Essay:If the alt-right attacks NRx, doesn't that count as "punching right"?

From Nathania, Nathan Larson's bliki
Jump to: navigation, search

It seems like some in the alt-right are like, "Ah, NRx is a bunch of Jews, nerds, and Jewish nerds. They're not really alt-right; they're libertarian degenerates. They don't embrace the proletariat the way we do; they're bourgeoisie elitists, which means they favor one class of whites over another, instead of embracing the white race in all its wonderful diversity (including not just the rich and well-educated, but also white trash, who make their own valuable contributions as trailer-dwelling welfare recipients. Somebody has to produce the next generation of white kids, y'know, and if it isn't trailer-dwelling welfare recipients, then who's it gonna be?! It has to be someone who has no marginal cost from having additional kids, and even gets paid more if they have additional kids.)

"These NRxers aren't not populists on economic issues like we are; they embrace free markets even though that means that the whites who lack marketable skills and can't compete in the marketplace have no social safety net to fall back on. If you're a war veteran and get discharged, or work in a factory and get laid off, that should mean that you and your family have a right to go on welfare forever because you were economically dislocated by those evil, money-grubbing plutocrats at the top. Whites have to support whites, which means that the rich whites need to (1) guarantee the employment of unionized laborers even if their company can no longer compete in the global economy, and (2) continue supporting those whose skills have become obsolete, rather than insist they retrain or move someplace where they can find employment.

"The blue collar worker is supreme. The white collar worker doesn't even deserve to reproduce, because he's typically just a pencil-necked computer geek with no social skills who spends too much time with his nose in a book. We don't need no books. Books are for Jews. We're above that. We're true manly men, Chads who can intimidate any of these 'intellectuals' and make the girls' panties drop. Men like us are the future of the white race. We'll smash all the non-whites with brute force. Charlottesville proved how we can show up at rallies and kick everyone else's asses. See if you can match that display of our awesome might, NRx. We were like Norse gods in how we unleashed our fury on that day that was like a Ragnarok of our creation."

At the same time, though, they say, "If you punch right, you're a traitor, and probably a shill for the leftists sent into our midst to cause division. We need to present a united front, and anyone who's not on board with that needs to GTFO of this movement (not that they were ever a true member of the movement to begin with, since if they had been, they wouldn't have punched right)."

But aren't they kinda punching right when they attack NRx? I guess they don't consider that punching right, because they don't consider NRx part of the right to begin with.


>What the heck is "regular freedom?" You mean the freedom to screw prostitutes and become addicted to fast food, social media, and recreational drugs?

Actually, parts of the alt-right (e.g. Andrew Anglin) are cool with condoning screwing prostitutes, even non-white prostitutes (as long as you don't impregnate them), during these degenerate times when few other options are available to some men. Lately, Anglin has been getting on board the "we need to do something about the inceldom problem" train. He might be half-joking, but more likely he's serious and pretending to be joking.

But, as for addiction to fast food, social media, recreational drugs, etc. -- I wouldn't really mind too much if society set certain rules for acceptable personal behavior, but a lot of times they set stupid rules. For example, our society is okay with people being overweight, but makes a big deal about it if they smoke pot. CPS can take away your kids if you're caught with a joint, for instance, but they wouldn't intervene if you weighed 300 pounds and fed your kids a bunch of the same kind of fattening foods.

What's different about neoreactionaries, that they would be able to come up with better rules for personal behavior than mainstream society? If it's obvious what are the good rules, then why hasn't it been obvious to mainstream society? Oh, because the Jews deceived them? So, we get rid of the Jews, and then people no longer make errors in the kinds of rules they support?

Even with Jewish deception going on, certain stuff should've been obvious. E.g., if we're going to ban pot, then alcohol should probably be illegal too for the same reasons. Or if we're going to legalize alcohol, then pot should probably also be legal, for the same reasons. The fact that people don't see an inconsistency just shows that people don't have very good judgment in coming up with good rules. Now we see that legalizing pot causes opioid addiction rates to go down, but people still don't want to legalize it.

I guess some in the alt-right would say, we just need to double down on prohibition by killing all the drug dealers. Well, southeast Asia did that, and they're a shithole, so I guess we need to try a social experiment to see how well it would work in a white society.

The idea behind libertarianism was, since society sucks at creating good rules, let's decentralize decision-making down to the level of the individual as much as possible. That way, the individual can succeed or fail based on his own ability to make good decisions, rather than getting dragged down by society's poor decision-making. It's a socially Darwinian system, as opposed to the current system, in which those who use their power as members of the electorate to make poor decisions for others force those others to pay the consequences.

In my view, the weakest part of libertarian theory is when it comes to relations between the sexes. Libertarianism mostly works, till you get to a situation like the family where it isn't possible for the woman to maintain her autonomy without destroying the fabric of society. Libertarianism is mostly a system that's useful for regulating business and other relations between men rather than relations between husbands and wives who need to stay together, and have a household under one authority figure, in order to raise their kids.