Do you consider yourself to be "conservative"

[r3volution 3.0]

First, I'm still waiting for your rebuttal to my argument re cartels. What's the hold up?

He identified with the label "Classical Liberal" which he may or may not have considered equal to what's now called "minarchy".

Classical liberalism is minarchy - i.e. the state should protect property and do nothing else.

Everyone who called himself a liberal back then (with a handful of exceptions like Gustave di Molinari) was what we today call a minarchist.

All the great economists in the liberal tradition, except Rothbard, were minarchists.

Rothbard pretty much invented anarcho-capitalism in the 1950s.

He's a little too dead to be consulted, so we'll have to find some evidence in his books to find reason to call him a "minarchist". Got some?

Find me one example of Mises proposing the abolition of the state, advocating a stateless society.

The Mises Institute continues to support research and education in this radical pro-freedom tradition of historians, philosophers, economists, and theorists such as Jean-Baptiste Say, Frédéric Bastiat, Richard Cobden, Herbert Spencer, Lysander Spooner, William Graham Sumner, Albert Jay Nock, Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, Rothbard, and others.

Most of whom were minarchists - not to mention Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Turgot, Constant, Cantillon, Pareto, and most everybody else who matters in the liberal tradition.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

LOL, yea...

In their defense, though, the system created by the original Constitution of 1788 is probably the least bad form of democratic government ever devised.

Obviously it would be a huge improvement over the current system. But, yea, we could do even better.

The founders created an aristocratic republic. Modern "rightists" love the republic part, but completely forget about the aristocracy. Leftists just throw out both, and embrace mob rule without reservations.

[r3volution 3.0]

The founders created an aristocratic republic. Modern "rightists" love the republic part, but completely forget about the aristocracy. Leftists just throw out both, and embrace mob rule without reservations.

Quite right. Expansion of the franchise beyond the property-owning classes was perhaps the greatest blunder of all.

[heavenlyboy34]

First, I'm still waiting for your rebuttal to my argument re cartels. What's the hold up?

I don't see it in my rational self-interest to do so. You are very dogmatic about your position and will disagree with any and all evidence I provide to you.

Classical liberalism is minarchy - i.e. the state should protect property and do nothing else.

Read the constitution. That's not the case. The Federalists gave the regime a great deal more power than that required to "protect property".

Everyone who called himself a liberal back then (with a handful of exceptions like Gustave di Molinari) was what we today call a minarchist.

Got proof? That's quite a claim. Classical liberals bickered and nit-picked as much as libertarians do today. I've read a number of classical liberal literature, and not too much agrees with minarchy. Madison is probably as close to a minarchist because he veiled his variety of mercantilism in the parlance and language of classical liberals.

All the great economists in the liberal tradition, except Rothbard, were minarchists.

Proof? Many people who call themselves "minarchists" like very un-liberal economic concepts like slightly mixed economies and cartelization of money in the hands of the federal regime.

Rothbard pretty much invented anarcho-capitalism in the 1950s.

Agreed.

Find me one example of Mises proposing the abolition of the state, advocating a stateless society.

I never claimed he did so. Unless you consider micro-secession a type of State abolition.

Most of whom were minarchists - not to mention Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Turgot, Constant, Cantillon, Pareto, and most everybody else who matters in the liberal tradition.

Proof? They don't use the language of those who call themselves "minarchists". They were distinctly liberal.

[r3volution 3.0]

I don't see it in my rational self-interest to do so. You are very dogmatic about your position and will disagree with any and all evidence I provide to you.

...okay

Regarding classical liberalism, I really don't know what else to say. That classical liberals were calling for minimal government is common knowledge. Read their books, read anything second-hand about classical liberalism. These men wanted government as small as possible, but they did not want it abolished altogether. The few who did (Molinari, Herbert, Spooner, etc) were the exception to the rule: the radical fringe. This is entirely uncontroversial historical fact. None of the prominent anarcho-capitalists today (e.g. Bob Murphy, H.H. Hoppe, Lew Rockwell) would disagree with me. Hell, just google "classical liberalism."

