The battle of Culiacan and the defeat of the Mexican military by the Sinaloa cartel a couple weeks ago was a big wake up call that sent a ripple of shockwaves through many circles. The brutal shooting and burning of nine American Mormons by the cartels just a little over 48 hours ago is also getting a lot of media attention, which is important, however not everyone in alt media is covering this story or covering it the same way.
While many alternative media outlets claim to present a more objective agenda than mainstream media, if we pay attention to who is covering these incidents in Mexico and how they spin it, it serves as a very useful lesson in the geopolitical strategies and racial chessgame one will find in the complex world of independent, supposedly "non partisan" political pundits.
Something to observe about certain corners of the libertarian alt media world when it comes to coverage of foreign policy and events like this, whether it's in Latin America or the Middle East, something I've become much more keenly aware of in recent years...
I've said many times that large swaths of libertarians and anarcho-capitalists have a very leftist paradigm of foreign policy (I know because I was one for a long time, ever since I read Smedley Butler back in high school), meaning they will always side with whoever they perceive as being the disadvantaged, the oppressed or the "underdogs."
In the leftist equation of social justice...
power + privilege = racism
In much of the libertarian universe...
power + privilege = imperialism
Only those nations with abrams tanks, aircraft carriers and drones are capable of imperialism in the minds of Ron Paul descendants. Only those countries with an "unfair" power differential due to technological advantages are capable of imperialism and aggression (despite the fact that we all know by now, from studying nearly every post-WWII conflict the U.S. has ever fought in, that having an enormous technological superiority in no way guarantees victory).
But like liberals who completely omit from their historical narrative the fact that white Europeans have been victims of racism, oppression and slavery just like everyone else... libertarians also often omit from their foreign policy talking points (especially when it comes to borders) that white Europeans have also been subjected to conquest just as much as anyone else and we did not always have the technological edge, nor are we guaranteed to keep it in the future.
When libertarians project their 'power + privilege = imperialism' formula into the foreign policy discussion, it's just like when liberals say it's impossible for the oppressed (non-whites) to be racist against the privileged classes or for women to be aggressors/rapists (despite the fact that they're supposedly "equal").
In sociology liberals apply the bigotry of low expectations to non-whites and women by assuming they can't be racist or sexist.
In foreign policy libertarians (and of course liberals as well) apply the bigotry of low expectations by assuming that Muslims and Mexicans are incapable of carrying out aggression or imperialism against Western nations simply because they don't possess the same high tech weaponry. Any cases of violence on the part of these 3rd world peoples are often dismissed as trivial, self defense, blow back or false flags.
Furthermore, in the same way that liberals only use certain cherry-picked metrics and values, as well as outright fabrications, when measuring who has "power" and "privilege" in social dynamics...
Libertarians only use certain metrics when measuring what constitutes aggression.
For the most part, they only factor in 'hard power' (direct military action) means of projecting force as an indicator of imperialism (similar issues arise when voluntarists talk about violations of the NAP).
They don't factor in 'soft power' as a form of coercion or aggression. Except, they kind of do... they just have a very strange double standard on this, which is due to their inconsistencies as so-called individualists.
For example, libertarian demagogues like Ron Paul have stated that economic sanctions are equivalent to an act of war. But for some reason they only apply this standard to America, not when other countries conduct forms of trade/economic warfare against us (like China). Similar to how feminists only apply their criticisms of patriarchy to white males, not muslim men.
They also love to point to books like 'Confessions of An Economic Hit Man' by John Perkins to show how America uses corporatist-neocolonialism and predatory lending practices to coerce other countries into giving us access to their natural resources. Libertarians, liberals and communists (but I repeat myself) always take the side of strongmen leaders in countries like Iran, Libya, Syria, Guatemala, Nicaragua, etc, often glorifying them in their struggle against greedy Western imperialism.
And yet somehow libertarians don't even see their own hypocrisy in that the national sovereignty protectionism and right to ethnic self determination that they support in so many of these 3rd world authoritarian-statist leaders is the very same kind of thing they virtue signal against here in America or Europe when far right white nationalists try to resist the harvesting of their homeland's resources and genetic commons by neoliberal globalism.
Libertarians seem to be able to identify and recognize corporatist-neocolonialism and predatory lending as forms of coercive soft power, but because of their parasitic Rothbardian anti-property obsession with total unrestricted global freedom of human movement, open-border advocates don't view mass migration from non-western countries and other forms of cultural warfare as tactics of soft power imperialism & aggression.
Even though, for example, Turkey clearly uses immigration as a negotiating tactic to strong arm trade concessions from the European Union. China uses similar tactics in Russia's far east. And mass migration of people from one geographic area to another has been used all throughout history as a tool of warfare and leverage in negotiations - from Stalin to the Ottomans to the Hans/Hmong to the Anglo-Saxons and the Franks.
