What do I do with all my socialist/communist followers?

[ibaghdadi]

In the course of tweeting the Egyptian revolution, I went from 30 followers on Twitter to 750+, and my Youtube channel went from no subscribers to 150+. Of course, that doesn't bother me, especially that I'm striving to bring a libertarian message to the Middle East's masses.

The problem that's now arising is that some of those "following me" are socialists or even downright communists. There's something about them that loves a "people's revolution", even as it becomes clear this was no "socialist revolution" or "revolution of the proletariat" ("low class citizens" in Egypt don't have Twitter and Facebook accounts).

I really don't have the energy to argue socialism with them, because to me (and to most in the Middle East) it's a book that's been closed a long time ago. The thing is, I don't want to even get into anything with them. I don't think they matter, but I just don't want them polluting my stream.

They aren't a large percentage of my followers, but they're loud.

[Doug8796]

Just ask them what socialism has ever done for the people, not the state. Give examples of the Soviet Empire falling when it invaded Afghanistan.

[LinusVanPelt]

Ask: What Would Ron Do? One thing that always strikes me about RP is that he has the patience of a saint. Don't bother confronting them brashly or in haste- just patiently, quietly repeat the truth, and correct them gently. Question their basic assumptions. They'll either grudgingly chew on what you have to say and possibly even reconsider their own views or eventually leave you alone and go sell their ice cream on the other side of the street.

[jtstellar]

i don't know.. unless you have other people there helping you with the debate which could actually take support away from socialism if done artfully.. the alternative may indeed pollute your purpose. if it's not a winnable battle i would just get rid of them asap

[Knightskye]

Tweet as you would. They can choose to unfollow if they want to.

[ibaghdadi]

Tweet as you would. They can choose to unfollow if they want to.

I guess you're right. As soon as I start vlogging libertarianism and denouncing socialism, they'll digust themselves away.

[Mark37snj]

Take the approach I do when I have someone who doesn't quite fit into my WOW guild. Tell them its nothing personal but they are just not a good fit. My guild is X, Y, and Z, and you are too much D and F. There is too much conflict of interest and thats not what this is about. There are other places for that. There are plenty of other guilds out there, I wish you luck, happy hunting, but I think it's best we go our separate ways. They won't change your mind, you won't change theirs, so whats the point. Its your Tweet account and right now they cannot redistribute it. Life is not fair, your only one Tweet account amonst millions, blah blah blah.

[amy31416]

If the majority of these followers are male, you may try to play to their masculine natures by referring to how socialism/communism is a nanny-state type of government that keeps people dependent on the government and strips them of their responsibility/opportunity to be self-made men who take care of/support/defend their family. Do they need a government effectively neutering them because they can't live up to this expectation? If so, their tendency toward communism/socialism is quite understandable...but not to men who don't shrink from their responsibility.

Anti-Federalist posted a really good essay recently about "Lessons in Manliness" (or words to that effect) that one young man learned during this revolution. I'll have to see if I can find it...it could also turn the tables for some women when they take a look and see that their men want the gov't to take that role.

(Not to mention, Egypt has had a cruel, dictatorial leader for 30 years...the ultimate in the nanny state.)

It just might make them think.

[amy31416]

Here's the thread with the article I mentioned: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?279593-Lessons-in-Manliness-from-the-Egyptian-Revolution-A-quot-Must-Read-quot-!

[Gaius1981]

Out of curiosity ibaghdadi, do you live in Iraq, and how were you introduced to the liberty movement in the first place?

[outspoken]

Tell them to read the book Healing Our World by Dr. Mary Ruwart. Here's a link to a free older version. Most liberals having bleeding hearts because they are do not understand human nature nor history for that matter. Such philosophy is born out of gross ignorance and is the path to evil. And, we will inevitably repeat the ills of the 20th century if we do not abandon such forms of government. All the liberals I know do not know the first thing about economics both on a personal level as well as a macro level. It is pointless to try and have a rational conversation with such a person because all their thoughts and opinions are built upon emotions (usually unconscious fear) rather than reason.

Here's a link to get them on the path to a better mind and world: http://freekeene.com/2010/10/06/world-exclusive-healing-our-world-audiobook/

[Dreamofunity]

Troll them, it's the only logical conclusion.

[Bern]

Post a link to this for them to watch:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVygqjyS4CA

[Elwar]

Twitter about how there's been a discovery in Chicago that the high winds make it so that if you jump off of the Sears tower the wind will actually push you back up and you'll land right back where you jumped from.

