Tuesday, August 15, 2017

The Controlled Opposition

The events in Charlottesville over the weekend have brought out reaction and response in the media.  I couldn’t even turn on sports talk radio without being bombarded by this.  Sports talk radio! 

Jeffrey Tucker offers 1500 words denouncing the fascist, Nazi ideology apparently behind the perpetrator (and inherently painting with the same brush the rest of the protestors), but not a single word about the Cultural Marxism that is at the root of the divide and anger.

One cannot honestly tell this story without addressing this history – which pre-dates any novels that Tucker believes is the cause – and to include even the effects of the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Progressivism.  We find none of this in Tucker’s post.  Not a word about the pro-active government action that drives this culture-destroying philosophy. 

In fact, Tucker mocks this idea of the government action:

They conjure up scapegoats (blacks, Jews, women, Antifa, gays, and a government that is supposedly giving them all privileges at their expense)…

I am on pretty safe ground to suggest that the government gives at least a few of these groups  “privileges.”

Not a word about Cultural Marxism because to state it openly condemns the very left-libertarians that Tucker wishes not to offend.

Further, not a word about rolling back government involvement in people’s lives.  Nothing.  Perhaps if government did not force us all to get along, we might actually get along.  Instead, he offers:

…social harmony, human rights, the aspiration of universal dignity, the conviction that we can work together in mutual advantage, the market economy as a means of peace and prosperity, and, above all else, the beauty and magnificence of the idea of liberty itself.

A garbled mess of contradictory wishes and terms meant to ensure ever-increasing state involvement.  This is Tucker’s prescription. 

There will be no liberty found on this path.


Destroy the culture and you will get tyranny.  This is where we are headed, with those like Tucker working to ensure that no one will notice until it is too late.


  1. As usual the official narrative is collapsing with video of the car being attacked by a violent mob before any accident. If the person that was charged has competent legal representation, he will probably get off.

    1. Matt, thank you for this. I do want to learn more of the truth in this event.

      In my post I purposely avoided getting into the story or the event. There is always more than what is initially let on; further, it is safe to assume that there are hidden actors behind the scenes pushing and pulling on strings.

      This does not mean I am uninterested in learning more truth behind this event; I just am not yet prepared to form a conclusion worth writing about.

    2. Matt, I think you're on to something. To note: from everything I've read of the situation, the way the police managed the crowds suggests they were willfully encouraging a physical confrontation between the two protesting groups. Also, evidently the extreme right-wing groups in attendance represented a very small and separate faction of the otherwise peaceful "alt-right" protesters, despite the media painting them all as "extremists."

      I'll add one more thing. Sherman burned Atlanta to the ground in 1864. Northern carpetbaggers have been attempting to "reconstruct" the South in its own image ever since. The recent craze to remove Confederate statues could be interpreted as the latest in these culture-destroying "Reconstruction" efforts.

      I say this as a northerner now living in the South.

    3. BM,

      Matt is correct.

      Here is the series of events:
      >rally scheduled months in advance
      >security arrangements discussed with cops
      >2 days before rally city pulls permit
      >aclu and Rutherford step in
      >federal court issues injunction
      >people show up at Lee park as planned only to be greates by red scum inside Lee park attacking people with sticks, mace, feces etc
      >cops have no intention of providing security
      >riot cops on standby to shut down event
      >state of emergency declared to justify shutting it down
      >rally attendees forced into the red Horde
      >attacked constantly, antifa actually pointed long rifles at people
      >forced to fight their way out
      >media says "oy vey white supremacist terror"
      >massive purge of social media and YouTube under way
      >mass doxing of attendees
      >one high profile individual was blinded with acid


      I will add for the record I saw some very disappointing covergage from Thomas Dilorenzo but am willing to attribute it to ignorance of the situation. The pro-white forces attacked in self defense after being attacked by the cops sand the reds.

