Has /pol/ always resembled its current form; i.e. traditionalist and totalitarian?
I recall someone on here saying that it used to have a large libertarian slant (almost 2/3 posters) just a few years ago.
It's hard to imagine /pol/sters advocating the free movement of people and the complete social freedom of every individual to do what they like, dress how the like and act as the like.
What changed?
>>69734900
/pol/ had traditionalist and autocratic elements before but they are more pronounced now and for good reason (because they are correct)
I was just arguing with a /k/faggot who said illegal mexican immigrants deserve 2nd amendment rights.
Libertarianism is a an absolute joke
>>69734900
Pol's desire to have freedom was eclipsed by its hatred of degeneracy and SJW's.
Does anyone remember /new/?
Based board. You got your shit pushed in if you started a discussion without knowing anything. Everything was civil and did have a liberterian slant. There was ACTUAL news going on and discussed.
Then it got popular and stormfront shitted the board up and we got /pol/.
>Is it true that /pol/ used to have a large libertarian slant?
Yes.
>Has /pol/ always resembled its current form; i.e. traditionalist and totalitarian?
/pol/ has always been very conservative, but generally very libertarian. /pol/ is still pretty libertarian, but the support for Trump clouds that. The one area /pol/ has traditionally been authoritarian is that it's been nationalist and pro-borders, but other than that /pol/ has been quite libertarian (and still is, but it's not as apparent as it used to be).>I recall someone on here saying that it used to have a large libertarian slant (almost 2/3 posters) just a few years ago.
Yes, and I think most /pol/acks still do hold libertarian values. It's basically "We can have the cunt Shillary or we can have Donald Trump, who is a bit more authoritarian than we like, but other than that is pretty cool, so let's support him even though he's not 100% perfect." Once the election is over and the Trump hype dies down I think the libertarianism will be more apparent here.
>It's hard to imagine /pol/sters advocating the free movement of people and the complete social freedom of every individual to do what they like, dress how the like and act as the like.
/pol/ has always been against degeneracy, but the stance has typically been "drugs are degenerate, you shouldn't use them, but it's a personal choice" and "homosexuality is degenerate, we don't like homosexuality, but homosexuality should not be illegal because even though it's degenerate, it's a personal choice".
tl;dr /pol/ is libertarian in general, but also nationalist, and the one area that /pol/ is not very libertarian is regarding borders and immigration
>>69734900
I think most of us were libertarian until we realized that libertarianism only works with white westerners with a common cultural and ideological background. Putting niggers and Muslims into the mix just enures that any libertarian model is immediately broken once you add niggers.
Gun rights? Niggers commit mass gang shootings.
No fences or borders? Niggers immediately flood those areas and drive whites out.
Libertarianism is a pipe dream that cannot be achieved any any divided society. Race and culture absolutely matter and if you don't take care of your own race and culture, trodden upon and consumed by other races and cultures.
God I hate autistic libertarians.
>>69734900
pol has changed so much really
Only like 2 years ago, pol was literally /nazi/, then moot did some fucking around and all the nazi's left or changed stance. Now there's maybe only 1 or 2 Nazi threads at a time, and sometimes none at all, though we still have that general right wing feel.
Libertarian were never the majority but were always making a few threads here and there, they had some amount of support here but they all seemed to jump ship at some point.
>>69734900
Alt right are just libertarians with balls
>>69734900
Libertarians have no solution when the kikes buy up the media and pump degeneracy into our homes.
>>69736049
Two years ago /pol/ was National Socialist, Libertarian, Anarchist, and Communists. Or a mixture of those elements at least.
>>69735106
That's because /k/umeaters are beholden to the gun lobby like the NRA, who are beholden to the Gun manufacture industry. Got to keep that culture of fear alive so people keep buying their product.
Ron Paul support was the libertarian side of /pol/, the original "happening" was him winning the nomination, which of course /pol/ was wrong about.
>>69736049
When you're a white nationalist and you grow up a little, you realize that proclaiming that you're a nazi makes people immediately disregard what you have to say.
So you have to change your approach and softly redpill people. I really think /pol/ grew up or the real 1488's fucked off to some hugbox where they could pretend to be badasses somewhere else.
I'm an ancap and still have been. You fascists are also leftists because you want to steal my paychecks.
You deserve bullets just like the commies.
>>69736442
*Always
>>69734900
>What changed?
Those people left, guess where
When did /pol/ turn into a republican / Conservashill hivemind board that endorses republicans ?
>>69736425
>I really think /pol/ grew up or the real 1488's fucked off to some hugbox where they could pretend to be badasses somewhere else.
2(2+2)chan
>>69734900
Because the globalist kill straight white men agenda has advanced so fast in the last few years that it's obvious we need a hard reactionary movement and a massive day of the rope to literally save our people. As redpilled as /pol/ is, reality just keeps getting worse and teaching us harsher truths.
>>69734900
Newfag leave.
>>69734900
Back then there were a lot more commies. I mean a LOT of them. Everyday was a daily reminder commie thread.
Libertarians were the next big thing, because they are gullible cucks.
>>69734900
I think alot more of /pol/ would be ok with libertarianism or something akin to it in a fully white society but it just doesn't work otherwise so we've become authoritarian, especially with whats been happening
/pol/ is ideally libertarian and practically conservative.
Just like SJW are ideally communist and practically liberal.
Both are utopian ideals that don't work in real life.
>>69736221
The whole board turned on me.
I never argued against the 2nd amendment for Americans, I support that.
I made the argument that illegals should be put in a truck and sent back. They responded by saying firearms are a basic human right and no "imaginary line in the sand" shall infringe on that.
This is why libertarians are seen as a joke. They have some great ideas but some of them believe in pure lawlessness. Move to fuckin Somalia you can own RPGs and landmines there
>>69734900
>>69736511
pol was split between libertarian and nativist originally
the libertarian presence was due to how the republican party during the time of Romney was a complete joke
>>69734900
/new/ was libertarian in the extreme and /pol/ started that way but when Ron Paul failed to show up in the election the autocrats and other assorted faggots came out of the woodwork and Neo/pol/ was born
Neo/pol/ will limp on until Bernie wins the election and then shift from the volume of butt hurt generated
>>69736511
There's been shills all over this board forever. At times I would say there are more shills than actual posters.
>>69734900
I've been here since 2012, it's always been "gas the likes race war now".
If anything, before we had more extreme threads.
>>69737088
*kikes
Fucking autocorrect
>>69736979
Technically they're right. Illegals shouldn't have guns, but nor should gun dealers be performing background checks. Ideally the gun dealer would not be aware of whether his customer was in the US legally or not.
All firearms need to be properly regulated
>>69735976
/pol/ is contrarian.
Also, /pol/ is always right.
You will mislead yourself if you think you can frame /pol/ into some coherent political ideology. It's a bit more subtle than that. Appreciate it and become excited.
>>69736511
/pol/ doesn't like establishment republicans. The posters that do are shills.
The reality of a small government which isn't there to make gestures towards solving their problems (no matter how little they actually accomplish) terrifies people.
You'll have a million men stand there and declare loudly, "give me liberty or give me death", but when the first gunshot is fired, half of them step back. When the second gunshot is fired, the remaining half notice that the first half is missing and half of them step back. When the third gunshot hits and blows a hole in the face of the remaining quarter's buddy, half of them step back again.
The ones who fleed the battlefield silently submit and then they rationalize it by calling the few who stayed the course stupid, rather than courageous.
And thus the American Experiment failed.
>>69737411
Not even backround checks though. You need an idea to buy smokes or liquor why the hell not for a gun? Pablo has no ID so no gun.
And the argument they were making was even if they knew they were illegal they should still get guns.
>>69734900
/pol/ politically was always antiestablisment
Politically Libertarianism dominated (read paleolibetarians not beltway ie mises not reason or cato)
But socially within private live /pol/ was very tradionalist/conservative
It's why Ron Paul was beloved.