[Brett85]

I used to call myself that, but I don't anymore. The word "conservative" actually means "opposition to change," and I'm in favor of very radical change.

[Carlybee]

All I said was that the education of women caused an IQ shred, which is a purely descriptive claim. I never advocated laws against women's education.

Female suffrage on the other hand is a disaster. I don't think the right to vote is real liberty, not for anyone, but the female electorate has inflicted awful statism on every single country that has given it to them. Other than demotist dogma, what is the point of female suffrage?


I agree, men are the main engine of the feminization of society. It is inevitably men who control what is and is not socially acceptable. Feminism would have been - at most - a single generational curiosity if it wasn't for the hordes of pathetic men who have used it as a mating strategy. It will eventually all collapse in on itself; feminist men rarely get laid, and women are sick of being with guys who are constantly apologizing for their sexuality and genitalia. It's an unsustainable cultural zeitgeist.


I'm of the techno-futurist wing of the neoreaction, so I don't want to go back to any time period, I just want civilization to learn the correct lessons that history has to teach. Sharia is Islamic barbarism, nothing I desire remotely resembles that.

There is no such thing really as a suffrage movement. There are women out there who like to play victim. There are men who like to whine about women. The men who support a feminist agenda are generally uber liberal white guys who support basically any liberal cause and even better if the cause is in support of some minority or another because they think it makes them look enlightened. Not so sure it's so they can get laid...more like they are just basically easily influenced. If you support individualism, gender really doesn't matter. There will always be statists and there have been just as many men behind it as women. You seem to think all women think with some sort of collective brain and frankly you sound a bit naive so I will just leave it at that, but your denigrating remarks are not negated by back pedaling when called on them. Since this forum is basically just one big wienie fest, I realize my voice does not represent a majority viewpoint here.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

There is no such thing really as a suffrage movement. There are women out there who like to play victim. There are men who like to whine about women. The men who support a feminist agenda are generally uber liberal white guys who support basically any liberal cause and even better if the cause is in support of some minority or another because they think it makes them look enlightened. Not so sure it's so they can get laid...more like they are just basically easily influenced.

Obviously there's no suffrage movement now, the franchise is universal. I'm saying that was bad idea that has lead to bad things. I don't like voting, but voting should only go to the landowners, like it was when the Constitution was first ratified.

It is certainly because they're trying to get laid - at least in part. Here's an easy way to illustrate that: I see no evidence to suggest that black males are any harder to influence than any other kind of man, in fact due to their slavish devotion to Obama, they might be somewhat easier. However, self-identified feminists who are also black males are extremely rare. In the urban black community (PC for "ghetto"), the word "bitch" is synonymous with "girl". Go to The Castro and see how that flies. Black female feminists are more common, but still relatively rare compared to their white counterparts. The reason for this seems obvious to me; black men don't need to use it as a mating strategy. No man on Earth likes to prostrate himself and be in a constant state of apology for his "male gaze". There's only one reason a man would suffer such an indignity, and that's the pink gold. Thing is, it' not a very good mating strategy. Trust me, I get way more ass as a radical right winger than I ever did as an "egalitarian".

If you support individualism, gender really doesn't matter.

I support individualism insofar as reality allows. When political/social theory hits reality, reality must win. Choosing theory over objective data, scientific discovery and historical events are what Marxists do. That way lies ruin. The sexes are different, the races are different, and there's a biological basis for both. That's to say nothing of cultural differences, which are also of utmost importance (though less applicable to gender dimorphism). Rothbard once wrote that egalitarianism is a revolt against nature (which it is), lets not turn individualism into the same thing.

There will always be statists and there have been just as many men behind it as women.

Women support statism more than men by every metric you can gauge. There would still be statism without female voters, but it would not be anywhere near the degree it is today. That's just a fact.

