Libertarian trends

Is this common? Are there more examples of libertarians switching to more conservative/pragmatic stances?

>Fascism has saved European civilization
What?

Libertarian are cucks by their nature. They'll switching side whenever their self interest commands so.

No, and chances are those a cherry picked quotes.

pol just moved from one edgy ideology to an even more edgy one.

A libertarian might switch to a more conservative stance as their station in life improves. But this is not unique to libertarians, everyone does it.

As the saying ought to go; if you're conservative when you're 20, you have no ambition or are already near the top of status quo, if you're liberal (or libertarian, or whatever) when you're 40, you've had no success or are not part of the status quo.

When you get to the stage where you can actually influence policy, it becomes worth your while starting to influence policy. And they're naturally going to act like conservatives in this position, and move policy to protect existing wealth, and to make it more difficult to lose or accumulate wealth.

>yfw you realize the term 'cuck' and 'alpha' are synonymous

That's how it works in every other species of ape, anyway. People just like to pretend it works the other way with humans.

Libertarians have always been racists with fascist tendencies. The early internet just let them pretend otherwise. Now they must admit the truth and as such are rejoining their neo-Nazi militia pals on their religious nut compounds.

Based Stef
And Y.T.

not an argument

t. leftist drone

>Liberals are nutjobs
What a discovery.

>Oh no my old spooks are dead what ever should I do?
>I know, I'll just embrace some new and even worse ones

Fucking libshits

>nut job compounds
I'd honestly rather live on a ranch with a bunch of rednecks than in Chicago with a bunch of blacks who can't into stable families and can't out of the welfare system. I don't understand why any sane person would prefer to live in the latter environment. It's that simple.

What a false dichotomy.

Libertarians get a bad rap on this board, as if they are all anarchists or neoconfederates. Most are just people with liberal social beliefs and conservative (American) economic ones.

>false dichotomy
So is the Progressive Genius Saint-Hero and the Regressive Idiot Demon-Villain thing in the post I was replying to. Fuck off.
>Most are just people with liberal social beliefs and conservative (American) economic ones.
[citation needed]

Libertarians are just communists who don't realize you need economic (land) reform as well as political reform, or else the government returns to it's previous policies pretty quickly. The difference might be that people who call themselves libertarian are in charge, but they'd act exactly like governments always do.

wat

Communists are libertarians who want land reform.

Once the land is redistributed, they basically don't want any more or less government controls than the average libertarian. They'd just set up taxes to prevent the need for future land reform, rather than to harvest the middle class's excess production.

They make big government claims in response to their rivals, the big governments that exist right now, the ones that don't want land reform, the governments set up over the last dozen or so decades to protect the wealthy in the way the model nations, the UK and USA, do.

I've read /pol/ and the only thing that's changed is that I've read /pol/. The people who undergo "the change" upon reading /pol/ are basically the people who submit to the vague posturing and aggressiveness that you find on the board. Because, in the eyes of many of the people on the board, to disagree with the consensus view would not only be wrong, but would also classify you as a number of things - a Jew, perhaps, or a Cultural Marxist, or a left-wing nut, or a fag, a nigger, a soft conservative, an illegal, or, and this is their new favorite (as it is admittedly funny to see how offended people get upon being called this), a cuck. But have you noticed something yet? Among none of these are "virgin", "neckbeard", or "loser". Can you guess why? Because all three descriptors fairly accurately describe the kinds of people who frequently post on the board, regardless of political association. And immediately upon pointing this out, all hell breaks lose. This is because of two things; one, the /pol/ack's uncanny sense of unwarranted self confidence, and two, the /pol/ack's constant need to discredit something they see as fallacious, regardless of whether that thing is an argument or is simply an observation. The reason for the latter is because of the way the /pol/ack sees argumentation - they don't see it as a way of reaching the truth, nor as a means of argumentation, rather, they see it as a means of increasing their ever-diminishing self confidence. This self confidence is constantly bombarded by their depressing life - they're often stay-at-home losers with no job, no girlfriend, and nothing interesting about their lives. This depressing life is also part of the reason for their many scapegoats. The Jews are the most obvious ones, but beyond that, they have women to blame for their lack of sexual gratification, they have illegals to blame for their lack of work, so on and so forth. They need something to blame and they need some battle to win.