      Also the reds have been emboldened and are going to be continuing to agitate until they are killing us in the streets.

    4. UC, this is why I have remained rather silent on the matter. Whatever the truth, we know for certain that it will not be easily found in the first few hours or days after such events.


    5. No problem, good policy.

      Correction to my above post:

      >to be greates
      Should read
      >to be greeted

  2. Please, please, PLEASE keep posting about Cultural Marxism. It's the hidden, destructive, ideological third party that has been fomenting the divisiveness we all claim to be against.

    Further, I'll warrant that most of those on the Left don't even realize that the words coming out of their mouths have Cultural Marxist origins--nor are they aware of the end-game that ideology has in mind for the West.

    Zero Hedge has a couple of good articles on C.M. Now Bionic Mosquito is covering it too. This is great.

    But we need more--so much more--coverage of this hidden destroyer of worlds.

    I wish we could slap a big red stamp of "Cultural Marxism" across every moment--every post, picture, meme, interivew, etc.--the maintream media and/or some college kid spouts out something that originates from the Frankfurt School.

    Good, civilized people on both sides of the political aisle need to be aware of Cultural Marxism and it's intentions.

    We have to expose this evil.

    1. Hans

      I have written many posts on this topic - more precisely, the importance of culture (and a specific type of culture) necessary for liberty.

      See here:


      Thank you

  3. "A garbled mess of contradictory wishes and terms meant to ensure ever-increasing state involvement.  This is Tucker’s prescription."

    Back when he defined "brutalist" libertarians he in essence did the same thing. He's talking out of both sides of his mouth:

    "To them(brutalists), what’s impressive about liberty is that it allows people to assert their individual preferences, to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on “politically incorrect” standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used as a means, to shout down people based on their demographics or political opinions, to be openly racist and sexist, to exclude and isolate and be generally malcontented with modernity, and to reject civil standards of values and etiquette in favor of antisocial norms."

    So on one hand, Tucker claims he's all for "freedom of association/disassociation", but on the other hand those doing so in a manner displeasing to him culturally makes such people not "modern" or "civil" in addition to the "fact" they are going around "ostracize"ing people.

    In other words, "you can have your freedom of association but if I don't like it you suck and really aren't much of a libertarian".

    One has to wonder what Tucker REALLY thinks about the 1964 CRA or what it would really take to push him over the edge of endorsing government intervention to address his concerns over "reduce(ing) the role of power and privilege in the world".

    Private property by it's very nature grows "power and privilege" in the world, it's just not always at the expense of others in a libertarian world and positivist rights(used by government to "reduce power and privilege) is at it's core anti-property rights.

    I've a feeling "power and privilege" could eventually be considered a NAP violation in Tucker's worldview. Sounds pretty close to commie to me.

    1. This is the position consistent with the furthest left of the left libertarians I have come across, Kevin Carson. I write of it here:


      To summarize: every type of voluntarily formed community is OK, except for the type advocated by Hans Hoppe and many of those at the Mises Institute - in other words, traditional family and culturally based communities are not allowed.

    2. I should have added: such as these do not accept that inherently private property is discriminatory. No such thing as open borders or equal opportunity.

    3. Fantastic assessment of Tucker. I was a big fan of his when associated with the Mises Institute, and no one is more disappointed by his left-libertarian turn more than I.

      His "brutalist" essay still grates on me to this day. He literally has it backwards. Forced association and tolerance of immorality and anti-social behavior creates conflict, and prevents the natural formation of civil standards. You create a high culture precisely through social mores that are enforced through free association and dissociation.

      I live and work in and around a touch of high society. Exclusive clubs, business associations, and the like, are very choosy about membership and their members include very influential people in the worlds of charity and business. If you want "in", you need to show it with your attitude, aptitude and above all, cultured behavior.

    4. Anon, don't bother looking for consistency in men who have no principles. If hoppean libertarianism was in vogue with the right people Tucker would shill for that.