[Chester Copperpot]

I had a friend of a friend who was downright socialist and probably communist as well.. She was in her 60s and had come to her beliefs thru her life experiences the way most of us do...

One day while discussing the 2nd amendment and her telling me how bad guns were etc.. I simply looked at her and said, "Why would you take away my right to defend myself.. Dont people have a right to protect themselves against things?"

and that was really all it took. Now shes all about Ron Paul to people and honestly I barely mentioned his name.. It comes down to liberty.. and I think once people understand that, then we have common grounds.

Even most communists probably believe in liberty.. they just believe in a different way to get there.

[Slutter McGee]

You can't let the argument turn philosophical. Have to speak good things about the idea of socialism while explaining why it cant work.

Slutter McGee

EDIT: I dont actually think socialism is even a good idea. But I found the approach works.

[pcosmar]

Educate.
Most who adopt those view do so because the don't like what they have and have seen. They are looking for something "better", and that has been presented to them.
Educate on Liberty. The really smart ones will get it.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Send them this link and ask what kind of governments did these things:

http://files.meetup.com/1576610/disarm%20history%20chart.pdf

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

Or this one... tell them they get to be Bambi...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPFxBzlFe94

[for_noah]

I like the suggestions of having the patience of Dr. Paul and keep tweeting as you would always do.

Questions to ponder:
Do you like to be told your wrong?
Do you think these "followers" could see the light if they were presented with data proving your position?
If your followers were given an opportunity to freely choose liberty -knowing the real facts - would they?

From a sales perspective, people will never do something because you told them to,or because you say they are wrong, it always has to be their choice. The best way to do this is to ask pointed questions that will lead them down a path to your desired outcome(spreading brushfires of liberty). If you use data that supports your outcome and ask them to evaluate it with questons, they will choose freely... Of course that assumes they trust you on some level and you have rapport with your "followers". If you don't then it is futile until you do.

[Rothbardian Girl]

Try tactfully mentioning similarities between socialism and libertarianism, perhaps on foreign policy and the problems of corporatism, and then maybe tactfully mention libertarian solutions to these problems, which would indeed be relevant to Egyptians, obviously. You could also perhaps mention how the state creates disparities in wealth among the populace through certain tactics, and ask how socialism would fix these disparities without creating more of the enemy.

Just some ideas, I don't know if I typed them all coherently, but hopefully it works out for you. Good luck! I would also advise just to be patient with them instead of deleting right away even if it seems they don't get the message. Continue tweeting as you've always done and I think you will wind up convincing some people.

[dannno]

To my socialist/communist friends: The more power you give to the Egyptian state, the more others, such as western interests, will try to usurp it. The less power you give to the state, the less desirable it will be to usurp power. A free state is the best way to keep the power in the hands of the people.

[Southron]

Edit. My reading skills failed me.

[ibaghdadi]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I'm not really interested in wasting time on educating socialists & communists, because I don't think they matter.

The vast majority of the Arab masses have suffered long enough under socialist or quasi-socialist states (Nasser's Egypt, Baath Party in Syria/Iraq, Yemen, etc.) The fall of the USSR was seen here as a final defeat of the idea of communism.

That's why I don't want to waste time on them. I like the idea about adopting as much patience as Dr. Paul; I'm also a big fan of "Healing Our World", amazing book and true enough, many socialists have "bleeding hearts".

I have a feeling that many people in the Arab world, especially after Egypt's revolution, are libertarian without even knowing it. If only I could have a personal conversations with each of them. All 300 million.


Try tactfully mentioning similarities between socialism and libertarianism, perhaps on foreign policy and the problems of corporatism...
I think you hit it right on the head. Did you notice how Ralph Nader and Ron Paul agree on many things? I remember seeing an interview with both of them hosted, it was real powerful, they even discussed the potential for an alliance.

[ibaghdadi]

Out of curiosity ibaghdadi, do you live in Iraq, and how were you introduced to the liberty movement in the first place?
I'm a Palestinian, but I've lived in Dubai, UAE all my life. "El-Baghdadi" is a somewhat common surname in the Arab world, within and outside of Iraq. Our family had lived in Jaffa for as long as we remember (at least seven generations).

After 1948 we were forced out; my dad's family ended up in Egypt, my mom's family in Syria. Don't want to weird you out any more but I'm a bit of Palestinian-Egyptian-Syrian-Jordanian-Iraqi-Kuwaiti-Emarati-Pakistani-Indian.

