt-Right on various podcasts and shows. Since I’ve begun exploring their ideas and concepts I’ve come to realize that while they have many valuable things to say that deserve further exploration I’m struggling to reconcile my interest in this with my libertarianism. A not inconsequential portion of the Alt-Right are collectivists and they advocate for identity politics.
At first this sent my alarm bells ringing, I’m a staunch individualist. As a student of history, I’m all too familiar with the murderous results of rampant collectivism. We have all seen the catastrophic consequences following the left’s embrace of identity politics and the destructive tribalism that has ensued, putting all kinds of groups against each other.
How then, can I find identitarianism so fascinating and feel a certain attraction to the ideas within? First, we must address the definitional problem. Identitarianism is a big label, containing many diverse groups with a wide range of intellectual and political beliefs. Terms such as Alt-Light, Alt-Right, Ethno-Nationalism, White Nationalism and White Separatism are somewhat related.
One of the ways I’ve reconciled libertarianism with these kinds of beliefs is to recognize that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Having intentional communities based on “race” is perfectly acceptable according to the non-aggression principle. Listening to Alt-Right proponents I usually find very little I object to as they identify problems with the status quo. What makes my spider senses tingle is when some of them advocate using the power of the state to enforce their vision. This usually entails deporting people from different races back to their ethnic homelands. That usually makes me want to pull the ejection seat handle and blast off.
That being said, we cannot ignore the context of the world in which these opinions are held. As much as I detest identity politics and tribalism and imagine myself to hold the noble sentiment “judge content of character, not colour of skin” of MLK, I cannot deny the state of the world. When all the other ethnic groups have strong in-group preferences, tribalism for all practical purposes is a real thing I have to acknowledge and take into consideration.
As a white person, I’m definitely part of the widespread sentiment amongst Caucasians of rejecting identity based political views. Few would deny that white people are the most egalitarian minded “racial group”, apart from the fervent SJWs of the left which claim that whites are the root of all evil. It has been uncomfortable recognizing that it is becoming increasingly necessary for whites to adopt identity politics as a form of self-defence. My feelings on this don’t matter, what matters are the facts. If white people are the only group without in-group preference, we are going to be exploited and suffer grave political consequences.
Delving deeper into the analytical framework, I think it is a useful concept to look at normative political beliefs at the strategic and tactical level. At the strategic or long-term level I remain firmly committed to Anarcho-Capitalism. The arguments in favour are iron-clad as far as I’m concerned. The pathway for getting there however, is subject to change and modification. Libertarians deserve fierce criticism for frankly sucking at adapting to current trends and following the times.
I see far too much talk about the detrimental economic effects of central banking, fractional reserve currency and other intellectual masturbatory minutiae. I and others have gained much from the revelation that politics is downstream from culture. I’ve been absolutely fascinated with the new movement recognizing the importance of culture. Everything from 4chan and /pol through the greater Trump-movement to “classic” libertarians such as Stefan Molyneux that have moved with the times has enveloped my mind over the last year.
I used to be very comfortable riding the white horse atop the hill called “the moral high ground”. Atop the ivory tower, I scoffed my nose at those that didn’t adhere vigorously to a strict interpretation of the non-aggression principle on every single issue. A key change for me was listening to Molyneux make the argument that doing so meant in practice that I was taking myself out of the fight.
The gun of state power is there, whether I approve of it or not. If I hold myself to be too pure or too good to take it, others will. And they won’t hesitate for a second in using it to enforce their views by force to the detriment of myself and other Caucasians. The European Migrant Crisis is a great example of this. I can’t in good faith cede control to my moral opponents like this. I have the self-image as a moral, decent, law abiding person. I’m therefore vulnerable to exploitation by those that don’t hold concepts such as playing by the rules in high regard.
I like to view myself as a rational thinker that follows the scientific evidence wherever it may lead. The concept of race and IQ is real, political correctness be damned. Demographic replacement is a real phenomenon. In essence left-wingers and statist politicians are not playing by the same rules as others in the political arena. We can’t hold ourselves to a higher standard than our opponents, if they cheat we have to adapt or suffer the inevitable consequences. The noble view that we all strive to make the best logical arguments in favour of our political beliefs and that the best ideology wins in the end has become obsolete.
What use is there in making arguments when our opponents are importing people from the third world that share their general political views and that are opposed to liberty? We can’t possibly hope to convert enough people to our views, in order to outpace the influx of migrants with very questionable values. We thus reach the following crossroads.
