UPDATE 3: The real brutalism: A critique of Jeffrey Tucker (American Catholic)

UPDATE 2:

“Thick and thin: The Libertarian Split,” C. J. Engel, reformedlibertarian.com

expresses what the minority of Christian libs feel about Tucker’s underhanded attack on them.

UPDATE:

I knew that the brutalist architecture = totalitarian ideology rang a bell for me and after some digging I found that the equation has been made before:

“Ayn Rand, Totalitarian Architecture, Brutalism, and Busselization,” (October, 2011)

Given Tucker’s attitude toward IP (pro-hacking and plagiarism) and my own experience of his negligence with attribution, I wonder if this piece isn’t where he picked up the idea.

ORIGINAL POST

Jeff Tucker, ex of Mises, now of Agora, the guy who reduced me to an editor of a book I co-wrote, then got sniffy at my objecting  to his misattribution (which was choreographed by certain enemies of mine who pay his check, one way or other)…that Jeff Tucker has got the libertarian world roiled up over a fairly inane article in which he divides libertarians into two camps –  brutalists and humanists.

Really?

Why not Guns and Roses? Or Beauties and Beasts?

Guess which side he belongs to?

Yeah….surprise.

The brutes versus humanitarians thing is just a replay of a tactic left-libertarians have been using for a while now to purge the libertarian movement of paleo-libertarians – people who hold Christian or traditionalist views of things, but don’t intend to use the law to enforce their views.

That describes the LRC crowd and their fellow travelers. I used to think I was one of them until I suspected that they might be the right-wing of the controlled opposition.

Tucker and Co. of course are almost certainly the more lucrative  left-wing controlled opposition.

For the sake of keeping the libertarian sheep happy, both groups vociferously shout their libertarian slogans, but their silences say more than their shouts and by their silences are they known.

Between the two, the LRC crowd is by several orders of magnitude more honorable and scholarly, so despite all my reservations, I tend to agree with them.

Besides, no one else is rooting for babies.

But the continual creation of divisions – thick and thin libertarians (Bleeding Heart Libertarians), gorillas versus gods (Paul Rosenberg of Cryptohippie), and now, brutalists versus humanitarians (Tucker and the IP socialists) betrays an agenda – these are all ways to ostracize and shame Christians for their beliefs, while preventing Christians from even expressing their core beliefs.

In other words, this is a WAR of ideology….the transvaluation reversal of traditional values.

That’s firmly in the “activist” tradition of the Jewish-led Civil Rights coalition, which, having got its start busting up the networks of the Anglo-Saxon dominant class and forcing entry into the halls of Gentile power, then turned around and practiced a far greater ethnic solidarity and nepotism, once the “commanding heights” of the economy were taken.

Now that the Gentiles have gotten wise, the left-liberal establishment is tightening the screws. Hence libertarian thought-control, right (Rothbardianism) and left (“brutalism,” and the Gorilla-God dichotomy).

What it amounts to is that you can call the Madonna a whore and you can call a whore Madonna,  but you can never call a whore a whore.

Not unless you want to be a brutalist. Or a thin Gorilla.

In other words, employ all the coercive power of language (“bigots” “haters”) to traditional views, while denouncing plain-speaking, even when it’s not intentionally shaming (“sodomy”, “prostitution,” :homosexuality,” “baby”).

Most of all, insist on manipulative euphemisms  – gay, hooker, foetus – that assume the moral high-ground.

Tucker’s piece is that kind of Orwellian exercise, only largely unsuccessful and easy to see through.

Thus it was seen through. Thank God.

See below for the overwhelmingly negative response (except from other IP socialists/communists)

“Jeffrey Tucker reduces core libertarian ideals to brutalism” (Robert Wenzel)

“Jeffrey Tucker’s Case Against Libertarianism” (Christoper Cantwell)

“Jeffrey Tucker and Libertarianism.me” (Bionic Mosquito)

“Why is Jeffrey Tucker promoting cultural brutalism?” (Ian Huyett)

In defense of libertarian brutalism” (Kathy Shaindle)

“A Critique of Against Libertarian Brutalism” (Paul Bonneau)

“Libertarianism Ill-defined” (Anarchist Note-book)

“Libertarians are either brutes or humanitarians, so says collectivist libertarian” (freefabulousgirl)

“Against libertarian post-modernism” (The Right Stuff)

“Getting liberty wrong,” (Politics and Prosperity) – a conservative site, which actually makes the most cogent intellectual argument against the piece – it commits an enormous act of intellectual collectivism, while claiming to be individualist.

Of course, that’s a problem with ALL of libertarian ideology, which is why I am not a libertarian after the American model.

I don’t think I ever really was, because I always took a minarchist position and I have never been an absolutist about rights: I don’t think they over-ride or excuse obligations.

I defend liberty, not libertarianism.