>>69734900
Stormfront began to use the board as recruiting grounds. Eventually some of their ideas stuck.
>>69734900
Yes, but then Reddit started thinking libertarianism was cool and so everyone had to become Nazis because le epic 4chan counter culture.
>>69736511
Have you seen this election? Everyone loves Trump and no one hated Carson but they hate Cruz/Bush/Rubio/Kasich etc
>>69737811
Thank you for your work, Bob. One (1) shekel has been deposited into your PayPal™ account.
>>69734900
I always figured it was 2/3rds Libertarian and 1/3rds Nazi. But the Nazis here tend to be way more gay than regular Nazis. But maybe I simply spent too many days in the /lgbt/pol/ threads.
I don't think much has actually changed other than the language/memes we use in our guerrilla communication
Not to blog, but it's weird, I came here a bleeding heart liberal trap and came out a Nazi trap. Makes you think.
>>69736049
This is really true. I allmost forgot that whole period where moot just fucked up this board, but it did have a huge number of nazi threads around that time, i think 2013 or so.
>>69738227
Why do you constantly convince yourself that the government could ever save you from Jews?
Save yourself, coward.
>>69738082
/pol/ is basically a bunch of kike-hating libertarians. And has been since the beginning.
>inb4 we hate sandniggers too
Sandniggers are kikes, see pic related.
>>69734900
i'm libertarian, but the shit trump offers is more important to me than small government
>>69736877
>tripfag calling ANYONE a cuck
>>69735106
You get banned for "racism" on /k/
Lot of ex-military people who were brainwashed into marxist ideologies too
>>69738337
I think you need to re-read my post, anon. Another anon/shill talked shit about libertarianism so I called him out for shilling. I never said the government should save us from kikes.
>>69737862
Why should guns, liquor, and tobacco be different from any other product? It's no of the governments buisness. While I do have my problems with Illegals its important to remember that the constitution doesn't establish or give rights. It's merely protects an individuals natural rights. So arguing when rights people do and do not have don't start with the constitution but refer back the principles it was founded on.
Note: I'm not debating on what should be done with illegals just that using the second amendment is a non starter for the issue
>>69734900
yes I fell for the lolbertarian meme when I was a teenager. Even voted for Johnson.
but it's mostly really gay or else dude weed lmao
I'd like things like prostitution legalized but that's about it. Otherwise build wall
Actually I think the swing to right-wing conservatism could also have been very influenced by the recent immigration and terrorism crisis. At least the for the EU posters and that may have flown over to the American posters. About 3 years ago this board was indeed very libertarian.
you can't have open borders and a welfare state
all arguments that libertarians support open borders needs to be debunked with this
>>69738352
I think this is the stance most true /pol/acks (as in, not the shills or the newfags from reddit) take. Libertarian ideologically but also realize that the libertarian party has an extremely small chance at the 2016 election so Trump is next best. Libertarian party will grow over the next 4 years and in 2020 /pol/ will use meme magick to meme Gary Johnson (or another libertarian) into office.
>>69738347
The Jew hate on /pol/ was always satirical.
>>69738427
>talked shit about libertarianism
If that little battlefield story doesn't reinforce your spine and make you want to blow shit up and kill liberals, then you're probably not a libertarian.
/pol/ was mostly made up of libertarians albeit more right-leaning libertarians and paleoconservatives. Still is desu
>>69736161
How about less regulations on broadcasting so you can make your own anti-jewish media?
Five years ago there were threads in support of Occupy Wall Street...
>>69738609
>le /pol/ is satire meme
/pol/ got a little older.
>>69734900
>It's hard to imagine /pol/sters advocating the free movement of people
thats not what /pol/ was advocating. jesus christ
i mean jesus fucking christ
fuck you guys
Just because a country has a libertarian government does NOT mean it is open borders with completely free trade in all forms. libertarian values for your country with laws to protect your country from foreign elements. Libertarianism is not anarchy you dense fucking neanderthal fucks. /pol/ was libertarian leaning at the time because most of us supported ron paul. moot even made /pol/ have a ron paul theme at the time with a ron paul stickied thread. Ron paul advocated protecting the usa borders from "mexican intellectuals".
>>69738567
This too. As I previously said, /pol/ has traditionally been libertarian *with the exception* of many /pol/acks being pro-border. And with the immigration crisis, all the more so. Some /pol/acks take the stance that while libertarianism is ideal, we *currently*, temporarily need strict border control until the immigration crisis is over.
>>69738572
Libertarians don't support a welfare state, fucktard. Libertarians support open borders and getting rid of welfare entirely (other than voluntary charity-based welfare obviously).
>>69738609
It's half-satirical.
The satire element is only present to highlight the obvious.
When you start hanging around because the jokes are so funny, you find yourself seeing more and more shit that's not so funny anymore.
>>69738609
No it wasn't and isn't. /pol/ doesn't automatically hate someone just for being born a jew, but /pol/ hates israel and zionism and the kikes that run the banks etc. Always has and always will.
>>69738614
He basically said that libertarians are scared hypocrites who will run at the first sign of danger and that libertarianism doesn't work because of that. If I took his post wrong, then okay, maybe he's not a shill. But I certainly took it to be anti-libertarian. Not necessarily anti-libertarian ideologically, but anti-libertarian practically.
>>69738614
By the way, "liberals" are not the same as poltically correct SJW fags. "Liberal", in the true sense of the word, means someone who values liberty. It means exactly the same as libertarian. Of course the word "liberal" has been very corrupted and distorted in contemporary politics, but the SJWs, democrats, PC fags, etc are absolutely not liberal in the true sense of the word.
>>69738987
>He basically said that libertarians are scared hypocrites who will run at the first sign of danger and that libertarianism doesn't work because of that.
I was that poster and my IP address is changing constantly because of a shitty connection.
I'm a Libertarian myself.
It was reverse-psychological Libertarian propaganda, both meant to mock and inspire.
>>69734900
>>69735782
the history of pol is incomplete without understanding what happened on reddit. When they killed coonstown and other subs like that, those faggots came here and really stank the shit up. They coming here seem to signal to the rest of their ilk that pol is for them.
I always imagine it to be similar to what happened in small white towns being over run by blacks. The first come, they like it. They then tell a few of their cucks how great it is, and then they decided to stay and it just balloons from there.
so yeah, the stormcucks came and invited their friends and they are with us and pol has changed.
>>69738776
the libertarian movement has been completely co opted by the globalists. NOW the libertarians are all rich people who think they should get to piddle little boys and bring in foreign workers by the boat load and have no taxes etc.
being a libertarian used to just mean follow the constitutional laws with as little gov as possible while still having enough government to perform a few fundamental functions (like protecting the country from foreign elements). It was all about keeping the country from meddling in foreign countries affairs unnecessarily (ie no wars for wallstreets benifit) and waging war on them and to have laws to protect the country from foreign elements.
>>69734900
You can't have open borders and a welfare state.
When people started calling for a welfare state, libertarians called for closed borders.
Now you have trumpeteers to counter the bernouts.
You either haven't read anything on /pol/ in the past 3 years or this is a slide thread.
>>69734900
well i am a libertarian and browse /pol/
>free movement of people
i am against "free movement" of people into my country
>>69734900
desu i think alot of us are still are...we are just chimping out at a threat pouring in that seeks to undermine those values
and i think also people have lost faith in the left and have took the redpill.
>>69739306
>stormcucks
>>69734900
It's normal that people are afraid of freedom /pol/ is just more extreme.
>>69739138
I understand what a classical liberal is.
In the modern mainstream narrative, the "SJW" crowd genuinely perceives themselves as fighting against an oppressive white establishment. They call themselves "liberals" as opposed to "conservatives". I realize that the words themselves have a different meaning but I use it in a general way to refer to everything opposed to conservatism.