>It's a self righteous whte guilt SJW episode
>It's a re-run

>Communists are libertarians who want land reform.
wat

It's a shitty TV show anyway.

I can't wait until it gets cancelled, their ratings keep going down, but (((Somebody))) appears to have very deep pockets and a vested interest in keeping it on air.

Your special definition of communist has nothing in common with mainline communism or socialism.

Also wealth isnt based on land anymore so redistributing land wouldn't really change the economic hierarchy

> Among none of these are "virgin", "neckbeard", or "loser"

What? pol used those all the time, at least when I was there it was their go to insult for anyone irreligious or libertarian

>The people who undergo "the change" upon reading /pol/ are basically the people who submit to the vague posturing and aggressiveness that you find on the board.
I could say the same about everyone I know who goes along with the Tumblr narrative. People respond to certain types of rhetoric, I honestly don't understand what's so hard to understand about that.

When you ask a self-professed communist what they want, they say they want to eliminate the state, or reduce it to the bare minimum, after land reform, so people can start on a level playing field. Their concern is that if you leave the same people who own the government now with the same amount of power, they'll start to run the government again.

When you ask a self-professed libertarian what they want, they say they want to eliminate the state, or reduce it to the bare minimum, without comment on what should happen to the people who gained their fortune by the predations and protections of the state. They apparently have no concern that the people who own the government will return things to how they were before.

Did you see the fifth episode in which entire cast was literally jumping around and dancing for fifteen minutes while chanting "There's no difference, we're all the same"? It didn't even fit with the plot.

I'm using the definition that people who call themselves communists use when talking to me.

Land reform is capital reform. When land was virtually synonymous with capital, land reform was the rallying cry. Today, it would likely be in the form of distributing shares or bonds in corporations and the government to the citizens.

>Libertarians dropping the ideological rude and laying their love for capital bare

Truly shocking that people who support removing restrictions on capital also want suspected enemies of capital to be eliminated in some way.

>(((Somebody)))

Somebody you really, really want to hug? Like, someone you want to hug three times?

Oh, it's code. You're right, capitalists have ruined most TV, lowest common denominator sells, though.

((())) means capitalism.

Slow down hotshot

You're completely ignoring the simple fact that libertarians want to live in a capitalist society while Communists want to eliminate a capitalist society. Land reform in Communism is a step on the path to the elimination of the capitalist class and the seizure of the means of production by the workers. This is so fucking basic that I don't even understand how you could make these mistakes.
>Land reform is capital reform.
>When land is virtually synonymous with capital
Which, at this point, it hardly is.

Tbh the complete and total lack of introspection in people like is one of the worst things about this virtue signalling spiral we're in. Even /pol/ can do it, yet some people find it more important to demonstrate how holy and pious they are on an anonymous Sinhalese Skydiving Scratching Wall.

I don't think he implied at all that same couldn't be said about tumblr. Tumblr was actually pretty irrelevant to the post, though, so I don't know why you would one it up.
Also, it's not hard to believe that certain people are easily duped by certain types of rhetoric, in fact, I think that was pretty much the point of the first part of the post. The rest was a load of bullshit though.

>capitalists have ruined most TV
TV was shit to begin with.
>((())) means capitalism.
No, it means Jews. The Jews in question are capitalists, sure. They're still Jews.

>I don't think he implied at all that same couldn't be said about tumblr.
So it was a total non sequitur, something that can be said of any environment in which political opinions are exchanged?

>le socially liberal fiscally conservative
you're not a libertarian

>capitalists have ruined most TV
If you're such a dedicated anti-capitalist why are you watching TV instead of organizing unions?

I posted that basically just for the (You)s senpai. I think I introspect just enough. I can check again, if you want to.

>You're completely ignoring the simple fact that libertarians want to live in a capitalist society while Communists want to eliminate a capitalist society. Land reform in Communism is a step on the path to the elimination of the capitalist class and the seizure of the means of production by the workers. This is so fucking basic that I don't even understand how you could make these mistakes.

You can easily be both, unless you're picking the definitions that are strictly incompatible.

Communism does not demand the end of private property, and capitalism does not demand the end of public property.

