Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch
Basically, when one increasingly finds he has very little common ground with mainstream political movements, his nostalgic trips down memory lane may eventually lead him to embark on a journey down “reactionary road.” This highway has many possible lanes and exits. He might find himself heading in the direction of the paleoconservatives’ front porch or the neoreactionaries’ castle, perhaps the libertarians’ weed farm, or the traditionalists’ homestead, the manosphere’s “No Ma’am” meet up, the radfem free bleeders’ pool party, or even the neo-nazis’ Antarctic base. Essentially, one metaphorically “hitchhikes” from one ideological group to the next, with each of them only willing to take him part of the way where he wants to go, and he never may never quite reach that sanctuary where the other escaped runners are waiting for him. Yet, that analogy doesn’t always work… because each group doesn’t necessarily incrementally get you closer to the group where you ultimately fit in. Of course, some people hitchhike with no destination in mind. They just want to go on a mind expanding journey and see where it takes them. For those that have an idea of what they’re looking for though, it can be disheartening. You just kind of bounce around like an idiosyncratic pinball, occasionally hitting spots where the machine lights up briefly (finally! these guys mostly believe the same things I do), only to be blasted off in the other direction after dealbreaker ideological incompatibilities are uncovered.
So you might ask…why do you need to belong to a group or share a belief system with anyone at all? Well, you don’t of course…unless you want to actually organize with like-minded people and do something.
Brad Trun, a.k.a. Libertarian Realist – a gentleman previously discussed at Skynet (here, here, and here) – is no stranger to what Rabbit terms “Reactionary Pinball”. Formerly a more conventional brand of libertarian and an ardent admirer of Mammon high priestess Alisa Rosenbaum (alias Ayn Rand), Trun eventually came to the conclusion that the ideals of his radical individualism were untenable in the context of the catastrophic Third World settler colonization presently endured by the decrepit West. He arrived at what he calls libertarian realism – a faithfulness to the ideal of individual liberty tempered by the realization that no ideological commitment ought to be so absolute as to undermine and destroy the very conditions for its application and enjoyment.
Trun is sufficiently confident that his pinball has entered stasis that he has now endeavored to coin a “proper name” for “an ideology that extols freedom, prosperity, and glory – and nourishes the genetic roots that grow the values it champions.” Trun, in other words, would like, as Rabbit suggests, “to actually organize with like-minded people,” at least as an intellectual movement, so as to ultimately “do something.” Trun delineates and justifies his selection of what he labels “libertarian bionationalism” as follows:
It is not conservatism. Conservatism implies a backward-looking revival of former traditions. As it’s practiced in America, political conservatism is little more than progressivism on a lag. An American conservative today embraces most of what Progressives championed in the recent past – Social Security, Medicare, Voting Rights, Civil Rights, Disabled Rights, Gay Wedding Cake Rights, and other invented rights that require legions of federal bureaucrats to enforce. Only a small segment of conservatives, who might be called paleo-conservatives, reject the progressive’s panoply of positive rights and favor returning government to its constitutional functions.
Those who identify as reactionary or neo-reactionary might reject the entire Enlightenment worldview that informed America’s Founders. Some neo-reactionaries favor returning to monarchy; others to some form of feudalism. Some NRXers seek to install a social order underpinned by Orthodox Christianity. Others look back even further, to pre-Christian paganism.
How far back in history do you look for ideological inspiration? How much of a reaction against modernity do you desire? These are questions that presuppose conservatism as the operating paradigm. But in my view, conservatism in all its subdivisions and degrees – from neo to paleo – is failed and flawed.
An ideology of ascent should be forward-looking, not reactive – defined not based on what it opposes but what it seeks to achieve. That doesn’t necessarily entail the rejection of traditions that have heretofore shaped our cultural and political institutions. But it does entail the rejection of traditionalism as a primary ideological orientation. We seek to chart a path to a future that is superior to both the present and the past. We yearn to live in a nation of rising freedom, rising IQs, and rising standards of well-being.
Computer technology and biotechnology will make such a glorious future possible. But it won’t be realized without the ascension of a new kind of nationalism. A nationalism that eschews authoritarian impulses and suffuses itself instead to the principles of liberty. An enlightened nationalism that is validated in reason, guided by science, and informed by the biological realities of human nature and its racial variations.
