When Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell defined the paleolibertarian doctrine, they simply wanted to break the clock of interpersonal democracy and repeal the twentieth century , during which some of the greatest horrors of all time were created from the deranged ideas of power-hungry nineteenth-century intellectuals by applying these suggestions with the full might from the state, costing millions of individual lives and the complete degeneration of the social and financial order.
However , we wouldn’t end up being at this point in history without a procedure that has been slowly destroying our social protections as individuals, first against the state and now against big business, that is nothing but the result of four hundreds of years of political and even theological formulas of the Enlightenment.
For instance, in his “ Cost of Enlightenment “ lecture given in the 2019 Austrian Economics Study Conference, Daniel Ajamian offers an account of how all the “ bads” of the Enlightenment, “ not so readily accepted by its proponents: communism, eugenics, racial purity, selective breeding, National Socialism, Fabianism, Progressivism, fascism, egalitarianism, modern democracy, “ as well as many others, came to be and how our mainstream, progressive considering is preventing us through breaking away from its mean of abstract freedom plus material equality under common fraternity.
Ajamian credits his ideas to numerous nonlibertarian thinkers, using their function to describe how the particular Enlightenment destroyed the free of charge, organic, and spontaneous purchase of the Middle Ages, in which cathedral and crown could outrank each other in different spheres and which a plethora of institutions, like extended family clans, guilds, municipalities, and associations, were free to thrive and include individuals into like-minded neighborhoods.
Conversely, in the works of John Grey, we discover the logic through which modern progressive thinking descended from the Enlightenment , based in the irrational idea of progress, the belief that higher individual and political independence invariably go with the development of rational thinking as well as the advancement of technological plus material standards, which can only be achieved by breaking away from community and tradition.
By World Battle I, it should have already been apparent that this progressive mindset had not been only mistaken but also harmful, as the war itself demonstrated it could twist the ideas of individual religious and political freedom into moral relativism and mass conscription.
For esoteric reactionary thinkers like René Gué non , the Great War was the greatest sophistication of the industrial war engine, fed by masses of men sent to be slaughtered in the trenches under the exact same argument used to give them voting rights in the democratic state: they had equal rights to die for their nations within war as they did in order to participate in their government’s elections.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a contemporary Austro-libertarian, echoes Gué non by claiming World War I to be the end associated with civilization because it was the main cause of the fall of the remaining Christian empires in Europe (Protestant Germany, Orthodox Russia, and Catholic Austria-Hungary) and its equally religious neighbor, the Muslim Ottoman Disposition. But Hoppe’s perspective implies what Gué no explicitly states: that the massive military mobilization undertaken throughout the Great War would not happen to be possible if Christendom’s conventional system had still experienced place, for the modern tyranny of numbers— in elections, warfare, and industry— could hardly have been supported by a system of small communities locally organized and guided by a common religion.
Hoppe also forgets that despite the reforms they implemented during their last years, the religious empires all tried to harmonize their intermediate bodies with the political changes imposed by the progressive spirit of their ages. For instance, in Prussia and then the German Empire, the idea of cameralism was developed to include the leadership of autonomous universities into the centralizing open public administration. In Austria-Hungary, given the various nationalist uprisings of the nineteenth century, various federalization projects along cultural lines were undertaken beneath the patronage of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. In Russia, serfdom was formally abolished and a system associated with local self-governing assemblies , the zemstvo, the was put into place, and in Ottoman Chicken, the Tanzimat reforms tried to adapt traditional institutions like guilds and dhimmi -protected ethno-religious minorities into analogous Western organizations, such as factories and self-governing provinces.
Nevertheless, none of these reforms avoided these empires’ ultimate collapse under atomizing Western progressivism, for its mass-man doctrine of democracy, production, and conscription was at odds using the historical freedom of the advanced bodies and small platoons that had organically developed from local traditions, and if reform did not destroy them, total war eventually did, as the liberal West had become more adept at its dynamics than them.
