A RATIONALIST’S ARGUMENT FOR IRRATIONALISM
“Some men have been rational for short periods- this is the sum total of the appearance of Reason in History. But they have never made history, as it is irrational.” (Yockey, 2022)
I don’t believe that I am the first young man to become enraptured by the ideas of libertarianism. In a world where managerialism and bureaucracy run rampant, attempts at boycotting and protesting are ineffective against the statist leviathan and its tendrils of market manipulation: BlackRock, and Vanguard. Moreover, the evident shift in the culture is a symptom of this societal affliction. Through means such as ESGs, these government proxies can alter the fabric of everyday life, thought processes, and morals of the masses through the force of armed monopolies, leaving its right-wing cultural and economic opposition with little recourse to fight within the regime. Libertarianism, to this young man discovering a means through which to channel his innate convictions and beliefs into practical action, became an obvious vehicle to manifest the restoration of the traditional order I wished to live in.
I did not break into Libertarianism through what many in this sphere would typically classify under the euphemism “lolbertarians”, but the fringe. Writers, such as Hans Hermann Hoppe, kept the flame of paleolibertarinism alive that his master Rothbard had lit in the seventies. Those amongst you familiar with these figures will realize that they differ distinctly from the typical GOP candidate or Rand Paul archetype, notably in that they were unshakeable in their convictions and advocated openly for radical systemic change, not reform, in their approach.
As opposed to the typical libertarian of 2008, Hoppe and Rothbard’s thought did not relegate themselves to ensuring any and all drugs were legal as possible as soon as possible, with a tokenistic nod to gun rights, but through masterful treatise and some of the most consistent and cogent logical arguments- that even today are of a quality I have rarely seen replicated- sought to use the very precepts of libertarianism against the hordes of degenerates who had since taken up its banner. The logic was deceptively simple. From the first principles, rational individualism, voluntary exchange, and subjective theory of value, one could easily carry the logic forward into a systemic analysis of the hypothetical anarcho-capitalist system. This is where the “paleo” in paleo-libertarianism entered the picture. The outcome was clear: there were winners and losers in this world of spontaneous order. With time being a finite resource one had to manage, those with the lowest time preference would therefore be the most successful. Following the axiom that the longer one is to delay gratification, the greater the rewards will be. Ergo, those such as drug addicts, homosexuals who have never had to raise a child (along with other corollary genetic factors), and those of different races would have different behavioral tendencies on average. From this, it is easy to see and justify a hierarchy akin to the western governments of yesteryear. Taking the individualist right to property as a first principle, one reaches the point that one should not be free to associate and therefore free to disassociate. (Rothbard, 2014) The forced integration of the melting pot had a right-wing response. Covenant Communities were the answer. The explicit elite theory influence in his theory on how Covenant Communities would be governed satiated the requirement for order. The theory of subjectivity easily dismissed any question of “necessary roads” and polemics against government monopoly and de-facto socialism assured the reader that private initiative can do it better! (Hoppe, 2021) I still believe this.
The Failings of Hoppe.
Where, then, is the problem? The logic is sound, the outcomes are amenable to those of the dissident-right disposition, and the spontaneous order has a very strong emphasis on the order. The problem is its metaphysics; the problem is the disease of rationalism. Despite the hypothetical virtues of the Hoppean system, it is tainted with the Enlightenment and cannot stand up against the prevailing spirit of the age. In a previous era, Hoppe’s theories might have gained greater traction, using metaphysics and reason to conquer one’s enemies such as Hobbes, Locke, and Filmer. Yet the age that superseded it was one of empiricism and scientific rigor, which again never defeated its enemies in the realms of the debate, but were simply acting in accordance with the power dynamics of the time and the spirit of the age. The world does not belong to you because you gave the best argument in a high school debate setting, and even more importantly, at no point in history was that ever the arrangement. Power is the deciding factor, and that is won through its ability to capture the minds of those important culture-bearing stratums of a particular age who can enforce its hegemony. Debate club might have been the sense one gets when imagining William Wilberforce delivering powerful anti-slavery tracts to parliament with reason prevailing triumphantly, and the reason might have had a good bit to do with it. However, it should not be mistaken as winning through argument. The system in which the debate was facilitated decided the argument and set the trajectory. Had Wilberforce been born one hundred years later, as empiricism took the place of metaphysics and further eroded Christianity, Wilberforce may well have been making economic utilitarian arguments to parliament as to the emancipation of the slaves. It is telling that the vestiges of still-living Marxist professors maintain that Wilberforce was purely motivated by economic factors.
As Schmitt notes in Political Theology,
“…It is a part of the sociology of the concept of sovereignty of that epoch to show that the historical political existence of the monarchy corresponded to the entire state of consciousness of Western European humanity at that time and that the juristic shaping of historical-political reality could find a concept whose structure corresponded to the structure of metaphysic concepts.” (Schmitt, 1922)
For us, this is an important lesson. Many of us are the products of yesterday’s intellectual lineage and are no longer capable of fully capturing the culture-spirit of modern man and the sociology of sovereignty has not been sufficiently answered within Hoppeanism. The sociology of sovereignty has elucidated that metaphysical liberty has long been superseded by democracy, which has since been subverted by technocracy. Within this article, I have embedded the terminology of Spenglerian thinkers, and this is no accident. Within Spengler and Yockey’s texts are the refutation of Libertarian metaphysics in the sense of something objective and eternal.
