CJay Engelcomment 0 Commentsaccess_time 6 min read
The more I watch the political and social trends, the more I agree with Hoppe and Rothbard that political and cultural secession, more than anything else, is the means toward maintaining what liberties and cultural positives we have left.
At the national— and even international scale— we live under a largely corporatist-state run regime. Under this model, what Lew Rockwell calls the Plutocracy makes its major decisions, not based on property rights and individual liberties, but on what will service various industry leaders (such as the defense contractors or commercial banks), subsidy recipients (such as the agriculture and sugar industries), and beneficiaries of other state-protection measures.
The solution to this is easy to identify, though difficult to get through to people. The reason it is difficult to communicate to people is that most people lack the ability to think critically and with the tiniest bit of nuance. Moreover, most have spent their entire lives either in government schools or in front of the television— which is seen as the outlet for authorized news and narrative.
There was a time in America— really from the Bush I to the Obama regimes— that populism, a pulling back from centralism and a coalition from middle America— was the solution. The DC liberal and international elites had run us through a World War, a Cold War, and the nineties were characterized by increased globalization and setting the militarist context for 9/11 blowback. Populism— America First!— was the rallying cry of the Pat Buchanan movement, which went quiet for a time during the Bush years (the conservatives got duped again!).
Populism therefore, can be a healthy check, a tool for rallying together the useful against the regime— often by appealing to nostalgia and cultural senses. This is why Rothbard once wrote an article defending demagoguery, not as an absolute principle of argumentation, but as a desperate attempt to withstand the centralist onslaught of propaganda.
That is, while there are economic and ethical arguments to be made against the state, socialism, interventionism (and these are our ultimate defense), we also have the very true and very important appeal to the masses: the central banks, for instance, aren’t just unethical, unconstitutional, and bad for the economy— the bankers are ripping us off! That’s what Rothbard used as his example.
But the problem with populism is that it is only useful sometimes— if the impulse of the masses are of a nature that is symbiotic with policy measures that are bad, then appealing to their instincts is bad. There was a time for populism as a means of slowing down the growth of Progressivism at the Federal Level.
But just as the media pushed out the dissenting voices over the years, so the New Media and social media is pushing out dissenting voices and populism is becoming far more a tactic of the left— after all when the right does it, it’s “racist,” “hateful” (a term so vague it actually means nothing), or “bigoted.” And so when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez engages in hyper-demagoguery, with the knowledge level of a tried and true publicly schooled millennial, its seen as heroic and courageous.
Populism is no longer a primary strategy.
It has long been the case that voting freedom unto ourselves has been a laughable pipe dream (though unlike some libertarians, I can find some use for it in some situations— though I live in California, God bless my soul). But we are also using the ability to leverage the Everyday Joe as a pressure point against the politician.
In response to the increasingly obvious problems of corporatism as a business-state cozy relationship, the New Populism is the Ocasio-Cortez social democracy movement. Middle America and the non elite on the left (which is the direction in which the universities are producing their human products) is still against the Plutocracy— America was built on distrust of state-sourced elite power. But now the anti-Plutocracy coalition has a different face. It’s now a racially and religiously diverse people with a united systematic impulse: democratic socialism.
Before, it was a racially and religiously unified (at least closer to unified than our current obsession with diversity for its own sake), though systematically diverse (which is why there was popular allowance of variance between states— now, those who don’t consent to Federal dictates are LITERAL Nazi white supremacists).
Few revolutionary movements are beneficial– most are a step toward leftism. The American revolution was unique in that it was built on, well, secession and private property ownership. Same as the short-lived but magnificently impactful Ron Paul revolution. But most revolutions aren’t like that– most are socialistic and socially leftist; both economic and cultural marxist.
The people are sometimes the check on power, other times the people are the means toward power. Socialist politicians who spout off utopias without a trace of actual ethical and economic knowledge find it easy to gather together a mass movement– who doesn’t want free healthcare, to plunder to rich, to hold the whip in a context where you have been told your whole life you are an oppressed member of society?
We long ago lost Washington— but now the cultural and economic left is doubling down. Ocasio-Cortez is just the start. The youth are rallying around her. The less well off, the racial minorities, the sexually deranged— all them who have fallen victim to the lie that they are oppressed by capitalists, by white people, by christian conservatives— are swarming their way to power as the class war is heating up. Why struggle to fight over Washington?
In despair, many bourgeois and traditionalist types are wondering: how in the world are we going to save the culture for our kids? It’s a good question. I look at my own kids and wonder whether they will be the victims of the destruction of capitalism, of leftist hysteria against their race, against their cultural way of life. On Thanksgiving, my children, completely unaware of the authoritarian left’s war on our traditions, dressed up as Pilgrims going to eat with Indians (who, mind you, wore feathers and had “red skin.”)
The answer is simple: secession. If the leftist hysterics control the whip in Washington, the solution is to create a culture of dissent. Secession is a means of self-defense. Washington, Ocasio-Cortez, and the other smarmy doltish leftists who seek to undermine the wealth-creating and humanity-helping system of capitalism, who seek to overthrow the civilizational building block known as private property, who wish to overthrow the culture we love… can do nothing if we walk away. That’s why they hate and smear secession— they are all about controlling lots of people, consent is something they love as a marketing slogan but hate when it is used against them.
Secession is the medium of protecting the things around us. We teach our children: if someone is hurting you or threaten to hurt you, walk away.