When will libertarianism rise again?

[Natural Citizen]

For now, the Left is still in total control, as they have been for the past hundred years, though they are getting a bit worried.

I'd say it's the cultural Marxists who are in control. And I doubt they're worried at all, helmuth. After all, they're on both sides of the left/right paradigm.

I'm telling ya, man, watch what happens over the next 10 or 20 years. Heck, probably even 5 at the rate we're going. You're gonna see the cutural Marxists running a new 'libertarian' movement. Mark my words, brother. And we're gonna help them, unfortunately. It's already happening. Speaking only for myself, I'm gradually coming around to the idea that I'm going to have to work against this modern concoction of a 'libertarian' movement. It's not libertarian because it blatantly disregards the most fundamental foundation of traditional libertarianism. And I won't lose a second of sleep about it either. To me, it's becoming a libertine movement under the banner of libertarianism. This is going to be destructive to the very fundamentals of traditional libertarianism. libertinism is patently anti-moral and Individual Liberty's most dangerous aggressor.

You're one of the smart ones, helmuth, so I know that you see this.

[CCTelander]

When liberty finally does come to AmeriKa, and I do believe that it inevitably will, it will be in spite of the so-called "liberty movement," not because of it.

[Natural Citizen]

I'm reminded of a great quote....

".... It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom..."

- Patrick Henry

[BUTSRSLY]

LEFT/RIGHT PARADIGM DOOMSAYERS UNITE!

[Natural Citizen]

LEFT/RIGHT PARADIGM DOOMSAYERS UNITE!

Knock it off, nerd.

[helmuth_hubener]

I'd say it's the cultural Marxists who are in control.

Absolutely. "Cultural Marxists" is a great term, but I'd propose one or two even better ones.

Degenerates. Degeneratarians? They are out to sneer at, take down, and destroy anything lovely and worthwhile in society. Patriarchy. Motherhood. Children. Work Ethic. Thus the word "degeneracy" sums up everything they are about.

Third-worldists. These people hate the first world (hate it!) and are out to make the first-world nations into third world nations. Plain and simple.

I especially like the second term, third-worldist. It cuts through so much confusion and illuminates the truth so much better than "left". What does "left" mean anyway? It's a direction. Meaningless. And too neutral and sterile -- lacks the negative connotation is so richly deserves.

Once you realize they are third-worldists, so many positions and policies that seemed confusing or contradictory before finally make perfect sense. For instance, the third-worldists are all about promoting homosexuality, and yet they're also super-positive toward people who regularly stone and behead homosexuals. What gives? If they hate (hate!) conservative Christianity, how come they love Islam -- did they somehow miss the reality that it is Super-Hyper-Conservative!? Far more conservative than any Christian that you will ever meet except FF/CL (and actually, even than him)? Contradiction! But no, there's no contradiction. Anything to destroy the First-World family is good (thus pro-gay). Anything to flood the First World with worthless Third World peasants is good (thus pro-gay-killers). Anything to destroy First World religion is good; anything to replace it with Third World religion is good.

It's all about making the evil oppressor First World whitey countries into good Third World countries like everybody else. Atonement through suicide.

[r3volution 3.0]

The Ron Paul coalition was the height of the liberty movement to date.

That coalition broke because a huge fraction of its members joined the Trumptard movement.

Some of these deserters were never libertarians in the first place (they jumped from one contrarian to another, oblivious to the differences).

Some were libertarians, who had convicted themselves that "globalism" (free movement of people/goods) is the enemy, rather than the state.

The liberty movement will revive when the deserters return and/or can be replaced by new people.

That won't happen until Trumpery is discredited. Trump himself will be discredited in 4-8 years, guaranteed. We can sit back and wait.

The underlying nationalistic "logic" of his movement may be more durable. We need to actively fight against it.

We have to carve out a third way between the SJWs' bolshevism and the alt-righter's NAZIsm.