You seem to think all women think with some sort of collective brain

Nothing I said implies that even remotely, and I don't think any charitable observer would agree with you. When discussing race, gender or nationality, one is always talking about averages, not every single individual in whatever group is being discussed. Karen de Coster and Wendy McElroy are exceptions, and always will be. The biological nature of political beliefs is something that will be increasingly talked about in the coming years. It will be very controversial, but very enlightening.

and frankly you sound a bit naive so I will just leave it at that,

Ha! Says the broad who has internalized all sorts of horse$#@! egalitarian narratives that the demotist mainstream inflicts on the public. It boggle my mind how many libertarians can question everything that they once thought about the economy, the monetary system, foreign policy and the justice system, but hold mainstream views when it comes to race, gender, culture and demographics. If they didn't tell the truth about the former, why on Earth do you think they told the truth about the latter?

but your denigrating remarks are not negated by back pedaling when called on them. Since this forum is basically just one big wienie fest, I realize my voice does not represent a majority viewpoint here.

I haven't been "back pedaling" (sic) on a thing. I've just corrected your notions that I want laws against female education, advocate going back to the Middle Ages or want to institute any sort of Sharia in the West.

I am a reactionary. I oppose universal suffrage, female suffrage, female leadership, egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, communism and democracy.

I am in favor of tradition, patriarchy, monarchy, hierarchy, aristocracy, capitalism, neo-feudalism, secession, racialism and nationalism.

I don't back down from anything I believe, and I defy anyone to find a single instance of where I've done that.

[LibertyEagle]

I am very right wing, but I specifically identify as a reactionary and traditionalist, not a conservative. There is nothing left to "conserve". The conservatives of today are the progressives of a generation ago. The liberal lurch of democracy necessitates the conservative to constantly move leftward. The creations of the left become the new status quo, which makes conservatives defend it as it become part of the normal societal tapestry. Conservatism is dead. Reaction is the future.

The NEOCONS are the progressives of less than a generation ago; they are little different than their brethren on the other side of the aisle. This is where they came from, after all.

The real conservatives, however, are people who believe in the principles that our country was founded upon. I can't say "preserve" them, as most of them, most Americans sat on their lazy, entitled butts and let them be stomped to death. But, that doesn't change the fact that many of us believe in those principles and want them reinstated.

[LibertyEagle]

...okay

Regarding classical liberalism, I really don't know what else to say. That classical liberals were calling for minimal government is common knowledge. Read their books, read anything second-hand about classical liberalism. These men wanted government as small as possible, but they did not want it abolished altogether. The few who did (Molinari, Herbert, Spooner, etc) were the exception to the rule: the radical fringe. This is entirely uncontroversial historical fact. None of the prominent anarcho-capitalists today (e.g. Bob Murphy, H.H. Hoppe, Lew Rockwell) would disagree with me. Hell, just google "classical liberalism."

Yup, you are exactly right.

[LibertyEagle]

He identified with the label "Classical Liberal", which he may or may not have considered equal to what's now called "minarchy". He's a little too dead to be consulted, so we'll have to find some evidence in his books to find reason to call him a "minarchist". Got some?

He wanted minimal government. He saw a need for it. He damn sure wasn't an anarchist. Call it what you will.

[heavenlyboy34]

...okay

Regarding classical liberalism, I really don't know what else to say. That classical liberals were calling for minimal government is common knowledge. Read their books, read anything second-hand about classical liberalism. These men wanted government as small as possible, but they did not want it abolished altogether. The few who did (Molinari, Herbert, Spooner, etc) were the exception to the rule: the radical fringe. This is entirely uncontroversial historical fact. None of the prominent anarcho-capitalists today (e.g. Bob Murphy, H.H. Hoppe, Lew Rockwell) would disagree with me. Hell, just google "classical liberalism."

I have read their books. There is a difference between minarchism and classical liberalism, even though minarchists typically embrace some classical liberal ideas and rhetoric. (and tend to twist classical liberalism into knots beyond recognition)

Recall I asked you for proof of your claim. If you can't or don't want to do it, fine. Discussion over. I have no desire to do the work you're supposed to be doing as the positive claimant.

