2 Signs To Identify A Liberal In Disguise

What is a liberal? What is a conservative? Many will have different words to describe these terms, and often conflating them with Democrat or Republican.

A conservative does not have to be part of the Republican Party. A conservative does not have to be a wardog. A conservative could be a socialist on a nationalist level. Many have this mainstream idea about what a liberal and conservative are. And many in the political arena fly under the conservative banner when, in reality, they are an adversary to the very foundation of conservatism. Perhaps not today, or next year. But sooner or later, their adherence to liberalism will craft a political and cultural snowball effect which shall be the death of their set society.

So, how does one identify a liberal in disguise, or in denial?

1. They Support Women’s Rights

I hold to the claim that allowing females to vote was a rotten call of judgement by men. And, to this day, there are ‘conservatives’ who support this decision. Personally, I find it anti-conservative and pro-liberal to allow women a vote. That doesn’t equate to hating them but rather recognizing they lack logic which, by their very nature, means they cannot vote in accordance with law and order, safety and security. It isn’t complex; unless, of course, you’re a female in which you may not possess the intellect to grasp the overall societal implications of such a manner.

Women like Ann Coulter or Faith Goldy are rare. A beautiful rarity, I might add. In truth, I’d vote for Faith Goldy for mayor of Toronto. I do not dwell there, but I’d support a female who is anti-immigration and pro-borders. I’d vote for Ann Coulter as US President. They both have more backbone than any contemporary limp-wrist Western man. But, again, they are rarities.

Conservatism has a foundation. It does not stray from tradition. In the Ancient World, men dominated and women submitted, or were put in their place if they were too disobedient. Any man, or woman, who supports women’s right to vote, in terms of political power, is liberal-minded. Beware of those prancing around right-winged circles who still hold to this delusional libertarian-esque mentality. They are not conservative in their hearts of hearts.

2. They Support Libertarianism

I’d be fine living in a libertarian society. How cool would that be? I get to live as I please and, as long as I don’t harm another, I am free to be myself. What a glamorous fantasy!

It is a fantasy. That’s not how the real world operates. If it did, I’d subscribe to that ideology. But human nature shall never allow it. In conveying that, it strikes me liberal as hell the one who dares advocate for such a society. They are not only defying human nature, but they are straying from conservatism by giving far too much freedom, on such an irresponsible level, to the citizens of that set society. Libertarianism, along with communism and anarchy, are all ludicrous because they stand on one similar basis: human beings can get along and play nicely.

Less government is, in my view, not the solution. I do not like it, but my observations direct me this way, in accordance with maintaining law and order. Some claim the solution to the system is… no system? Sorry but that’s childish, stupid and fucking foolish. It’s an immature, irrational worldview based on lunacy.

Imagine this: we’re all standing around and, just to our left, is an open door. Inside are the controls of all of society. The libertarian says we are all going to behave and no one is to enter that door because ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ are totally in fashion. Well, human nature will give way and, before the libertarian can finish their line of piffle, someone has already run inside that door, locked it, and is now boss.

Libertarians aren’t really that intelligent.

Beware: Dave Rubin Is A Progressive In Infancy

I personally do not have any qualms with Dave Rubin. He is one of the reasons I’ve found my way to conservatism. He began talking to a variety of different guests which, over time, led me to one character, then another until it networked toward the alternative right (or dissident right), etc. I could most likely get along just fine with the man. But he is liberal. And he is a progressive in infancy.

His ideas, if actually obtained on a societal level, would be fine. Live and let live. It’s a fantasy but, if manifested in reality, would be fine. The conundrum is human nature, along with the political and cultural snowball effect of liberalism and its ideals and political decisions made within a society. After women were allowed to vote, it led, many years later, to females on the frontlines of war weakening what is supposed to be the self-defense tool of a nation. After gay marriage, it shortly thereafter became bigoted to be against children transitioning into the opposite sex. There are political and cultural snowball effects to every decision if it strays from orthodoxy.

So, anyone prancing around as a conservative, and believes women should have the same opportunities as a man, are liberal. And, by extension, a progressive in infancy. They may themselves not turn progressive, but their adherences will trickle down to the latter generations allowing a gateway toward leftism.

People, such as Dave Rubin, are gateways into leftism. Not today, or even next year. But, in time, it will lead toward that direction.


We must have comrades if one desires survival over death. Not everyone who is liberal (in disguise or denial) is your adversary. Not for now, at least. But be aware of their worldview and adherences because, again, there is a very serious thing to understanding human nature and the political and cultural snowball effects of the liberal mindset.

It is not wise to constantly bicker at those who will, if civil unrest breaks out, ultimately land on your side. But, again, understanding the giveaways of the liberal mindset may very well be important in identifying a little problem in the many years to come.

Read Next: Why Are So Many Women Liberals?

115 thoughts on “2 Signs To Identify A Liberal In Disguise”

    1. 3. Any white who disses the Alt-Right and pro-white groups are liberal Marxists. The Alt-Right is essentially classic, post-1960/post-Marxist, conservatisim.