While feminism, dogmatic-individualism and postmodernist social justice theory are a denialism of gender/ethnic/biological differences, libertarian foreign policy is a denialism of ethnic in-group/out-group differences, the construction of polities to reflect those differences and the need to factor that in to national defense. Just like how 95% of political commentary and discourse in the public square is in a state of denialism about the nature of force and violence. You hear people on the mainstream left, right, center and everything in between say things like "I vehemently denounce all violence..." or "I do not advocate for violence..." Yes you do. We all do. ALL politics is violence. That's what the state is. A monopoly on the use of force. You don't get to talk about politics and pretend you're not advocating for violence. It's the people on the fringes who are the only ones who really understand and are intellectually honest about the nature of violence inherent in politics and life itself. People in mainstream discourse have to put on a show of virtue signalling against violence because the average person isn't mature enough to handle the thought of violence as an inseparable aspect of our social and biological existence. Everyone likes to believe that their hands are clean and they are a peaceful, morally-upstanding person.
So-called 'anti-war' libertarians and other branches of the alternative media industrial complex will go on and on and on and on about how evil the United States and the CIA are for using colored revolutions to overthrow elected governments in the Middle East, Latin America, etc.
But when Muslims and Latinos use mass immigration to democratically overthrow and take over governments here in the U.S. or Europe, and then use their acquired state apparatus and pop culture systems of control to wage racial warfare against the indigenous population of whites... that's perfectly okay in the warped logic of mainstream laissez-faire minarchists.
Again we see the 'power + privilege = imperialism' formula at play here. Libertarians don't view it as coercion/aggression when these other countries do it to western nations (or to disambiguate even further, when brown people do it to white people) because libertarians view these 3rd world countries/people as being inherently less powerful and privileged than America, so they cut them all kinds of slack and excuse any violent or coercive behavior on their end.
This is exactly like how liberals celebrate and cheer when half naked indigenous tribesman on some remote island in the pacific kill a white christian missionary trying to make contact with them...
But when U.S. border patrol agents fires tear gas at invading hordes of brown people it's fascism.
Once you see through this rhetorical charade you realize that libertarians are anti-war in the same way that SJWs are anti-racism, feminists are anti-sexism and liberals are anti-gun.
That is to say, they're not.
Liberals aren't anti-gun, they simply advocate for some groups (the state) having guns and not others (civilians).
Libertarians aren't anti-war (or even anti-statism/anti-ethnocentrism for the same reasons), they simply reallocate the right to initiate aggression to some groups (namely any non-Western polities) but not others (Europeans). And like intersectionalists do with the term 'racism,' libertarians alter the definition of aggression based on their frame of power dynamics.
(Using these exact same critiques based on proximity bias we can also illustrate how people who brand themselves as classical liberals and individualists, the Jordan Petersons of the world, are not actually anti-collectivist or anti-ethnocentrism at all, they are in fact the opposite. This really encompasses not just people active in politics but the majority of the 'non-political' neutral population as well, since 'individualism' is the default social worldview for most people in the West. That's a separate series of articles I'm working on...)
This is a very important point that cannot be emphasized enough: The foreign policy talking points that you see in 90%+ of political discourse, especially in libertarian circles, is entirely based on the social economy of face over truth via GRRSM, moral posturing & virtue signalling - virtue signalling against 'racism' and violence based on intersectionalist power dynamics - rather than amoral strategic and tactical analysis. Again, this is a thoroughly leftism paradigm of viewing the world.
All of the above serves to illustrate why libertarians are completely and utterly incompetent when it comes to geopolitical strategy (Well, at least any kind of geopolitical strategy that benefits the native population in which said libertarians reside. I pity any ethnic group of people that has libertarians in their midst, which unfortunately mostly happens to be European-Americans, because all libertarians do is act as a subversive fifth column that serves as an ally for out-group enemies).
If you can't identify and recognize different forms of hard power vs soft power, you have nothing of value to offer in the realms of foreign policy and military doctrine.
If you're not willing to think racially and demographically profile potential/active threats, you're not capable of waging war or conducting organized defense in any meaningful way. Period. War IS collectivism. The two are inseparable from each other. War means identifying GROUPS of people who share common characteristics that pose a threat to you. If you're an 'individualist' who refuses to do that, you can't protect systems of private property from enemies who would subvert, steal from or destroy it. And you can't provide for the common defense and replace the most basic functions of the state like libertarians & ancaps claim they can. You have no business talking about AR15s and militias and muh 2nd amendment.
Quite frankly, I view libertarian-individualists within the military as a liability.
If you're an individualist you might as well walk around with a sign that says "I have zero military value - less than zero, I am a detriment to unit cohesion."