[Carlybee]

Obviously there's no suffrage movement now, the franchise is universal. I'm saying that was bad idea that has lead to bad things. I don't like voting, but voting should only go to the landowners, like it was when the Constitution was first ratified.

It is certainly because they're trying to get laid - at least in part. Here's an easy way to illustrate that: I see no evidence to suggest that black males are any harder to influence than any other kind of man, in fact due to their slavish devotion to Obama, they might be somewhat easier. However, self-identified feminists who are also black males are extremely rare. In the urban black community (PC for "ghetto"), the word "bitch" is synonymous with "girl". Go to The Castro and see how that flies. Black female feminists are more common, but still relatively rare compared to their white counterparts. The reason for this seems obvious to me; black men don't need to use it as a mating strategy. No man on Earth likes to prostrate himself and be in a constant state of apology for his "male gaze". There's only one reason a man would suffer such an indignity, and that's the pink gold. Thing is, it' not a very good mating strategy. Trust me, I get way more ass as a radical right winger than I ever did as an "egalitarian".


I support individualism insofar as reality allows. When political/social theory hits reality, reality must win. Choosing theory over objective data, scientific discovery and historical events are what Marxists do. That way lies ruin. The sexes are different, the races are different, and there's a biological basis for both. That's to say nothing of cultural differences, which are also of utmost importance (though less applicable to gender dimorphism). Rothbard once wrote that egalitarianism is a revolt against nature (which it is), lets not turn individualism into the same thing.


Women support statism more than men by every metric you can gauge. There would still be statism without female voters, but it would not be anywhere near the degree it is today. That's just a fact.



Nothing I said implies that even remotely, and I don't think any charitable observer would agree with you. When discussing race, gender or nationality, one is always talking about averages, not every single individual in whatever group is being discussed. Karen de Coster and Wendy McElroy are exceptions, and always will be. The biological nature of political beliefs is something that will be increasingly talked about in the coming years. It will be very controversial, but very enlightening.


Ha! Says the broad who has internalized all sorts of horse$#@! egalitarian narratives that the demotist mainstream inflicts on the public. It boggle my mind how many libertarians can question everything that they once thought about the economy, the monetary system, foreign policy and the justice system, but hold mainstream views when it comes to race, gender, culture and demographics. If they didn't tell the truth about the former, why on Earth do you think they told the truth about the latter?



I haven't been "back pedaling" (sic) on a thing. I've just corrected your notions that I want laws against female education, advocate going back to the Middle Ages or want to institute any sort of Sharia in the West.

I am a reactionary. I oppose universal suffrage, female suffrage, female leadership, egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, communism and democracy.

I am in favor of tradition, patriarchy, monarchy, hierarchy, aristocracy, capitalism, neo-feudalism, secession, racialism and nationalism.

I don't back down from anything I believe, and I defy anyone to find a single instance of where I've done that.

We really have nothing further to discuss. I only go by what you have posted and how I have interpreted it. The fact that you have to keep explaining yourself says a lot. I suspect since you just joined in December that you are either a sock puppet or a shill. And how special to be referred to as a "broad". I'll just leave this here.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

We really have nothing further to discuss. I only go by what you have posted and how I have interpreted it. The fact that you have to keep explaining yourself says a lot. I suspect since you just joined in December that you are either a sock puppet or a shill. And how special to be referred to as a "broad". I'll just leave this here.

Yeah, explaining one's actual positions in the face of misrepresentation is a bad thing... Somehow... Libertarians constantly having to explain to braindead liberals about how they're not Reaganite corporatists reflects badly on libertarians, I guess?

A shill for what? A sock for who? You probably won't answer, but I still have to ask since it's such a bizarre claim. I disagree with the mainstream libertarian ethos on certain issues... so I'm a "shill"? Is that how it works? I'm just the first of the NRx to come to post on this forum, and you'll be seeing a lot more of us in the future. I honestly didn't expect to be the first reactionary on RPF, but here we are. I don't see how that implies I'm a "shill", but whatever.