      1. It takes a long looong time for boomers and their successors to shake off the TV brainwashing. Their thinking and logic is being jammed. Even late in life after red pill 101 and after they can see the truth behind the smokescreening and gaslighting, these folks still find themselves slipping up now and then and thinking and doing the same knee jerk stuff they swore off with each red pill epiphany and reality moment. The mind ‘forgets’ truth frequently and backslides kind of like how a born again Christian preacher backslides and goes on a binge and humps donkeys. Then he’s busted and tearfully begs forgiveness. Jim Baker comes to mind.
        Most red pill brahs out there would never touch a donkey or be so stupid to mistake another man’s sh¡tter hole for grandma’s famous brownies, so what gives with people like Jim Baker? Well, the menacing demonic spirit is indeed that strong. It’s strong as hell with some, kind of like the stmong steel grip that TV brainwashing held over the pre smartphone minds of boomers, x-ers and millennials.
        TV sitcoms and idiot melodramas literally programmed the latter half of the 20th century people how to talk, walk, reason and how to relate in the home around the dinner table. And the laugh tracks were the ‘thumbs up’ and ‘likes’ for what is acceptable behaviour.
        So much of what is social marxist behaviour and reactionary thinking happens when a person emulates the scripted dialogue from brainwashing programs they saw on TV. It wasn’t real life experience but long after the fact. people still remember the words they heard on TV as if they were real life’s memories. There is a such thing as TV overload where real life starvation syndrome causes complete false thinking patterns. This is why it is very hard and time consuming to overcome marxist thinking. An average person barely has enough days in his life for all the real life experience to unlearn every social marxist falsehood that was implanted in their mind from watching TV programming.
        Now we’re left with social marxists who are sick just like Ebola patients and need special quarantine treatment to prevent spreading.

        1. MCGOO I’m a tail end boomer born right at the end of the fifties and can attest to the truth of your statement about boomers. I was quite strongly bluepilled right up until I had just turned fifty. Sure I had come across Marc Rudov “no nonsense male” and others who had written in a similar vein. But in the end I was still largely a blue piller. However it also meant that I was frustrated by a lack of understanding regarding the ways of women.
          It took my youngest brother’s divorce to push me into doing research and finding out what was going on. I first stumbled across “The Spearhead” by W.F. Price and nearly didn’t go in because others talking about it said it was filled with a bunch of haters. If it wasn’t for my brother’s divorce I may well have stayed away. But at this point I was open to any new ideas that might help make sense out of what I had seen even if those ideas were “hateful”.
          Once I went in and began to see how deep the rabbit hole went I realised one thing. I had spent all my life being blue pill, allowing women to a large degree control my moral values. I say to a large degree because back around 2006 I had an argument with the wife in which she was angrily describing a personal attribute of mine as if there was something wrong with being that way. As it turns out she was accurate in her description but I walked away from the argument concluding that she was wrong in her judgment of said attribute. I cannot remember what it was so don’t ask. I just remember from that point on to listen more critically to her pronouncements and reject them if I had a different take.
          Coming back to the rabbit hole, I found such a HUGE amount of information I realised that it was going to take me years to get on top of in an effort to wash the blue pill information out of me. I decided that I would read, reread and read again because if I was going to hold this completely new position then I was going to have to do so publicly and be able to defend it from the attacks that were out there.
          It has been a long road for me. It has taken seven years so far and only now am I starting to dip my toes into the water as it were in terms of being seriously involved. In other words as a very late Boomer who came across the red pill around fifty years of age your assertion is correct. It has taken me seven years to readjust my thinking. Having done so I am a lot happier as I now understand the ways of women and I’ve had the pleasure of teaching my sons the red pill. Initially they thought I had become a woman hater but being young it was a lot easier to disabuse them of the blue pill brainwashing. Now in their mid twenties they thank me periodically for introducing them to the red pill.
          The worst part for me is that as a dyed in the wool Christian my church leaders pushed the heck out of the blue pill – using the bible to try and buttress their positions. Post red pill I read the bible with red pill glasses and find that most of what I have been told is a lie. The bible is full on red pill to those with the red pill outlook who care to look.
          The fact that I am happier now does not take away from the fact that I am angry at the deception and now that I’m getting close to sixty years of age I will spent whatever time I have left remaining on earth to try and undo the brainwashing that I’ve seen.
          The sad part for me is that MCgoo is more correct than I wish. Many of my boomer acquaintances are still full on blue pillers and I believe there is a good chance they will go to their graves with their blue pill glasses on. Consequently I aim my efforts at the young ones where I can and given my job I get the opportunity to meet members of the public and feed them information when the opportunity arises. A number of times I’ve been able to open the eyes of some three or more decades younger than myself.
          Today I met a 21 year old gentleman who already has a family and a 2 year old kid. I immediately started feeding him some red pill truths on the advantages of starting a family young. Given the way his eyes lit up I don’t think he expected to be congratulated on starting a family young by this old fart.
          So I’m doing what I can now to rectify the damage us boomers have done and I’ll help you all as a team to spread the word.