The conservatives would just as easily pipe down if the "liberals" weren't constantly trying to impose on their way of life.
libertarians are still here.
when this authoritarian trend ends we will come roaring back desu
>>69739454
thats rich panjeet...if only we could say the same about you guys coming in xD
>>69739518
>the reddit exodus of our ilk never happned. we was always one of you guys.
>>69739609
>if only we could say the same about you guys coming in xD
that is your problem. you are the ones taking them in
not us
>>69739354
this is infowars tier shit.
>>69734900
Libertarians grow up and get jobs and friends, and remain libertarian, but have less time to post on here because of jobs and friends. That's why /pol/ used to see a lot of libertarian posters. They've since taken their libertarian beliefs to more adult centers. All that remains are the neets and stormfags, who have neither jobs or friends to distract them from spewing their commie or racist propaganda, respectively.
>>69739692
>unironically uses storm-anything
>calls me reddit
o i'm laffin
>>69738388
Yep, cause the military is a socialist institution. Think of it this way: Paid not by skill but by rank and time in service, low pay, subsidized childcare, single payer healthcare, subsidized schooling (GI bill)
>>69739138
its not corrupted
that word came about in opposition to tyrannical nations. America was a liberal nation.
conservatives want to conserve the liberal values. liberals wanna be even more liberal and fuck it all up
>>69734900
Circumstances and events have overtaken us. Most of us here used to be libertarians but it has been plainly shown to us over these last few years that our civilization is under attack both internally and externally.
We need to stop playing around and get our hands dirty again. There's no room for altruism in this world.
>>69739783
100% true. The old fags gone on with life, and it doesn't help that pol is sort of aligned by nature of this anime board, to the stormcucks.
the saddest shit about stormcucks is that they are literally spending their time in a losing ideology.
>>69739236
In that case, I apologize for accusing you of being a shill. And your post is kind of right, I just took it as being intended to discourage libertarianism and to suggest it doesn't work.
>>69739306
Yeah, redditors and stormfags are definitely part of it. But I think more than that even is that the immigration crisis and Trump are at the forefront of politics right now so the underlying libertarian ideology of /pol/ is less apparent right now.
>>69739354
Globalists try to co-opt everyone and everything that they perceive as a threat. It doesn't change what libertarianism is though.
>>69739400
Solution: Get rid of welfare, open the borders.
>>69739481
This.
>>69739561
Liberal is the opposite of authoritarian. Conservative is the opposite of progressive. Someone can be liberal and conservative at the same time (and, using the true definition of the word liberal, /pol/ is pretty liberal and pretty conservative simultaneously). The two are not mutually exclusive.
Of course I understand that you're using the modern version of the word liberal. My problem with that is that it perpetuates that version of the word liberal, and since liberal is taken from the word "liber" which means free, and sounds like libertarian and liberty, it leads people to think that the democrat "liberals" value freedom. And that's a big part of why the democrats/SJWs are so powerful right now. They are liberal/libertarian on a few issues like gay rights, they use that as justification to call themselves liberals. When really they should be called progressives, not liberals.
Not saying this to argue with you, but rather to make the point that they are progressive, not liberal, and the continued references to them as "liberals" can strengthen them because of the positive connotations of words like "liberal" and "liberty".
>>69740093
>hurr stormcuck, stormfag, stormfront
Could you sound anymore like a little faggot?
Oh wait you're still a libertarian, nevermind
>>69739873
Don't forget "paid with tax money".
>>69739926
>liberals wanna be even more liberal
This is where you're wrong. They want to be liberal on some issues like gay rights. But they want high taxes/welfare state/muh programs, gun control, etc. None of that stuff is liberal.
>>69739783
Pretty accurate.
>>69740185
>Get rid of welfare, open the borders.
I'd rather have communism with borders than capitalism without.
The reason libertarianism is fucking shit is it's a purely materialistic ideology. Literally all that matters to them is money and wealth. It completely absolves itself of making any sort of moral or ethical argument.
I don't hold material goods and an abstract sense of "wealth" or "economy" as the highest value. I hold community and culture above that. That's why I'm a nationalist.
Libertarians and socialists are two sides of the same coin in my mind.
>>69740278
>le reddit is where i came, le pol is not an anime board
don't be offended that we have a name for your kind. we sort of know your history. I mean, seriously, I thought it was only a jew who despises getting called a jew.
>>69740185
also gamergate, it sort of made pol, and our realm the anti- on to the SJW fucks.
>>69734900
Most of us used to be libertarians.
Then we grew up.
>>69734900
where do you tihnk the ran paul memes came from?
Still plenty of libretarians here, though many of them were revealed to be neocons
>>69740522
>I'd rather have communism with borders than capitalism without.
It's not just about communism vs capitalism. A true libertarian society would have aspects of capitalism and aspects of socialism (though of course it would be voluntary socialism, not shit like tax-funded welfare).
>The reason libertarianism is fucking shit is it's a purely materialistic ideology. Literally all that matters to them is money and wealth. It completely absolves itself of making any sort of moral or ethical argument.
You clearly have no understanding of what libertarianism is based on. It's not based on property rights or free market capitalism, it's based on natural rights (including private property rights and the right to trade freely, but not centered around those rights specifically).
>>69740635
>don't be offended
>u mad
Really?
>we sort of know your history.
Kek, this is priceless coming from such an obvious newfag little shit.
''In a libertarian Utopia...'' threads rekt libertarians so they left
>>69740635
>we
newfag detected
Captain, listen, Libertarianism works but the government has to have a tiny bit of input. Not a whole lot, just keep a minimal police force (not too much because that's just retarded) and a military to keep the outsiders out.
>>69740278
the response to divide and conquer is not to be even more divisive
>>69740522
>Literally all that matters to them is money and wealth.
source?
>It completely absolves itself of making any sort of moral or ethical argument
source?
>they hold material goods and an abstract sense of "wealth" or "economy" as the highest value
source?
>>69735106
That's not a libertarian ideal, dummy.
>>69735389
Dude - the racism was at the core since even /n/. It's always been an key part of board culture.
>>69740803
The issue of borders is where libertarianism falls apart, though, surely? The logic is fairly simple: if Western countries declare that their borders are open, large numbers of migrants from Africa and the Middle-East will move to the West, essentially outbreed us and then use democracy against us. How many Muslims and sub-saharan Africans do you think will prioritize "liberty" over their religious beliefs?
A lot of us were libertarians, but we're in a bit of a stronger fight than libertarians can handle. I still wish for a libertarian society, but I want my own culture and I kind of lament ~100 years ago when they had it. I've taken a lot more authoritarian elements recently because I think that it's the only way to set our society back on track before focusing on libertarian stuff again. There's a lot of problems to deal with, and our people need to deal with them now.
>Autistic kiddos turn libertarian because m'social darwinism and can't understand social interactions.
>Kiddos grow up, go out into the real world and get hit in the face with the reality brick and fail to become the titans of industry they thought themselves to be.
>Blame brown people and everyone else except than the core of their ideology.
>4chan and pol turn into a hate fest. This attracts actual psychopaths and NPD's who use the hate fest for mental masturbation.
>Anyone capable of engaging in constructive discourse has left at this point, except to pop in every now and then to gawk at the spectacle of mental retardation.
THIS IS A MOVEMENT! WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER TO THE VIOLENCE AND THREATS FROM THE FASCIST LEFT. THE WORLD NEEDS TRUMP, RIGHT NOW...! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a3n45oqSwOI
>>69734900
Just a lethal dose of stormfags.
First /new/ and now /pol/ have always been a melting pot.
The two dominant ideologies have always been libertarianism and fascism.
/pol/ is first and foremost reactionary.
So as modern politics has shifted more toward liberalism /pol/ has shifted more toward fascism/traditionalism
>>69741416
It is because in times of universal deciet it is revolutionary to tell the truth. The old libertarians have realized that if change is to come it must be by force. The same thing happened to our founding fathers.