    5. Perry: "...no one is more disappointed by his left-libertarian turn more than I."

      BM: I think anyone can understand a fundamental philosophical / political change in someone going from, say, age 18 to age 30. Tucker made this "change" at around age 50. How often does this happen, especially to someone who is so very well-read as Tucker was when he left LvMI?

      UC: "...men who have no principles."

      BM: sometimes the simplest explanation is the best explanation.

  4. What a show. The elite/Deep State and their CIA/media dupes thought that they had finally engineered the wedge issue needed to separate Trump from his base support, while exposing this base for the deplorables that the elite still believe they are and, most importantly, force Trump to apologize and grovel before them as they look down their noses at him and his rabble in self-righteous indignation heaping more and more abuse on him as he begs for mercy. But wait, Trump comes out swinging with truth and reason landing a major blow that stuns the establishment, again. Unbelievable; just astounding how he is able to turn events around on his bumbling attackers. His base will love him more and the people in the middle are seeing who sounds reasonable, principled and truthful and who doesn't.

    The pace of events continues to escalate; I can't wait to see what happens tomorrow.

    1. "...the people in the middle are seeing who sounds reasonable..."

      I have felt and still feel that those in the middle would also include democrats who are fed up with the social justice crowd and radical left.

  5. Fascism can triumph today because universal indignation at the infamies committed by the socialists and communists has obtained for it the sympathies of wide circles. But when the fresh impression of the crimes of the Bolsheviks has paled, the socialist program will once again exercise its power of attraction on the masses. For Fascism does nothing to combat it except to suppress socialist ideas and to persecute the people who spread them. If it wanted really to combat socialism, it would have to oppose it with ideas. There is, however, only one idea that can be effectively opposed to socialism, viz., that of liberalism.

    It has often been said that nothing furthers a cause more than creating martyrs for it. This is only approximately correct. What strengthens the cause of the persecuted faction is not the martyrdom of its adherents, but the fact that they are being attacked by force, and not by intellectual weapons. Repression by brute force is always a confession of the inability to make use of the better weapons of the intellect – better because they alone give promise of final success. This is the fundamental error from which Fascism suffers and which will ultimately cause its downfall. The victory of Fascism in a number of countries is only an episode in the long series of struggles over the problem of property. The next episode will be the victory of Communism. The ultimate outcome of the struggle, however, will not be decided by arms, but by ideas. It is ideas that group men into fighting factions, that press the weapons into their hands, and that determine against whom and for whom the weapons shall be used. It is they alone, and not arms, that, in the last analysis, turn the scales.

    So much for the domestic policy of Fascism. That its foreign policy, based as it is on the avowed principle of force in international relations, cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization requires no further discussion. To maintain and further raise our present level of economic development, peace among nations must be assured. But they cannot live together in peace if the basic tenet of the ideology by which they are governed is the belief that one’s own nation can secure its place in the community of nations by force alone.

    It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error. (From Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, section I:10)


    1. I feel like I have posted this in the past but I can't remember. Thanks for posting.

      BM have you seen the above quote before?

    2. I cannot recall if I have seen it before.

    3. Ralph Raico explains the context of what Mises wrote in 1927. Italy had been under siege by Khmer Rouge quality Marxist-Leninists and they were defeated by the fascist government.


    4. Bob, thank you for this. We have seen some version of this story play out more than once.

      It seems clear that the left are going to push the right until the right actually becomes what the left is accusing them of currently being.

  6. So the extreme right, white suprematists, fascists, etc.. make a parade.. an horrible parade where no one is libertarian, and everyone is advocating for suppression of liberty.. and some people - leftists, not libertarians - dare to make a counter manifestation against those monstruos ideas.. and one of this neonazi kill some of those oppositors with a car.. and you as a libertarian have to say only this? You are lamenting that Tucker condemn the neonazi, but not also the other people!? That looking at nazi symbols, flag, slogans, chants, etc.. he write a peace on nazism instead of one about cultural left, Gramsci, Marcuse, etc..? Really?