In Imperium he explains,
“The new theory of history…broke down the old linear scheme. The new outlook became a soul-necessity of western civilization at the same time that the history-seeking activity did, even though it was to remain half-articulate until the First World War. This intense outburst of probing the past was an expression of the super personal feeling that the riddle of history was not touched with the old linear device, that it had to be unlocked, and that the totality of facts must be surveyed. As the new facts accumulated, the higher-ranking historians took a wider view, but not until the latter part of the 19th century did any historian or philosopher actually treat Cultures as separate organisms, with parallel existence, independence, and spiritual equality.” (Yockey, 2011)
The theory of history that Spengler proposes (Spengler,2021), is not linear, or accidental (although surely on the upswing assumedly when the anarcho-capitalists assume power), but cyclical and as importantly psychological. The spirit of a people is characterized by innate emotions and feelings which people use as a lens for understanding the world. It is the simple fact, to invert the famous phrase, that feelings do not care about your facts. Just as with previous ages, we will now be unable to recognize previous epochs of history without this framework of understanding. The problem then, with Hoppeanism, is to try and create an ideology amenable to our ambitions using the defunct rules and laws of a previous age. This will be understood by most as Hermeneutics. In Hoppe’s view on Hermeneutics, he states
“Would it not seem appropriate to ask ‘What, then, about their own pronouncements?’ If there is nothing like truth based on common, objective ground, then all of the preceding talk surely cannot claim to say anything true. In fact, it would be self-defeating to do what they seem to be doing: denying that an objective case can be made for any statement, while at the same time claiming this to be the case for their own views.” (Hoppe, 2021)
Whilst Hoppe makes the statement that, on the face of it, seems inscrutable it does not understand that the perception of these facts is confined to one’s culture-soul and genetics. He is not, unlike most modern intellectuals, afraid of such topics. He embraces them and finds these dispositions and inherent differences between peoples one of the core components as to why a society would self-segregate and maintain its cultures in his system. If there is then, a rationalist objective truth, would one then see an aggregate trend towards one people, culture, and faith? Hoppe gives a tacit affirmative in praising Protestantism and the white culture soul. He also recognizes that cultures are, in aggregate, incommunicable and deterministic as well as with differences in individuals.
How, then, can an African culture-soul ever recognize and see the value in our conventions, cultures, behaviors, theology, and political systems? When an attempt is made to adopt the white culture-soul, the subconscious assessment and comprehension from those indigenous to other culture-souls, interprets and morphs it into something more amenable to their spirit. One can identify this all across the western world, and has been described by many as “n*grification”. It has been responsible for the rise in cultural entities such as the Deano, the change in cultural music tastes, the change in beauty standards, and the alteration from individualism towards a greater group consciousness. This has largely left those indigenous to the African culture-soul ascendant and those of the European culture-soul left floundering in nihilism. Hoppe accepts implicitly that this system will work for whites, understands the differences in culture, and the determinants such as evolutionary psychology, but does not make the leap to suggest that another culture-soul can never understand the internal machinations of another, let alone subconsciously adopt it as their own. In this sense, an objective truth beyond human understanding may not be relative but is most definitely irrelevant and of no use to actual civilizations. This is not to say that purely through the power of voodoo, witch doctors, and hunter-gatherer societies one is capable of getting a culture to the moon, but it uniquely resonates with their inner being, spirit, or evolutionary psychology, if you prefer, and will never understand the culture of the other respectively as we are inhabiting an entirely different world through our own culture-soul. It is then with some irony, that the rationalist line of thinking that presupposes an objective truth in those terms, is morally particular to the west and will never be communicable from it. Even then, the west has long passed the stage of its cycle where it had such explanatory power, and the theology (the articles of belief on which the west stands) are now Hermeneutic.
If not Rationalism, then what?
“A doctrine that does not attack and affect the life of the period in its inmost depths is not a doctrine and had better not be taught.” (Spengler, 2021)
I was born into a generation that maintained the trappings of empiricism. I was brought up to think critically, and scrutinize every claim made so that the debate could bring society collectively closer to the truth. Through this, I found the metaphysics of rationalism and paleo-libertarianism. However, that was not what convinced me or my fellow contemporaries who joined me on that intellectual journey. As Hoppe states in the blurb of his most famous work, Democracy the God That Failed, he makes the argument on utilitarian grounds. (Hoppe, 2001). This means of compelling an audience to abandon utilitarianism for liberty is not only deeply ironic but indicative of the age. An immutable base level of our understanding must always be spoken in the language of the age we live in. Our age happens to be technological; the theology of finding the most efficient means to perpetuate a system with no underlying reason as to why it should continue in the first place. As I stated earlier in this article, the seduction of Hoppe was taking one’s disposition towards capitalism and one’s people, and synthesizing it through metaphysics. His appeal was never liberty in itself but how liberty could further our unarticulated transcendental and subjective aims. It was for Rothbard a form of Ethics that would be followed and built upon by society for its own whims, but they certainly had an outcome they predicted.