        2. Additionally there’s the language programming. For example, why were the “labels” generated? As if there are only 2-3 types of people.

      2. Fun fact: the term ‘alternative right’ was created by the US Libertarian Party and popularized by a slightly wacky GOP pro-libertarian Jew, Eric Dondero. They defined the alt-right (and alt-left) agenda the totalitarians are trying to hijack and reclaim.
        The internet you use to criticize libertarians was created by them as well via visioning, deregulation campaigns and actual inventions (like the PC). We enjoy an increasingly wealthy, pacific, tolerant, world thanks to these folks. That is despite incessant anti-libertarian smears and far-left false histories that reverse the truth.
        You just can’t escape these people. There is likely an armed libertarian group of homes in your neighborhood who know all about you. And I mean most neighborhoods in every country on the planet. Most are peaceful folks interested in self-development and not too into politics except local volunteering. They’re in all major political parties preaching science/due process.
        That first responder you need may just be a libertarian. Or worse, a ruthless formal Libertarian. They took down the Iron Curtain. They got anti-libertarian Bob Barr kicked out of office and made him run as their presidential candidate and like it. They made sure Hilary lost, and they initially liked her until she got stupid. They just put the far-left President of Brazil in jail. They likely quietly got your local government to fix that STOP sign and ran the campaign to fund the local library. They are the Liberals who made the US the world power. Liberalism was just a step for them. They aren’t finished.
        Plus the formals and increasingly the informals are mostly happily married with far more kids than you.
        As I said, for now, most are into self/local eco-development via voluntary options. Peace, love, prepping, and a .45. Could just be your local first responder or volunteer fireman. So why provoke them? Just saying.

        1. Fun fact: Libertarianism was first termed by anarco-communists. You geezers always come up with these irrelevant “facts” that prove nothing. You are not intelligent bro, and you have nothing but bullshit to say. “Peace, love, prepping” So you are a hippie now, wow, and prepping for what? I always find it amusing with you stupid fucking libertarians, you are always prepping for a world without government, but at the same time you idiots preach how amazing it would be without government. What you are prepping for is your own ideology, lol. Volunteerism gets nothing done you stupid fuck, which is why government was created, and why it has been used since the beginning of civilization to get shit done.

      1. How about Mark Steyn?!? :p LOL
        Mark Styen is an ultra-nationalist conservative. he has a British accent because he was eeducated in UK, but he is 100% pro-USA.
        I trust Mark Steyn, one of the 6 voices vehemently opposing the Islamization of Europe, even under threat of death.

    2. Dave Rubin is LIBERAL who has been so battered by the out of control far-left/AntiFa/FemiNazis that he has come closer to SOME conservative ideas. But he is NOT a Conservative by any stretch of the imagination (pun intended).
      Tucker is more of the classical Conservative we can trust on TV today. He has also been falsely accused of rape 2 years ago, he cares deeply about men in America (he did an entire series on TV,k against threats of boycotts by left), and he has become a less-immigration and secure borders to ensure the survival of America.
      Tucker, Lou Dobbs, Laura Ingraham (to lesser extent), and Hannity are the only real Conservative voices on cable TV today. For a Constitutional Conservative, see Mark Levin (yes, he is J3wish, but so what? He is a lover of America, defender of justice, and the Constitution). Also Ben Shapiro, he is also doing a Sunday election special series on Fox now.
      By far Tucker has become my fav TV anchor on all of TV today. He exposes the left aggressively and promote men’s rights and pro-American national policies.

  1. “A conservative could be a socialist on a nationalist level.”
    I strongly disagree.
    Anyone supporting handouts and collectivism can never be considered a conservative.
    Doesn’t matter the level. A conservative takes care of himself and his family, and any desire to help others would be done through personal/private/religious charity, not government.

    1. AutomaticSlim,
      If so, does it make sense to be a conservative? Why would you want to limit your thinking in such a way that the government could not help others?
      That’s basically libertarianism once again and it does not matter what petty term we give for these things but it just does not work.
      I live in Europe and the way it works here is the wealthy use more public subsidies and benefits than the poor do; sure they do not use social services because they don’t have to but there are many other ways to milk the state such as highly paid doctors working for public health care and the private sector at the same time not to mention all the tax trickery these smart and influential are capable of. Since the rich have more control over the media, they direct our gaze towards the poor people scraping by and make us get mad over their puny handouts as if we should be envious of them.
      The roads you use, the schools you go to, health care, security, legal proceedings, housing is more or less subsidized or completely maintained by the state but libertarians don’t mind going to a state funded library to argue for a corporate run state.
      How would the conservative charity thing work anyway? Will everyone have a job in that society so they do not need benefits? Is it a good enough wage to really live on as opposed to just existing? How are you going to ensure that every conservative gives into the charity and does not get greedy and get all tribal with his money? Without a mechanism in place for ensuring it, the charity could quickly be overwhelmed and the unemployed, disabled, the children of said disabled and unemployed and the old would be in trouble and the police would have a very hard time protecting the greedy conservatives from the desperate hungry mobs.
      I don’t claim to be smart or wise enough to know exactly what would happen but I think it’s juvenile and immature to subscribe to some black/white ideology which could see you land in the bottom of the pile very quickly if your luck were to turn against you.

