Calling Former Libertarians

Former Libertarian, Ron Paul types who are now Alt-Right or National Socialist or Traditionalist or whatever.

Can you walk through your experiences, and try to help out some of the normies on here? What made you make the switch, how did you ideologically justify the switch.

Where do you stand on economic matters now?

Ect ect

Looking for an educational thread. Not so much "red pill me", though feel free to do so if it will help you explain...I'm already red pilled and reading Julius Evola personally.....this is more of a...let's hope some confused little libertarian stumbles in here.

Let's make the sell boys. We all know the issues, let's make the ideological sell!

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=EO68Kvb9fD4
therightstuff.biz/2013/01/23/fascist-libertarianism-for-a-better-world/
archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html
theamericanconservative.com/articles/murray-rothbards-practical-politics/
youtube.com/watch?v=JSumJxQ5oy4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I swallowed the reality pill: freedom is ideal, but to survive in a competitive universe with finite resources you must protect yourself and your people first, at all costs.

I became more pragmatic and I want anyone other than hillary.
Trump is not a liberty candidate but he is 100x better than hillary

Was Ron Paul in 08 & 12
Did heavy activism in 08, was less involved the second time around

>not being a Hoppetarian

youtube.com/watch?v=EO68Kvb9fD4

Libertarians are too idealist and egalitarian. Once normies shake off the egalitarianism, they usually leave the libertarian movement; at least that's what happened with me.

I used to be a near an-cap libertarian, then I saw the light and embraced our lord and savior Moldbug.

Now I oppose democracy and republicanism in all of its forms.

>national socialist

are you people fucking serious?

Personally, I went from neocon to ancap, and found out that it was totally at odds with human nature, and thus it was utopia.

Not only that, it encouraged globalism and centralization. Effectively destroying small businesses and propping up the multi national corperations of the world.

I then figured I would rather have a state than a corperation as the sovereign.

I then drifted I into monarchy, which was a nice exercise, but totally unrealistic. So back into reality, I started to create a philosophical mindset that rejected classical liberalism...as it is utopian, just like communism, via ancap.

After I rejected classical liberalism, it all opened up for me, and i got into plato and classical government and virtue and civilization. The defender of that was, surprisingly, nazi germany. Wow.

Then I explored the Jewish issue, read elders of zion, a little bit of the torah, watched the eternal jew on youtube, and was satisfied...

Until I found out about julius evola, and that is where I am now. To the right of National Socialism.

By the way, the socialism in national socialism. Nothing to do with marxism. It's all about socializing the individual, which is basically a rejection of Liberalism.

>I fell for the Neoreaction meme.

I want to stick Steve Horowitz in an oven.

Yes, dark Enlightenment had such a awesome ring to it. Did you get it to moldbug?

I became a libertarian in 2010 and let me tell you, if you switched from being a libertarian, then you weren't one to begin with, you were just a band hopping edgy little bitch trying to get some attention for a view that is generally uncommon and unpopular.

Don't freak out.

About a year ago, if I were you, I would've freaked out.

I'm telling you, there is really freaking good ideologically sound reasons for it. It is the polar opposite of Marxism, while liberalism rides the middle line

My way was this: SJW's -> apolitical normie -> neocon -> libertarian -> paleolibertarian -> nationalist

It was a gradual change. I became more "social conservative" and nationalistic with time.

I am still a libertarian on most issues except immigration thats the issue that gets me.

No, I was pretty deep into it.

But I hit the end. Ancap. And i realized that shit was never gonna happen.

Not only that, it was degenerate as fuck. I wanted freedom and liberty and shit, but I thought virtue was supposed to naturally come with that.

Nope.

therightstuff.biz/2013/01/23/fascist-libertarianism-for-a-better-world/

Come to the dark side

Economically,

This plus being an evolutionary biologist, national socialism is the only logical outcome if my people are to exist in the future.

Like I said, you weren't a libertarian to begin with. Libertarianism is all about the individual, if the entire nation is full of men of vice, then you're supposed to stand as an example, a shining beacon of virtue in a free society which values liberty above all things else.

I came back to the Orthodox Church and read traditionalist authors. I understood that capitalism is very modern and materialistic just like socialism is, and not good for the spiritual health of a nation. I also understood that absolute freedom is just to be a slave to one's passions, it is nothing more than cultural decadence and nihilism.

Even major libertarian figures supported pinochet and low key supported authoritarianism

Still libertarian, just think that open borders are obviously bad. Certain political concepts are not universal, such as democracy (example: Democracy + islam = inevitable theocracy).

I think the original constitution and bill of rights are pretty much perfect (essentially libertarian-ism limited to land owning white men). Everything else is pretty much a shitty off-spin.

See, but that is bullshit.

That sounds nice, but that is literally fucking cancer to civilization. I don't want my kids growing up in that. Like it or not, if you atomize the individual, like I used to, you buy into nihilism.

