Reading Sean Gabb’s new book.
“Radical Coup: A Case for Reaction”

(SUMMARY: Sean writes a typically british apologetic series of essays trying to find a graceful way of making british libertarians into conservatives. It’s ok. But I have some insights to add that are … less apologetic and more direct and critical.)

It’s not a new book. Not sure what’s new yet. More a collection of essays. Ok. I see…

(I’m thinking Hoppe’s forward includes a dig aimed at me. 😉 Sorry Hans but I eat Kantians like beer hall’s go through peanuts – leaving the remnants likewise as shells on the floor.)

Impression…. Seems like Sean is trying to help the effeminate brits man up. So far consensus is that in the Anglosophere, only the Canadians are more feminine than the British. Everyone seems to think it has to be the states, and then spread from there.

—“My biggest error, I believe, was to put too much
emphasis on ideas”—

Well I would say it’s endemic…..
1) the avoidance of violence – shall I say ‘cowardice?’
2) the fantasy that people can be converted.
3) the fantasy that market solutions are in the common interest rather than a demand of different elites, who then buy off the rest with dividends.

—“The Need for a Joint Libertarian and
Conservative Response. The present order of things is an emergency that neither libertarians nor conservatives have any hope of facing separately….”—

Well, this is where I think you’re wrong. It’s not bourgeoise civilization, but aristocratic civilization: markets in everything are the only possible solution to aristocratic sovereignty. The fact that the bourgeoise wanted to join the aristocracy or replace them is simply a shift in elites and the size of the population of the elites, with the same solution: sovereignty and reciprocity leaving only markets in everything.

Bourgeoise Society would imply a novelty. But it was just a set of convenient lies (equality).

Likewise I don’t see it as a joint libertarian and conservative response, what I see is the end of the jewish libertinism program and a restoration of the constitutionalist (contractualism) program. I mean, it’s great that we solved social science between Rothbard, Hoppe, and myself, but that’s just a technical improvement in ancient common law by the production of a semantics and grammar that explains our ancient rule of sovereignty.

—“I want a restoration”—
Well, depends on what that vision is. We can’t un-invent. We can only impose new inventions that provide greater competitive ability than previous eras. So the question isn’t restoration, it’s defeat and construction. But construction of what?

Note, I’ve read much of this before…

—“how it was lost”–
Well, it was lost by fighting a pair of unnecessary wars in which Germany was in the right, and thereby hollowing out Europe of it’s ancient cultural origins. Doing so collapsed the empire. And the people did not immediately replace a global imperial government with a local national one. As such Britain as much as France, drove marxist imperialism just as hard as the soviets.

The problem was not gutting the government OR working with the USA to restore the British empire. One or the other. But in typical British fashion, just as the french lost their civilization at the loss of the monarchy, just as the Spanish civilization died at their loss of empire, and British lost theirs – and became as useless as the french and Spanish.

Between 1830 and 1914 the British broke from germanic civilization and became Diasporics in every possible sense.

—“ideological weakness”—

Actually It’s classical liberal dishonesty combined with malincentives of global empire. There is no possibility of an aristocracy of everyone, nor are we in any way equal. That was just a ruse to sieze power from the landed aristocracy the same way the marxists/socialist/postmodernists have used similar arguments to undermine America – via women’s inclusion in the voting booth. The lie of the bourgeoise society – the theft of aristocratic civilization by classical liberal (middle class) ruse, the way it’s been stolen by the radical (underclass/academic) ruse by claiming oppression.

That lie is what begins it all. There is no such thing as bourgeoise civlization other than the tents of diasporic trade route travelers and pirates, hawking goods in bazaars without liability of warranty.

Aristocracy = Sovereignty. Aristocratic Egalitarians: those who will carry the burden of reciprocal insurance (sovereignty and reciprocity) may join the aristocracy.

–“A New Legitimizing Ideology “–

Jezuz… didn’t we already get to the point of accepting that words don’t matter? Power matters. Power is obtained by violence. Laws are imposed. One can either impose natural law (reciprocity) or unnatural law(arbitrary logic).

If you weren’t perpetuating the lie, and just went to sovereignty and reciprocity which produces nothing but property, then you would have your answer. It’s really simple.

Listen, people revolt when (a) there are enough excess(unsatisfied) young men, (b) the status quo is no longer tolerable (c) there is some factor that is discreet enough to rally against, (d) they have something to revolt in favor of, (e) they have some idea of the sequence of actions to bring it about, and (f) a vision of the consequences that is better than the status quo.

Talk is cheap. Actions are not. Plans are not. Because both actions and plans are testable.

—” let’s assume we can seize power.”—
Well these are hand waving answers but they’re not wrong.

—” constitution “—
The lords are better than the senate in every way. The constitution must be written and strictly.

—” race “—
Sorry. Nationalism promotes good behavior and diversity bad.