This is because these were the particular protecting elements of the past order that progressive modernity damaged, given that its whole doctrine leads toward the absolute limitation of freedom, a point we are currently reaching with increasing levels of government intervention plus woke culture.
Intermediate bodies, small platoons, and sphere of sovereignty all refer to what Alexis de Tocqueville called “ civil society, ” the system of self-governing individuals organized in “ associations working outside the sphere of govt and economic life, ” or, as Robert Nisbet and Plinio Corrê a de Oliveira thought of it, institutions which were between isolated individuals as well as the all-powerful government, preventing these from dominating the former. For Edmund Burke , this was “ the little platoon we belong to within society, … the very first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections…. the first link in the series by which we continue towards a love to our country, and to mankind. ”
For Abraham Kuyper and Juan Vá squez de Mella , these institutions provide contending spheres of sovereignty, arranged according to moral principles in a way that allows people to participate in production, civic matters, and their particular family lives without interfering in the other spheres, making people free to act within all of them only subject to the moral framework typical to all members associated with society, with Vá squez de Mella including cathedral and locality as advanced bodies in their own sovereign spheres.
Nothing of these thinkers are libertarian but conservative and traditionalist, but sharing a strong protection of private property plus markets within intermediate body, as these two institutions permit the material prosperity of society, whereas the little platoons themselves provide for social corporation within the shared moral construction of religion, Tocqueville pointed out in Democracy in America .
In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, their state, under various forms of progressivism, first that of the French Jacobins and then that of the Marxists and other totalitarians, imposed the full might to damage intermediate bodies, beginning with vicinity and guild and then pursuing the family and religion, for they all compete with their state for the householder’s full loyalty.
But what makes the twenty-first century more dangerous is that the progressive regime no longer needs the state to destroy advanced bodies, as it can weaponize the private sector with the cathedral to do so, beginning with the indoctrination of the bureaucratic oligarchs who also both run and regulate big business through the state, asphyxiating private entrepreneurs through intervention and causing the remnant of civil society to degrade into nothingness.
In his 2022 Rothbard Graduate Seminar beginning address , Joseph Salerno explained how interventionism could be the progressive regime’s main device to impose its system: by controlling and capitalizing on the economy, the state, beneath the fanatical influence of intensifying doctrine, can destroy the material foundations of world and then proceed with the devastation of its social and biblical ones.
Authorities intervention not only has pressed for a frenzied economy , but has additionally granted a few cronies power over key sectors, making them digital masters of certain markets. These cronies, whose power tool is scarcity , impose the particular progressive religion as a show of loyalty to the establishment plus to erode city society along with woke “ social justice” by attacking self-governing advanced bodies and ultimately making people subject only to the state and its corporate cronies.
Many libertarians still don’t understand that an egoistic, atomistic view , erroneously understanding the individual individual as isolated and self-sustaining and big company as “ private” enterprise , supports the intensifying project, in which freedom means liberation from all interpersonal bonds, equality means exactly the same material misery for all, plus fraternity means submission to the corporate state.
As such, the “ call to become openly and gloriously reactionary” against the progressive program, as put by Rothbard and repeated by Salerno, is appealing, but I actually do not think “ reaction” is the right term, for your progressive religion, as an historic phenomenon, has generally adopted the guise of revolution, as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn described, given its genuine objective of returning to the “ classless” and “ egalitarian” condition of nature of primitive communism.
Progressivism is opposed to freedom, however, not merely abstract liberty: its main enemy is a strong, self-governing civil society, made up of autonomous little platoons and organized by a common, objective morality, which means our struggle against the progressive regime should not be merely a reaction, but a true counterrevolution , working to restore intermediate body and reverse all the problems progressivism has done to society.
And for the counterrevolution to succeed, we shall not only repeal the 20th century, but also repeal the egalitarian mirage it incorporated in history.