What I Love/Hate About James Bond

I remember my first Bond movie – Goldfinger.  I was enthralled by the boyish charm, whimsically taking off a wet suit to reveal an ivory dinner jacket with black tie and lighting up a cigarette just his bomb lights up the sky from the view of some exotic club window.  The tone is lighthearted, the music is upbeat and rich, the British humour is there wherever possible and Bond is a Nietzschean hero – spirited, noticeably feeling fear but sticking his tongue in cheek, right in the face of death.  The James Bond I remember had too much fun drinking, smoking and screwing his way into situations where he was obliged to save the world to ever rationally reflect on how he might be more careful in future.  In short, this little boy’s mind was witnessing the modern equivalent of an ancient epic, some hero gloriously defeating some blatantly unrealistic foe, the gods or lady luck just as blatantly on his side.  What’s more, he looked like a man who enjoyed a nice whiskey…with breakfast.

But, today is the release of Spectre on DVD.  I will not be purchasing.  I was neither shaken, stirred or anything other than resentful.  I cannot recall ever having felt such resentment, although I keep having these strange flashbacks – Harrison Ford, a dusty hat, a whip, George Lucas was laughing, I was crying…anyway.  In short, Bond does not look like a lesser-envied extra from Magic Mike, he is not some brooding, vulnerable, adolescent Feminist.  Can you imagine what would happen to Bond these days if he were to cheerily spank Moneypenny on the way out?  He'd be done for sexism, whichever –ism you would care to invoke, but don’t forget racism.  In fact, Bond’s character, the epitome of masculinity, has been so downtrodden by the empowered, #killallwhitemen minorities that just to cover up this fact, they need to introduce all the multiculti nonsense they think people should want instead.  We can’t have him being a loveable rogue so let’s just copy the dark, grittiness of the Bourne series and hope people are still entertained.  Let’s make him black and hope that it gets some attention, certainly it will stop any accusations of racism for the sheer crime of being white.  Let’s just make Bond a transgender, little Philippino in a wheel chair who will do all he can to ‘fight’ for the country which empowers him to maintain the status quo, especially when he has so much angst to deal with.  Let’s get him a safe space while we’re at it.

The truth is, however, this was all inevitable.  Statism in the 20^th century became Democratic, that is, judicial monopoly became publicly owned and it has turned government power into a free-for-all, much like the tragedy of the commons wherever private property is prohibited by the State.  Democracy has failed and been ripped to shreds, over-legislated; Bond is just the public manifestation of what it has done to those men who supported the State having such power.  No man, men, or otherwise, should have the power Bond had.  But, he does have a nasty habit of surviving.

Paths to a Free Society - an interview with Walter Block

#LibertarianismSoWhite

Why are the majority of Libertarians white men?  Is it a conspiracy?  Actually, there are socio-biological reasons and, if you will give me a moment, it is necessary to flesh them out.  

Co-author of The 10,000 Year Explosion, Gregory Cochran, has commented on the latest data suggesting that Europeans are the 'fusion' of three peoples—blue-eyed, dark-skinned Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, Anatolian farmers, and Indo-Europeans from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe (Southern Russia, basically).  He notes that, in Northern Europe, the Indo-Europeans eradicated the Anatolian farmers.  In the South, they simply imposed their language and swung their weight about but, nevertheless, their nomadic movement (having been the first to domesticate and purpose-breed horses) allowed for those increasingly intelligent peasant farmers, who were tied to the land, to create trade routes.  The mixture of these two peoples formed more K-selective, highly intellectual Greek communities with that new x-factor of individual audacity and the libertarian spirit of the Indo-Europeans (especially in the Ionians).  