—” revolution “—
this is wishful thinking not a plan. Constitution, plan of transition, attack the infrastructure, create urban disorder, drive the military to coup. force government to settlement.

—” conservatism “—
Conservatives were stuck with a moral, religious, traditional set of arguments without themselves understanding why our civilization had ‘sped faster than the rest’. Worse, they bought into the lie just as libertarians bought into the lie of an aristocracy (sovereignty) of everyone.

THE NEW RIGHT = SCIENTIFIC RIGHT. The alt right uses ridicule, but by and large the new right differs from the old right in that we now have DATA and we have it from a century of failures with the falsehoods of classical liberalism, and the falsehoods of marxist-postmodernism.

My work is just going back to our roots: impose the law with violence and incrementally suppress all transgressions of it. Men will naturally insure kin, so create nation states, or at least small local polities in the Swiss model with federal governments providing only reciprocal decidability over inter-state conflicts, and acting as insurer of last resort.

Libertarians (libertines) and ancaps are statistically irrelevant. Predisposed to tongue wagging and not to violence necessary to impose rule of law. So the issue here is that libertinism (rothbardianism, ancapism) is dead. And that classical liberalism is largely dead. And that all that can be learned from the failures of the past 350 years, is that markets-in-everything mean that we should have given additional houses to additional classes as they became participatory, and preserved the houses as a market for commons between the classes, and likewise prohibited the production of law (legislation), only contract between the classes under usual contractual terms.

We had the perfect government with the Scandianvian and germanic monarchies under sovereignty (rule of law of reciprocity, universal standing, and universal applicability), with the monarch as the judge of last resort, and able to dispense with bureaucracies or the government at a whim.

THIS MEANS LIBERTARIANISM IN ALL FORMS WAS ALWAYS A LIE…… Both anglo (classical liberal) and jewish (libertine) were both lies. There is only one law and only one means of imposing it: the organized violence of enough men that the state cannot withstand their revolt.


We create a market by creating sovereignty. we expand the market by incremental suppression of impositions of costs upon the investments made by others. We create private, corporate, and common assets. And we suppress impositions against them. The central problem of sovereignty is reduction of the lower classes that cannot survive in the CURRENT market order. In other words, we must genetically improve our distributions as we improve our productivity.

—“…The Libertarian Failure … (2016) “…
I think I answered that in the paragraphs above.

—“… islam … mass immigration “—

—” … islam …”–
Sorry but any religion whose law supersedes sovereignty, reciprocity, truth and duty (which includes all three abrahamic religions, but especially judaism/poly-ethicalism, and islam/sharia law) is incompatible with western civilization. Period. The empirical result of Judaism, christianity, and islam is the dark ages. The empirically observable result of paganism and rule of law is prosperity.

No apologetics. This is just how it is. Lies are lies. Conflicts are conflicts. Poly-ethicalism and contrary law and intentional ignorance is incompatible with truth and reciprocity and rule of law.

in other words, our means of decidability and therefore cooperation are incompatible and always have been. Hence our velocity and their velocity. Hence the velocity of jews and muslims once under aristotelianism (science) – and their stagnation under abrahamism.

—“… open borders …”–
Yes well, like most libertarian tropes that one failed the empirical test.

—” Politicized Justice “—
yes, well agreed. Although lets answer the question of how to produce rule of law a little more clearly.

—” limited liability “—
Limited liability is an extension of the function of insurer of last resort to investments, so that individuals can take risks limited to the invested capital unless they engage in fraud. The problem with corporations is that the state has usurped our ability to sue them for impositions of costs on the various commons. This is a simple fix to rule of law.

IN GENERAL: all of this ruminating is, like all libertarian nonsense, only necessary because the science of law (reciprocity) would invalidate the rothbardian tropes in libertarianism. And invalidate the favorite nonsense of classical liberalism.

Hayek was right: all that matters is the law. What he failed to do is produce a formal logic of law. Just as mises failed to produce a formal logic of economics. Just as Rothbard failed to produce a formal logic of ethics. The reason being that we must discard our belief that sovereignty, reciprocity, monarchies, houses, and an independent jury cannot be improved upon. The uncomfortable truth is that either the militia owns the state, the military owns the state, or the bureaucracy owns the state, or the church(academy) owns the state. Or the financial sector owns the state. The only equality of intersets in that list is the MILITIA.

Western civilization begins and ends with the militia. This is how you distinguish between a conservative and a libertarian. Those who fight, and those who preach.

—“… proposed synthesis … “—
Agreed on welfare state. Disagree on demonstrated payment of costs of enfranchisement.

—“… national interest … “—

There is no national interest without a nation. A nation consists of a tribe of people of not dissimilar language, myths, rituals, traditions, and laws.

If there are competing interests on any of those things you have a bureaucratic empire, not a nation-state.

Those are my notes.
4:38 pm, sat June 16, 2018.