>>69741411
Libertarianism is about liberty. In an ideal world, libertarianism would mean open borders. In the real world, at least in the CURRENT YEAR, libertarianism would mean that borders exist for exactly the reason you stated: If open borders would result in religious extremists coming in and fucking with everyone, then a libertarian would support borders to protect liberty within the country and keep out those people that would undermine the country's liberty. Of course immigration would still exist (just as it does now), there would be ways to get citizenship. The borders would basically be to keep out the sandnigger muslim extremists. The people that just want to live in this country would be welcome to, but there would be no welfare state for them to leech off of.
Libertarianism is incompatible with the increasing negroification of western civilization
>>69741693
CTRL+F 'Hoppe'
[0 of 0]
If only you knew just how fash libertarianism can get.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38K9X5PMLRU
>>69741904
READ HOPPE:
>>69741936
>>69741865
Not true.
>>69741936
Libertarianism is a stepping stone to the true redpill, fascism. If you go to far you come out a retard who thinks Monarchy is good.
As long as you agree globalism is bad and that most people are not fit to lead you have taken most of the redpill.
>>69740869
>>69740984
stormcucks, most definitely
>>69742018
Daily Reminder
Libertarianism gets very fash really fast.
>>69741269
Explain.
What politically ideology believes guns are a universal human right?
RIGHT-WING POPULISM:1
January 1992
Well, they finally got David Duke. But he sure scared the bejesus out of them. It took a massive campaign of hysteria, of fear and hate, orchestrated by all wings of the Ruling Elite, from Official right to left, from President Bush and the official Republican Party through the New York-Washington-run national media through the local elites and down to local left-wing activists. It took a massive scare campaign, not only invoking the old bogey images of the Klan and Hitler, but also, more concretely, a virtual threat to boycott Louisiana, to pull out tourists and conventions, to lose jobs by businesses leaving the state. It took a campaign of slander that resorted to questioning the sincerity of Duke's conversion to Christianity – even challenging him to name his "official church." Even my old friend Doug Bandow participated in this cabal in the Wall Street Journal, which virtually flipped its wig in anti-Duke hysteria, to the extent of attacking Duke for being governed by self-interest(!) – presumably in contrast to all other politicians motivated by deep devotion to the public weal? It took a lot of gall for Bandow to do this, since he is not a sacramental Christian (where one can point out that the person under attack was not received into the sacramental Church), but a pietist one, who is opposed to any sort of official creed or liturgy. So how can a pietist Christian challenge the bona fides of another one? And in a world where no one challenges the Christian credentials of a Chuck Colson or a Jeb Magruder? But logic went out the window: for the entire Establishment, the ruling elite, was at stake, and in that sort of battle, all supposedly clashing wings of the Establishment weld together as one unit and fight with any weapons that might be at hand.
>>69742310
RIGHT-WING POPULISM:2
One point that has nowhere been noted: populism won in Louisiana, because in the first primary the two winners were Duke, a right-wing populist, and Edwin Edwards, a left-wing populist. Out in the cold were the two Establishment candidates: incumbent Governor Buddy Roemer, high-tax, high-spend "reform" Democrat embraced by the Bush Administration in an attempt to stop the dread Duke; and the forgotten man, Clyde Holloway, the official Republican candidate, a good Establishment conservative, who got only five percent of the vote. (Poor Human Events kept complaining during the campaign: why are the media ignoring Clyde Holloway? The simple answer is that he never got anywhere: an instructive metaphor for what will eventually be the fate of Establishment Conservatism.)
A left-wing populist, former Governor Edwards is a long-time Cajun crook, whose motto has been the rollicking laissez les bon temps roulez ("let the good times roll"). He has always been allegedly hated by businessmen and by conservative elites. But this was crisis time; and in crisis the truth is revealed: there is no fundamental difference between left-wing populism and the system we have now. Left-wing populism: rousing the masses to attack "the rich," amounts to more of the same: high taxes, wild spending, massive redistribution of working and middle-class incomes to the ruling coalition of: big government, big business, and the New Class of bureaucrats, technocrats, and ideologues and their numerous dependent groups. And so, in the crunch, left-wing populism – phony populism – disappeared, and all crookery was forgiven in the mighty Edwards coalition. It is instructive that the Establishment professes to believe in Edwards' teary promises of personal reform ("I'm 65 now; the good times have mellowed"), while refusing to believe in the sincerity of David Duke's conversion.
>>69742352
They said in the 60s, when they gently chided the violent left: "stop using violence, work within the system." And sure enough it worked, as the former New Left now leads the respectable intellectual classes. So why wasn't the Establishment willing to forgive and forget when a right-wing radical like David Duke stopped advocating violence, took off the Klan robes, and started working within the system? If it was OK to be a Commie, or a Weatherman, or whatever in your wild youth, why isn't it OK to have been Klansmen? Or to put it more precisely, if it was OK for the revered Justice Hugo Black, or for the lion of the Senate, Robert Byrd, to have been a Klansman, why not David Duke? The answer is obvious: Black and Byrd became members of the liberal elite, of the Establishment, whereas Duke continued to be a right-wing populist, and therefore anti-Establishment, this time even more dangerous because "within the system."
It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke's current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians; lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites: what's wrong with any of that? And of course the mighty anti-Duke coalition did not choose to oppose Duke on any of these issues. Indeed, even the most leftist of his opponents grudgingly admitted that he had a point. Instead, the Establishment concentrated on the very "negative campaigning" that they profess to abhor (especially when directed against them). (Ironic note: TV pundits, who regularly have face lifts twice a year, bitterly attacked Duke for his alleged face lift. And nobody laughed!)
>>69742389
WHAT IS RIGHT-WING POPULISM?
The basic right-wing populist insight is that we live in a statist country and a statist world dominated by a ruling elite, consisting of a coalition of Big Government, Big Business, and various influential special interest groups. More specifically, the old America of individual liberty, private property, and minimal government has been replaced by a coalition of politicians and bureaucrats allied with, and even dominated by, powerful corporate and Old Money financial elites (e.g., the Rockefellers, the Trilateralists); and the New Class of technocrats and intellectuals, including Ivy League academics and media elites, who constitute the opinion-moulding class in society. In short, we are ruled by an updated, twentieth-century coalition of Throne and Altar, except that this Throne is various big business groups, and the Altar is secular, statist intellectuals, although mixed in with the secularists is a judicious infusion of Social Gospel, mainstream Christians. The ruling class in the State has always needed intellectuals to apologize for their rule and to sucker the masses into subservience, i.e., into paying the taxes and going along with State rule. In the old days, in most societies, a form of priestcraft or State Church constituted the opinion-moulders who apologized for that rule. Now, in a more secular age, we have technocrats, "social scientists," and media intellectuals, who apologize for the State system and staff in the ranks of its bureaucracy.
>>69742070
>Putting all control into a person who might not have any experience and can be easily swayed by mentors
Fascism is where you should stop lest you trip and fall.
>>69742389
Libertarians have often seen the problem plainly, but as strategists for social change they have badly missed the boat. In what we might call "the Hayek model," they have called for spreading correct ideas, and thereby converting the intellectual elites to liberty, beginning with top philosophers and then slowly trickling on down through the decades to converting journalists and other media opinion-moulders. And of course, ideas are the key, and spreading correct doctrine is a necessary part of any libertarian strategy. It might be said that the process takes too long, but a long-range strategy is important, and contrasts to the tragic futility of official conservatism which is interested only in the lesser-of-two-evils for the current election and therefore loses in the medium, let along the long, run. But the real error is not so much the emphasis on the long run, but on ignoring the fundamental fact that the problem is not just intellectual error. The problem is that the intellectual elites benefit from the current system; in a crucial sense, they are part of the ruling class. The process of Hayekian conversion assumes that everyone, or at least all intellectuals, are interested solely in the truth, and that economic self-interest never gets in the way. Anyone at all acquainted with intellectuals or academics should be disabused of this notion, and fast. Any libertarian strategy must recognize that intellectuals and opinion-moulders are part of the fundamental problem, not just because of error, but because their own self-interest is tied into the ruling system.