Otherwise, the discrediting of one will only benefit the other, not us.

[helmuth_hubener]

Country is roughly 1/4th cuckoo liberal by raw individual numbers, but liberal ideas still dominate the mainstream.

This is such an understatement, you don't even know. America is operating under a system wherein Democrat-Americans rule over Republican-Americans. That is our system of government. The third-worldists are completely, 100% in the driver's seat. They have complete institutional control of the government (and civil service laws ensures this situation is permanent), and complete control of almost all cutural nexi. Almost.

Almost.

And that "almost" is the tiny, splinter-like wedge into which we are going to channel 100 years of rage and drive it into the heart of Theme and their System, their Cathedral. Arm in arm with, yes, cartoon frogs and water filter salesmen, using every tactic of psychological warfare the third-worldists have refined over the past decades, and in fact taking them further. Nothing is off-limits. No holds barred. The "Fake News" uproar is only the very, very beginning. The Right is going to create an entire Fake Reality if we have to. Cognitive science. Hacking the brains of the public. Theye are going to rue the day.

[BUTSRSLY]

Knock it off, nerd.

OK

[BUTSRSLY]

The Ron Paul coalition was the height of the liberty movement to date.

That coalition broke because a huge fraction of its members joined the Trumptard movement.

Some of these deserters were never libertarians in the first place (they jumped from one contrarian to another, oblivious to the differences).

Some were libertarians, who had convicted themselves that "globalism" (free movement of people/goods) is the enemy, rather than the state.

The liberty movement will revive when the deserters return and/or can be replaced by new people.

That won't happen until Trumpery is discredited. Trump himself will be discredited in 4-8 years, guaranteed. We can sit back and wait.

The underlying nationalistic "logic" of his movement may be more durable. We need to actively fight against it.

We have to carve out a third way between the SJWs' bolshevism and the alt-righter's NAZIsm.

Otherwise, the discrediting of one will only benefit the other, not us.

THAT IS CORRECT

[BUTSRSLY]

I'm reminded of a great quote....

".... It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom..."

- Patrick Henry

ANOTHER GREAT QUOTE:

' FIRST THE WHITE MAN BRING RELIGION, THEN THE WHITE MAN BRING GUNS '

[Natural Citizen]

ANOTHER GREAT QUOTE:

' FIRST THE WHITE MAN BRING RELIGION, THEN THE WHITE MAN BRING GUNS '

Good quote. I don't particularly disagree with it from a historical perspective. Throughout history, men who have set the world on fire in the name of religion were not operating under a premise consistent with a spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God. They were not operating in a manner consistent with Natural Law.

Do you know what the difference is between religion and the spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God? There is a difference. . These are two entirely different concepts. One is not the other. The latter is most fundamental to traditional libertarianism. I don't think that you understand the difference because your quote is completely irrelevant of mine. In fact, it made you look confused if you were trying to make a point. Nerd.

[AuH20]

The Ron Paul coalition was the height of the liberty movement to date.

That coalition broke because a huge fraction of its members joined the Trumptard movement.

Some of these deserters were never libertarians in the first place (they jumped from one contrarian to another, oblivious to the differences).

Some were libertarians, who had convicted themselves that "globalism" (free movement of people/goods) is the enemy, rather than the state.

The liberty movement will revive when the deserters return and/or can be replaced by new people.

That won't happen until Trumpery is discredited. Trump himself will be discredited in 4-8 years, guaranteed. We can sit back and wait.

The underlying nationalistic "logic" of his movement may be more durable. We need to actively fight against it.

We have to carve out a third way between the SJWs' bolshevism and the alt-righter's NAZIsm.

Otherwise, the discrediting of one will only benefit the other, not us.

You're looking at this all the wrong way. You seem obsessed with finding a rare, mythical blade of incredible craftsmanship, which to combat the status quo, when a hefty stone will do. Tyranny is entrenched here and it's wellspring is international, especially if you track their machinations in the early 1900s. Until we rid ourselves of this international consortium of schemers, neither of our ideas of liberty can be realized.