"Broad" isn't an insult, just an old slang term and it's fun to say. Seriously, try it in you everyday parlance, it just rolls off the tongue.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

The NEOCONS are the progressives of less than a generation ago; they are little different than their brethren on the other side of the aisle. This is where they came from, after all.

The real conservatives, however, are people who believe in the principles that our country was founded upon. I can't say "preserve" them, as most of them, most Americans sat on their lazy, entitled butts and let them be stomped to death. But, that doesn't change the fact that many of us believe in those principles and want them reinstated.

Truth is that most self-identified "conservative" voters don't really identify as neocons or paleocons or libertarian-conservatives. It's a label with increasingly little substance.

The march of democracy is inevitably toward the left. As leftist programs become the status-quo, it becomes the job of "conservatives" to defend them, as they are part of the modern societal patchwork. Most modern day "conservatives" are barely to the right of FDR. Reaction is different (and better) than conservatism, because there is nothing to its right. The idea that something is "too right wing" is not a valid criticism within the NeoReaction. Something can be wrong, based on bad arguments, bad data, bad logic, etc, but never because it's too "extreme" or not leftist enough. There is no mechanism to shift reaction leftward, which is one of the things that puts it apart from conservatism.

[Carlybee]

Yeah, explaining one's actual positions in the face of misrepresentation is a bad thing... Somehow... Libertarians constantly having to explain to braindead liberals about how they're not Reaganite corporatists reflects badly on libertarians, I guess?

A shill for what? A sock for who? You probably won't answer, but I still have to ask since it's such a bizarre claim. I disagree with the mainstream libertarian ethos on certain issues... so I'm a "shill"? Is that how it works? I'm just the first of the NRx to come to post on this forum, and you'll be seeing a lot more of us in the future. I honestly didn't expect to be the first reactionary on RPF, but here we are. I don't see how that implies I'm a "shill", but whatever.

"Broad" isn't an insult, just an old slang term and it's fun to say. Seriously, try it in you everyday parlance, it just rolls off the tongue.

I wouldn't know. I'm not a liberal. It's just your posts remind me of either someone who has been banned and has come back as a sock puppet or a shill for who knows? There are people paid to troll forums. It's just intuition. As for the term broad, I'm well aware of it's origins. You can say anything you like but when you direct it at me and I don't like it, I'm going to say so or just call you a douche..or both. How's that for reactionary? If you said it to my face you might get even more reaction.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I wouldn't know. I'm not a liberal. It's just your posts remind me of either someone who has been banned and has come back as a sock puppet or a shill for who knows? There are people paid to troll forums. It's just intuition. As for the term broad, I'm well aware of it's origins. You can say anything you like but when you direct it at me and I don't like it, I'm going to say so or just call you a douche..or both. How's that for reactionary? If you said it to my face you might get even more reaction.

It's not about what you are, it's about the principle that person A explaining their position after person B makes erroneous assertions does not reflect badly on person A. Also you may not be a liberal, but you've internalized all sorts of leftist narratives. Most people have, but some of us decided to question them without reservation.

Funny, I'm usually one to think "women's intuition" has basis in reality, but I guess you were born without it. I'd ask who I remind you of, but I don't think you could tell me. Some other rube actually accused me of being LibertyEagle in another thread - though maybe I'm just interacting with him to throw you internet detective's off the trail! Is it really so hard to believe that there's someone who differs with the "mainstream" libertarian gestalt wants to post here? The NeoReaction is a loose collection of people, mostly made up of bloggers, along with some economists and historians and (ironically) it lacks any real hierarchy. Do you really think they pay people to post here? Christ, I wish that was the case. Has leftism infected libertarianism to the point where any radical right winger looks like a shill? The termites have burrowed deeper than I imagined, apparently.

"Watch what happens if you say that to my face!" Are you sure you're aren't a liberal?

[Carlybee]

It's not about what you are, it's about the principle that person A explaining their position after person B makes erroneous assertions does not reflect badly on person A. Also you may not be a liberal, but you've internalized all sorts of leftist narratives. Most people have, but some of us decided to question them without reservation.