>>69742018
>fascism
Fuck off. Fascism essentially is nationalist monarchy. With a truly benevolent monarch leader that would be fine, but that's not going to happen. In practice, fascism->monarchy->kikes take over->globalist agenda is advanced. Nationalism can (though not necessarily will in all cases) combat and prevent globalism. But extreme authoritarianism as in fascism only furthers the globalist agenda. Even if initially it's anti-globalists in power, that hierarchy is just a means for the zionists to infiltrate that hierarchy (as they fucking always do) and take over that government and use it for their globalist agenda.
>>69742450
Hence the importance, for libertarians or for minimal government conservatives, of having a one-two punch in their armor: not simply of spreading correct ideas, but also of exposing the corrupt ruling elites and how they benefit from the existing system, more specifically how they are ripping us off. Ripping the mask off elites is "negative campaigning" at its finest and most fundamental.
This two-pronged strategy is (a) to build up a cadre of our own libertarians, minimal-government opinion-moulders, based on correct ideas; and (b) to tap the masses directly, to short-circuit the dominant media and intellectual elites, to rouse the masses of people against the elites that are looting them, and confusing them, and oppressing them, both socially and economically. But this strategy must fuse the abstract and the concrete; it must not simply attack elites in the abstract, but must focus specifically on the existing statist system, on those who right now constitute the ruling classes.
Libertarians have long been puzzled about whom, about which groups, to reach out to. The simple answer: everyone, is not enough, because to be relevant politically, we must concentrate strategically on those groups who are most oppressed and who also have the most social leverage.
The reality of the current system is that it constitutes an unholy alliance of "corporate liberal" Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America. Therefore, the proper strategy of libertarians and paleos is a strategy of "right-wing populism," that is: to expose and denounce this unholy alliance, and to call for getting this preppie-underclass-liberal media alliance off the backs of the rest of us: the middle and working classes.
>>69742493
A RIGHT-WING POPULIST PROGRAM
A right-wing populist program, then, must concentrate on dismantling the crucial existing areas of State and elite rule, and on liberating the average American from the most flagrant and oppressive features of that rule. In short:
l. Slash Taxes. All taxes, sales, business, property, etc., but especially the most oppressive politically and personally: the income tax. We must work toward repeal of the income tax and abolition of the IRS.
2. Slash Welfare. Get rid of underclass rule by abolishing the welfare system, or, short of abolition, severely cutting and restricting it.
3. Abolish Racial or Group Privileges. Abolish affirmative action, set aside racial quotas, etc., and point out that the root of such quotas is the entire "civil rights" structure, which tramples on the property rights of every American.
4. Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.
5. Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.
6. Abolish the Fed; Attack the Banksters. Money and banking are recondite issues. But the realities can be made vivid: the Fed is an organized cartel of banksters, who are creating inflation, ripping off the public, destroying the savings of the average American. The hundreds of billions of taxpayer handouts to S&L banksters will be chicken-feed compared to the coming collapse of the commercial banks.
>>69742544
7. America First. A key point, and not meant to be seventh in priority. The American economy is not only in recession; it is stagnating. The average family is worse off now than it was two decades ago. Come home America. Stop supporting bums abroad. Stop all foreign aid, which is aid to banksters and their bonds and their export industries. Stop gloabaloney, and let's solve our problems at home.
8. Defend Family Values. Which means, get the State out of the family, and replace State control with parental control. In the long run, this means ending public schools, and replacing them with private schools. But we must realize that voucher and even tax credit schemes are not, despite Milton Friedman, transitional demands on the path to privatized education; instead, they will make matters worse by fastening government control more totally upon the private schools. Within the sound alternative is decentralization, and back to local, community neighborhood control of the schools.
Further: We must reject once and for all the left-libertarian view that all government-operated resources must be cesspools. We must try, short of ultimate privatization, to operate government facilities in a manner most conducive to a business, or to neighborhood control. But that means: that the public schools must allow prayer, and we must abandon the absurd left-atheist interpretation of the First Amendment that "establishment of religion" means not allowing prayer in public schools, or a creche in a schoolyard or a public square at Christmas. We must return to common sense, and original intent, in constitutional interpretation.
>>69742573
So far: every one of these right-wing populist programs is totally consistent with a hard-core libertarian position. But all real-world politics is coalition politics, and there are other areas where libertarians might well compromise with their paleo or traditionalist or other partners in a populist coalition. For example, on family values, take such vexed problems as pornography, prostitution, or abortion. Here, pro-legalization and pro-choice libertarians should be willing to compromise on a decentralist stance; that is, to end the tyranny of the federal courts, and to leave these problems up to states and better yet, localities and neighborhoods, that is, to "community standards."
t. Rothbard
>>69734900
4chan is whatever is anti-mainstream at the time, so during the height of the bush period when the site really took off it was full blown anarchist, 8 years ago when it was either going to be a new right wing or left wing president it was anti-mainstream to be libertarian so ron paul was our lord and savoir, but then obama got into power so being socially liberal wasnt edgy anymore so the christian shit started up, but thats dying out as the Trump style nationalism is the new counter culture even evangelical republicans get triggered by, and when Hillary wins this place will be MGTOW as all hell and newfags will deny it was ever rejected as anti-family
this site runs like clockwork, if it was determined keeping your eyelids open was too popular we'd hate on that and newfriends would deny it was ever different
>>69742594
>Post by the Libertarian Alliance (UK):
>>69742609
You really think if Trump won that everyone would become Bolshie SJWs?
>>69742474
Well desu there simply is no answer by your standards. Either there will always be violent revolution or jew controlled globalism.
By what I think you believe in only anarchy would be the solution.
>>69736219
All the edgy ideologies basically.
>>69742745
The solution is to fuck off with fascism, authoritarianism, monarchy, globalism, etc. Which basically just means libertarianism.
>anarchy
Anarchy is libertarianism, but libertarianism is not always anarchy. Anarchy is basically the furthest extent of libertarianism. And while I'm not arguing for or against it, I think that the closer we are to anarchy, the less power the zionists have.
>>69734900
The libertarians failed us.
Next question.
>>69741936
>I have lived in a white nation where other nations pay for my defense and I have no functioning stress response when faced with danger
Send this asshole to the refugee camps so they can free his libertarian boipussi.
>>69736425
>stormfront
>eightchan
>>69742943
But people naturally like to form communities and live a life of little responsibility. The more Libertarian you get the easier it is for someone with leadership skills to grab hold of a lot of people and set up authority. You just relapse eventually.
>>69742290
Definitely not Libertarian, thats for sure
>>69743291
Of course, and that's why, in a libertarian society, there would have to be people willing to defend their libertarian ideology, preventing people from grabbing power. A libertarian or anarchist society doesn't mean "everyone do whatever the fuck they want with no consequences", it means limited authority/hierarchy and people enforcing that. Basically imagine what the United States was back in its early years. Having countries like that is the solution to defeating the ZOG. And of course having people aware of the globalist agenda so they know to defend against the ZOG/globalists.
It's because Ron Paul.
I remember there was a time when 4chan was a left-leaning site before the awakening.
>>69735043
>>69735230
This.
After ron paul was shot down /pol/ realized that to be free is to cut through the hordes of degenerates with absolute power.
>>69736979
/k/is full of faggots, anon. I quit posting there years ago because their shill hivemind is annoying as fuck.
>>69743490
So vigilantes? Minutemen?
People do not like to be constantly worried about subversion, they would eventually fall in line if their security could be ensured which is what kikes or really anyone could promise.
Fascism could be the final answer, but you would always have to have an enemy or something to fight and overcome.
Libertarian here.
Libertarianism and classical liberalism only works if you commit to it 100%. You cannot pick and choose and match certain libertarian policies and expect it to work. You have to buy the whole package.
