The False Flag of Libertarianism

Ian David Carlyle


In American political life, any prospect for meaningful resistance to the Cultural Marixst machine put together by the Democrats and their supporters in the media and academia has all but dissipated.   The Republican Party, having been taken over by neocon elements who pushed this country into a senseless, protracted war costing thousands of American lives and over a trillion dollars, has lost all credibility.

Cementing itself as the irretrievably stupid party in a two-party system that pits the GOP against its demonstrably evil counterpart, the Republican leadership is even pushing for amnesty for illegal aliens, even though the demographic transformation of America engineered by Cultural Marxists is precisely the reason why the Republican party is destined to become a perennial minority party, if it does not disintegrate altogether. Despite outright opposition from its natural base, the Republican answer to the demographic crisis created by millions of Third World immigrants is … more Third World immigration. With the Republicans further unable to field even a mildly attractive candidate, George W. Bush will likely be the last Republican President, not unlike Millard Filmore, the last Whig President.

This is further compounded by the dearth of intellectually astute conservative voices. Given that the airwaves are filled with such vapid, shameless, and ultimately shallow voices like Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, so on and so forth, the prognosis of stopping the Cultural Marxist machine seems dire. Indeed, the GOP is quickly fragmenting into different sects: the Tea Party, Christian fundamentalists, big business wanting cheap labor, and libertarians whose radical laissez-faire, anything goes creed borders on anarchism.

The latter is perhaps most dangerous of all, because libertarians tug at American sentimentality about freedom and rugged individualism — values that must be placed secondary to the primary need of creating a culture in which the traditional American majority can thrive.

Libertarianism is disastrous for developing White identity and a sense that pursuing White interests is not only legitimate but a moral imperative.  Nevertheless, libertarianism is a powerful tradition in America, and it is responsible for one of the few successful reactions against the left in recent years: the campaign to oppose regulation of the junkfood industry in the interest of public health.  Although regulating diet in the interests of public health may at first seem unimportant to some TOO readers, it raises issues central to creating a culture suited to the needs of White America.

Part of the problem in formulating this issue is that the campaign to regulate the junkfood industry is a creature of the left, which automatically sets off alarms. Michelle Obama has famously campaigned for measures to improve children’s diets and Michael Bloomberg has led a campaign to regulate the sale of soda pop laden with high fructose corn syrup — a poisonous substance banned in Europe. These campaigns have been met with a hue and cry from the Sarah Palin crowd; they are among the few liberal causes widely met with derision in mainstream political discourse. Misguided patriots with little else to cheer about these days and unwilling to discuss deeper anxieties related to immigration and multiculturalism have comically resorted to raucous cheers of “Yay for high fructose corn syrup.”

 

For many years, liberal disdain for the fast food racket has been attacked by libertarian voices. The issue was first popularized by Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation (2001), which was the inspiration for Morgan Spurlock’s excellent Super Size Me (2004) chronicling the author’s 30-day binge diet of McDonald’s food.  The libertarian mantra has been that it’s no one’s business except for the restaurant and the patron — a misguided glorification of so-called “personal choice.” They take a truly courageous stand for the right of multinational corporations with a quasi-American identity to peddle poison to untold millions. One example is this video of Lee Doren , a corporate shill of The Competitive Enterprise Institute, and lapdog of another less than inspiring “conservative” voice, Glenn Beck.

Whereas I and doubtless other traditionalists see the current American landscape littered with fast food joints and look-alike strip malls featuring the same tired roster of chain stores as a most vulgar picture indeed, Doren waxes poetic about his grandmother taking him to a fast food joint as a young lad.  How sentimental.