It would of course be some time for the nomadic, utterly Indo-European northerners to settle into more bourgeois lifestyles which would eventually create the most peaceful, powerful and prosperous societies, particularly the Dutch/Anglospheric groups who have inevitably come to dominate innovation in the vast majority of human endeavours (see
The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce by Deirdre McCloskey).  They would possess all that was great about the ancient, mediterranean West but more so - the full-blooded Faustian spirit of the Indo-Europeans and ever-increasing IQ's necessitated by bourgeois K-strategizing, optimized by even harsher winters.  The absence of enough of these socio-biological traits is arguably the reason the Romans did not achieve the Industrial Revolution; possessing them in greater abundance, however, led to societies with high average IQ's, just under East Asians, but with a significantly higher level of testosterone, increasing creativity and tenacity, and creating cultures which socialize towards individualism and competition, particularly against the imposition of authority.  Having a higher percentage of people with these self-asserting and self-affirming traits is what caused the West to recurringly fight against authorities and their centralization.  Indeed, there are too many revolutions, competing bodies and movements to limit the inevitable expansions of the Leviathan State to mention.  The self-empowering ideals of Classical Liberalism only sprouted in the West and thus many white, male Libertarians take this unique socio-biological habitat in which it exists very seriously.
 
This is perhaps the ultimate reason that many Libertarians do not favour open borders; they think it would be better for the cause of liberty to oppose waves of mass immigration by peoples who have  different evolutionary and cultural backgrounds, that is, social environments not favouring the natural development of Classical Liberalism, let alone Libertarianism. Especially when Europe has received unprecedented numbers of peoples from Conservative Muslim areas.  That politico-religious ideology is necessarily opposed to Liberal Islam's favouring of western, liberal political values, regarding Islam as a moderating cultural technology (e.g. the Golden Rule promotes reciprocity).  

But discussion of the Libertarian debate on immigration shall be for another time.  For now, there is no debate as to why Libertarians are mostly white and almost entirely in European-origin countries, and there is absolutely no way that the Oscars are racist.  Neither am I, in case you were thinking of asking...

What I Love/Hate About the Left and the Right

The political spectrum is not like the autistic spectrum, we are not all on it.  As an Austro-Libertarian (or Anarcho-Capitalist), it is apparent that we are stood apart from the tumultuous scales, eyes ticking and tocking about like a tennis audience.  The scales represent little more than aggression; the red vs blue is merely the equilibrium reached between those interest groups able to wield money and influence.  Naturally, there are some Libertarians who think we need to jump on one side of the scales or other, hoping this might throw off a few poor, lost souls.  I cannot judge them (where their intentions are pure) but I prefer to shout for attention from the sidelines - 'Those with ears to hear...'

So, what exactly do I have to shout about?  Certainly, the Left and the Right each have some good values to fight about; yet, the Left is philosophically unsound at its foundation and the Right, methodologically.  Will either side give, even a little?  Not to each other, if human history has anything to say, but perhaps some might listen to reason.

Here are my thoughts:

What I love/hate about Marxism

What I love/hate about Conservatism

Libertarian Media of the Year 2015

Before we greet 2016 with a hangover, it is helpful to first use our brains to think how culture has furthered the  cause of liberty in 2015.

My book of the year is non-fiction but for those who cannot read anything without imaginary characters, or pictures for that matter, it is short; so short that it has the word 'short' in the title:

A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
is an outstanding work which views the history of man from a perspective of private property, utterly shattering the glass floor of Marxism.  You will feel confident enough to have a deep discussion with anthropologists and political scientists after reading this book.  Containing Hoppe's brilliant essay, From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy, the case against liberal democracies and for natural order is laid out powerfully.  The best part?  It's free!
(You can purchase a hardback copy here: http://amzn.to/1LzzuTQ)

The most Libertarian movie of the year is probably also the best movie of the year.  You would be forgiven for asking what exactly is Libertarian about this movie:

Max Max: Fury Road
makes critics use words like tour-de-force.  George Miller returns to direct and apparently had the story stewing in his mind for many years; truly, this is his best and the practical effects are white-knucklingly envigorating.  But the plotline is what fascinates the most.  If you haven't watched it, watch it!  If you have, rewatch it!  But I would recommend reading Hoppe's excellent book (above) before you do.  Miller has apparently thought a considerable amount about human prehistory and how the State came into being.  Immortan Joe is the villain who treats others as property, developing a superstition about himself in order to convince his primitive serfs that he has some supernatural power over life, death and the afterlife and, therefore, must exercise a monopoly over violence and control who has property rights, i.e. govern coercively.
The Feminist message is present but, ultimately, the female characters need Max to save them.  However, he is no white knight and his character was despised by most women I discussed the film with.  He is not a romantic character and does not help for sexual profit.  The women have no gynocentric leverage with such a character and are entirely dependent on his whim.  Instead, Max purely desires personal redemption, entering their lives,  dominating the scene, and leaving to go his own way.  The character is very masculine and not at all a husband/utility to be bagged by some damsel in distress.  The irony is that he is titled and considered mad but self-described as driven only by survival, making him the sanest and most prudent one on the scene, though he hardly says a word.  Max's heroism derives from the selfish impulses of his conscience.
If you can take the hints of Matriarchal, 'earth-mother equals good' imagery at the end with a pinch of salt, the movie is a visceral feast depicting the Libertarian message that Statism is a superstition and that even the wildest and most selfish of men behave and trade peacefully in a post-Neolithic Revolution situation.

As for gaming, we have to look for something which allows maximum liberty for the player and moral dilemmas with a plethora of consequences, politically or otherwise:

Fallout 4 ticks the boxes and is notorious for presenting a number of ideological groups vying for political power in an alternate nuclear-apocalyptic reality; their superfluous endeavours are the landscape you have to traverse as well as a gritty world so vast you could play it for a year and still find novelties.

What I Love/Hate About Conspiracy Theories

Questioning anyone or anything that claims to be an authority and challenging the status quo are great western traditions and are these are in sad decline as the ridiculous ideology of political correctness grows in popularity.  I love the fact that people can recognise that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way we do society.  That’s why the classic sci-fi film, The Matrix, struck such a chord with the audience, particularly the line, ‘there's something wrong with the world.  You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.’  Sure, asking questions is good but, just as important, is where you get your answers from.  What is your source?  What I hate about conspiracy theories is that, as a Libertarian, I am often compared to one.  I am one who wants to be well-equipped with knowledge of government activity to maintain what liberties I have from further encroachments and hopefully even to see the tide turned against state coercion.  However, when conspiracy theorists theorise, they typically consult two kinds of poor source material: 1. a mystical sage; or 2. some ideologue with an axe to grind.

Let’s start by examining the sage: David Icke, whilst he appears to be about as sincere as someone who at one time claimed to be the return of the Messiah can be, he expects us to believe that the world is controlled by lizard people.  Automatically, one would have to wonder why the elite of the world are trying to stem global warming; lizards like it hot!  If your theory included penguin people, then you might have me curious.  But where does he get his information from?  A spirit guide; that is, voices in his head which he claims to be benevolent aliens.  Other people claim that the world is controlled by Satanists and, again, they can tend to have purely mystical sources.  What this does is makes another human being your source of truth.  As soon as you create some sage with authority, they can insist that you believe things that defy empirical evidence and that you do things which defy your conscience and rationale.  This phenomenon doesn’t just affect conspiracy theorists but is how entire religions and societies function today.

Now, let’s look at the second poor source used by conspiracy theorists – ideologists spreading propaganda.  For example, many truly believe there is firm evidence that the Illuminati control the world, the Illuminati being anything from satanic cabals to lizard aliens (or more likely penguins).

The origin of the conspiracy theory that the Illuminati survived being disbanded by the Bavarian government in 1785 lies ultimately with a French Jesuit priest, Augustin Barruel.  Life had become increasingly difficult for Catholicism in France during the Revolution.  Barruel fled France and found safety in England.  With militaristic Jesuitical zeal, he wrote against Napoleon and the Revolution and sought to turn the British against the French, hoping Rome’s enemies would eventually come to war.
As well as popularising theories about the Knights Templar, Barruel wrote Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism in 1797.  He postulated that the Illuminati had continued, despite evidence to the contrary, and were working through Freemasonry in a conspiracy to establish governments which were antimonarchical as well as anticlerical, representing a threat to remaining monarchies of Europe.  It was soon translated into English, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian etc. and became a transnational sensation.  Even political figures began to take the claims seriously and public discussion became so unavoidable that Freemasons from across Europe began writing openly in their defence against the theory.