For example, you either have wealth redistribution, or you have open borders. You cannot have both. You either kill all forms or welfare, or you can legalize drugs. You cannot have both. You either make marriage completely irrelevant to the state, or you can have gays marrying. You cannot have both. You either have women assume 100% of the consequences of their actions, or you can legalize abortion. You cannot have both.
Both the left and the right might support libertarian points of view, but that's either for other reasons than libertarians do or out of political opportunism, and not because of an ideological standpoint or to maintain consistency.
This is because libertarianism is founded on basic principles, which are then applied to everything else. Things like the harm principle, property rights, self-ownership, etc.. It's a very tightly-knit ideology. This is why it's very hard to convert libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, you have to destroy their entire foundation of moral principles upon which they build their entire worldview.
Or just kill their faith in humanity. That works sometimes too. Some anarchist friends of mine have stopped trying to spread the word and have started using their knowledge of state & government to rig the game to their benefit, because they do not believe they will see such reforms in their lifetime.
It makes sense. The requirements for being an anarcho-capitalist and for being a successful statesman are the same: a clear knowledge of what a government is, what it isn't, what it does, what it doesn't, and how it maintains and perpetuates itself.
>>69740185
>Conservative is the opposite of progressive.
Reactionary is the opposite of progressive. Conservatism is compromise.
Moron.
>>69734900
i feel like if libertarians were for closed borders, everyone here would be all for it.
thats really the biggest issue.
>>69744054
pragmatism m8
>>69734900
our flag. before the election made things all about trump.
>>69743985
This is all assuming all people are smart and brave enough to lead and make choices for themselves.
This is simply not true, this is why Authoritarianism works, you must sway and control the entire people so there are little to no naysayers. The whole will move as one.
Is there such a thing as libertarian nationalism? Or anything that comes close?
oldfag checkin in.
Libertarianism is great until you realize it can't solve major issues.
>monopolies check
>export jobs check.
>jacked up healthcare and college prices check.
>illegal immigration check.
Libertarianism completely misses the culture war with SJW too. I agree with whoever said libertarian and socialism are two sides of the same coin.
TRUMP2016
>>69734900
>Is it true that /pol/ used to have a large libertarian slant?
/pol/ is libertarian, MGTOW and anti-religion. It's the Christian, woman-protecting stormfags that are in a minority here
>>69744343
>trusting the people conniving enough to get to the seat of power
funny thing about people who go on about how great authoritarianism is are usually also always talking shit about the people who actually do have political power over them
>>69736049
>pol has changed so much really
>Only like 2 years ago, pol was literally /nazi/, >all the nazi's left or changed stance.
This.
>>69744253
You're the reason the #cuck hashtag happened.
>>69734900
>Is it true that /pol/ used to have a large libertarian slant?
Everyone remembers /pol/ a bit differently it seems. Libertarians seem to remember it being libertarian, especially during the Ron Paul attempts at presidency when a lot of lolbertarians came here as newfags. The stormfags, fascists, traditionalists felt that Paul was a kind of strategic candidate, because he represented a threat to many things we all see as globalist, and that's ultimately our greatest concern, fighting globalists. Kind of like we see Trump as a strategic candidate to that end. It was even conceivable that Ben Carson was strategic to that end too.
Add to the people who are unironically one ideology or another, the sizeable number of people who have "gone beyond", and now exist in a kind of semi-lucid state of endless memeology and funposting. Such people have ideology as individuals, and are intimately aware of all the ideologies to be found here, including marxism and all the variants of the Left. But something is different about them. They've...transformed...into something a bit bizarre. You could say these are the mystics of /pol/...or the psychotic fringe. Depends on how generous you feel.
The one ideology that died off in the most noticeable way around here is oldskool /left/pol. All the orthodox marxists are completely gone now. It's even hard to find them it retarded places like on Freenode. They've all been replaced by new left, progressive cultural marxists who are so self-unaware and wikipedia-educated, they unironically think cultural marxism is a "right wing conspiracy theory". That scares me more than any stormfags ever could.
>>69744607
Well that's the thing, as long as whoever was in charge worked solely for the people all would be good.
America is already a bit neo-Fascist, at the least a kleptocracy/oligarchy, that work for Jewish globalist goals. If we could cure this the system could be perfect.
>>69744318
Our flag after it all became about Trump.
>>69744121
>i feel like if libertarians were for closed borders, everyone here would be all for it.
They are.
Open borders only work in a free market society with no wealth redistribution. Then, the only immigrants coming in are the ones who are answering to market demands. That is, you're only getting those who are better than the natives. They will not increase murder, rape and theft rates.
Currently, there are a lot of immigrants coming to America and Europe who are only able to travel and stay there because of the free stuff these governments offer. In a free market, they would simply not be able to afford the costs of living, and charity organizations would favor the immigrants with the most chances of success, because the donors want to see results, and the charities want them to keep the money coming in.
>>69744343
And how do you pick those in charge?
Certainly not through voting, since you already acknowledged they're not smart enough.
It is still better if people would just assume the consequences of their actions, rather than having a government "safety net", which is funded with the money of those who are smart and brave, and often rewards unproductive people for being unproductive.
If you do not assume that the initiation of force against peaceful individuals is wrong and immoral, then you cannot complain when the scourge of society does bad things to good people.
Libertarianism would be great if you could get libertarians to understand that turning countries into immigrant free-for-alls doesn't lead to more liberty, it leads to less. But they think that's "racist" and there seems to be no getting through to them.
>>69745051
>They are.
You mean Stephan Molyneux is.
;^)
>>69744922
People always work in their self-interest.
We are mere men. We are not saints or Gods. We are imperfect beings living in this imperfect world.
My current libertarian, almost anarchic ideology has fit well with my previous Catholic faith.
Once you realize everyone is a sinner, you start thinking twice before legitimizing giving power to one individual over others. People simply cannot be trusted.
>>69744564
keep telling yourself that
>>69745383
I agree entirely.
>people are flawed
>I know, let's have flawed people in charge!
>>69742732
The mainstream media is going to vindictive of Trump all throughout his Presidency, the counter-culture of us v the elite is going to continue even if our guy gets into office.
The influence of the Frankfurt School of Bitchcraft and Hissyfits isn't going to wane any time soon, and that those tendrils have a hold on academia, news corporations and Hollywood, we'll be fighting this for decades.
>>69745051
That's the hardest question isn't it...
I believe the initial leaders would arise from conflict when they fight for the cause of Nationalist Populism. After that I'm sure the new government would set up programs to weed out the best - the most intelligent, driven, altruistic, and capable - to be the successors.
Thus ensuing leaders for the future that would repeat this. Wisdom and knowledge would be passed down until the final burden of leadership would be set on their shoulders.
>>69744564
> MGTOW self-hate auto-eugenics cancerfag
>>>/r9k/
>>69745383
But without concentrated rule how will a society ever progress? Is that not the goal?
>>69745343
Let us not base our entire conception of a "libertarian" on Facebook kids. Closed borders in current day America makes perfect sense until we reform the country.
Closing borders kills freedom, but it prevents future mass-murder of freedoms if you have welfare and other wealth redistribution programs in place.
As if it's not enough that you have to pay taxes to fund niggers having 6 children, you now also have to pay for free stuff for people who simply crossed the border and did nothing to contribute to the pot.
Close the borders, abolish the welfare state, and re-open the borders. This is the only way.
>>69735976
so many libertarians I know who are anti-nationalist are autistic as fuck
>>69745712
>on Facebook kids
Didn't mention facebook at all, or anyone from kikebook, or anything to do with kikebook. If you pretend that's what I was talking about because you can't make a sensible reply any other way, might as well not post.
A great many libertarians online, in irc, here, on plebbit cancer, are fond of the notion that borders are a form of state aggression. I agree with your view of borders, but I'm not a libertarian. Many hours have I spent arguing the necessity of borders with libertarians; its one of the many things I hate about them. So no, closed borders is definitely not a virtue advocated by many libertarians. It's fashionable right now with a select few, mostly since Molyneux started promoting it.