I was introduced to the US liberty movement through antiwar.com post-911. That was when I first heard of Ron Paul; within a few months I was a determined Ron Paul fan and eventually found these forums and finally discovered that all those things that I believed all my life have a name, "libertarianism".

But as a Palestinian I never really needed to be introduced to the idea of liberty. I've been stateless all my life, but given the kind of "states" around, this can only be a blessing. I take pride in having no master. Did you know we, a stateless "refugee" people, have the highest literacy rate among all Arabs?

[Chieppa1]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I'm not really interested in wasting time on educating socialists & communists, because I don't think they matter.

The vast majority of the Arab masses have suffered long enough under socialist or quasi-socialist states (Nasser's Egypt, Baath Party in Syria/Iraq, Yemen, etc.) The fall of the USSR was seen here as a final defeat of the idea of communism.

That's why I don't want to waste time on them. I like the idea about adopting as much patience as Dr. Paul; I'm also a big fan of "Healing Our World", amazing book and true enough, many socialists have "bleeding hearts".

I have a feeling that many people in the Arab world, especially after Egypt's revolution, are libertarian without even knowing it. If only I could have a personal conversations with each of them. All 300 million.


I think you hit it right on the head. Did you notice how Ralph Nader and Ron Paul agree on many things? I remember seeing an interview with both of them hosted, it was real powerful, they even discussed the potential for an alliance.

@Sandmonkey was having a debate about the future politics of Egypt on Twitter yesterday. I interjected as much positive liberty/libertarian/self-governance as I could.

[Imperial]

Even most communists probably believe in liberty.. they just believe in a different way to get there.

This is extremely true. Living at one of the most militantly progressive colleges in the Midwest, I can tell you that the philosophy of Marx and many later Marxists *does* have a concern with freedom. They look for the solution in the wrong way, but there is a base concern with autonomy that, even though it is somewhat lost along the way, still exists deep down in its ideological framework.

I would suggest not really engaging them at all. Keep framing your work based on how you see it with a little bit of a libertarian edge, and let them consider how you say it. They are already a fan, and you have already established yourself as a position of authority for them; take advantage of that and give them a steady drip of, not outright libertarianism (save the debate between minarchy and anarcho-capitalism for another day), but a glimpse of the liberty movement.

[Rothbardian Girl]

This is extremely true. Living at one of the most militantly progressive colleges in the Midwest, I can tell you that the philosophy of Marx and many later Marxists *does* have a concern with freedom. They look for the solution in the wrong way, but there is a base concern with autonomy that, even though it is somewhat lost along the way, still exists deep down in its ideological framework.

I would suggest not really engaging them at all. Keep framing your work based on how you see it with a little bit of a libertarian edge, and let them consider how you say it. They are already a fan, and you have already established yourself as a position of authority for them; take advantage of that and give them a steady drip of, not outright libertarianism (save the debate between minarchy and anarcho-capitalism for another day), but a glimpse of the liberty movement.

I think you and others on this thread have made incredible points. This is why I cannot believe or contend that all Marxists are evil people concerned with taking over the world. I mean, the Marxists are indeed right about a lot of different problems that ail society, if you really look at it. They just have the wrong ideas on how to fix those problems, as you've correctly stated.

[RedStripe]

You should differentiate between state socialism and libertarian/populist socialism. One is centralized planning, centralized authority and centralized ownership while the other is decentralized and populist.

For example, the physical capital and land which has been handed over to the Egyptian oligarchy for the past several decades should not be either in the hands of the state or it's "private" cronies (the 100 or so families which own practically everything in Egypt) but to its legitimate "homesteading" owners - the people who actually work with and live on that capital/land.

[Jack Bauer]

You should differentiate between state socialism and libertarian/populist socialism. One is centralized planning, centralized authority and centralized ownership while the other is decentralized and populist.

For example, the physical capital and land which has been handed over to the Egyptian oligarchy for the past several decades should not be either in the hands of the state or it's "private" cronies (the 100 or so families which own practically everything in Egypt) but to its legitimate "homesteading" owners - the people who actually work with and live on that capital/land.

Socialism cannot exist in the long run without state muscle.

Eventually the more successful individuals in the "libertarian" socialist groups will tend to leave the system leaving it with only dead beats who cannot pull themselves up.

Without any state owned guns keeping those relatively successful individuals under public servitude, the system will have no other alternative but to collapse under its own inefficiency.


