Announcing Jacobite magazine

We’re please to announce the beginning of a new magazine called Jacobite. The publication features articles on culture, politics and philosophy with a focus on “exit” — that is, building alternatives to systems rather than trying to lobby within them. Check out Nick Land’s primer on accelerationism, Mark Lutter on the geopolitical realities of private cities, Kantbot on how the Chapo Trap House are just LARPing as people with dangerous ideas, Andrea Castillo on the LD50’s latest “alt-right” exhibit, and Chris Morgan on the Entourage-like hubris of Fyre Festival.

Follow us on Twitter at @jacobitemag.

Backward Causality and the Current Year

One of the best things about getting older is that the “amusement quotient” increases, almost geometrically.

So now the “1900s” is so  long ago that it’s not really relevant to 2017, which presumably sprang sui generis from the Womyn’s Studies department of a $50,000 a year liberal arts college. (more…)

Rid Yourself of the White Man

img_0594

By the title you might expect some sort of radical text, saying some like we should go back to Africa or kill the cracka off in a glorious revolution. Maybe some black panther like rhetoric that simultaneously condemns whites and seeks their help and embrace of our cause; well, those whites who are “down for the people” anyway.  I mean none of that of course, nor do I mean one should rid themselves of the intangible parts of our culture that may have started with whites like the sax (or any of the instruments used to create the Blues,  Gospel, and Jazz), the English language or ( if you believe they gave It to us) the Christian religion. No culture is without outside influences and purity spirals are unhealthy for any culture, movement, and organization.

That said, I certainly am against embracing much of white culture and especially current mainstream white culture. I’d dissuade one from engaging the former because I am an anti-assimilationist, and the latter because it’s crass,  godless, materialistic and vulgar ( like our current culture). We need to support and foster our own institutions, and outlooks on the world in order to be a spiritually and culturally prosperous race. If we don’t do that, our very identity will always be insecure and we will continue to exhibit the forms of self-hatred and self-destructiveness that are so common among us.

What I mean is rid yourself of the white man as an excuse, as one to emulate, as one to oppose and as one to seek love, respect or any validation from. Be neither his enemy nor his follower. Imagine your own path.  Be secure in yourself as a black man with his own ways, mores, values, and culture developed in our over 400 years in this land now called the United States. Celebrate your achievements, unify with your brethren, follow your betters and lead your lessers. Create a way of life directed at self-determination for the black race, instead of one dedicated to receiving favor or fairness from whites. Act and behave as a confident person from a confident culture. That is the only way to build on our traditions and maintain our identity( what little we have left of it)

Ab Ki Bar Trump Sarkar

ap_16132301815691-1.jpg

Image Source: Quartz India

This recent spate of “right wing” victories which includes Brexit, Trump, and the European nationalists is part of the same global phenomenon which produced Modi.

It almost seems too obvious to point out how similar Trump and Modi are but I haven’t seen many people in my circles saying it. Probably because I hang out mostly with Americanized NRI liberals in the Brahmin class (as per Moldbug’s schema, not Chaturvarna). These people love Modi and hate Trump and want to avoid finding the obvious similarities and connections. There are some articles tracing out the connections. Mostly in condemnatory tones. But some sources are saying the exact opposite as well, which is totally ridiculous. So lets go over some of the basics.

Victory of the Edgelords: The first major similarity is their negative public branding, and the material causes for why that sort of branding was possible in the first place. Trump and Modi both are both considered bigots by their liberal opponents (particularly in English language media which has been totally captured by leftist establishment forces), and have garnered support from right wing radicals. In Trump’s case this mostly centers around his rhetoric, though he is also favored by far right groups like (numerically and politically insignificant) KKK or the (much more numerous and significant) Alt-Right. In Modi’s case it derives from his institutional connection with the RSS and Hindutvadis in general, and his role in the Gujarat riots. In both cases this seemed to have damaged their reputations and election chances at the time. They were considered outsiders with hickish attitudes by their own liberal countrymen, and scary nationalists by neoliberals in other countries. Remember how under Obama the US denied Modi’s visa? Well Trump narrowly escaped the same fate at the hands of the UK parliament. Ultimately in both cases this politically correct negative branding failed to stop the candidate, as what the media establishment portrayed as a negative and bigoted campaign was interpreted very differently by the voting public.

(more…)

A Heaven For The Modern World

The Federalist published a piece I wrote about the heavy-hitting Black Mirror episode “San Junipero.” While some called it a brighter episode in the series, I think it was a dark, sophisticated meditation on morality and salvation. Check it out.

But this isn’t just a matter of homosexuality; the logic for same-sex marriage has been baked right into opposite-sex marriage for decades. Where marriage was once, in our society in decades past, a set of obligations to people, past, future and present, it is now about love—two (or more?) people enjoying one another in a relationship they can terminate at any time. How, then, can we justify preventing two people who enjoy each other from getting married, no matter what their sex?

Thus, the homosexual relationship and the contraceptive heterosexual relationship of mutual enjoyment can be seen as microcosms of the paradise world of San Juniper: their existence is not justified by any created purpose, but by the moral philosophy that matter, consciousness, and existence are all to be melted down and rearranged to maximize individual enjoyment. Even if there is an option to have children in San Junipero, it would exist in the same way that gay adoption exists in our world: something—a consumer choice—that is instrumental to satisfying desires, not an end itself.