    I'm with Wenzel on this..


    Oh and also it's real that Tucker focus every often on the extreme right, but he has written against the left, socialism, affirmative action, progressivism and Marxism many times.. he wrote also about Marcuse..



    1. “…you as a libertarian have to say only this?”

      For now. You, like many of the bloviators, have no idea what really happened at the event, who the real actors are, etc., and you lecture me that I too must jump to conclusions about the story?

      Someday I might write something about the event; when I am more comfortable with my view of the backstory – and I am certain there is a backstory of which neither you nor Tucker are aware. This post was merely about Tucker’s less than complete response.

      “You are lamenting that Tucker condemn the neonazi…”

      Please find one statement where I wrote anything approaching this. I will save you the trouble: you cannot.

      “…instead of one about cultural left, Gramsci, Marcuse, etc..?”

      Did you even read the post, or are you just reacting to trigger words? One significant reason people have reacted favorably toward Trump is that they believe Trump represent a counter to the Cultural Marxist ideology that has grown exponentially over the last decades. Tucker writes about the causes without mentioning this. That’s all I wrote.

    2. Tucker’s piece on Marcuse was pretty good, with a couple of exceptions – and one of these rather significant.

      First, he writes: “Astute readers will notice a strange parallel between the ideas of Marcuse and those of the alt-right that imagines that violating the rights of people who disagree is the way to make progress toward real freedom.”

      This is confusing, as everything he had written up until this point was about the radical left – shutting down conservative speakers such as Charles Murray or (is it merely coincidence that he addresses Marcuse?) his own boss at FEE Lawrence Reed. So why make it about the alt-right?

      I do agree that elements of the alt-right and the radical (alt?) left share characteristics, but why this U-turn? Like I say, it is confusing – or purposeful.

      Now the significant exception, an omission: Tucker, like many libertarians on the left, fail to recognize (or do recognize but won’t tell you) that their vision of society corresponds too closely to that of Marcuse’s vision and that of the Frankfurt school: in Tucker’s case culture doesn’t matter; in Marcuse’s case, culture must be destroyed. The end result is the same, and along this path Marcuse will win.

      If culture mattered to Tucker – nation, religion, language, geography, he would write approvingly of this and in fact defend it. Has he done so? I already know the answer.

    3. I want to thank you for pointing to Tucker’s essay on Marcuse. This is becoming more curious by the minute. In the Marcuse essay, Tucker is upset that his boss is shut down from giving a speech.

      If this on-the-spot report is to be believed, the episode in Charlottesville was triggered by a lawful protest being shut down – precisely what Tucker complained about when it happened to his boss.


      I don’t know, maybe the woman is lying? I think we will find out more truth in the coming days.

      Why didn’t Tucker mention this shutting down of a peaceful protest in his piece on Charlottesville? You seem to know so much, maybe you have an answer?

    4. There are videos, ftom 3 or 4 different vantage points, that may indicate that the guy who ran over people was ambushed and he was escaping.

  7. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/08/andrew-p-napolitano/freedom-for-speech/

  8. It might be his hated for Christopher Cantwell who was at Charlottesville? I know he hates the Alt right as well. Jeffrey has (with many other Libertarians) block Cantwell in many events as far back as 2013. I remember that he was meant to speak at Anarchopulcho back in 2015. When Jeff Berwick told Jeffrey Tucker that Chris was one of the guest, Jeffrey threatened to pull out and so Chris got the boot. Also they were both meant to debate at the LENYC on Libertarian humanist vs Brutalist. I not sure why it did not happen since they cancelled it. Anyway just a theory

    1. Possible. His emotional reaction blocked his critical thinking. If so, we should see him walk back his original position. Soon.

  9. https://www.garynorth.com/public/12623.cfm
    Found at :http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cultural-marxism