We have to have a political hierarchy similar to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Libertarians need to recognize that there is absolutely no use in talking about central banking, bitcoin, polycentric law and similar concepts if we can’t protect the basic political platform. Free Speech is under siege. Respect for non-violence in political discussion is eroding as I’ve explored in other posts on my blog. The sad truth is that we are losing access to the intellectual battlefield on which we put forth our arguments.
Thus, we come to the point where I propose that we retain our original political beliefs on the strategic level, but consider adopting identitarianism on the tactical level. I’m already part of the way there. I’m in favour of Trump’s wall and the crackdown on illegal immigration. This despite the end goal of libertarianism of having a world free from government enforced borders. Until we reach the point where private agencies fulfil the same roles as the government currently does, we have to use and support the agencies of the state that pursues the same roles. This especially is true for cops.
All this means that it is necessary for white people to have in-group preference and adopt a defensive tribalism to counter the left’s onslaught of identity politics. This can be viewed as a political form of MAD (mutually assured destruction) found in nuclear deterrence theory. After having failed to prevent the development of nuclear weapons (identity politics and tribalism) we must develop them ourselves to prevent a first-strike attack (getting exploited). At its logical conclusion, we reach the concept of white genocide.
Having acknowledged the necessity of white identity politics I want to explore the concept of separatism in the form of White Nationalism. As I mentioned earlier, intentional communities free from government aren’t opposed to the core tenets of libertarianism. Thus, White Nationalism could be an acceptable tactic. If the situation in the West deteriorates it might become a necessity. I’m currently awaiting the arrival of some books on the subject and I’m listening fervently to interviews with proponents of the idea. I’m not yet over the fence on the issue, but I have an open mind as any intellectually curious person must.
An interesting case study is South Africa. I’ve listened to Simon Roche of Suidlanders being interviewed by Mike Cernovich and Stefan Molyneux. It is clear that contemporary South Africa is a polarized society divided along ethnic and racial lines. They already to a large extent have separatism in practice. As a person that abhors violence, I’m willing to go far in order to avoid for the West what is likely to happen in South Africa in the all too distant future. A widespread murderous conflict between the white population and the black population.
Now that we have delved into the acceptability and perhaps even necessity of organising along ethnic and cultural lines we can explore the topic further. I have serious issues with how some of the people within the Alt-Right are pushing for their ideas. A term I encountered for the first time during last year’s US presidential election was the term “optics”. How something looks politically matters in terms of that idea becoming accepted and gaining widespread adoption.
Richard Spencer is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. I usually have little to say against the contents of his speeches, but then he does dumb things like saying “Hail Trump, Hail our people, Hail victory!” accompanied by Nazi salutes. He defended this on an interview shortly thereafter. As a person that detests political correctness vehemently I can understand the objections to limits on our speech. I get that. But foolishness such as this allows our detractors to easily dismiss us and allows curious people to simply reject us out of hand without delving into our arguments. Someone once said that you lose 100% of the shots you don’t take. People that might have come around to our views will never do so due to bad optics. You can call it a “Roman” salute and it being ironic all you want. Optics still matter.
Back to the strategic level. I’ve now gone through the case for going the Alt-Right route of white identity politics. I don’t think this is sufficient in the long term. I’ve thought long and hard about this and what I’ve ended up with it something I propose to call “Value Nationalism”. I recognize the fact that I have much more in common with a black African libertarian, than statist white people. Most of the people around me that I disagree with are white. Merkel and other architects of demographic replacement are white.
It is a fact that the values that I enjoy are mostly found in white countries. Free speech, economic freedom, rule of law and such things are vastly more widespread in the Western world than elsewhere. This key fact is perhaps the sole reason for my possible advocacy for defensive white separatism. But our vision for the future must be optimistic, otherwise what is the point of fighting? I want to struggle and work towards Value Nationalism. I want to live in an intentional community of people with similar values and culture. For me that is the true tribalism.
A useful anecdote, I remember watching a documentary about North Korea a few years back. It featured a scene about a group of foreigners that advocated for the North Korean regime. A Spaniard was their leader and a Norwegian man was a member. This taught me the lesson that you cannot equate skin colour with values or political beliefs. At the end of the day, what fundamentally matters most for me is values, not race or ethnicity. But as long as we live in an imperfect and flawed civilization, it makes a darn good substitute.
Rounding off, I wish to briefly mention the concepts of cultural technology, civilizational level or technological level. All that I’ve gone through in this post could be understood through these concepts. Value Nationalism, my reach-for end goal requires a high level of these concepts. Similar to how child labor and sweatshops are rungs on the ladder to good working conditions and economic prosperity, separatism and White Nationalism can be understood as lower rungs on the ladder to eventual widespread human freedom and prosperity.
Thank you for taking the time to read my humble thoughts.