That's fucking depressing man

I realized that freedom is not the ultimate goal.

What do you think of the articles of Confederation.

And if the original constitution is perfect (you haven't read the anti federalists) why is it doing such a shit type job at protecting american traditional society today.

Obviously it has failed.

When you're older you'll lose your Libertarian ideals. It Is not conducive with a capable society and therefore a capable government. I went from Dem to Repub then Libertarian and ended at a form of Democratic Socialism. Not the Sanders type, close but I don't like sugarcoating reality. Strict regulations on Banks and multinational corporations are required to ensure political corruption Is stunted here and abroad by said institutions. Those In poverty can be lifted through infrastructure rebuilding, and strict welfare laws can ensure that all that need money put themselves on a path to acquiring It ( Mandatory work, or college education ). And the rich would pay a marginally higher tax rate to ensure the state can continue to maintain It's population, It's living standard and way of life. Those that were allowed to generate such vast amounts of wealth from the state must at least pay their society back through taxation.

The constitution has not failed to protect the people, the people have failed to protect the constitution.

I mean think about it.

The greatest minds on earth for thousands of years, never figured out to just leave everyone alone?

Bullshit. They knew that anarchy invites dictatorship...and not the kind that is in your favor

you are so full of shit, who are you shilling for?

CONTEXT MUCH?

FUCK OFF, SHILL

Why democratic. You have to have read Hans hermann Hoppes book, democracy the god that failed

No, see that's bullshit. Your supreme court says otherwise

On the issue of banks:

Rothbard, Huerta de Soto and Hoppe (all three are ancaps) believe in full-reserve banking. What authority is going to control it?

There is no reputable source for Rothbard's comment either.

FUCKING SHILL

Still an ancap. If we had freedom of association, like minded people could form communities with rules that everyone agrees to. No niggers, no gay clubs, no muslims etc. Other people can live in communities with diversity and all that shit but I believe that degenerate communities could not thrive without the government.

Marxism, (classical) liberalism, and fascism are all slight deviations of the same phenomenon.

I agree with you about Pinochet, but calling Pinochet a fascist makes about as much sense as calling Louis XIV a fascist (which is obviously absurd, from a historical perspective or otherwise). Of course, people call Pinochet a fascist anyway; whatever. Pinochet had about as much in common with Hitler and Mussolini, as either of them had with Louis XIV.

Reject republicanism entirely, and you are rejecting most European-American thought from the late 18th century onward, and virtually all thought in the 20th century.

The solution is secure power: downward flowing authority. One unified, coherent power structure, with no internal competition. No politics, democracy, or liberalism in any form.

I don't think it is a permanent form either, thus evola. I'm not disagreeing with mises, we just haven't had a chance to discuss his statement yet.

No authority controls it.
Banks would issue their own currency and compete with each other.

Of course their bank notes would be worthless unless actually matched with a tangible resource like gold.

And there is always stuff like bitcoin.

Restricting power through a constitution, ie. republicanism, is a solecism.

You could run the experiment a hundred million times; the result would always be the same. From Locke's ideas of "human rights", to a Rawlsian conception of social democracy, embodied by the Warren court onward.

tracked the Rothbard quote with proper context.

STILL SHILLING MOTHERFUCKER

STILL SHILLING, YOU MUST BE A STORM FAGGOT

FUCKING SHILL

archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html

Rothbard is actually describing a right wing populist program and, by the way, he never, that quote is wrong, too many words were added that he never even wrote.

theamericanconservative.com/articles/murray-rothbards-practical-politics/

Bullshit, use google

FERTILE
E
R
T
I
L
E

How How do you get there without someone in power coming down hard on your ass?

Supreme court? The supreme court was never meant to be partisan. The supreme court was never meant to interpret the constitution, its interpretation is self evident. The people were supposed to rise up from time to time using the 1st and if need be the 2nd amendment to ensure the system remained in check. But that has not happened so yes the people failed the constitution.

Well, double checked and stand corrected, he wrote those words but CONTEXT matters.

Otherwise it's like a fucking salon.com headline.

he is not describing a libertarian order, but a right wing one, from back in the day when he was a right winger.

The way I see it, a lot of libertarians are in fact right-wing moralists but don't see it as either their or the governments place to regulate morality. Thus they find comfort in a system that would allow them the freedom to pursue their own noble aspirations, both economic and personal.
However, I find for most libertarians, myself included, became disillusioned when you see what the average person makes of the freedom granted them. They squander and spend until they have nothing. They do nothing to uplift their communities. And while under a libertarian system that would cut away social welfare to prevent them from becoming leeches, I don't see that as a fate my fellow man deserves because of their ignorance. A system set around the worship of money and atomization is no system for me. Better to govern their morality to some extent for their own good. I don't hate libertarianism, but I don't see it as possible in any substantial country this day and age. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows.