Unless of course those involved in "libertarian" socialism have no inherent greed whatsoever in which case, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell to you.

[TexanRudeBoy]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I'm not really interested in wasting time on educating socialists & communists, because I don't think they matter.

The vast majority of the Arab masses have suffered long enough under socialist or quasi-socialist states (Nasser's Egypt, Baath Party in Syria/Iraq, Yemen, etc.) The fall of the USSR was seen here as a final defeat of the idea of communism.

That's why I don't want to waste time on them. I like the idea about adopting as much patience as Dr. Paul; I'm also a big fan of "Healing Our World", amazing book and true enough, many socialists have "bleeding hearts".

I have a feeling that many people in the Arab world, especially after Egypt's revolution, are libertarian without even knowing it. If only I could have a personal conversations with each of them. All 300 million.


I think you hit it right on the head. Did you notice how Ralph Nader and Ron Paul agree on many things? I remember seeing an interview with both of them hosted, it was real powerful, they even discussed the potential for an alliance.

You should check out Nader interviewing Judge Nepolitano on his book "Lies the Government Told You"

http://www.booktv.org/Program/11711/After+Words+Andrew+Napolitano+Lies+the+Government+ Told+You+interviewed+by+Ralph+Nader.aspx

[ronpaulhawaii]

Tweet as you would. They can choose to unfollow if they want to.

+1

[RedStripe]

I think you and others on this thread have made incredible points. This is why I cannot believe or contend that all Marxists are evil people concerned with taking over the world. I mean, the Marxists are indeed right about a lot of different problems that ail society, if you really look at it. They just have the wrong ideas on how to fix those problems, as you've correctly stated.

Marxism is absolutely worthy of intelligent criticism as well as consideration. Many early Marxists were generally skeptical of and opposed to establishing a "Marxist" state, instead stressing the need for spontaneous, grass-roots organization of society by the masses. Many early American libertarian thinkers consciously considered themselves part of the wide-spread "socialist" radical movement of the mid to late 1800s (before the political wing of the socialist movement, which was more concerned with taking control of the state rather than building grassroots alternatives to supplant its power, became predominate). Even people such as Thomas Paine clearly were concerned not only with political equality but also with economic equality - issues which he believed were closely related.

Libertarians are really missing out of a big piece of the big picture when they ignore the Marxist class analysis of the world, because regardless of whether we like how class analysis can or has been used by demagogues (just like "liberty" and "free markets" are misused), it rings true to many because it deals with the reality faced by most people. We need to stress a decentralized, populist libertarianism which addresses class imbalances as a byproduct of both an economic and political system which empowers the few over the many.

[RedStripe]

Socialism cannot exist in the long run without state muscle.

Eventually the more successful individuals in the "libertarian" socialist groups will tend to leave the system leaving it with only dead beats who cannot pull themselves up.

Without any state owned guns keeping those relatively successful individuals under public servitude, the system will have no other alternative but to collapse under its own inefficiency.


Unless of course those involved in "libertarian" socialism have no inherent greed whatsoever in which case, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell to you.

You sound like someone who believes in the "law of oligarchy." Sorry, but the reason we have a tiny percentage of the population which owns a vastly disproportionate share of the wealth is not because they are "magically" successful Ayn Rand supermen cartoons, but because the state-shaped system is designed to concentrate wealth and power (just like in feudal times). There's just enough buying and selling for the rich and their sycophants to claim that "the free market did it" (unless something goes wrong, of course).

[Jack Bauer]

You sound like someone who believes in the "law of oligarchy." Sorry, but the reason we have a tiny percentage of the population which owns a vastly disproportionate share of the wealth is not because they are "magically" successful Ayn Rand supermen cartoons, but because the state-shaped system is designed to concentrate wealth and power (just like in feudal times). There's just enough buying and selling for the rich and their sycophants to claim that "the free market did it" (unless something goes wrong, of course).

Are you schizophrenic?

I never claimed (nor denied) any of those things you mention.

I only claimed that "libertarian" socialism is not sustainable in the long run for the obvious reasons.

Get over yourself, stop clutching at straws and deal with it.

[RedStripe]

Are you schizophrenic?

I never claimed (nor denied) any of those things you mention.

I only claimed that "libertarian" socialism is not sustainable in the long run for the obvious reasons.

Get over yourself, stop clutching at straws and deal with it.

Calm down son.