      1. @ DG ’85
        Nice reply.
        Here are some thoughts.
        “If so, does it make sense to be a conservative? Why would you want to limit your thinking in such a way that the government could not help others?”
        – Because it encourages shiftlessness and a moocher mentality. The government will either evenly distribute to all (including groups you may not like), or in the case of the US and Western Europe, will distribute “charity” unevenly to “protected classes”.
        “The roads you use, the schools you go to, health care, security, legal proceedings, housing is more or less subsidized or completely maintained by the state but libertarians don’t mind going to a state funded library to argue for a corporate run state. ”
        – Um, not sure which country you are from, but here in the US, middle and upper middle class people do not get many of those things from the govt.
        Roads and LE yes, and some do use public school (I went to Catholic grade school/HS/college). But legal proceedings, medicine and housing? Only the poor get those things for free from the govt, and they get it on the tax dollars of people who actually work for a living. Old people get SS/Medicare, and I believe there should be a cap on that. They should only get back what they paid in + 5% interest. When it runs out, it runs out and that’s the end.
        Libraries are funded locally. The cost is relatively small, and I think they are good examples of limited government spending for the public good.
        “How would the conservative charity thing work anyway?”
        – Easy! You donate when you what to whom you want. Want to give to your local Church’s meals on wheels program? Have at it. Don’t want to contribute? No problem. It’s up to the individual. I donated to Japan when they had the tsumani. I did not donate to Haiti when they had the earthquake. It would work like that.
        “Without a mechanism in place for ensuring it, the charity could quickly be overwhelmed and the unemployed, disabled, the children of said disabled and unemployed and the old would be in trouble and the police would have a very hard time protecting the greedy conservatives from the desperate hungry mobs.”
        – I can only speak for the US. If we deport the illegal aliens, there will be millions of job openings. Those on welfare will be expected to take those jobs. If they do there will be no “hungry mobs”. If they don’t, well, then whatever happens, happens. Seeing starving, lazy people does not really bother me. I am not the kind of guy who gives spare change to the homeless.
        But in all honestly, I really do believe that given the choice between work and starvation, 99.9% of people will choose work.

        1. Totally agree with your answers.
          And to the last part:
          “– I can only speak for the US. If we deport the illegal aliens, there will be millions of job openings. …”
          I’d post hopefully the last Stefan video, where he also brings this argument in a longer form.

        2. Great reply AutomaticSlim. As for the article. A woman’s right to vote will never be repealed. Unless there is a complete apocalyptic collapse in advanced western nations. Even then I don’t think it will happen. As for the boogeyman called Libertarianism I don’t think very many if any of you have any idea of the history of the Libertarian Party and why it came into being. First of all I don’t think a Libertarian society would work unless the average IQ is one standard deviation above the norm and people adhered to old time moral strictures in their private and public lives. However it came about because of the overreaching Lib government and not all of the ideas are bad. Some are actually pretty damn good. Trump repealing hundreds of useless and business killing regulations was a very Libertarian thing to do. It has helped to kick start and create a stronger economy that was ailing for 8 years under magic man Obama. If you talk to ordinary Libertarians you will find many who are NOT in favor of open borders and abortion on demand. Ed Clark in 1980 and Ron Paul in 1988 were both excellent and articulate Presidential candidates. Now the Libertarian party is not the evil bogeyman you think it is. Actually it sucks now but not in the way you think. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 2016 actually ran to the left of the bitch Hillary on certain issues, as did his VP running mate William Weld. Anyway, dating back to its founding in 1971 the Libertarian Party was created in large part as a reaction to the oppressive matrix that we all live under. In any case if you are successful in defeating the almighty matrix (not likely) and you replace it with another form of government that is just as stifling then you will not have my support. As for Wes and others who long for a white uprising, forget it. Your views aren’t even shared by 1% of the white population and even if things get desperate you will never have enough followers to charge up that hill and defeat the enemy. Not only that but most white people disappoint if not disgust me. Watching the Irish women celebrate their right to infanticide and witnessing the blood lust hounding Brett Kavanaugh does not make me want to fight and kill or die for white people, particularly white women. A damn shame because I know a lot of really good white people, some of whom I am related to. Now, as for this Rubin guy I freely admit I never heard of him and after a cursory review of his career I don’t think I was missing anything. In summary, congrats to AS for a fine reply and these are my views on the article.