[r3volution 3.0]

You're looking at this all the wrong way. You seem obsessed with finding a rare, mythical blade of incredible craftsmanship, which to combat the status quo, when a hefty stone will do. Tyranny is entrenched here and it's wellspring is international. Until we rid ourselves of this international consortium of schemers, neither of our ideas of liberty can be realized.

That's directly contradicted by the facts.

Our problems result from the US government's policies, as enacted by the people native-born Americans have elected over the years.

We did this to ourselves; it wasn't done to us by some nebulous "international consortium of schemers."

[AuH20]

That's directly contradicted by the facts.

Our problems result from the US government's policies, as enacted by the people native-born Americans have elected over the years.

We did this to ourselves; it wasn't done to us by some nebulous "international consortium of schemers."

Nope. It's pretty much factual. Research the Warburgs & Kuhn Loebs and their immeasurable influence on the American system of govt at the turn of the 20th century. Examine the reach of Cecil Rhodes and his Britishcentric group RIIA that eventually carved out it's own domain with the Council on Foreign Relations. These internationalists provided the poison and the domestic populace willfully consumed it.

[otherone]

Country is roughly 1/4th cuckoo liberal by raw individual numbers, but liberal ideas still dominate the mainstream.

The country is 95% statist. The particular breed is immaterial. A pig is a pig. Americans worship the United State of America. Until that icon is broken, nothing can change.

[r3volution 3.0]

Nope. It's pretty much factual. Research the Warburgs and their immeasurable influence on the American system of govt at the turn of the century. These internationalists provided the poison and the domestic populace willfully consumed it.

I'm aware of the Warburgs, Rothschilds, etc. That doesn't make your case that the source of our problems is international. The basic flaw in your reasoning is that those people caused damage because they were foreign or that, absent them, the kinds of agenda they were pushing wouldn't have been pushed. But they would have been, just the same, by all the native-born American cronies doing exactly the same thing. Rockefeller? Cabot? Lodge? Aldrich? Bush? It's like you come home to find a wild animal in your house, say a squirrel, and conclude that the problem is squirrels, rather than you leaving the door open - if not squirrels, some other animal would have shown up. Given our political system, it's inevitable that people like Warburg, Rockefeller, etc will capture government and use it for their own ends, whatever their country of origin.

[otherone]

It's like you come home to find a wild animal in your house, say a squirrel, and conclude that the problem is squirrels, rather than you leaving the door open - if not squirrels, some other animal would have shown up.

What if someone sends you a box full of squirrels, and there's you, walking around naked at 3 am.

[r3volution 3.0]

For anyone confused by this, it's a reference to another, unrelated thread...

What if someone sends you a box full of squirrels, and there's you, walking around naked at 3 am.

If the squirrels were people, they'd be liable for the theft/vandalism despite the owner's stupidity in leaving the door open.

But, you know, they aren't, can't sue a squirrel, so...

[BUTSRSLY]

What if someone sends you a box full of squirrels, and there's you, walking around naked at 3 am.

YOU MUST BE MY NEIGHBOR, AND I ACCEPT THAT THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM IS MY HAVING LEFT OPEN THE WINDOW

[AuH20]

I'm aware of the Warburgs, Rothschilds, etc. That doesn't make your case that the source of our problems is international. The basic flaw in your reasoning is that those people caused damage because they were foreign or that, absent them, the kinds of agenda they were pushing wouldn't have been pushed. But they would have been, just the same, by all the native-born American cronies doing exactly the same thing. Rockefeller? Cabot? Lodge? Aldrich? Bush? It's like you come home to find a wild animal in your house, say a squirrel, and conclude that the problem is squirrels, rather than you leaving the door open - if not squirrels, some other animal would have shown up. Given our political system, it's inevitable that people like Warburg, Rockefeller, etc will capture government and use it for their own ends, whatever their country of origin.