Sorry for doing my best to extract a coherent idea to respond to from your claim that "successful libertarians" would "leave the system" rather than pointing out that this clearly indicates you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to libertarian socialism. Why don't you give it another go and describe to me what social system you think I'm advocating.

[hugolp]

Marxism is absolutely worthy of intelligent criticism as well as consideration. Many early Marxists were generally skeptical of and opposed to establishing a "Marxist" state, instead stressing the need for spontaneous, grass-roots organization of society by the masses. Many early American libertarian thinkers consciously considered themselves part of the wide-spread "socialist" radical movement of the mid to late 1800s (before the political wing of the socialist movement, which was more concerned with taking control of the state rather than building grassroots alternatives to supplant its power, became predominate). Even people such as Thomas Paine clearly were concerned not only with political equality but also with economic equality - issues which he believed were closely related.

Libertarians are really missing out of a big piece of the big picture when they ignore the Marxist class analysis of the world, because regardless of whether we like how class analysis can or has been used by demagogues (just like "liberty" and "free markets" are misused), it rings true to many because it deals with the reality faced by most people. We need to stress a decentralized, populist libertarianism which addresses class imbalances as a byproduct of both an economic and political system which empowers the few over the many.

Since when libertarians ignore class analysis? Class analysis is not even a original marxist idea. Class analysis was first used by classic liberals, which libertarianism is the closest thing in the present. Marx copied class analysis from them.

PS: Thomas Paine had different phases and only spoke of economic equality when he went to France and was under some influences.

[Jack Bauer]

Calm down son.

Sorry for doing my best to extract a coherent idea to respond to from your claim that "successful libertarians" would "leave the system" rather than pointing out that this clearly indicates you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to libertarian socialism. Why don't you give it another go and describe to me what social system you think I'm advocating.

You are advocating a social system that has never existed, nor can ever exist, for a relatively long period beyond the realms of theory.

[RedStripe]

Since when libertarians ignore class analysis?.

lol? I can't tell you how many times I've been attacked on this forum for making arguments from a poor vs. rich perspective. So many libertarians think that everything is about the state that they get upset when others argue that it's actually about the deeper issue of class warfare (which naturally expresses itself through the state on many occasions). You have people a few threads away on this very forum claiming that blue collar government workers are the "parasites" of our system (which displays an astonishing ignorance of who the system's true victims and parasites are - the poor and the rich, respectively).

[RedStripe]

You are advocating a social system that has never existed, nor can ever exist, for a relatively long period beyond the realms of theory.

First of all, that's not a description, so you get an F. Second, libertarian socialism is the most sustainable, long-lasting and successful social system ever established by the human species.

[Jack Bauer]

First of all, that's not a description, so you get an F. Second, libertarian socialism is the most sustainable, long-lasting and successful social system ever established by the human species.

http://lolpics.se/pics/482.jpg

[hugolp]

You have people a few threads away on this very forum claiming that blue collar government workers are the "parasites" of our system (which displays an astonishing ignorance of who the system's true victims and parasites are - the poor and the rich, respectively).

No. The claim was that government unions where parasites, and they are. Government unions hurt the working class and only stop real worker unions from appearing.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Just ask them what socialism has ever done for the people, not the state. Give examples of the Soviet Empire falling when it invaded Afghanistan.

The Soviet empire suffered during the Afghanistan invasion because our government funded the Afghan rebels. The Afghan government had a pact with the U.S.S.R for defense.

[low preference guy]

"libertarian socialism"?

hahahahaha!!!!!!!

[Jack Bauer]

"libertarian socialism"?

hahahahaha!!!!!!!

Exactly! :D

[Bruno]

I like the suggestions of having the patience of Dr. Paul and keep tweeting as you would always do.

Questions to ponder:
Do you like to be told your wrong?
Do you think these "followers" could see the light if they were presented with data proving your position?
If your followers were given an opportunity to freely choose liberty -knowing the real facts - would they?

From a sales perspective, people will never do something because you told them to,or because you say they are wrong, it always has to be their choice. The best way to do this is to ask pointed questions that will lead them down a path to your desired outcome(spreading brushfires of liberty). If you use data that supports your outcome and ask them to evaluate it with questons, they will choose freely... Of course that assumes they trust you on some level and you have rapport with your "followers". If you don't then it is futile until you do.

Welcome to the forums. Great first post! :)

[RedStripe]

http://lolpics.se/pics/482.jpg

Whoops, looks like I got you confused with a real thinker. Feel free to contact me when you've matured intellectually.

