UPDATE: June 12th, 2020
Everything below this update was written 3 years ago or so. And my views have changed a lot. The wojak compass image below has been my political journey:
Basically, I followed the same path most of us Libertarians did. I only fell into calling myself Libertarian because it was the only viable third party option that seemed worthwhile. Because I wasn’t a bible thumper neocon, but I didn’t like retarded commie naivety either. But I was intentionally apolitical for a while and so I didn’t even know about the Non Aggression Principle and other autistic tenants of Libertarianism when I voted for Gary Johnson. I just knew that I didn’t really care about gay people getting married, but I still liked drugs and guns. You know, typical stuff for an American guy in his 20’s. But of course, at no point in my life did I think open borders was a good idea.
It wasn’t until I really started getting into politics and watching debates, reading books, listening to podcast, etc. that I heard all the different arguments. It seems that the Dissident Right umbrella term is most apt. And whether you call yourself a Paleo Conservative, Minarchist Libertarian, National Socialist, etc. , that they all have minor disagreements but come from the same background. We all disagree on exactly how much government intervention should be allowed and how socially conservative the society should be, but most of us recognize how degenerate society has become and that there are certain fundamental truths about human nature we can’t wish away. None of us are hardcore non-interventionists, but it seems most of us came from a background of being against pointless wars fought for oligarch interests at the tax payer’s expense.
So, as the years progress I became increasingly sympathetic to JQ stuff and ethnic homogeneity. But I think saying “ethnostate” is LARPy and counterproductive. That is just the natural state of every f**king country since the dawn of time. Not a 100% pure population, but I mean, the majority is a cohesive ethnic group and that guests are welcome but shouldn’t have the same ability to subvert and take over the host nation. No one would go to pre 1965 America and talk about ethnostates or call Japan one today. It’s just such a ludicrous notion that it’s like walking into a friend’s home and bombarding their parents with questions like: “Why don’t you call me your son? Do you hate me and my family? Then why not give me a spare key? This house is a house of guests. Technically, when you first moved in you were guests too before the landlord signed the lease. So why not let the whole neighborhood come in? Let us all decide where the next road trip is this Summer.” So of course, with such deconstructionist postmodernist type scrutiny, the parents would have to get on your level with semantic jargon and a phrase like “biofamily” and “biohousehold” to explain why they want to keep their home the way it is. Which can be construed into a scary sounding radical ideology to normal people.
Forgive the bizarre extended metaphor, but that’s how I feel about the notion of Alt Right or whatever you wanna’ call me. I’m just normal and somewhat immune to the cultural brainwashing in recent years. My beliefs are pretty consistent with the Founding Fathers of America and most presidents we’ve had. No autistic dogmatic beliefs about non aggression principle type crap. Basically, I prefer freedom but I am open to some socialized aspects in the government. Context is everything. I’ve seen socialized health care work in Nordic countries and Japan. Personally, I prefer the more free market health care, but that is impossible in a multi-racial giant Empire like we have now.
Open borders is ludicrous. Each state can have its own rules, but I would choose to live in one where only land owning white men of good character were able to vote. I would be happy to live in a state that had demographics similar to America’s pre-1965 census, because I genuinely enjoy other cultures and races. And I think purity spiraling is dangerous and I don’t think leftists are unjustified in their fear that ethnic pride and nationalism could lead to more wars and more scapegoating. (E.g. the notion of Whites is a new one and I could see Americans refocusing their tensions with Mexicans and Muzzies with Catholics and Greeks or whatever.) Unfortunately, I’ve had to grapple with uncomfortable truths about the JQ and so I don’t think such states could exist for long with even a small percentage of Jews inside it. Because as history has shown, they tend to open the floodgates of immigration and subvert the political process so that only a totalitarian government can regain control. I don’t want to live in a fascist society. If you’re lucky, you can get one like Russia or Singapore, but neither are ideal.
In other words, the only way we can have a Libertarian society is by allowing some very un-Libertarian caveats built in with unflinching rigidity. The expansion of the vote would have to be absolutely forbidden and not amendable. No matter what. Same with who could have positions of power within the State. But of course there are traitorous white men like John McCain so actions of political figures would have to be forbidden as well without any room for interpretation wiggle room. For example, absolutely NO political donations or stock ownership allowed by lobbyists and political figures. For life. And with a 3 degrees of separation limit as well to prevent bribery loopholes. Dual citizenship would obviously be forbidden as well for political figures. And really harsh punishments like Singapore’s death penalty for drug traffickers, to really scare the sh*t out of politicians from even considering trying to weasel around it. That way you could also protect against foreign agents like Jeffrey Epstein from blackmailing everyone. And of course 1st amendment and 2nd amendment are essential to keep leaders in check. They should just be unchangeable.
Likewise, built-in amnesty allowed for whistleblowers who were blackmailed, no matter how harsh their crimes. It may be unsavory and upsetting for the population but it’s the only way to make the nation immune to such subversion by outside forces. Society will always have sick f**ks who like to diddle kids and maybe even LARP as Satanists. And you know the population would be infuriated at the thought of their tax money going to keep such a person alive and safe. Maybe comparable to how the capital punishment free Norwegians feel about Anders Breivik chilling in a mediocre resort. But otherwise, how can you ensure that a free society doesn’t have its freedoms exploited against itself?
I prefer freedom in my society/government as much as possible, but in order to maximize that a decent chunk must be restricted to ensure things can be sustainable and impervious to subversion.