>>69745608
>After that I'm sure the new government would set up programs to weed out the best - the most intelligent, driven, altruistic, and capable - to be the successors.
That's something the free market does already.
Unless you have a different conception of "best". For me, "the best" are the ones who can create the most value for society, and they do this by answering to people's demands, their needs and wants.
I personally hate marijuana, it smells like poop and makes you retarded. But if the people have a demand for it, and people are getting rich meeting those demands, I still cannot bring myself to use force to prevent them from consuming drugs, because the use of force against peaceful people is more morally unjustifiable than drug abuse.
You may think that some evil businessmen will campaign and spread propaganda about how good weed is, and yes, they might. In fact, this not limited to marijuana, they'll do this for just about everything. However, you must consider that this is still better than having the government do the same thing through the school system. In the market, at least the businessmen must first convince you that weed is good, where if a special interest group were to infiltrate the school system, they could just tell you that weed is good, and punish you if you disagree.
You can apply this logic to pretty much anything. There are only two ways to convince people to do something: you can persuade them into doing it voluntarily, or you can point a gun to their head.
>>69745707
Before society makes progress, the individual must make progress. Central authority undermines the individual's ability to make progress.
>>69736511
Learning the difference between a Goldwater republican and a zionist PNAC puppet is as important as knowing the difference between Shi'a and Sunni Islam.
>>69746171
Facebook kids is just a generic term to describe stupid teenagers who don't fully understand the things they believe in.
>I've only met stupid libertarians online
>this must mean the entire libertarian ideology is stupid
Please consider that Molyneux is ancap, not libertarian. These two may look similar, but they don't go along very well when they delve into the more profound moral principles of their ideologies.
>>69745446
Don't need to tell anything to anyone. It's obvious.
Friendly Reminder; it's /pol/itically incorrect. Just sayin...
>>69739783
i was a libertarian who got a job, now i'm just more zealous with my disgust with how my taxes are appropriated
so no, you are wrong
/pol/ was libertarian in most senses except for borders. In that way /pol/ has always been traditionalist.
>>69746367
The free market produces those that can manipulate and sell ideas, this would of course no be optimal.
I think to control the people you must bombard them with propaganda and be involved in most aspects of life.
1.) You must create a cult of personality so the people feel safe and secure with whomever is in charge.
2.) You must begin the brainwashing with the young so you can produce minds that will be devout to the state. Radicalized.
3.) You must create an "ideal" that all people should aspire to be, a superhero.
4.) You MUST have a boogeyman of sorts so the people know that the whole is united against a common enemy, constantly. You would not need to hold a gun to someone's head to motivate them.
Through this the ones who are the most devout and the most intelligent will rise through the ranks and eventually become part of the ideal, the pinnacle of the state created culture.
The country would work as a machine, everyone a cog or a screw all working together to create a masterpiece.
Maybe this is all to idealistic however, propaganda can only go so far and you WOULD need a group of people to take care of the ones who think too much outside of the box.
>>69741936
that's almost an argument against capitalism
>>69736049
I miss old /pol/ when the board was slower, and you could actually have discussion about a topic; that's much rarer now.
I miss the good happening threads.
Now, it's like a porn-free random board.
>>69747367
And then after all that just pray that the government has the same opinions as you.
Otherwise, tough luck, better luck next time!
>>69734900
Yes. As recently as the 2nd Exodus, the plurality on /pol/ was libertarian.
As 4chan moderation turned fascist, only the fascists remained.
>>69747739
As long as they were Nationalists, Populists, and anti-Globalist we would be of the same mind.
If not, well, I would probably die in the fighting that would come before this.
/k/ is libertarian.
/pol/ is totalitarian because /new/
>>69747367
>The country would work as a machine, everyone a cog or a screw all working together to create a masterpiece.
The free market does this. It is an institution that can coordinate the needs and wants of lots of individuals, each unique in its preferences.
>>69744564
>>69744318
ive been here since 2012 and i have never seen these cringey things
>>69748023
hahaha holy shit
>>69737499
Literally everything he said is correct.
>>69746615
both are garbage. Best Republican is an Rockefeller Republican aka Donald Trump.
>>69748068
2012
jesus this board is full of newfags
but eh whatever, as long as you can vote trump
>>69747923
>As long as they were Nationalists, Populists, and anti-Globalist we would be of the same mind.
What's so special about those things?
What can these things do that libertarianism can't?
Nationalism has been used by both the left and the right, and it has always been to create a false sense of unity. Specially destructive in bigger countries, like Russia under communism.
Populism often leads to redistribution of wealth, that as we all know it, creates a new social class: the scum. The scum will continue to support the ruler for as long as he promises and delivers free shit, no matter how good or how bad the ruler actually is. At one point, you gonna have more parasites than hosts.
Anti-Globalism can lead to isolationism and economic protectionism, which can greatly increase the cost of living for the people of your country without a matching increase in their standards of living.
What exactly do you see in those things that make them so attractive to you that you are willing to initiate the use of force against peaceful individuals to achieve them?
>>69748003
Ideally, but differing ideas and new oponions also come about because of the free market, it simply could not be allowed in my utopia for it to work optimally.
>>69747367
These are all faults with human nature.
>>69735782
Trump is the libertarian republican candidate, idk why people believe otherwise.
>>69736930
So what you're espousing is a Nationalist Libertarian Party.
NATLIP
>>69748552
This.
>>69748068
Lurk more.
>>69748314
no its not. a libertarian society can't support immigrants; they would not come
>>69748445
Libertarianism simply cannot create the radical devout faith in the state that I would like to create so I could prevent as you said the scum that feed off the government.
By anti-Globalism I mean it in the sense that we would not be a protectorate for the globalists as we currently are. Trade has its place and is necessary for any country.
>>69748439
The Bush family used to be Rockefeller Republicans, and look what happened to them.
>>69748529
Which is why I would do everything possible to fix this malleable nature without having to hold people at gun point.
>>69748715
Then I have a better idea for you: anarchism. It would create a radical opposition to the government, and they would not accept being robbed of their wealth to feed the scum.
This way, the scum either adapts and stops being scum, or slowly gets forgotten by history, since they would simply not be able to afford reproducing.
>>69744880
>That scares me more than any stormfags ever could.
I wonder about this, too. You rarely see self-professed hardcore MLM or such anymore. Did they find more power in the regressive left or were they absorbed? Did they just stop speaking because they're indifferent to it, or can't be assed to be identified with it?
>>69748986
Anarchy could not create the utopia I desire, and besides, it would leave the people open to a new form of rule.
Not everybody would want to fight forever to protect their freedom.
>>69748759
Bushes were corrupted by Reagan who was part ideological successor to Goldwater. Then Cheney.
>>69748847
Human nature can only be fixed through genetics.
>>69748441
this board, not the site you cuck
>>69749235
You're right, I should have mentioned Eugenics and Genetic Engineering too.
>>69749158
A lot of them are on infinitychan /leftypol/, the same way a lot of the hardcore alt-right moved to infinitychan /pol/.
SJW types horrify them more than anything else - not only are they a perversion of everything they stand for, but historically, the first victims of Stalinist were always other leftists. Modern SJWs are more likely to target a leftist who says something offensive than a big scary Trump supporter.
>>69749168
You have to understand that governments only exist because people believe "it's a necessary evil".
In a society which no longer believes in this illusion, people would be extremely skeptical of any form of central authority which requires violent and coercive means to sustain itself.
>>69749636
Well how would you prevent ideas like mine then? And what about external influences?
>>69734900
I think some pol woman tried to demonstrate her libertarian thesis by travelling from Europe to Palestine, she was raped and killed in Turkey. So no more libertarianism for the moment.