Another such instance is Tom Naughton’s movie Fat Head which is marketed as a direct rebuttal to Super Size Me.  Setting forth half-baked attacks on Spurlock’s admittedly gimmicky methodology composed of a study size of one, Naughton attempts to refute Super Size Me by embarking on a fast food diet that carefully counts calories — not likely to be the case with the folks who regularly patronize fast food.  Indeed, he eschewed soft drinks altogether in his experiment. It’s interesting though that in a rare admission on racial differences, he attributes the obesity epidemic at least in part to the rising number of Blacks and Hispanics in this country. These groups have different food preferences, metabolisms and body types than White Europeans — a rare admission from someone making a living in the mainstream media.

The premise of these and other libertarian shills is that eating junk food “is the business only of the patron and restaurant,” and no one else. This is tantamount to unbridled anarchism. At the most basic, intrinsic level, the single greatest defect of this libertarian-anarchist creed is that what others do affects everyone else. No man is an island. Imagine if current dietary trends take even greater hold, imagine if almost everyone was a heavy or super user of this schlock, to use the terms from internal McDonald’s documents as exposed by Spurlock. Imagine the effect it would have on health, the cost of healthcare, even the ability to fight wars or field law enforcement.  That simple consideration demonstrates why public health, particularly the health of our young, is a compelling state interest. It is why governments regulate food and the drug industry, and it is why the high fructose corn syrup monster is rightly banned in the Old World.

“Nobody forces anyone to eat fast food” is an explicit contention straight from Fat Head, as if physical coercion were the only means to restrict “personal choice.”  The notion of personal choice, at least in this country, is exceedingly simplistic, giving absolutely no credence to the power of the media to shape people’s wants. The reality is that, contrary to dogmatic notions about freedom and rugged individualism, personal choice is profoundly limited, in ways we scarcely understand or acknowledge, to the time, circumstance and environment one is born into.

In short, culture matters, and those who control cultural messages have a profound influence on individual choice. Just as the media molds individual attitudes on race and gender, critics of junkfood regulation give no credence to the effect that multi-billion dollar advertising campaigns targeting children have on their minds and dare I say souls. This is one of the most egregious failures of the libertarian worldview. The attitude is that people can be left to their own common sense as to what is good for them or not. To the contrary, the effect that such campaigns have on children — indeed all messages towards children generally —cannot be overstated.

Libertarians simply dismiss the whole issue by stating that it is up to the parents.  Spurlock’s discussion in Super Size Me refutes this notion far more succinctly than this author ever could, contrasting what would at best be one message per meal from a conscientious parent with a multi-billion dollar advertising campaign saturating television, radio and print advertising, achieving absolute ubiquity throughout all mainstream society. It’s like a religious parent cautioning her child about premarital sex, after which the child goes back to watching MTV and listening to rap. Or like a racially aware parent who wants his child to have similar views. And then the child goes to school and watches TV with his friends.

Of course, the libertarian creed does not just fight for poor little multinational behemoths to peddle a steady diet of burgers and fries and other junkfood to the seething masses.  It generally stands for the proposition that anyone should be able to do anything that person pleases, provided it does not violate the so-called “non-aggression principle.”  Many libertarians for this reason do not support tight immigration controls.  Indeed, Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino magnate, as well as a leading figure in the Libertarian movement, has lobbied—such a euphemism for bribery—the Republican leadership to sign off on the latest amnesty proposal for illegal immigrants.  Libertarians have also backed gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana, as well as the general decriminalization of drugs no matter how destructive they are, including heroin and crystal meth.

One such libertarian is Penn Jillette, who openly advocates just such a free-for-all. Along with his partner Teller, he produced a quasi-documentary series on Showtime entitled “Bull*hit.”  Aside from advocating free borders and free drugs, they also have pushed sexual libertinism, advocating legalized prostitution not just as something that should be tolerated to remove the criminal element, but as something that is intrinsically positive unto itself.   These and other examples from the libertarian movement show that this supposed alternative to the left actually endorses the sexual free-for-all that is overtaking this country and indeed Mother Europe and Western Culture as a whole.