      2. “The roads you use, the schools you go to, health care, security, legal proceedings, housing is more or less subsidized or completely maintained by the state but libertarians don’t mind going to a state funded library to argue for a corporate run state.” ~
        The roads provide an important means by which those who can be profitable are profitable.
        The return on the roads to lawgivers in the form of income taxes collected speaks for itself.
        Taxes are an unearned share of profit. Without profit there can be no taxes. And without taxes, there can be no lawgivers doling out welfare.
        Lawgivers do not give welfare to help others. Lawgivers give welfare to maintain power.
        Without getting voted into office, lawgivers can not do anything. But in office, lawgivers can accommodate their patrons.
        To sway would-be voters to their side, lawgivers give welfare.
        Welfare is the great evil from which all corruption follows.
        Good luck!

      3. This whole standard of living thing is unrealistic to think that the infirm, the disabled, the unemployable and even the ‘between jobbers’ need hotel living conditions. Modern western nations consider it a badge of honor how well they ‘free hotel’ their unskilled and unemployed. What they’re doing is ‘hotelling’ a dependent state and the amenities are excessive without regard for the state’s ROI.
        Remember the Panama Canal? 75,000 men built the canal and 28,000 died (mostly from malaria). But they accomplished an amazing feat with private company housing and support. Initially the project was funded by French investors, and then American investors. New machines had to be invented for the job and the Caterpillar heavy machinery company was created. And it was PRIVATE from the get go – NO NANNY STATE ALLOWED!! (or needed)
        So why should the poor and unskilled be guaranteed council housing or free section 8 dwellings with finished drywall, pella windows, shiny peerless faucets and cable hookups? That’s too lavish and they certainly aren’t building another Panama Canal or anything similar. Ghetto people barely maintain their own streets or dwellings.
        Why Roman Senators didn’t even have it as posh as the typical western project dweller with wifi. The idle and unproductive members of society in modern western nations are being spoiled to death. They would fare much better being given far less. They have to be kept on their toes a bit more by keeping their handouts basic and simple. The poor can be maintained for work readiness a lot better in plain dry rooms furnished with simple cots, a heat source, roof and 2 bowls of soup/day. An employer could easily provide as much or better privately and without the government racketeers getting their grubby socialist paws into the human services business. The western governments are so crooked, all they do is convert huge funds into theft disguised as waste while ‘providing’ a minimum level of actual service.
        Even a typical gambling casino serves a community better than the nanny state. With a casino, the house is prohibited by gaming laws from keeping more than 5%. The house is allowed to adjust the slot machines where the house can only keep a max of 5% tops.
        But with the nanny state, it’s the other way around where the socialist and communist party thieves convert and keep the 95% while 5% goes to services and freebie housing. Even with free pharma, greatly inflated name brand pharmaceuticals are billed to the government provider. An indigent person who makes next to nothing or minimum wage can easily get free scrips for over 100k in pills and quack services per year, even unnecessary overmedication, but they cannot convert the funds directly to themselves by refusing the scrips and going holistic for example. 100k would buy a house, boat and guns but nooooo the pharma giants have the only pipeline to that government money. What a racket.
        And then when said indigent person dies, they ‘donate’ their organs right? No the hospital STEALS the organs with no compensation to the family. The organs are packed on ice and are already paid for by a recipient and by their care provider but NONE of the money is seen or accessable by the donor’s heirs. So the medical establishment along with the providers make a fortune and the family makes nothing. Zip.
        Wouldn’t it be nice if you could part out and sell off your great aunt’s organs and KEEP the money for your family? Yeah just part her out like you’d part out that old dead Lincoln Navigator growing moldy in the garage on Craigslist. Heart 20k. Kidneys 30k. Lung 40k. Corneas 5k. Noooo you can’t do that. What bullsh¡t. Only the hospital is licensed to STEAL the organs and broker them. Cha ching.
        That’s the nanny state for you. GIMMEE your organs for free. And open wide sucker. Say “aaaaah” and TAKE these pills. . . and it’s a bunch of useless expensive pills that destroy your liver and make you grow a tail. All tallied up, medical treatments and pharma pills are so expensive that a typical chronically ill person could buy the rest of the houses on their street with the cost of their treatment – if only they got the money instead of the pills and billable ‘services’. Geez what does a regular Joe have to do? Rob banks? Sheesh. If only you could convert the overpriced pills and quack services into your own accounts. Every nanny state relies on a steady supply of indigents to operate their racket. Me, I’ll never profit from the racket because I’m not a member of the communist party and never will be. I refuse to be. Screw the socialist state.
        The government sponsored opiate ‘crisis’ is another one – and ooooh don’t get me started but it’s the SAME racket run by the same thieving socialist pinstripe parasites at the top. ‘Epidemic’ my ass. The opiate treatment centers, the courts with their ongoing real estate and property confiscation, the warrantless checkpoints, the private prison contract quotas to fill. Eeeh gadz I want to pound my fists.
        And it’s not the strung out junkie on the street who is a threat to you as a citizen. What poses the real threat to you is the entire mob of racketeers that profit from the junkie. They’re all like a big 100 pound leech or like a big bloodsucking parasite on your back and upon the backs of every taxpaying citizen. Honestly how many citizens just want to see all those g0ddamⁿ vermin and racketeers rounded up and thrown into a big incinerator? Citizens have had enough and won’t stand for it any more.