Fascism is the rejection of the enlightenment. Rejection of Liberalism and marxism.

That's the whole point.

It was the party of my family. When I turned fifteen I turned from the Democratic party.

Depends on where you personally stand. I couldn't care less for the idea. The money a bank has must be held by said bank. Currency Is a lot more complicated, and I have little authority to speak. However much of our money doesn't currently "exist", It's invested or traded. The promise a bank gives you Is that at the end of the day you get your withdrawal, and that they will return your money upon requirement. So It's essentially a pool of cash being added to, taken from, invested from ect. It can work with government intervention. Banks must be transparent In their business, and ensure that their history can be accessed by all people. Banking Is the evil that cannot be destroyed. So we must contain It, by doing so we can manage this monster that our ancestors created.

Man, you changed of topic...

This guy gets it, absent government handouts only the non-degenerate would able to flourish.

Translation: I don't understand economics, so I reject the whole field as irrelevant and come up with some bullshit about how material wealth is not important (even though the seeking of wealth pretty much drove history so far).

Look dude, I shared a meme picture that I found one time.

Not a shill...but how about you stop worrying so much about bout me possibly taking you fucking prophets words out of context...and you argue the points?

I didn't mean to, I just didn't check. I figured based ass rothbard with his 90s fling with Buchanan and his creation of paleo libertarian would be enough

But yet it does interpret...

It has failed.

A success would be having a system in which, the piece of paper is followed.

Fascism is nothing more than an abhorrent mutation of democracy, following in the tradition of Rousseau and Hegel. It is politics, even if not the formal kind, still of the informal.

You don't get to Fascism without going through the American and French revolutions first.

To truly reject liberalism and the enlightenment, you must discard (virtually) everything after the American and French revolutions. When you realize that Robert Filmer was basically right, you have finally reached true (dark) enlightenment. Not this facade of democracy, fascism, which is simply the continuation of Democracy and politics by other means.

ancap doesn't include globalism, u can literaly have any political system u want under ancap, even natsoc so long as it is voluntary

Correct. However welfare paired with mandatory work or a college education with the risk of losing said welfare Is a proper incentive to correct America's current crisis.

That's fair, but let's just stick to the points instead of worrying about context from a stupid ass meme.

Again, the people have failed to rise up and suppress the system.

sorry, got a bit worked up. too much coffee.

that's why i fucking hate memes. as some polster said a few days ago: memes are fucking intellectual cancer.

I've always felt like the social stances get adopted by the left, and the economic stances get ignored by everyone

el fin principal del gobierno es el bien según Platón.

Al bien no se llega dejando que todos hagan lo que quieran.

----

we don't speak sudaca here. write in proper english, please.

No, not at all.

I recognize economics as the gears of society. How it works. Not as the end all public good.

Do you deny materialism replacing out spiritual self?

Nihilism is the issue. God is dead. We have replaced him with lust for material.

Problem is, your money is going directly to multinationals who break all of your pretty little economic rules.
.just like communism, ancap is great in a vacuum, where no one can cheat,

If you aren't a libertarian, you are a traitor to the American ideal. The founding fathers would have literally murdered the politicians we have making power plays today and eroding the inalienable rights of man.

things like are all cool and sound nice and shit, but so far no one has devised a better system than capitalism.

fuck, we don't even have capitalism these days, it's all state capitalism.

capitalism can only be fully accomplished in an anarchist society.

I think fractional reserve is the problem.
With fractional reserve banks can multiply deposits at a rate that is astonishing. Then when all these money created from nothing that is not backed by any savings is lend to entrepreneurs and is invested in bubbles sector then occurs all these bank runs where the taxpayers or normal citizen is going to pay:
1)by bailing out banks with taxpayer money
2)by inflation
The way to restrain banks is full reserve banking at least imo.

That's just not true. The fasci has been around for a really long freaking time, and it abhors the enlightenment revolutions.

Ohh...second part Parton partofyour answer. I I haven't heard of filmer. More info?

Yes, democracy is a corruption of democracy in the very begining, as the only way to kill democracy, is vote it out of existence

Unalienable, not inalienable, but yeah. And as I have said, it is the peoples fault for not using their 1st and 2nd amendment processes to subdue the system.

spanish post means granted replies

One interesting pattern to note in the USA, is that leftist ("liberal") policies which tend to grow and expand the bureaucracies and civil tended to be adopted quite quickly, whereas leftist policies which did not facilitate that end, did not.

For example, note that private unions are less powerful now than they have been in almost a hundred years, yet the civil services are larger and more politically powerful than they have ever been.

Or notice how gay marriage has only recently come to pass, or how hard it has been to decriminalize marijuana. The former hardly facilitated the expansion of bureaucracy, and thus was of low priority for the leftist power centers; the latter, by keeping marijuana criminalized, facilitates many jobs and powers for more than a few federal agencies - and many, many jobs. Thus marijuana is still illegal. The prediction matches the experience.