Limited Government Socialism

In a recent Vox post, Will Wilkinson argues that welfare states allow economic freedom. He makes the point that Scandinavian countries and Canada had more economic freedom than United States according to several rankings, despite having a somewhat robust welfare state. For years in American politics mainly Republicans but often some neoliberal Democrats and even the most corporatist wing of the Libertarian Party have argued for trickle down economics in which they cut social programs while cutting taxes for the rich. Since Reagan, these have been portrayed as some sort of free market solution. Since the rich already receive generous handouts in the form of corporate welfare these policies are hardly libertarian.

What Wilkinson is proposing is some sort of limited government liberalism in line of liberaltarian ideas. He argues that a state should provide a basic safety net and social services but allow a truly free market. Even some right-leaning libertarians like Ron Paul have expressed surprise about how often Republicans want to cut social programs but enlarge the military budget (Wilkinson is also a critic of militarism and said if we want cut spending it should be military spending).

Wilkinson is right, he understands that undermining social programs and the safety net allow the rise of populists like Trump, who if victorious would make the economic problems of the country bigger. But I don’t think there is constituency for what Wilkinson is arguing (at least among average liberals), most of centrists in American and global politics are neoliberals not libertarians they would like to continue with corporatism in a disguise of being in favor of the free market.

What happened in Scandinavia is curious because social democratic governments recognize the failure of central planning and allow some economic liberalization that promoted economic growth and generate a prosperous society. But they are hardly libertarians. That the Scandinavian model is successful because these countries are ethnically homogenous is a very racist argument. Yes, the Scandinavian countries have large white majority, but they had accepted large amount of humanitarian refugees from Africa and Middle East, so they are more diverse than Poland or Hungary, both countries with serious economic problems despite being more homogenous. The big reason the Scandinavian model can’t be put in place in other countries is that they are still small countries that are easier to manage. I can’t imagine a Scandinavian model working in larger states like United States, China or India.

But there is still something that could work. I’m a left-libertarian closer to anarchism that to minarchism but I would like present a minimal program who could require being involve in electoral politics. My proposal is limited government socialism. I know the term sounds funny but it was inspired when I listen Ralph Nader in an interview at the Cato Institute saying he was willing to cut 50 percent of Washington spending, you never hear that from a DLC type Democrat.

I think it shouldn’t be a surprise the American left is broader than just liberals, for example the New Left was widely decentralist and to some extend their influence continues even today. John O. Norquist, the former mayor of Milwaukee who described himself as a fiscally conservative socialist is one example. I think this model is better than the Big Government Libertarianism proposed by Wilkinson. My difference with Norquist was that his expertise was urban planning. I support something close to the Carl Oglesby style of libertarianism. Oglesby the former president of the SDS knew that among liberalism there is an imperialist strain that talks in language of the left: human rights and democracy. But he knew that good intentions could end up in mass murder. On the other hand Oglesby used to think that his particular style of populist libertarianism (not to mistake with libertarian populism) could appeal to both left and right. On the left there was a call to decentralization and on the right the concept of a truly limited government.

So in doing that, the state should be reduced to a few public services like education, healthcare, security and infrastructure while offering a Universal Basic Income. Stop privatizing things and allow a truly free market arrive. The state shouldn’t have public companies but enforce a strong property rights protection against pollution could be good for the ecology. The state shouldn’t recognize patents because they are government granted privilege and that would lower the cost of medicines and software. End the War on Drugs. Erase zoning codes. Eliminate mandatory occupational licenses. Repeal the Patriot Act. Close the military bases abroad.

Someone could ask what about the social issues. As someone could guess I and the majority of socialists are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-discrimination and in favor of a more free immigration system. Though I don’t think that an adherent of limited government socialism makes you a SJW — quite the contrary, Karl Hess of all people used to argue that radical left should seek an alliance with religious conservatives because if they honest about their beliefs their main allegiance is to God not the state. Women’s rights are the reason some believe the left-right libertarian alliance of the 60s fell apart, but I think the respect of different opinions should be fundamental.  On gay rights, I think respecting religious liberty should be fundamental. If communities do not want to accept immigrants they shouldn’t be forced to do, in the case of America it should try avoid get into conflicts that generate refugees. On discrimination, I think affirmative action is a lame government response to the problems affecting minority communities, my belief is that less intrusive welfare programs could generate an economic boom in these communities and as result social transformation, then I think affirmative action would no longer be needed.

Even a right-wing populist libertarian like Ron Paul says the word capitalism shouldn’t be defended, that the goal libertarians should be promote free markets along the board. I agree, I’m a socialist not because I’m a fan of the Che Guevara or Fidel Castro but because I’m a fan Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas. I think early American socialists were right about what American foreign policy would do to America: make it less free. To be fair, I consider myself a libertarian in the Karl Hess way, so libertarianism, anarchism and socialism are synonyms for a decentralist kind of politics, but like Hess I admit there are conservative elements in my own politics, that’s why I admire people like Bill Kauffman.

My plan is far from perfect but I think it’s better than what social democrats and even some left-wing revolutionary parties do when they reach power. That is: to get along with the oligarchy and enact a few reforms while not promoting true social change. Just to be clear, I think limited government socialism will still be part of libertarianism because I think it is still compatible with the ideal of creating a free society. I would even add that it’s not incompatible with the non-aggression principle, even if I know that anarchists would disagree. On anarchism, despite of my personal sympathies for the Zapatistas and the Kurds, I don’t think that the majority of nation states are moving in that direction but if I’m wrong I would be happy, this model is just one model inspired by my peculiar politics that are in the middle of Ron Paul and Ralph Nader.