Funny, I'm usually one to think "women's intuition" has basis in reality, but I guess you were born without it. I'd ask who I remind you of, but I don't think you could tell me. Some other rube actually accused me of being LibertyEagle in another thread - though maybe I'm just interacting with him to throw you internet detective's off the trail! Is it really so hard to believe that there's someone who differs with the "mainstream" libertarian gestalt wants to post here? The NeoReaction is a loose collection of people, mostly made up of bloggers, along with some economists and historians and (ironically) it lacks any real hierarchy. Do you really think they pay people to post here? Christ, I wish that was the case. Has leftism infected libertarianism to the point where any radical right winger looks like a shill? The termites have burrowed deeper than I imagined, apparently.

"Watch what happens if you say that to my face!" Are you sure you're aren't a liberal?

I'm pretty sure I'm not a liberal..possibly some classical liberal ideology. However I don't give much credence to political labels nor do I buy into rhetoric just because it's there. Liberty Eagle is a she not a he. And yes, there are paid shills on a lot of forums and social media...methinks thou doth protest too much. I could care less if you choose to go around espousing right wing radicalism but please stop trying to insult people's intelligence by inferring it's something new and never seen before on this board. And really? "Some other rube"? Is that the male version of a broad?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Do you really think they pay people to post here?

It's fairly common on forums. I do web content. Owners sometimes ask me to create multiple accounts to post on a new forum just to get it rolling. Or, they ask me to post fake reviews of products. They often pay per post or want me to do as part of a package. I always decline that part of the project.

I don't think people like ZippyJuan, PRB, and TheCount necessarily get paid per post. I'd guess that ZippyJuan, for example, just posts from work as part of his job. The other two might do it as part of a larger project with their organizations. I guessed the National Jewish Democratic Council or a similar organization.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I'm pretty sure I'm not a liberal..possibly some classical liberal ideology. However I don't give much credence to political labels nor do I buy into rhetoric just because it's there. Liberty Eagle is a she not a he. And yes, there are paid shills on a lot of forums and social media...methinks thou doth protest too much. I could care less if you choose to go around espousing right wing radicalism but please stop trying to insult people's intelligence by inferring it's something new and never seen before on this board. And really? "Some other rube"? Is that the male version of a broad?

The whole point of reaction is that it is in fact not something new, but something ancient. Buried under piles of modern myth, but inevitable to return and make the natural order known once again. Believe me, I didn't think RPF would take it was something at all novel. I joined this forum and thought that what people would think (if they thought anything at all) was going to be "Another NRx poster... Great..." From what I see though, I'm the first. There are people who agree in part, but I'm the only one who self-identifies with the Dark Enlightenment as far as I've seen. If there are other reactionary posters, great! But I unfortunately don't see them.

[otherone]

There are people who agree in part, but I'm the only one who self-identifies with the Dark Enlightenment as far as I've seen. If there are other reactionary posters, great! But I unfortunately don't see them.

Try here

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

It's fairly common on forums. I do web content. Owners sometimes ask me to create multiple accounts to post on a new forum just to get it rolling. Or, they ask me to post fake reviews of products. They often pay per post or want me to do as part of a package. I always decline that part of the project.

I don't think people like ZippyJuan, PRB, and TheCount necessarily get paid per post. I'd guess that ZippyJuan, for example, just posts from work as part of his job. The other two might do it as part of a larger project with their organizations. I guessed the National Jewish Democratic Council or a similar organization.

I'm not saying that there aren't some groups that do that, I was specifically asking if she thinks the NeoReaction does. The idea of these tiny blogs paying people to post on a Ron Paul forum is just so absurd

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Try here

WNs are not NRx. Some of them want to be, but too bad, because they aren't.

[otherone]

I'm not saying that there aren't some groups that do that, I was specifically asking if she thinks the NeoReaction does. The idea of these tiny blogs paying people to post on a Ron Paul forum is just so absurd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
How difficult do you think it would be for the RNC, DNC, etal to employ people to pose as "neo-reactionaries" to scare off potential Rand supporters?
Do you wonder why Lbertarians and Conservatives are stereotyped as misogynist, racist, hate-filled heartless xenophobes?

