What shame it is that I stoop so low so as to respond to a David Hogg Tweet! Oh the humanity!
Nevertheless, in spite of his sketchiness, Hogg is truly a poster child of why democratization of everything must be confronted, opposed, and rejected. He represents the future of a democratic society, a fact which he presents as optimism, and which for more reasonable folk gives them an opportunity to reconsider the default Western opinion on the goodness of a democratic system.
Love and voting are the only two things that will solve this. Reguardless of your opinions I think we can all agree that america needs to become more politically active. #VoteForOurLives
— David Hogg (@davidhogg111) March 27, 2018
Generally speaking, especially in view of the Social Plans developed by the modern social left, voting is the antithesis of love. Democracy, which is a religion of socialist-style statism propagated via the uneducated and unthinking agitating against their made up boogeymen enemies, is the great tool of social control in the 21st century. Cries for increased democratic involvement are always cries for the mobilization of the New Class of activists who are professional clamorers for increased government authority.
It makes sense that these new activists are swarming like bees from the public schools– after all, what are public schools but taxpayer funded propaganda houses training the comrades for a future of loyalty to the Progressive Regime?
“Voting” is a plea for social disruption, of taking a system naturally positioned against individual rights and giving it a major spark of energy. The battle cry of “voting” as a solution to perceived problems is a gift to those masters of social control who understand the limits of tyrannically forcing the population to act against their will. It is “voting” that gives authoritarianism its popular legitimacy and it is “voting” that gives the politicians their social justification for setting fire to the remaining vestiges of individual rights.
Love, therefore, has nothing to do with it. Love, whatever it may mean– and truly one rarely comes across a word so vague and ambiguous– is completely at odds with the political process. If becoming more politically active is what David Hogg and his band of emo kid-revolutionaries want, they use the word love in only the creepiest and most Orwellian sense possible. They are, after all, the agitators of the future– the group that seeks to pit citizen against citizen and citizen against his own rights to a free life.
David Hogg thinks (or says he thinks, which I have no proof of) “we can all agree that American needs to become more politically active.” The opposite is the case. The world is such that politics needs to be ignored, dissented from, rejected as a legitimate and moral form of human affairs.
Politics is the means by which interpersonal conflict is systematized and class struggle is born. Politics takes the natural disagreements we may have as individual human beings and places them on a pedestal as the only things worth talking about. Politics is the rejection of self-determination and the handing over of individual decision making to a corrupt and treacherous body of scoundrels to set the path forward for an entire people.
Robert Nef wrote in a short article in the Hoppe festschrift that democracy’s “majority principle” was a damaging force for the prospects of civilization:
The compulsion to do good and, above all, the compulsion to do what the majority holds to be good, turns diversity into uniformity and has a destructive impact on the community overall.
Every creative community is based on peaceful competition, and if the principle of majority rule is misused to get rid of unpopular alternative solutions, it degenerates into rule by those populists who happen to have the ear of the majority at the time.
We live in an age of manipulated social media and carefully designed feed-based algorithms for the news and current events. David Hogg therefore has the floor. It has been given to him on a silver platter. The answer to his threat is not in taking the battle to the voting houses. It is not in taking the debate to the Federal sphere and beating him back from Washington. This is absurd.
No, the solution to all this is to take from him the very thing he relies on, the thing he thinks everyone needs more of: centralized politics. The path forward for the libertarian and our fellow travelers is dissent, secession, localization. How can he engage in politics if there is no challenger in his ring? The task of the tyrant is to appeal to a centralizing desire in the people over which he seeks his control. Thus, we reject centralism. We advocate, anywhere and everywhere, a turning away of our attention from national politics. To decentralize is to pull out the rug from underneath them and to make David Hogg speak from his podium into a stadium of emptiness.