[ibaghdadi]

Exactly! :D

Actually:


Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism)[3][4] is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialism is opposed to all coercive forms of social organization, and promotes free association in place of government and opposes what it sees as the coercive social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor. The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism[5][6] or by some as a synonym for Left anarchism.[1][2][7]

Wikipedia entry (http://j.mp/f78pZ7)

PS: I'm no libertarian socialist. Just pointing out that it does exist.

[hugolp]

Actually:



Wikipedia entry (http://j.mp/f78pZ7)

PS: I'm no libertarian socialist. Just pointing out that it does exist.

Not all forms of libertarian socalism oppose private property as the wikipedia article claims.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

lol? I can't tell you how many times I've been attacked on this forum for making arguments from a poor vs. rich perspective. So many libertarians think that everything is about the state that they get upset when others argue that it's actually about the deeper issue of class warfare (which naturally expresses itself through the state on many occasions). You have people a few threads away on this very forum claiming that blue collar government workers are the "parasites" of our system (which displays an astonishing ignorance of who the system's true victims and parasites are - the poor and the rich, respectively).

Sorry to break it to you, but Marxian Class Analysis is not the only class analysis and as Hugo said, it wasn't even original. Libertarians use the Classical Liberal class analysis which predated Marx's. I think the liberal class analysis is superior because it strikes the root of the issue -- that is who are the net beneficieries and who are the net losers when it comes to taxation and privilege. You talk about the system being the centralizer of resources and you are correct, but you use the wrong analysis to come to a better understanding of who benefits and who loses. Not every rich person abuses the system to the same degree. Would you say that a professional football player abuses the system?

So, you shouldn't really try and paint libertarians as having no class analysis just because we do not use Marx's fallacious Hegelian one.

Interesting that you do not think those who receive more taxes than they pay are not actually parasites. What would you call them then? (You do know that Government worker parasites and large Corporation parasites are not mutually exclusive don't you? Oh that's right you use Marx Class Analysis which is complete and utter trash.)

PS: Bastiat exploded Marx's analysis in Economic Harmonies.

[Gaius1981]

I'm a Palestinian, but I've lived in Dubai, UAE all my life. "El-Baghdadi" is a somewhat common surname in the Arab world, within and outside of Iraq. Our family had lived in Jaffa for as long as we remember (at least seven generations).

After 1948 we were forced out; my dad's family ended up in Egypt, my mom's family in Syria. Don't want to weird you out any more but I'm a bit of Palestinian-Egyptian-Syrian-Jordanian-Iraqi-Kuwaiti-Emarati-Pakistani-Indian.

I was introduced to the US liberty movement through antiwar.com post-911. That was when I first heard of Ron Paul; within a few months I was a determined Ron Paul fan and eventually found these forums and finally discovered that all those things that I believed all my life have a name, "libertarianism".

But as a Palestinian I never really needed to be introduced to the idea of liberty. I've been stateless all my life, but given the kind of "states" around, this can only be a blessing. I take pride in having no master. Did you know we, a stateless "refugee" people, have the highest literacy rate among all Arabs?

Thank you for the thorough reply. I spent a night at a hotel in Dubai 5 weeks ago, when my transfer flight to Melbourne was postponed. It looked like a very beautiful place, and I was impressed by the apparent cleanliness.

Might I also ask if you have written extensively on Israel any place? It would be interesting to read your views on it. :)

[oyarde]

In the course of tweeting the Egyptian revolution, I went from 30 followers on Twitter to 750+, and my Youtube channel went from no subscribers to 150+. Of course, that doesn't bother me, especially that I'm striving to bring a libertarian message to the Middle East's masses.

The problem that's now arising is that some of those "following me" are socialists or even downright communists. There's something about them that loves a "people's revolution", even as it becomes clear this was no "socialist revolution" or "revolution of the proletariat" ("low class citizens" in Egypt don't have Twitter and Facebook accounts).

I really don't have the energy to argue socialism with them, because to me (and to most in the Middle East) it's a book that's been closed a long time ago. The thing is, I don't want to even get into anything with them. I don't think they matter, but I just don't want them polluting my stream.

They aren't a large percentage of my followers, but they're loud.

They are always only , maybe 20 percent , but the loudest ....

[ibaghdadi]

Might I also ask if you have written extensively on Israel any place? It would be interesting to read your views on it. :)
Haven't written about Israel at all really. What would you want to know?