        1. Are you just that fucking retarded? The Panama Canal had GOVERNMENT written all over it….DO RESEARCH BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH. The Panama Canal was literally considered a pet project of Theodore Roosevelt, and one of his great accomplishments as a US president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Corps_of_Engineers
          You libertarians are so fucking LOW IQ and so inbred I don’t know how you get up in the morning and put your cloths on.
          “The government sponsored opiate ‘crisis’ is another one” Oh, so now drug are bad? I though you libertarians wanted people to have the right to do drugs? Private pharmaceutical companies promote it and profit from it, private doctors prescribe it, and private citizens consume it….but it is the governments fault?….oh, that’s right, people wouldn’t do it if it was legal, right…..pfff…you are such a fucking idiot. Please explain to me why it is government fault that people do opiates?

        2. @Wes – Whaa?? Me a libertarian? I’m not a libtard. I don’t advocate or tolerate rainbow flags and Amsterdam style opium dens. Geez I want to see all the fiends and dope suppliers and pharma racketeers purged whether by a nationalist regime or by citizen militias, just get em gone. Curative medicinals are essential but when the state uses drugs and engineered biosubstances for oppositional defiance behaviour control over citizenry and chronic syndromes and addictions for the purpose of perpetual treatment rackets, then the ball is in the citizen’s court to fight the authority and clean house and to do so before the nation itself completely fails.
          And on the Panama Canal, I say the ‘nanny state’ government never built the panama canal but really it became a national holding after private investment initiated it. And the ‘government’ of the 1880s wasn’t the same as the modern nanny state. No modern nanny state could build such a massive project. It is cheaper for a nanny state system to shrink and kill their population than expand anything. Today’s nanny state system manages people differently than the expansion period government of the late 19th century. A nanny state system keeps people out of work, unproductive, fat, uninformed and unaware, not building a canal or anything cost effectively. You’d swear they were running a people meat farm with the fattening of the idle dependent population while keeping them corn holed up in air conditioned free room and board. That’s how you fatten and corral swine and beef cows. Yeah the nanny state will take care of you alright.
          The US banks actually came in later in the Panama Canal project a decade after the French. Teddy Roosevelt had JP Morgan create several new banks to broker the acquisition from France. And the US Federal Reserve hadn’t been ceated until after the canal was completed so no fiat money was used, otherwise we’d pay in full while the Canal would likely go back to the French Rothschilds. The French venture capitalists started the project because the Suez was such a success for it’s shareholders and became one of the major publicly traded commodities.
          So the investors dreamed big. Sadly the Panama project went downhill with much of the workforce succumbing to malaria and yellow fever. And the project itself was very expensive and vested. Many French shareholders who were also wealthy government officials began finger pointing when the project tanked with the workforce die off, and massive corruption ensued. Think Enron. Even waves of anti semitism and brawls broke out when the money grubbers tried to keep pyramiding the project and several French government regimes collapsed as a result.
          THEN Roosevelt’s BBF JP Morgan stepped in and funds were managed to complete the project. If only the French had known it was the mosquitos. But again no taxes were levied on US citizens exclusively for the project in the classical sense where ‘government’ circulates funds from tax revenue to support infrastructure such as local roads and schools. This thing was just too damn big and risky. This was tail end colonial era expansion facilitated by mega investors.