The workers would, of course, take possession of enterprises they've invested in. But any owner who does not want to incorporate should be able to own what they like. Only when they want to split off the bad parts of ownership for the taxpayer to handle, as with corporations, should there be a change, and the resulting corporation has to owned by every investor, not just those of a particular class.

>Which, at this point, it hardly is.

It is still A form of capital, it is not THE form of capital that it used to be.

One of the worst things that has been done to the middle-class is the response to the late banking crisis. The ideal should be that most people in your country own their houses, their homes, not that banks and/or landlords own most of the residences, most of the homes. Real savings come first, and you don't get more real than owning the place you live.

>No, it means Jews. The Jews in question are capitalists, sure. They're still Jews.

It's just they're only bad in their capacity as capitalists. As Jews, they just need to lay off the circumcision and Palestine. As capitalists, they have a lot of work ahead to make people trust capitalists again.

How would you know whether I watch TV?

Plus, you can get arrested or shot for organizing unions. That's considered justified by the side you're defending.

>Plus, you can get arrested or shot for organizing unions. That's considered justified by the side you're defending.
SMASH THE PIGS SMASH THE WHITE DEVIL BLM BLM BLM BLM BLM BLM BLM BLM BLM BLM

>You can easily be both
Yes, I admit that left libertarians exist, but that doesn't mean you can throw all libertarians into that category.
>Communism does not demand the end of private property,
lol wut
>and capitalism does not demand the end of public property.
Anarcho-capitalism, an extreme form of libertarianism, does. Many libertarians would prefer a world in which the state does not own property and regulates markets as little as possible.
>The workers would, of course, take possession of enterprises they've invested in.
Yes, because there are instances in which this has happened, there are countries which have attained the Communist end-game, and it's easy to point to them.
>It is still A form of capital, it is not THE form of capital that it used to be.
Right, so your entire argument falls apart here.
>middle class
Communists want to eliminate the middle class. Why would they care about that?
>own
Communism does not involve ownership on an individual level. It involves the abolition of the concept of property.
How serious were you, though? You can yell about 'muh lulz' all you want, but if you're actually an SJW you should be ashamed of yourself.

>I-i was just pretending to be retarded
And tqbh senpai

>It's just they're only bad in their capacity as capitalists.
The Jewish Bolsheviks were even worse.
>How would you know whether I watch TV?
Well, you said that capitalists had ruined it. Either you watch TV and have noticed this, or you don't watch TV and are being disingenuous, acting as if you have experience with the medium when you don't.
>Plus, you can get arrested or shot for organizing unions. That's considered justified by the side you're defending.
Pussy.
I'm in favor of unions when they do their job, i.e. getting employers to pay their employees well and provide working conditions that won't be too bad for their overall wellbeing, physical or mental. I'm not in favor of unions founded for the explicit purpose of eliminating the capitalist class, or unions which are coopted for that purpose.

I probably don't like /pol/ all that much, but I don't really care about them and I don't really see them as the cancer of the internet or something. I just use this website for the memes.

Eh. The problem with the libertarians is they still have the same fallacy as the communists which is they make some very bad assumptions with human behavior.

Where communists assume everyone will work together for the good of the system, libertarians assume that everyone will work together out of self interest.

Both systems ignore sociopaths who don't give a fuck about working together.

Which in libertarianism case, requires government regulation to keep them from fucking everything up.

tfw zionists beat them at fascism

Stop talking shit about them, then. You're encouraging radical leftists who mean you more harm than /pol/ does.

You're saying that workers consider their bosses to be the enemy?

Why would that be if they were both benefiting from their arrangement?

>Yes, I admit that left libertarians exist, but that doesn't mean you can throw all libertarians into that category.

Not all, just most.

>lol wut

Okay then, what do communists consider to be private property? And why do you think they want to get rid of it? Who told you, a communist?

>Anarcho-capitalism, an extreme form of libertarianism, does. Many libertarians would prefer a world in which the state does not own property and regulates markets as little as possible.

An-Caps just play a game with the problem of violence. They define all violence as justified because it's in defense of something they say they own, or because they say someone promised them something and didn't deliver. Public property in an-cap society are those places owned by individuals where babies are born; an-caps are never entirely clear on whether the babies are now possessions of the owner, or whether they are employees, or tenants, or what they are.

