We are in media res, in the middle of history where decision is all there is. The dissident right is in its becoming, undone, unmade, not yet perfect as of the moment this is being written; we cannot say how it will grow, we do not know if it will succeed. History is for those that write and make it, which to chose? I will make my case clear: Here, when writing, Sych is not following Leopold von Ranke, he is not narrating the past as it truly happened, instead, he is trying to reflect whatever is of value in this worldly mess, Sych is a chronicle, not an unadulterated history. Before continuing, it is pertinent to lay out the basics of History, so easily forgotten. History is the master of politics, the only master according to Joseph de Maistre1, and it is rhetorical rather than dialectic. Dialectic is, following Aristotle, an exchange about some uncertain scientific matter between those who have knowledge, experts we might say, and not about opinion. Rhetoric, on the other hand, is about the strength of thought, not about its prior analyticity, it takes for granted opinions, beliefs, tastes and facts of the matter, it appeals to common sense. Therefore, shortly, prudence dictates here that we be eloquent, not scientific. Lastly, politics is about decision, following Carl Schmitt, that being the case, then reflection about any decision, when done by appeal to common problems and ends, is called deliberation. This is the problem at hand, a deliberation that is open to all culturally political people, specially, those of the dissident right. Politics distinguishes, purely, between friends and enemies, that being the case, might it be phrased: Is libertarianism a friend or a foe of the dissident right?
The case of libertarianism, at the same time, is but a smaller track related to the dissident rights search for its identity. Every so often, some of us makes explicit the need of a proper canon for the dissident right. This in turn multiplies the questions about which thinkers, whose school, what politics define the dissident right. At the same time, a search for a canon requires both criticism and tradition. It requires good critique to choose life over death when looking at past rubble, in turn, critics need good taste. It requires tradition, and all tradition is authority, be it in philosophy Plato, in painting Raphael or in literature Homer, it requires to be impregnated with the classics and most of all, tradition is found, never made. The opposite of tradition is bullshit. The dissident right is, first and foremost, an act or a deed, a reaction to another century going by, it has one passion: Sheer disgust towards entropy, the dissident right is not on any payroll, it is deplorable, it is growing. Every historical event or deed is guided, ultimately, by ideas, not by an Idea. Because history happens when, ultimately, different ideas meet similar people, and get to be alive. The dissident right is no new doctrine, it is just fresh blood for old beverage. What is the synthesis of all this? You see, he case of libertarianism is related to the ongoing search for identity on the dissident right, the dissident right needs to understand what it is truly, and because of that, it needs to understand the figuration of ideas that make up its world, and makes it different from passing time. Among the countless stars of its firmament , one of them is libertarianism
Is libertarianism a friend or a foe of the dissident right? Let me be clearer: Is libertarianism a friend or a traitor? Practically speaking, libertarianism is on the right, because right and left are in our world the distinction between enemy and friend, and one does not chose his enemies or his friends, in politics, he ends up with them. Libertarianism is placed on the right, because it has ended up on the right, in this raw sense, there is no need to correct anything, the political map is not out of tune. That said, this fact was already common knowledge, but this writ is no scientific inquiry, this is practical deliberation: This is not to write if libertarianism is actually on the right, but if it should be on the right. In politics, one has enemies and friends because he ends up with them, and he will have friends and enemies not because of his openness, but by invitation and repudiation of friends and enemies. Is libertarianism a friend or a traitor? Are libertarians levellers fighting against the reactionary forces from the inside, or marching with them under the shade of la fleur de lys. Any political body grows by decision, by the same token, political identity is decided by decision, not speculation. To ask if libertarianism is with Brutus or with Augustus, is one of many problems that will define the dissident right. Problems known commonly, like the problem of women and politics, the problem of strategy, the problem of radicalism, etc.
Politics requires sacrifice. Sacrifice is required in all political affairs, because order, for its health, so requires. All political coalition implies sacrifice, for instance, good diplomacy occurs when everybody leaves the table without getting what they came for; even diplomacy, the realm of most discreet shrewdness, requires sacrifice. What is at stake with this problem, when any question of conviviality occurs, is if the partners are willing to commit themselves, to commit sacrifice. The sacrifice of Isaac is still a useful lesson, albeit a tad larpy as a mention here and now. Truly it talks mainly of God, but one can learn shrewdness from it. Might we not see there our case, with Caravaggio?