      4. DepressedGuy1985:
        Europe and USA are two different worlds. Libertarianism in its purest forms does NOT work at all. We saw the unfettered Libertarianistic policies in effect in late 1880s and early 20th Century and that led to the disastrous Progressive Era, resulting in WWI, the Great Depression of 1930s, and the Great Society. In fact, after Woodrow Wilson, the most ingeniously evil of all early 20th century Progressives, politicians shunned the term “Progressive”, like most women who are Feminist say they are not feminists (due to toxic nature of the term). I know many de facto Feminists that say they are not feminists. In USA, the term has the same negative view today as being called a “Bush Republican”. America rejected Bushism and Obamanism and that is why we have Trump and an American economic restoration period, confronting China economically, and re-directing global supply chains.
        To be a Conservative, you have to have SOMETHING you want to “conserve” (preserve, save, protect). Right now, Trump is still pushing to reform America back to a more save place, restrict immigration, and
        In Europe, public subsidies are used by the rich because it is a “crony capitalist” system with heavy public welfare. In many ways, Europe is an Economic Oligarchy, where you have to inherit wealth or it is extremely difficult to obtain upwards social mobility. You are born into wealth to have something in Europe. A Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, or Shaquille O’Neil cannot come from humble beginnings and become a multi-millionaire or billionaire. America produces that through a merit system, while Europe you have to be born into it (like Macron of France or David Cameron of UK).
        The other issue you discuss is basic services, like courts, police, roads, military/defense, etc. This is an issue where Libertariansm fails royally. They think that even basic police services should be base don the 1870s system where you have hire a local deputy to hunt down a criminal that harmed you. Basically, if you are poor, you get no justice if a victim of a crime. Furthermore, Libertarians would allow a single billionaire like Zuckerberg or George Soros or Tim Styre to buy up entire industries and shut down its ideological competition forever. We saw the DISASTER that the early 20th century was with monopolies (Standard Oil, JP Morgan banking, Edison trying to bankrupt Tesla, Carneige Steel monopoly, etc).
        In the USA, unlike Europe, taxes are low enough that Americans enjoy very good amounts of “disposable income”. That is money we can spend however we wish. Due to a large number of devout Christians and many wealthy charitable people (like Bill and Melinda Gates), charities in USA receive large donations to keep providing relief. We just had a massive hurricane and flooding in Carolinas region. Samaritan’s Purse, a Christian organization founded by Billy Graham’s son was there before FEMA, our Federal Emergency Govt agency was even on the ground.
        Unemployed people who lost their jobs during recessions (or the entire Obama Presidency) get paid through an insurance that each employer must pay each month. Every time an employee gets paid hgis wages (weekly or bi-monthly), the employer pays a small amount to State to finance an insurance service for the involuntarily unemployed. If you some crack or is fired for stealing, you do NOT get this money).
        So a basic “safety net” can be put in place and funded by taxpayers without creating a situation where millions are “permanently unemployed by choice” (welfare for life) like in Scandinavia, for example. I know a Norwegian guy who has chosen NOT to work for 8 years now, received housing aid, “basic income” each month, and all. His life sucks, but he gets by, plays games all day, and sleeps until noon.
        Most Americans would refuse to pay Socialist-type taxes like Scandinavia to finance a bunch of useless and lazy “migrants” and lazy citizens. So we have a Free Market/Capitalist system in America with a safety net. It has to be further adjusted to remove millions of illegal immigrants living off the system and scammers, but what we have in USA works better than having State tax incomes of middle class people at 60%! That is slavery IMHO.

    2. Building infrastructure, providing medical/emergency/education services is completely different from giving cash handouts and cosmetic/optional medical to lazy parasites.

      1. And when I say education services, I mean education that will train a valuable member of society, for example, a particle physicist not women’s studies. I think there is quite a good argument that only men should be educated beyond high-school.

      2. 100% agree John…however, what you just said is pure evil, theft, and “statisim” to the average libertarian….and what you are supporting will still cost a lot, and will require a fairly robust progressive tax system, especially in a first world country. With that being said, as we become a more “vibrant” society our ability to implement any of these measures without going bankrupt will diminish significantly.

        1. Nope, big governments need debased currencies(By big government I mean the us government post 1913), so ounce the Federal fails which inevitably it’ll force the government to shrink

      3. Exactly, John!
        What we have in Western Europe today is a parasite class of Chavs and Yobs (in UK) and 20+ million ILLEGAL criminal immigrants here in USA getting tons of welfare benefits, like Section 8 housing, food stamps, EIC (Earned Income Credit for people who pay $0 income taxes and get “cash rebate” for kids of illegal aliens that pop out a kid in USA), Medicaid, etc.
        It is a joke, It has to be reformed. Trump just changed Immigration regulations requiring that all Immigrants who apply for a Green Card (permanent residency) MUST NOT have received any welfare in last 3 years. That will cut down immigrants getting GreenCards by 80% or more. 🙂
        We also should reduce welfare benefits to single moms who are irresponsible. It is one thing to help support kids of women whose husbands died, it is another to finance a whole system so women can be irresponsible and pop-out kids without financial consequences.
        We need welfare reform like the late 1990s under Newt Gingrich. Jail for any immigrant getting welfare benefits too.

    3. Disagree as I support some social and social eugenics programs ( code name Project Alpha, IF I had my way.).
      For starters every idiology has it’s weakness and this wanna be conservative crybaby whom posted this rather vague article should give a detailed explanation on what his ideology is and how it will benefit I asume is US or another modern western socialty. As much as we want we can’t turn back time.
      Goal #1 Encourage and assist so that so that every Nation can stand on its own.

      1. This article was not about his ideology, this article was about how to spot an Alt-Lite, pseudo Liberal. He explained himself very well, and this is just an article not an entire book. “this wanna be conservative crybaby whom posted this rather vague article”…what? Why? Why is he a “crybaby” wanna be conservative, especially when you are the one preaching for eugenics….your post makes absolutely no fucking sense bro.