>Yes, because there are instances in which this has happened, there are countries which have attained the Communist end-game, and it's easy to point to them.

In the countries it has happened in it was replacing totalitarian regimes.

>Right, so your entire argument falls apart here.

Explain.

>Communists want to eliminate the middle class. Why would they care about that?

Which communist told you that?

>Communism does not involve ownership on an individual level. It involves the abolition of the concept of property.

It does involve ownership. It doesn't involve the abolition of the concept of property. You are wrong. Which communist told you these things?

It wasn't a non sequitur, as the OP, or at least the picture, implies that /pol/ turns libertarians into more conservative/fascist types. I think that's what the post was responding to. But, yeah, I think the same could be said for pretty much any political site/gathering. Some people are just going to get swept up in the emotion. Like mob mentality, if that can exist on the internet.

You can't possibly know that.


/pol/ means harm to anyone who doesn't agree, that is the nature of fascism. They're all lucky they don't realize that they don't agree on everything. Or maybe when there is a leader, they'll all forget they have individual motivations and obey them instead, that seems to be the ideal.

Eh, it's an anonymous anime image board. Who gives a shit if some kid reads my post and decides he's gonna be a Chomskyite tumblr shitlord? You should learn to sit back and appreciate the memes, desufam.

>Well, you said that capitalists had ruined it. Either you watch TV and have noticed this, or you don't watch TV and are being disingenuous, acting as if you have experience with the medium when you don't.

Or I've stopped.

>Not all, just most.
Citation needed
> Who told you, a communist?
I've read plenty of socialist literature. I've had leftist professors who explained the tenets of socialist economics in great detail, alongside basic orthodox economics concepts that come into play when studying history. Read some books.
>An-Caps just play a game with the problem of violence.
You can rant and rave about the NAP all you want, it doesn't mean you understand either of the positions we're discussing.
>Public property in an-cap society are those places owned by individuals where babies are born;
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
I'm not an AnCap, anyway.
>In the countries it has happened in it was replacing totalitarian regimes.
I don't think you understand the concept of totalitarianism.
>explain
If capital is not confined to the form of land, then land redistribution cannot possibly be expected to eliminate the capitalist class.
>'hurr which Commie told u dat?
Read a fucking book. There's a hundred and fifty years worth of Marxism to study. Why don't you engage with texts, instead of letting manipulative lowlives tell you what Communism is?

Anyway, I admit that standard Communism wants only to eliminate the concept of private property, not all property as conceived in the broadest fashion possible. The means of production would be the common property of the universal working class in a Communist society.

>that is the nature of fascism
That is the nature of political power.
In a democracy, ideas influence policy. I didn't think transgender bullshit that I saw people memeing about on Veeky Forums would impact my life unil Obama passed an executive order about bathrooms and my state legislature passed a law about transhender rights. It is a legitimate concern. Anyone who cares about the state of his or her society is obligated to pay attention to all of these things and assert his or her views; this is how modern democracies and republics function. You want me to be as apathetic as you are? I'm sorry, I can't do that. I do enjoy the memes. You ignore their power.

Why dont you explain why that is not libertarian. I think most people would except that as an accurate if simplistic definition

>Citation needed

Libertarians tend to be against the status quo, so leftist.

>I've read plenty of socialist literature. I've had leftist professors who explained the tenets of socialist economics in great detail, alongside basic orthodox economics concepts that come into play when studying history. Read some books.

>You can rant and rave about the NAP all you want, it doesn't mean you understand either of the positions we're discussing.

You were saying that some libertarians were against the idea of public property, then implied an-caps were a kind of libertarian. I was just explaining how an-cap logic falls apart once you consider that people are born and die, and once you consider that sometimes you need more than one person to complete a task.

>I don't think you understand the concept of totalitarianism.

Tsarist Russia was totalitarian, or approaching it. Cuba was totalitarian before the revolution. Vietnam was under colonial rule, totalitarian from the perspective of the locals. In China it was born of revolution, but then it's hardly communism at all, even if you think the Soviet Union was communist.

>If capital is not confined to the form of land, then land redistribution cannot possibly be expected to eliminate the capitalist class.