At the end of the day, all can be discussed about the intellectual genealogy of libertarianism, the vices and follies of the austrian economist, the danger of delving too much into economics and even the pseudoscientific state of praxeology. At the end of the day, what truly matters is if libertarians and the rest of the dissident right are, each in turn, willing to make sacrifices. True sacrifices, serious sacrifices, the ones that distinguish politics as a hobby and politics as duty: A step we all painfully realize we need to make, time is running.
What do you, SyntherChronicles, say, then, about the libertarian case? Naturally I say what defines me, my act: I manifest the century. I want to intensify the problem, not sweep it under the rug. Nowadays we make allowance for abrupt jumps, for violent change of topic; I am sure many of you would be surprised if you stopped for a moment, paused, and thought how right Virgil was when he said tempus fugit. Carpe diem said Horace, and SyntherChronicles agrees, we most take the moment and not be taken by it, and to do that we need to look at the libertarian case with the eyes of Clio, we need to look at it as if news, of X or of FOX, did not even exist; just for a moment.
If you follow me into this spiritual exercise (it is truly one for many, always so when one starts) you will realize there is a hidden premise in this case, another question laying beneath it: historicism. You see? We always get at the same problem wherever we look, all our tracks led to historicism, let Sych clarify. Libertarians who claim to be on the dissident right, people like Hans Hermann Hoppe are truly ambitious. They want to have their cake and eat it, they want to avoid sacrifice. It seems so, because libertarianism comes, after all, from classical liberalism, and classical liberalism is either root or rot of evil. Agere sequitur esse, only whig conclusions can be derived from Whig premises. Hans Hermann Hoppe, Frank Van Dun, Dave Smith or SyntherChronicles are, so it seems, ignoring the obvious fact they are taking much from liberalism. They have good things, but they most abandon all their liberal errors. Without metaphysics you are still a positivist, liberalism cannot win, it is weak, against nihilism. As Donoso Cortés said: Liberalism is the moment of history before choosing Barabbas or Christ… This argument is, at the end of the day, based on a specific theory of modernity: Modernity is liberalism. It is more importantly based on the prudential view that going astray from tradition means being in the wilderness, and there libertarians wander without north, south and compass.
I do not claim that all critics of libertarianism follow historicism, but I think the different libertarian critiques smell all of historicism, because too many have a tendency to see History as predetermined, and so they see libertarianism predetermined to be just another form of liberalism. Too many think History is whatever happened in times past. It seems to them, not so much that there might not be something salvageable, or even redeemable in libertarianism, they might accept some of it to be found there, like in Democracy the God that failed. But libertarianism is yet, at the end of it all, liberalism, because it comes from it, you cannot avoid the obvious, you cannot get Maistre out of Mises. It would be a fatal conceit, sheer weakness to just let unadulterated libertarianism be part of the dissident right.
SyntherChronicles is not neutral here, one shall try to be objective, never “value free”, because truth is after all valuable, we want it for its own sake it and are interested in its utility. What I oppose when it comes to criticizing libertarianism is not all refutations up to this moment, no, what I oppose, to be clear, is the a priori view of History that is historicism, camouflaged underneath. We can discuss all we want the value of Hoppe, Rothbard, Mises and Hayek, but first we most address this dangerous philosophy that contaminates deliberation, the virus more dangerous than Lockean natural law to many dissidents is. When we believe that libertarianism needs to be another form of “liberalism”, because it is modern, because it happens after liberalism and learns from it, it is being said that History is not that which transcends time, and this is precisely what I, and I believe other right wing libertarians claim to be when we think it consistent to be radically libertarian and radically right wing. Why most, by principle, something that has come from liberalism be liberal? This is a surprisingly old and common fallacy, one popular among historians: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Since libertarianism appeared ex liberalismo and not ex nihilo it most be a form of liberalism. Luckily, liberalism is no god. History is unique, classical liberalism is unique, as communism is unique, as libertarianism is unique; at the end of the day, despite their many extrinsic and intrinsic relationships, they are irreducible to each other, unique manifestations of man. We most not forget that what made Marx historical, insofar he was just flowing with the times he is already dead. When I speak of libertarianism I could not be bothered with left-libertarianism, not even with Javier Milei, not yet. That such a surprising amount of young people, and a surprising amount of leftists, that the president of Argentina takes inspiration from Rothbardian politics, that started truly in the 70s are just signs pointing towards what, or rather who is important, so as to know what the soul of libertarianism is: Murray Rothbard. Whatever else calls itself libertarianism, is either a distraction or a effect for a chronicle, not the cause nor the principle. What I state is that libertarianism can derive non Whig conclusions from Whig premises, if it wants to, because History is not set, and that is what makes it funny.