Very quietly and without much attention from mainstream media circles, we are only now reaping the harvest of the sexual revolution begun some 50 years ago as part of the 1960s counter-cultural revolution. Not only is there a deluge of pornography, F. Roger Devlin (a TOO contributor) has quite convincingly shown how these developments have resulted in the natural female tendencies to hypergamy being unchecked. In combination with the tendency for male promiscuity, this leads to higher numbers of both men and women being unmarried; both are important factors behind the epidemic of  divorce and single motherhood that is wreaking havoc on society.

This last phenomenon — the rise of single motherhood, either in the absence of the father or in divorce — is perhaps the most striking phenomenon demonstrating the fantastical delirium of libertarian dogma that people should do whatever they want, within the elusive confines of the so-called “non-aggression” principle.  For all races, single motherhood, is strongly correlated with a variety of social ills. Here are some statistics:

  • 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) — 5 times the average.
  • 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes — 32 times the average.
  • 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes — 20 times the average.  (Center for Disease Control)
  • 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes — 14 times the average.  (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403–26)
  • 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes — 9 times the average.  (National Principals Association Report)
  • 70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes — 9 times the average.  (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)
  • 85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes — 20 times the average.  (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)

For many more shocking facts and statistics, see the website The Fatherless Generation.

This belies the simplistic, even disingenuous notion that sexual mores do not matter and that what a woman chooses to do with her body is her business alone.  And yet that is the libertarian creed: pushing junkfood and a junkfood culture in the name of quaint, American notions of liberty, personal choice, and rugged individualism.

The notion of personal choice is a chimera, particularly in an era dominated by big media. The best illustration is perhaps the example of the character Amber Waves from the movie Boogie Nights.  This fictional character, based on a composite of two or three real life porn “actresses,” grew up in the late 60s and 70s when such unbridled freedom and libertinism took hold. As has always been the case throughout human history, many of her choices were dictated  by the time and place she grew up in, just as being born in Russia or China will dictate so many things about one’s path in life.  If she grew up in the Bund der Deutscher Maedel in 1930s Germany or on an Amish plantation, society would have created far different experiences and social norms for her than she encountered in the San Fernando Valley in the late 70s.

Although somewhat fictional, the narrative also illustrates how her cultural milieu affectedt her as a woman and as a mother. The viewer is only left to wonder what would become of  little Andy who was born into this mess.

This is another example where the “right’ for people to do whatever they want has destructive consequences. By no means an isolated instance, we now see generations of this.

Of course culture isn’t the whole story. As implied in the comments on race differences above, individual genetic proclivities have a strong influence on behavior. In general, the eradication of cultural supports for high-investment parenting takes a far greater toll on the less educated, whereas those on the high end of the bell curve have been much better able to have stable marriages and well-functioning children. As Charles Murray has documented, there has been a breakdown of the family among working class White Americans since the 1960s. Similarly, the lack of regulation of the junk food industry is more dangerous for those prone to unhealthy eating habits, and the lack of regulation of drugs is more dangerous to those with addictive personalities.

These two examples of  junkfood  and the deregulation of sex shows how intellectually hollow the libertarian movement is. And yet, unlike race realism or other ideas that contravene political correctness, libertarian attitudes on junkfood and sex are taken seriously in the mainstream media. Indeed, they are perhaps the strongest voice in opposition to the cultural left, a reality that is horrifying indeed. The left tolerates libertarianism; it despises traditional religious and other cultural strictures on sexual behavior.

Let there be no mistake about it.  Libertarianism is not right wing, nor is it conservative given that it typically enables promiscuity, drug use, and a seemingly endless stream of personal vices.  It is an ideology fueled by corporate interests, interests that have no allegiance to country, blood, or soil.  It certainty has no affinity for European culture or identity. It thus must be vehemently rejected as a voice of resistance to the Cultural Marxists wreaking havoc on modern society. In many ways, it is just another arm of the Cultural Marxist beast preying upon the Sons and Daughters of Europa.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

Comments are closed.