In Ancapistan, the anarcho-communist could never win, nor could the neo-con, nor any other character trying to forge his community no matter the force of his argument. Great care is spent dictating and refining the perfect system or retribution for government officials and law enforcement post-revolution, yet the ancap society would not punish anyone who was to overstep and begin shooting them. They would make the exception. Moreover, if a communist is shot in his own home by a citizen then jurisprudence would likely fall in his favor. The theology of any system makes its miracles in order to sustain itself. (Schmitt, 1922) To the man of the moment, these presuppositions on the relationship between politics and power need no justification and are self-evident. Moreover, the psychology of the masses is entirely unsuited to yesteryears rationalism anyway. They were always emotive and malleable creatures, but are now even more conscious of it than before. For these reasons, Hoppe’s rationalism is destined to fail.
With this perspective and knowledge of power relations dominating the coming age, it is impossible to return to an earnest Rationalist approach to any ideology. We have our beliefs, convictions, and morality but also the consciousness that they mean nothing unless we can take the system for ourselves. If we no longer look to Locke, Jefferson, Hoppe, and Rothbard for our answers, we must find them in those who write for this age such as Spengler, Evola, Francis, and Schmitt.
All of these men have been given new life by providence at this moment in history, and I believe that this is no accident. For the past one hundred years these men have acted as those initial culture bearers of the Becoming against the Being. The Being is the cycle of the organism we are now in, and they were the advocates for the next stage of becoming whilst it was in its infancy. The psychological age is now at the gates of the old, and the vessels for this culture-soul will inevitably be found to fulfill the promise of history. The Becoming will prevail. Each epoch has its faith that underpins its belief. We have seen outright theology, metaphysics, materialism, progress, and finally postmodernism.
The fact that I am writing this and you are reading it gives enough credit to this claim. At least for us. This is the final hurdle to be overcome in terms of faith. We are born children of the last faith as it becomes disillusioned. There was a fight before us over this faith that was lost, as Napoleon before us failed on the field of battle. However, an idea cannot be stopped when its time has come. The moral particularism we are now ascribing to is necessarily half-hearted. As those of a different spirit in our youth it is difficult to place one’s complete faith in anything. Nihilism has been bred into us and materialism is still given credence. A study promoting our viewpoint still generates self-satisfaction and, although we know the rates at which items for both sides are forged, the disputations as to the empirical validity are the first recourse when tackling an opposing study and never our own.
For us, it is time to recognize we are what we are; we have a culture-soul and a being that is right simply because it is ours. We cannot justify our view to other culture-souls and cannot be convinced away from ours by theirs. To shed the desire to argue and debate is something anathema to the era we are leaving, but natural to the next.
Those such as Evola, who speak of a Solar-Nordic race of men that are destined to come after the kali yuga, who defy all laws of science and can use magic is something we cannot conceive of, let alone try to attain. (Evola, 1932) Yet we must believe it. You can use the Evolutionary psychology argument, which has proponents such as Edward Dutton to justify bringing back this high group preference (Dutton, 2021), or the works of Filmer (to justify why one must be sovereign) to satiate that inherent need to materially or rationalistically prove something. Whatever is necessary for you to be personally convinced is perfectly acceptable. A critical test of power is whether it can not only suffer its contradictions but wear them brazenly. Remember always that it is beyond question that we are correct because we are. We are of the right and the left is inherently wrong because it is not us. We want to rule because it is just that we do. We are the only ones fit to rule because we are right. Any further elaboration of these claims is not only unnecessary but counter-productive. If, in this pivotal hour, we do what is demanded of us then our future generations won’t have to bear the cross of contradiction at all. For them, the moral self-assuredness we aspire to will be as intuitive and subconscious as breathing. For those unfortunate enough to be born into this interbellum period, the only rational recourse you have is to be irrational.
Bibliography:
Yockey, F.P. (2011) in Imperium. Wentzville, Missouri: Invictus Press, pp. 41,56–57
Rothbard, M.N. and Hoppe, H.H. (2014) The Ethics of Liberty. 2nd edn. New York, New York: New York University Press.
Hoppe, H.-H., Deist, J. and Kinsella, N.S. (2021) The Great Fiction: Property, economy, society, and the politics of decline. 2nd edn. Auburn, Alabama: Mises Institute.
Schmitt, C. and Miller, C.J. (2020) “Political Theology,” in The sovereign collection. N/A, N/A: Antelope Hill Publishing, pp. 25–37.
Spengler, O. and Atkinson, C.F. (2021) “Introduction,” in The Decline of the West. London, United Kingdom: Arktos, pp. 56–56
Evola, J. and Stucco, G. (1995) Revolt against the modern world. Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions International.
Dutton, E. (2020) Making sense of race. Whitefish, Montana: Washington Summit Publishers.
Filmer, R. (2021) Patriarcha: The Complete Political Works. La Vergne, Tennessee: Imperium Press.