Individualism is a subversive tool of psychological warfare used by foreign out-groups to undermine and balkanize the internal solidarity of their enemies.
Sovereigntarianism is a much more useful and accurate term for the kind of philosophy that Western men have been brought up to believe will provide them with the liberty they desire and seek.
Further explanations on that here:
When immigrants, non-whites or 3rd world polities do carry out blatant indisputable acts of hard power, there's typically two responses that libertarians and other spheres of independent alt media will use to spin it...
#1. They'll just plain old ignore it and not talk about it.
In the same way that mainstream corporate media only covers violence and 'mass shootings' committed by white males but completely ignores the thousands of 'minorities' (they're not really minorities) who are killing each other every day in inner cities like Chicago, LA, New York, etc...
Libertarians/anarchists do the exact same thing with their foreign policy frame. They'll just ignore the Americans killed in Mexico and the insane body counts of the cartel wars. They simply don't talk about the thousands of Europeans who are being raped, stabbed and brutally murdered by muslims. They don't bring any attention to these things because they know that putting a spotlight on them bolsters the right wing case for nationalism, borders and white ethnocentrism.
By blatantly ignoring the organized violence and racism of migrants and non-white polities/entities, libertarians and other 'independents' are deliberately acting as accomplices and apologists (if not outright advocates) for 3rd world imperialism against the West. To put it in more layman's terms, they're full of shit when they claim to be anti-war. They are very pro-war and they act as the media arm for wars of aggression against white European people.
If you're pro-open borders and pro-mass migration, you're not anti-establishment. You ARE the establishment. It doesn't get any more establishment than that.
In the same way that Antifa pretends to be anti-bourgeoisie and anti-capitalist (when in reality they get their backing and support from the media, corporate/academic globohomo and big money interests), libertarians and open border anarcho-capitalists pretend to be rebels against 'the system' when in reality they are pushing the globalist superstate agenda more than anyone.
#2. Or... if libertarians do talk about non-western/immigrant violence... they blame it all on the CIA. It's allllways the CIA's fault. The CIA made them do it. The CIA created the terrorists, the CIA funded them, the CIA is fueling the drug wars, it's a false flag, blah blah blah.
It's always America's fault.
As if rampant warlordism, crime rackets and sectarian violence didn't exist in any of these places before America became a global power in the 20th Century or before the era of European colonialism. Nope, brown people only started chopping people's heads off and committing mass murder AFTER white people showed up.
Or, if it's not a case of being funded by the CIA, in the fundamentally racist minds of anti-European libertarians, it's blowback. It's always, always, always blowback. Anytime brown people start blowing things up it's always a case of self defense or a reaction to what America/Europe did to them.
If we just stop dropping bombs on them, the world will suddenly magically become a peaceful place.
As if brown people never carried out wars or barbaric cruelty until Europeans colonized them. No, for thousands of years they all lived in perfect tranquility and racial harmony with each other, free from the meddling statists and divide and conquer tactics of white people.
Libertarians are even more utopian in their worldview than communists.
This is exactly like how liberals excuse and justify all crime/violence committed by blacks and other 'minorities' by saying it's a result of systematic racism, oppression, income inequality, etc. It's always white people's fault, somehow, someway.
Libertarians do the same thing by saying that any acts of violence by non-western people is 'blowback' due to America's imperialism.
Again, this is the bigotry of low expectations. The assumption that Arabs, Africans, Latin Americans, etc are incapable of instigating aggression of their own free will and strategizing about the conquest of other territories and cultures. No, according to libertarian foreign policy, there is always a permanently assigned victimhood to these people/countries. Anything they do militarily is always a REACTION to what Westerners first did to them, rather than proactive offensive operations.
(It never occurs to libertarians that maybe European colonialism of the Americas and the Middle East is a reaction to thousands of years of Islamic, Ottoman, Mongol and Semitic aggression against Europe. There's an even greater form of bigotry of low expectations for you - the assumption that Jews are incapable of initiating aggression against other people and have never violated the rights and territories of others. It's always someone else's fault, they're always the victims. Now that's a touchy subject, not even gonna get into that here...)
Of course, all of this is not to say that the CIA DOESN'T do any of these things or that I agree with all of the Pentagon's foreign policy.
But my reasons for disagreement with American foreign policy are very different from libertarians. I'm not a pacifist. I'm not even necessarily an anti-imperialist absolutist (generally I am, depending on the circumstances, but in some cases I think it is appropriate. If we don't exist in a state of reciprocal cooperation with other polities we automatically default to a 'rule or be ruled' game theory existence).
I disagree with much of American foreign policy because we (Europeans) are living under the rule of an occupational government and as a tool of neoliberal corporatism our military is controlled by (((globalist))) foreign powers and is detrimental to European ethnic interests. Libertarians are opposed to American foreign policy for the exact opposite reasons.