Such an ideology deserves a proper name. Unfortunately, there’s no ready-made, widely accepted term for it. Rather than try to coin a neologism that lacks common currency, I’ll employ a compound noun that names the three most essential components: libertarian bio-nationalism (LBN). The term libertarian bio-nationalism has the advantage of being precise (unlike vague left/right labels) without being tied to a particular time, place, or person. Any country – from the United States to Sweden to Japan – can adapt LBN to its own particular bionational identity.
I grant that the label “libertarian” is imperfect. “Libertarian” has acquired some unfortunate connotations due [to] its appropriation by left-libertarians, anarchists, and methodological individualists who dogmatically cling to a biophobic blank-slate conception of human nature.
I believe that “libertarian,” which shares the same etymological roots as “liberty,” is worth reclaiming from the mis-appropriators. A political libertarian seeks self-determination within a particular geographic area. A nationalist seeks self-determination for a particular geographic area. Thus, libertarian nationalism is a logical union. I’d argue that libertarianism and nationalism are not only compatible, but mutually reinforcing and mutually necessary.
Libertarians need nations. No amount of theorizing about imaginary anarcho-capitalist legal agencies has ever brought down a government. Nobody in power fears being overthrown by anarcho-capitalists. But nationalists have overthrown governments. Nationalists do strike fear into the hearts of the ruling elites of many countries. Nationalism is powerful because it is more than a set of abstract ideas. Nationalism harnesses the power of a population’s identity and concrete interests.
Libertarian nationalism is freedom through power. Without nationalism, libertarianism is little more than the weak pleadings of inefficacious idealists. With nationalism, libertarianism becomes an ideological force with the tangible capability of sustaining itself.
Libertarians need nationalism. Nationalists need libertarianism. And libertarian nationalism needs a biocentric metaphysic. A nationalism based solely on faith or tradition or language or historical borders gives leftists the ability to posture as the champions of science, progress, and a better future. In reality, so-called progressives are the arch enemies of a free and open society. When it comes to the heritability of IQ differences among different sociobiological populations, progressives deny science and seek to ban its dissemination. In the name of equality, they demand that Western nations genetically and culturally retrogress into Third World nations. The ideology of human progression is libertarian bionationalism.
This writer notes with approval that Trun, after initially hyphenating “bio-nationalism” in the sixth paragraph of the block quote above, takes the affirmative step of conflating the two concepts in the eleventh and in the title of his essay, “Libertarian Bionationalism: An Ideology for a New Ascendancy”. Nation and race, after all, should be inextricable.
Many Aryan Skynet readers will no doubt object to Trun’s assertion that “Nationalists need libertarianism”. “I grant that a government constrained by libertarian chains would have less capacity to effectuate demographic improvement than an unchained authoritarian government,” he concedes, but counters his inevitable critics with this:
A fascist dictatorship could institute coercive eugenics programs that would, in theory, raise the national IQ faster and more dramatically than any set of voluntary [incentives]. But a government that treats its own people like domesticated livestock inverts the very concept of human ascendancy. We don’t exist for the purpose of improving the gene pool. We seek to improve the gene pool because it will make our lives better.
Whether it is nationally oriented authoritarianism or laissez-faire capitalism that “treats its own people like domesticated livestock” – by, for instance, urging their mindless grazing on consumer goods and participation in the pornography industry – is debatable (“Degeneracy must be controlled by the state,” insists a commenter under Trun’s essay); but it is not this writer’s intention here to dissect fine points or to deconstruct the potential flaws in libertarian bionationalism.
Rather, libertarian bionationalism ought to be welcomed into the broad tent of racialist thought and politics. “It’s unrealistic to believe it’s necessary to find people who agree with us 100% on everything in order to align ourselves with them,” writes Rabbit under the heading “Reactionary Priorities”. “So it is sufficient to find people who are with us on our ‘top priority’ issues.” Libertarian bionationalism addresses the top racialist priority of the resuscitation of racial consciousness among whites, and for that reason alone should be considered a positive ideological development and one that the various varieties of racialist fellow travelers would be wise to wish well in its progress of dissemination.
At the very least, Trun serves as an articulate pro-white ambassador to the postracial Paulians, intellectual Misesians, constitutionalist Gadsden-wavers, and voluntaryist weed heads who people the more polite (i.e., suicidal) encampments of libertarianism. Has Brad Trun’s pinball come to a stop – on liberty, capitalism, the Jewish Question, and those embarrassingly irrepressible “conspiracy theories”? Only future ideological tribulations will tell.