>>69734900
>What changed?
libertarianism lost, plain and simple.
back when people were hyping RON PAUL 2012 it seemed cool, but now he's gone and rand is a fruit. without a leader the movement loses much of its appeal.
>>69749821
Uh... I just answered it...
How are you going to convince anarchists that they have to forfeit part of their income to fund things they don't want?
And if you try to force them, they'll just shoot you.
>>69749894
I can't believe anyone could confuse libertarianism and SJWism.
>>69750102
Simple. I wouldn't try to convince them.
Say I was the outside force, what's stopping me from invading you and conquering your land? If you are Anarchists it surely means you are disorganized and can not form a large military presence. You also probably so not have many allies since you are paranoid of outside influences.
You would have to fight like the Taliban and have all your people slowly killed while you starve to death and run out of resources. You would have no choice but to eventually surrender.
Otherwise you would be like the Chechens.
Seriously? You try and find where the loyalties of a message board lies who labels itself "politically incorrect"? Du-doi, its all about liberty, obvi
>>69750996
....but seriously, muh penis is mighty small indeed, this is factual. Guess I should shoot myself? Naw, I'm white. It's too awesome livin.
>>69750570
>what's stopping me from invading you and conquering your land?
Ancapistan would essentially be a free trade zone. It's a foreign investment magnet. You'd piss off a lot of wealthy people if you invaded it. They wouldn't enjoy one bit having their assets put in danger and losing their little tax heaven.
Also, the same reason why a land invasion in modern America is impossible: armed citizens. You'd have to fight neighborhood watches and private security companies. And the cherry on top: your soldiers are only fighting because you ordered them to. These people are fighting to defend their homes. Expect to be fighting some really angry people.
I don't know why you mentioned Taliban. The U.S. has failed to secure the Middle-East, and has gained very little out of it. The result is a massive anti-war feeling back home. Your example failed to take politics into account. When a country invades another, there are a lot of people with a lot of interests at work, and at any point the goal of the war might change.
What do you want? Their resources? Their land? Revenge? To create the next boogeyman you need to scare people into voting for you? In the long run, you might actually lose more resources fighting this useless war than Ancapistan would lose defending itself.
Anyway. Why is nobody invading Somalia today? It's currently a bunch of communist guerrillas fighting to see who gets to be the new government. They're also disorganized and starving. There seems to be a magic energy field there which prevents other countries from invading it. Seems like a nice place to settle down and form Ancapistan, don't you agree?
>>69734900
1: We do not seek any enemies in the world, and our revolution does not go against the interests of any nation.
2: We do not seek to destroy nations.
3: We do not hate other races as a default.
4: We seek out friendship and alliances all through out the world.
5: We are bound to help the peoples struggle for racial freedom and racial sovereignty.
6: We do not tolerate Marxism therefore Marxism must be exterminated.
7: We demand racial purity as the first priority of states within our control.
8: We do not seek war although we do not fear war, we only wish for rationality and respect for our will to be maintained.
9: We do not tolerate anyone going against the interests of our goals and truths.
10: We do not tolerate hatred without jury to fellow comrades.
11: We do not tolerate the unauthorized to tell us what we can or can't do.
12: We do not tolerate warmongers, and criminals.
13: We not tolerate anyone breaking these rules.
>>69751490
Check your privilege, small penised white man who struggled for what little he's got, up to and including an affordable fue-up at Kroger this afternoon, only catch is ya had to observe a degenerate per in public while yer seed looked on
>>69750570
>Taliban
>Chechens
So the idea of fighting off an endless insurgency sounds like fun to you?
>>69750996
This honestly. I'm serious on here sometimes, but the meanings behind this board changed when they brought /pol/ back.
It's the racist part of /b/, but with flags now.
>>69750570
Or you could fight like the vietcong?
>>69751765
It was only a scenario without a lot of variables taken into account. Ideally I would never fight you since you pose no danger.
Also, you mean to tell me in a free trade haven nobody would try to set up zones where they have special privileges like China back in the 1800's? Ludicrous.
And why would anyone set up trade there if their stuff was always in danger of being taken or worse?
>>69752133
Naw, let us share polite commerce with them instead, ya know, for the mutual good....
C c c Could I be a "useful idiot" here someday, myself?
>>69752392
Depends. If escaping government regulations is worth the cost of added security, then yes, people would set up shop there.
And with every new investor, it becomes safer. At first it would be just a few factories hiring locals, but soon enough you would see small villages forming, and commerce would grow, creating demand and new opportunities for business.
I don't really get your point. If it's too small, it's not worth the cost of mobilizing your armies. If it's too big, the consequences of pissing off wealthy people are not worth the resources you may get from occupying the place.
Where do you draw the line? When does Ancapistan becomes worth being invaded? How do you define this sweet spot?
It's this sort of arbitrary crap that really grinds my gears.
>>69752956
Yes, muh dear comrade, certainly YES! Just keep shtposting for the party.
>What happened?
Because you realize there's better things to defend in life than your shekels and your drug stash.
>>69734900
Ron Paul was hugely popular and that was only about 5 years ago. I bet American still suppor the political philosophy of Ron Paul, but the board is currently overwhelmed by racists who seriously believe in racial dogma.
>>69734900
THE LIBERTARIANS GREW UP.
>>69753137
Desu I think you should google the Boxer Rebellion and Spheres of Influence, it's the only way I see Ancapistan ending up. You seem a little too idealistic about free trade.
You would literally be welcoming the Jews to try and subvert the country.
I would never invade Ancapistan unless you attacked first which would be extremely unlikely and so it would never happen. Like I said, it was a scenario with only a few variables taken into account and no explanation as to why.
>>69738308
fuck off degenerate
>>69753629
>You would literally be welcoming the Jews to try and subvert the country.
How?
>>69753780
>3 hours and 24 minutes ago
>>69753826
>escaping government regulations
>>69753927
nigga, the Jews are the ones writing the government regulations
>>69753999
What the hell is stopping them from setting up a monopoly and hiring mercanaries or creating crime syndicates to smash skulls?
>inb4 everyone holds true to Libertarianism and nobody gives into the money
>>69742290
Fuck your ideology leaf, this is the law of our land. stay the fuck out, you reek of trudeau
Libertarianism is a Jewish ideology. Their values are all about greed and selfishness. They'd sell out their own countrymen for some Jew gold. Libertarianism is anti-white.
>legalized degeneracy
>open borders
No thanks.
>>69734900
Back when obama was running for president, a lot of people were in favour of ron paul and his liberatarian platform.
This was before the world had gotten as bad as it is. Now things are worse, there's no room for good feels ideals like libertarianism because it's obvious that if everyone is allowed to be free and do what they want, the marxists will just take it all over.
>>69739747
He's not wrong though
>>69754171
>anarchist society
>monopoly
I'm fucking done. It's the same meme arguments I've heard 1000 times before on Facebook.
https://mises.org/library/fear-monopoly
http://libertycorner.blogspot.com.br/2005/07/but-wouldnt-warlords-take-over.html
If you have attention deficit disorder, there are countless videos on YouTube about these subjects.
Come back when you actually know what the fuck Libertarianism/Anarchism is.
>>69755076
Jesus Brazil, don't fucking chimpout on me.
Don't blame me for not partaking in Kikebook and looking at all the 'meme' arguments. Just because the most likely scenarios are the most likely to happen doesn't make them shit.
If anything that second article agrees with me.
>>69742070
This.
Libertarianism is a good philosophy to be well informed about but when applied to the real world it turns out to be nothing more than a meme, like communism
many posters on /pol/ still adhere to lolbertarianism
many others are radical right/natsoc
In time though the true redpill is resurfacing: monarchism, aristocracy, etc
>>69754415
This has literally always been true. Libertarians and Anarchists both opposed communism, while communists supported both because either was just a longer road to serfdom.
>>69756204
Desu nobody supports Monarchism, the only way people would is if Jesus him-fucking-self descended from Heaven and began ruling.