Capital redistribution would. And it wouldn't eliminate the capitalist class. There will always be people who make money from capital investments alone, we can decide whether they run all of society as they traditionally do, or merely get to profit from their ability to find investments.

>Read a fucking book. There's a hundred and fifty years worth of Marxism to study. Why don't you engage with texts, instead of letting manipulative lowlives tell you what Communism is?

There is what the Soviet Union said was communism, and what the United States said was communism; and then there was what communists, socialists, anarchists, libertarians, and other leftists said about it.

Why do you think that? You've been asserting things about Communism and libertarianism all thread without giving a single source or reason to accept your definitions.

Ive made about four post this thread, you haven't even given a fucking definition or source either

They don't want to eliminate private property.

If you insist they do, define private property.

>That is the nature of political power.

Correct. Fascism is the rawest application of modern political power, it is applied without even the pretense that it's supposed to help anyone but the 'country', the 'nation', the 'people', meaning the leadership.

I prefer to live in a place where the government would have to think for a moment before setting a policy, rather than relying on their ability to force cooperation from everyone by law.

Isn't seeing certain ideas as problematic or harmful basically just retreating to SJW shit though?

>retreating

SJW's are doing what everyone in every society has been doing since forever.

I give them extra credit because at least it's part of their code that they must tell you how you're being impolite. In most codes like this, including the one upheld by the right-wing equivalent of SJW's, asking what the rules are is considered the most impolite thing of all, more even than breaking them.

>that hayek quote
>austrians in charge of pretending to favor freedom
Libertarianism means libertarian socialism. Any other use is newspeak designed to brainwash.

>Libertarians tend to be against the status quo, so leftist.
How does that qualify someone as being politically left of center?
>I was just explaining how an-cap logic falls apart once you consider that people are born and die, and once you consider that sometimes you need more than one person to complete a task.
This doesn't make sense to me. Libertarianism doesn't deny the importance of cooperation between individuals, even as it acknowledges the fundamentally competitive nature of modern economies and views this as desirable.
>Tsarist Russia was totalitarian, or approaching it. Cuba was totalitarian before the revolution. Vietnam was under colonial rule, totalitarian from the perspective of the locals. In China it was born of revolution, but then it's hardly communism at all, even if you think the Soviet Union was communist.
[Citation needed]
>Capital redistribution would. And it wouldn't eliminate the capitalist class
Yeah, you don't understand the point of Communism. I seriously suggest reading a book.
>There is what the Soviet Union said was communism, and what the United States said was communism; and then there was what communists, socialists, anarchists, libertarians, and other leftists said about it.
This is a pathetic excuse for a sentence. Which interpretation are you using?
I don't have to provide sources, and the definitions I've supplied are in fact commonly accepted. Marx and Engels, Lenin, Mao, Zizek, Althusser, the list goes on.
>They don't
I say again, read a book.
>define private property
Anything, but generally only things capable of being used for the production of surplus-value, which is owned by an individual, and which some legal system recognizes as being owned by said individual.
>I prefer to live in a place where the government would have to think for a moment before setting a policy, rather than relying on their ability to force cooperation from everyone by law.
Where would that be?

>In most codes like this, including the one upheld by the right-wing equivalent of SJW's, asking what the rules are is considered the most impolite thing of all, more even than breaking them.
Huh?

people change ideologies constantly

it's normal. believing people are born with their conviction is naive

>How does that qualify someone as being politically left of center?

Is that not how it goes? Left is generally in favor of changing the status quo, right is generally in favor of protecting the status quo.

>This doesn't make sense to me. Libertarianism doesn't deny the importance of cooperation between individuals, even as it acknowledges the fundamentally competitive nature of modern economies and views this as desirable.

That's libertarianism, a leftist philosophy. An-Caps are a different story. They essentially seem to want a return to a might makes right world; most of us want a world where arguing might makes right means you are in the wrong.

>[Citation needed]

Citation needed that the Tsar was an absolute monarch, that Batista was dictator of Cuba?

>Yeah, you don't understand the point of Communism. I seriously suggest reading a book.

A hundred and fifty year old book wouldn't tell me as much about communism as a discussion with a modern leftist.

>This is a pathetic excuse for a sentence. Which interpretation are you using?