To illustrate I will give you another exercise: Think about neo-Nazis, are they not in a way historicist? They see that nothing is more opposed to the current regime than national socialism, or fascism. In a way, I think the libertarian case, as many other cases, is proof that purity spiralling has nothing to do with extremism nor with ideology, but with historicism, it is sociological. The dissident right needs to meditate the libertarian case, and I make the appeal that they avoid to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and most of all, to be fun. Think of another exercise: Is it not amazing that libertarianism has so much overlap with the dissident right? Might there not be some unique affinity from the agnostic Mises to Hoppe, and maybe beyond? Might the same source of life not feed both? Maybe we can discern trends and currents that go against our expectations. The virtue of libertarianism, the reason I am attracted to it, is that it goes against my expectations. I am a pessimist by inclination, I am always inclined to think everything will just follow the stream, maybe libertarianism is a door providence has given, fortuna audentes iuvat. Sure, it is not God himself, it is but Rothbard. But can there ever be too much good? Why not take what we get and be thankful? Is it not rewarding to look at history this way? Just one more question: Might not he become liberal who, by just obsessing about being against liberalism, be trapped and not transcend? Being reactive and being reactionary are different things. One last question do I throw at you, libertarianism does not have to be either the fifth column nor the redemption of liberalism. Libertarianism can be, and so I believe, the unexpected recovery, the anamnesis of classic political freedom. Murray Rothbard is neither a traitor nor a second Bonald, he is an agnostic Jew who stumbled upon the rock of solid doctrine. Rothbard needs but to be Rothbard, Bonald Bonald, and God in the home of all.
Much to ponder, food for thought not conclusions is what I offer here. I want deliberations to be proper, not to be finished, we need not hurry nor be indolent. I want the libertarian case to be understood in all its gravity, and not passed over quickly to talk about urgent needs. We need chronicles, there is need for understanding. Libertarianism will be for this century what it was not in the previous century. In a way, to conclude, libertarianism is the paradox of our time. Libertarians are the last men, Feser dixit:
“You will hear of wars and rumors of war, and nation will rise against nation. There will be famine, and pestilence, and tattooed wrestlers ranting about Austrian economics…”
This is true, because libertarianism is a reflection of our epoch, it is our Pandora’s box. It cannot be outside time, but it can go beyond it. Murray Rothbard is present in the alt and the dissident right, Rothbard is one of the architects of right wing populism, one can say Rothbard was there, is here; and don’t get me started on Hoppe... Libertarianism is an agnostic laissez faire faith, it is fearful of power and responsibility, it is nihilism; say detractors on the right; it is fascism for those to the left. It is more importantly, of that which moves the historical animal, man, when he wanders lost Hope. Libertarianism is, by its circumstance, youthful radicalism, naiveté that might, with prudence, blossom. Because libertarianism remains the historical counter current to any historicism itself where post hoc, ergo propter hoc is the guide to policy, criticism and philosophy. It is hopeful because it says that History does not have to “run its course” fatally, as increasingly now many believe. In the XIX century, man believed in progress, in the XX man gradually abandoned this idea. And now he thinks, Western man, that he must just resign himself to an unending cycle. Such small movements are proof that man is hungry for infinity, and by the fact of being alive proves that he has will.
Enough has been said, what is the libertarian paradox? Precisely because libertarianism is liberalism radicalized, is it both post- and hyper-liberal; it can choose, this is its grace, that few have in this age. History is not dialectical, it is paradoxical, because man is free cannot his history answer which ideas are true, but show the possibilities that ideas, manifest in the social world, can do. Libertarianism is our fun little Pandora’s box, because it derives tory conclusions from whig premises.
To know the nature of man, the most direct and wisest way undoubtedly is to know what he has always been. Since when can theories be opposed to facts? History is experimental politics; this is the best or rather the only good politics
From Against Rousseau