[Carlybee]

The whole point of reaction is that it is in fact not something new, but something ancient. Buried under piles of modern myth, but inevitable to return and make the natural order known once again. Believe me, I didn't think RPF would take it was something at all novel. I joined this forum and thought that what people would think (if they thought anything at all) was going to be "Another NRx poster... Great..." From what I see though, I'm the first. There are people who agree in part, but I'm the only one who self-identifies with the Dark Enlightenment as far as I've seen. If there are other reactionary posters, great! But I unfortunately don't see them.

You got that right..it's an archaic mindset other than the embracing of tech. I'm sure there are others who embrace the same archaism. Whether or not they embrace the label who knows...but my point is that much of the ideology is nothing new on here. There are several who espouse returning to the dark ages with regard to social mores. I'm certainly not one of them and will never acquiesce to going back. I can't take seriously much from a gender of people who can't pick their socks up off the floor. I don't call it trying to embrace egalitarianism....just being a realist.

[Carlybee]

I'm not saying that there aren't some groups that do that, I was specifically asking if she thinks the NeoReaction does. The idea of these tiny blogs paying people to post on a Ron Paul forum is just so absurd

I have no clue if they specifically are paying you but that's not to say you aren't doing it for free...going forth to spread the gospel..as it were.

[LibertyEagle]

Truth is that most self-identified "conservative" voters don't really identify as neocons or paleocons or libertarian-conservatives. It's a label with increasingly little substance.

The march of democracy is inevitably toward the left. As leftist programs become the status-quo, it becomes the job of "conservatives" to defend them, as they are part of the modern societal patchwork. Most modern day "conservatives" are barely to the right of FDR. Reaction is different (and better) than conservatism, because there is nothing to its right. The idea that something is "too right wing" is not a valid criticism within the NeoReaction. Something can be wrong, based on bad arguments, bad data, bad logic, etc, but never because it's too "extreme" or not leftist enough. There is no mechanism to shift reaction leftward, which is one of the things that puts it apart from conservatism.

Sure, it has been twisted. Just like the term liberal was twisted long ago. It used to equate to what we call classical liberalism today. And now we have HB attempting to twist classical liberalism in this thread and others.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
How difficult do you think it would be for the RNC, DNC, etal to employ people to pose as "neo-reactionaries" to scare off potential Rand supporters?
Do you wonder why Lbertarians and Conservatives are stereotyped as misogynist, racist, hate-filled heartless xenophobes?

I'm not saying it would be hard, I'm saying there's no reason to think it's happening other than paranoid libertarians who think any deviation from the "mainstream" LP thought is controlled opposition. Do you really think your opinions are so concrete or so sacrosanct that no one could possibly disagree without some sinister plot behind it? For God's sake, Hans-Herman Hoppe is part of the NRx. Do you think "left-libertarians" are funded by the DNC or RNC to make conservatives think libertarianism is synonymous with libertine cultural Marxism?

The NRx doesn't support Rand or any other candidate, and places like Raddish, Rightstuff etc do not label themselves as libertarians or conservatives (certainly not conservatives). I'm an exception, but most of the NRx refuses to even discuss the election. In fact, I can't remember a single prominent NeoReactionary blogger who has spoken out in favor of Rand.

Moreover, what "hateful" things have been said by Nick Land, Moldbug, Michael Anissimov, Bryce Laliberte or any prominent NRx blogger?

[JK/SEA]

oh good...another litmus test thread...

yawn.....

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I have no clue if they specifically are paying you but that's not to say you aren't doing it for free...going forth to spread the gospel..as it were.

I admit that I came here to voice my opinions, and that I do identify with the NRx. I'm just contesting the absurd notion that I'm being told to post here by some individual or group. It's just pure paranoia. If you think I'm a backward, regressive, $#@!, fine, but my opinions are my own.