Domestic cronies are mere symptoms of the problem when you're dealing international benefactors with near limitless resources. Why do you think Russia is so defensive today, after enduring it's own horrific identity crisis at the hands of the internationally financed Bolsheviks?

These corrosive ideologies are specifically being wielded to break down the cultural identities of the native populaces and bend them to the will of the said international community. There is no such thing as a libertarian or conservative oriented solution in the lexicon of the international community.

[otherone]

These corrosive ideologies are specifically being wielded to break down the cultural identities of the native populaces and bend them to the will of the said international community.

Are you trying to say Russia is culturally homogeneous?

[AuH20]

Are you trying to say Russia is culturally homogeneous?

No. It's far too large for that distinction. But it does have a distinct Christian Orthodox foundation.

[r3volution 3.0]

Domestic cronies are mere symptoms of the problem when you're dealing international benefactors with near limitless resources. Why do you think Russia is so defensive today, after enduring it's own horrific identity crisis at the hands of the internationally financed Bolsheviks?

Had no Warburg et al ever been born, US politics would have played out exactly the same way.

Only the identity of the malefactors would be different.

Your implicit assumption that American bigwigs, sans foreign influence, would have, what, become libertarians (?) is ridiculous.

These corrosive ideologies are specifically being wielded to break down the cultural identities of the native populaces and bend them to the will of the said international community.

Your assumption that a people's cultural identify must be broken down before it will accept tyranny is obviously false.

A people's cultural identity may affects which particular state iy allows to tyrannize it.

e.g. Tartars in Russia may be less willing to submit to the Russian state, but not more anti-state in general

[AuH20]

Had no Warburg et al ever been born, US politics would have played out exactly the same way.

Only the identity of the malefactors would be different.

Your implicit assumption that American bigwigs, sans foreign influence, would have, what, become libertarians (?) is ridiculous.

Not at such an accelerated pace. This rapid deployment towards full bore statism at the turn of the 20th century did not happen by chance.

Your assumption that a people's cultural identify must be broken down before it will accept tyranny is obviously false.

When one forgets who they are, they never question where they are going. The cleansing of the cultural memory bank is essential in any successful reconditioning program. Once the state replaces the family and erases loyalty to the lessons of the past, anything is possible.

[r3volution 3.0]

This rapid deployment towards full bore statism did not happen by chance.

It happened because the political system makes it inevitable.

When one forgets who they are, they never question where they are going. The cleansing of the cultural memory bank is essential in any successful reconditioning.

A. That assumes that contained in the "cultural memory bank" are libertarian ideas. I see no evidence of that.

B. Any "reconditioning" can just as well be done by a native regime as by a foreign one. Maoist China is a perfect example.

[euphemia]

The height of the liberty movement was the Revolutionaylry War. There has been no true liberty in my lifetime.0

[Natural Citizen]

The height of the liberty movement was the Revolutionary War. There has been no true liberty in my lifetime.0

Agreed.

I do, however, find myself harboring an increasing respect for the anti-federalists of the time.

[William Tell]

And don't keep saying it's to educate people. If we were educating people, we would have a discernable identity. We don't. The people who scream the loudest on this forum about rights are the very first ones to shout down any legitimate libertarian argument when it comes down to liberty issues.

The cake is one example. Cannabis is another. Until libertarians carve out some sort of liberty identity, they will continue to fail.

You can't make a legitimate libertarian argument in favor of forcing people to bake a cake. Neither can you make a libertarian argument in favor of banning a plant, you can advocate locking people up for possessing a leaf all you want but its not libertarianism.

Its not Christian either for that matter, preventing people with life threatening seizures from getting treatment that works.

[NewRightLibertarian]

When the economy takes a dump again, if we're lucky.

Lots of damage has been done to the movement and it's bigger than just Trump