White collar criminals are far more dangerous to capitalism. Typical elitist garbage.

Really?

So capitalistic competition leads to distributionist type decentralization instead of centralization? Why do we have Pepsi and Coke and walmart and ect?

What happens when my 8 year old child decides to unvolunteer for my volunteer society.

So the system has failed though...

Hmm

Remember the civil war.

Government doesn't take too kindly to civilians trying to put it into check

when they are enabled and protected by the state...

gee, try and use your brain next time.

No problem. I shouldn't have posted half thought out quotes.

The government made them that way moron.

Especifica.

Queramos o no; la civilización es una mezcla entre orden espontaneo y normas e instituciones sociales.

This. The alt right care too much about personal choices and traditional values, whether it's gay marriage or race mixing. I don't really care about traditions, or who fucks who, but I believe most people naturally would just choose to live a modest life when left to their own devices.

You get to go the gas chambers early...fucking speak a real language

The founding fathers were left wing radicals

Liberalism followed it's natural course. If the founding fathers woke up today, sure they'd be pissed.

But had they stayed awake and never died...they'd be sanders supporters.

Fascism of the real sort - the sort that culminated in WW2, not the word "fascism" which is thrown out will-nilly by the left, towards anything they disagree with (for example, toward Pinochet) - is directly a product of the international socialist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Certainly, Fascism is a rejection of international socialism, but its roots within it are clear to be seen.

Filmer is sort of like a super-charged Hobbes; in fact, he almost makes Hobbes look like a communist. Both of the them understood that secure power, downward-flowing authority was the only sensible configuration for a sovereign, but whereas Hobbes was OK with Cromwell serving as that device, Filmer was not.

Even Hobbes variant of social contract theory was too much for Filmer - Filmer advocated complete piety toward a king, who would serve as a sort of patriarch or god-emperor in his sovereignty. The very conception of "human rights" in any form was alien to Filmer.

Why is capitalism good though? Look at the debt. Look at culture. Look at overpopulation.

Quality is always better than quantity.

You get shitty everything with socialism, and everything affordable is shitty with capitalism. Why is that our religion?

Fucking cult of gold. It robs us of our identity.

>going from a libertarian to a nat soc
you're a fucking retard and you must've been a shitty libertarian to begin with. How dare you include Milton Friedman in the picture you fucking mongrel.
youtube.com/watch?v=JSumJxQ5oy4

So you envision a system that ignores that reality?

I know the nature of monopoly. But monopoly is here. Now what?

Good luck with ancap while you face the mother of all barriers to entry...

Or you can pull a hitler, and unplug from the bullshit

Your pic is implying them being Jewish automatically makes their positions bad. Rothbard was against Zionism, something you probably agree with.

But they dont, look at literally any human population center

Sounds like I'm a fan of filmer.

But we gotta get there first. Because socialism happened. How do we go back?

Under a libertarian society, whites can freely associate with their own. They can have private white communities where no outside interference can corrupt them.

>generic post that not so subtly implies ideology X is outdated and must obviously be steered away from at this point in the calendar

next thing you're going to tell me it's the year two thousand sixteen.

Someone is triggered...

Not a retard or a shitty libertarian,

Just one who asked too many questions asked during thought through the ideology

I would get behind that so quickly. I would also hope for random drug testing. Hopefully a few decades living under a welfare system like that would leave a population that might be able to thrive under more libertarian policies.

People are monkeys, and monkeys form tribes and coalitions with which to assume power, and strip other monkey-tribes of resources. Such is all warfare, including democracy.

Most people, left to their own devices, will pursue exactly this end. Hundreds of thousands - if not millions of years of evolution - have assured this end. We would not be here if it was not codified into are DNA. We have literally evolved to play cut-throat political games with each other, and we are very, very good at it.

Pic implies that jews are bad, yes.

Production is wealth.

He didn't get his grubby fucking fingers dirty once.

He has not meaningfully contributed to society.

Whites will always voluntarily bring nonwhites into their communities in order to get cheap labor. Race is powerless in the face of economic reality.

Yup, how do you get there, is uncle sam gonna allow it, or do you need a dictator?

Cierto, pero si definís "bien" como aquella situación que favorece la felicidad de las personas y a su vez usas la definición aristotélica de felicidad, también conocida como eudaimonia. En ese momento te das cuenta de que el "buen" gobierno no es aquel que permita el mejor bienestar sino que permita la posibilidad de un desarrollo pleno del ser humano.

No...I said that we should keep riding the tiger man

>mfw when you tried to make an argument

Slavery bro...restore it

Holy shit I caught up to the bottom. Yes.

but i want my own chamber, i don't want to be in the same as the jew niggers and gays