Which do you think?

You're using the definition invented and supported by the USSR and USA.

I'm using the one invented and supported by leftists in liberal countries.

I am certain very few people read the communist manifesto, and then nothing else.

>I say again, read a book.

Which book?

>Anything, but generally only things capable of being used for the production of surplus-value, which is owned by an individual, and which some legal system recognizes as being owned by said individual.

So not private property, but means of production? You are no longer claiming that communists mean to take everything from everyone and give back one share over everything to everyone?

>Where would that be?

Nowhere, really. But look at the countries ranked highest on quality of life scales and you'll find the closest.

I fail to see where you posted their definition of libertarianism, and frankly I would find any definition ventured by a communist or socialist intellectual as opposed to an actual libertarian suspect

this going from one shit ideology to another shit ideology is better than sticking to 1 shit ideology

Have to agree with this. I don't think Hayek's views changed wildly over the course of his. Neoliberal and Austrian economists aren't really for freedom in the sense that it would apply to broad base of people. They're more interested in a sort of freedom of potential. Great people should have the resources and freedom necessary to achieve their great deeds. Hayek also believed that people born into wealthy families were pretty much born great.

>Left is generally in favor of changing the status quo, right is generally in favor of protecting the status quo.
You're implying that all movements are on this spectrum. You're generalizing libertarians. You have no idea what youre on about.
>absolute monarch
You don't know what that phrase means. You don't know what totalitarianism is. You don't know what Communism or libertarianism entail. I'm not sure why I'm still replying to you. Absolutism happened in Western Europe, and is distinct from the Russian autocratic tradition.
>A hundred and fifty year old book wouldn't tell me as much about communism as a discussion with a modern leftist.
Is this your best excuse for not understanding the intellectual underpinnings of the ideology you advocate?
>I'm using the one invented and supported by leftists in liberal countries.
They tend to disagree with each other on this.
>Which book?
You can start with the Manifesto, move on to The German Ideology, of you care enough try to get through Capital. I dunno, I'm sure you can find a Commie reading list somewhere on Veeky Forums or /leftypol/.
>Nowhere, really.
Yeah, I'd like to live in a utopia, too.

*"his life" it should say.

>I would find any definition ventured by a communist or socialist intellectual as opposed to an actual libertarian suspect
>an actual libertarian
Libertarian as a political term was coined by Joseph Déjacque, a communist, dumbass.
Don't you feel at least a little sad at using newspeak?

I am familiar with the origin of the term. Its not how its normally used in American or internet parlance. You should also be aware that change happened after "liberal" was redefined in American parlance.

As to my point, I think that the right libertarians should at least get to define what exactly they believe rather than have their ideological opposite define them

>You're implying that all movements are on this spectrum. You're generalizing libertarians. You have no idea what youre on about.

I'm not implying that at all. In general, left is in favor of changing the status quo, right is in favor of protecting the status quo. This only applies in liberal democracies, left and right don't make sense outside that system.

>You don't know what that phrase means. You don't know what totalitarianism is. You don't know what Communism or libertarianism entail. I'm not sure why I'm still replying to you. Absolutism happened in Western Europe, and is distinct from the Russian autocratic tradition.

Tell me what name you prefer for the Russian autocratic tradition and I'll use it.

>Is this your best excuse for not understanding the intellectual underpinnings of the ideology you advocate?

It's just, there is no leftist bible. There is a book written over a century ago that rightists go to when they want to find one.

>They tend to disagree with each other on this.

Sure. They don't tend to support ideas they disagree with just to get power, that seems to be a rightist tactic.

>You can start with the Manifesto, move on to The German Ideology, of you care enough try to get through Capital. I dunno, I'm sure you can find a Commie reading list somewhere on Veeky Forums or /leftypol/.

You can start wherever you like. But the manifesto is not binding, and doesn't really apply beyond the situation it was written for. Marx described capitalism better than anyone at the time.

>Yeah, I'd like to live in a utopia, too.

I'd like to live in a country that was one better. Since I'm not actually in charge, or foolish enough to believe the people in charge are looking out for me, I have to be leftist to get the country moving in the right direction, politically. The status quo doesn't suit most people, but most can't afford to do anything about it beyond using their votes whenever they are allowed.