The reality is that there was not any organised force behind the enlightenment or the genuine desire to be free from oppression, whether it be religious or otherwise.

As men became better educated during the Enlightenment and the Renaissance, the desire was for a separation of church and state and, furthermore, to question whether we should separate the state from ourselves while we are at it.  This was not brought about by any secret society but by the public at large.  The greatest evidence for this was the birth of Classical Liberalism and the founding of the United States of America.

Sadly, at exactly the same time, a Roman Catholic monk and secret agent, Alexander Horn, who hated the French Revolution and the demise of his hope for a Holy Roman Empire, personally provided the material for Scots Professor John Robison to write Proofs of a Conspiracy against All the Religions and Governments of Europe, carried on in the Secret Meetings of the Free Masons, Illuminati, and Reading Societies.  Robison’s book was equally successful and influential, despite the highly questionable source of these ideas.  In fact, an American pastor sent a copy to President George Washington to learn his thoughts on the matter, to which he responded: 

            ‘It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am. The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of separation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic   Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a separation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.’

George Washington could see that the Secularist and/or Classical Liberal principles were not unique to any secret society but were principles held to by many individuals and organisations and even expressed by the principles of liberty in the United States Constitution. 

All the secondary sources used to supposedly prove the conspiracy theories about the Illuminati, such as Nesta Webster and William Guy Carr’s books, base their theories of the above two primary sources!  Are these sources reliable?  Obviously not, yet these and similar conspiracy theories abound.  If we want to discover the truth and not be swayed by some sage or someone with an axe to grind against some other group, we have to do our research.  As a parent, I know we don’t all have the luxury of time to do our own research and so it is important that we only defer to those who sources and material are reviewed by various independent bodies of other researchers and where healthy debate in that field of research is the norm.

A good place to start on the subject of Illuminati conspiracy theories might be the book Conspiracy in the French Revolution from Manchester University Press.  Because, come on, all the universities of the world can’t have been taken over by penguins.  Everyone knows that they’ve been taken over by the Communists.

How Libertarianism Could Save the Whales and the Rainforest

If you enjoyed Dances with Wolves or the sci-fi remake, Avatar (dances with blue people), you will believe that property rights are the evil ways of the white man.  But if you’ve researched the history of that time, you will find that it was, in fact, the practice of common ownership of land and animals that was most harmful.  The natives could practice harmful agricultural techniques on the land which affected more than just themselves and no one could rightly stop them.  And when the Europeans appeared and heard that no one actually owned the buffalo herds, they took as much as they could in far more effective ways than the natives were capable of, technologically speaking.

You see, when you have common ownership of something, like a pizza open in the middle of a table of a children’s party, there is greater incentive to grab all you can, while you can; there is almost no incentive to think about the future.  If you don’t take all you can, then someone else will.  So, compare the buffalo’s situation, a phenomenon which is economically referred to as ‘the tragedy of the commons’, with the introduction of private property rights and the plenitude of cows we continue to see today in North America.

What then of the cow of the sea, the whale?  To be able to properly seastead and to actually own and/or farm whales would result in far greater numbers of whales and greater living conditions for them.  We can say with absolute confidence that Libertarianism could save the whales.  

But, furthermore, private ownership of any piece of land creates an incentive to protect what you own.  For example, if you owned a piece of the rainforest, the economic incentive would be to replant trees and even have the plants and life their studied for potential medicinal or other productive means.  As things are, there is a tragedy of the commons situation with people clearing as many trees as they can, while they can.  So we can equally say with confidence that Libertarianism could save the Rainforest too.