Also, /leftypol/?

As someone who has been on /pol/ since before god, that's depressing.

I can honestly remember before it was taken over by bundlesticks, and honest discussion was possible without your thread getting shit all over.

/leftpol/ is full of SJWs

Liberal was always an ambiguous word, as social liberalism was associated with civil/minority rights, and other left leaning concepts, while economic liberalism was associated with free markets. The first definition stuck around in the US, while the second stuck around in the rest of the world (mosly). In any case, it has little to do with the redefinition of the words "libertarian" and "anarchism", which was premeditated and had political objectives.

But, leaving newspeak usage aside, i don't think there is a disagreement about what your ideology entails.

>This only applies in liberal democracies, left and right don't make sense outside that system.
Why are you so intent on putting libertarianism as a whole in one category?
>name
Czarism. The Russian Imperial system. Not totalitarian.
>there is no leftist bible.
Never said there was. You don't have an excuse.
>Sure. They don't tend to support ideas they disagree with just to get power, that seems to be a rightist tactic.
What? 'm seriously confused by what you're trying to say here.
>You can start wherever you like
And you don't seem to have started at all. You seem intent on not starting.
>I have to be leftist to get the country moving in the right direction, politically.
This makes no sense to me.
I'm not saying it's a good board, in fact it's my least favorite community on the Internet. They do discuss socialist theory a lot, though. I just telling you where to find a reading list.

spot on, siegmund

Your the one who said my definition was bad without explaining why

>I can honestly remember before it was taken over by bundlesticks, and honest discussion was possible without your thread getting shit all over.
You mean before the stormfag invasion like 6 years ago?

It's been explained to you multiple times. You're just dense or a troll.

>white nationalism is bad
fuck off

Thanks for representing for us what stormfags understand for "honest discussion".

It has not. I am honestly wondering if your confusing me with the other guy you were arguing with, but even there it was never explained why mine was a bad definition

>muh stormfags
grow up

What's wrong with white nationalism? I doubt anyone in this thread actually browses Stormfront.
Do you think all Trump supporters are Neo-Nazis, too? You've got another thing coming, my friend, when you realize just how tired your white friends are of being told to check their privilege while illegal immigrants assault them for wearing hats.
It's not very easy to keep anonymous identities straight, especially when your definitions and arguments are as incoherent as yours. Which posts are yours? What definitions are you offering?

...

Ideologies aside, i was refering to their impact in Veeky Forums. For example, i have nothing with fascist evolafags, for example, since they are generally reasonable and well read.
Stormfags shit up this place more than any other group ever though. At some points it was impossible to have a normal discussion, even not related to politics, without a sea of jew related memes, infographics, etc, so your initial post seems completely retarded for me. It has slowed down a bit recently, thankfully.

Tbh not all of it is Stormfaggotry. There are a hell of a lot more Muslims on this site than you'd think. Islamic anti-Semitism mixes with Stormfaggotry pretty easily.
t. someone who thinks that Jews are overrepresented in media, government, and education

>What's wrong with white nationalism?
ethnic based ideologies always end badly
there have been many exaples, not only NAZI but also in Africa, Asia, middle east, it always ended in ethnic cleansing.
ethnic based ideologies only brought death and chaos.

second, speaking about white nationalism in a country like USA is borderline retarded and just shows lack of historical knowledge.

Is Hans herman hoppe the biggest cuck there is

good post, but I'd add that as people grow, the liberal values they clung to are now conservative. for example, obamacare was probably the most liberal move fiscally in the past fifty years, in twenty years there will be some other thing, and the people who supported obamacare may not support that.

did you know how fast you were making those implications?

amazing, yet another person who doesn't know what fascism is

>it always ended in ethnic cleansing
White nationalism or any other contemporary form of explicitly European or Euro-American solidarity is a response to antagonism from non- and anti-white individuals and groups. This is hardly a criticism you can level at white people without simultaneously disavowing other forms of ethnic solidarity and in-group preference. Richard Spencer is a fool, but white people ought not be criticized for sticking together in a time like this, when all other ethnicities are becoming more and more self-absorbed and collectivized. I will not stand idly by while my culture is turned to dust and replaced with postcolonial gibberish.