        1. Libertarians at least in the USA want a limited government set within it’s constitution limits. Also why is this author all of a sudden the authority on conservativism? From the points he makes he sounds like a crybaby that cannot cope with a changing world and if you disagree with him any points your not a true conservative.
          I off course disagree as you can support many of the mentioned viewpoints and still be a conservative.
          For example I support true equality for men and women with no government handouts or laws to propup thier delusional dicotomy( The Empowered Victim.).

        2. Libertarians are simple minded morons who don’t even understand what government does. “Limited government” is the most subjective term ever used in history, and can mean anything. Libertarians are not conservative, and I don’t give a fuck if you think they are or not. You morons don’t conserve anything, you agree with liberals on almost all cultural/drug laws, and all you want is this “limited government” which you do not even understand. Did it ever occur to you that maybe you are the fucking idiots? I mean, just go up a little in this thread and read the post by MCGOO and then read my response to him. You libertarians have no idea what you are talking about. Just sitting there and saying “muh freedom”, “muh limited government”, “muh constitution” doesn’t mean shit….everything the government is today is 100% constitutional. All implemented constitutionally, and approved by the supreme court as being constitutional….just like the constitution says.
          Feminism is a DIRECT consequence of female equality. Our race problems are a direct result of libertarian free markets (muh cheap labor, muh growth). Our economic problems are a direct result of libertarian free markets (outsourcing, free trade, lower wages). The private companies fucking over conservatives today are a part of the libertarian FREE MARKETS, CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY. Colored people voting for socialism is 100% constitutional…..so keep pretending you’re right libertarians, keep going…you idiots are done, and you will not win. All you are doing keeping white people in this country from collectivizing and organizing so that we can ACTUALLY take our country back.

        3. Wes, why do you think Trump was elected? Why do you think Canada just capitulated under Trump’s thumb and tariffs? Why is China now trying to help the Dumbocrats re-take power to prevent Trump from comforting them and fighting back against that country’s theft of our wealth and technology?
          Bush in his 2nd term and the entire Obummer “Presidency” were a rise in a 2-tier system, where the rich financed Obummer and the Dems in exchange for “libertarian global trade” and immigration open borders to keep wages low. These same rich people lived under a govt welfare system and the middle class paid the bills. The middle class got Libertarianism while the rich got subsidies and welfare. It was unstable and dangerous and that is why we have Trump now. We were going to become an Oligarchy like Europe if (H)Billary was elected.
          Look at history: Libertarianism created the Robber Baron monopolies that prevented any growth or any competition in the early 20th century. It created social instability and widespread poverty. Violent riots were everywhere. Chaos ruled our cities, with places like 5-Points neighborhood of NYC (portrait in movie “Gangs of New York”) were dirty and poor, as Monopolies used mass immigration and cartels to keep wages artificially low. Our cities lacked basic roads and even sewer system under the Libertarian age of the late 1880s-early 20th century.
          Once we broke up the Monopolies (Standard Oil, Edison’s electric, Carnegie Steel, etc) in early 20th century we created the Middle Class, the best engine of prosperity and growth in human history. Business creation, innovation, and property expanded enjoyed by widespread segments of American society.
          There was TV show special on History Channel, it has a center-left tilt on some subjects, but it shows this whole thing very well, called “The Men Who Built America”. It shows how the monopolies, once helped promote growth, national development, and even product safety (example: Standard Oil created a kerosene of stable consistency and that prevented fires from people using kerosene poorly formulated) later hurt the country badly. But in time Standard Oil became a national monopoly, preventing any new small business start-ups. We saw this with Railroad monopolies, Edison Electric, steel, communications (AT&T), telegraph, etc.

          In some ways, America today IS back at the early 20th century. We have mass immigration hurting wages; we have an Aristocracy paying off and buying politicians (Bezos of Amazon has a SuperPAC buying 22 Democrat and 18 Republican Congresspeople in 2018 elections, under the guise of “supporting veterans for Congress”, Soros/Tom Styer/Zuckerberg literally own the entire Democratic party); we have monopolies preventing any new start-ups and sucking up all financing and the oxygen out of the markets (Amazon, FB, Tweeter, Google, etc).
          The only hope we have is that unlike early 20th Century, we ALREADY have a President that wants to break-up the monopolies and is fighting back against “libertarian global trade” and mass immigration to depress wages.
          So there is hope. 🙂

  2. Very good idea to bring up this topic. At least this will again increase the quality of the site again with the following discussion.
    I’m really torn apart atm.
    I watched a lot of videos from Stefan Molyneux. And it sounds really sensible when he talks about libertarianism and that the state is basically the problem in every sense.
    But he still supports womens rights, while pushing for more conservative values … anyway it’s difficult to put Stefan in a box.
    On the one hand, libertarianism sounds good, Live and let live sounds also reasonable.
    On the other hand, one idea I favor atm would be a minimalist state, as I can’t imagine that people will be able to maintain infrastructure, etc. And what will libertarians do, if they are attacked / invaded by other groups. Without an army, it could be actually easy for an invader to kill off everyone one by one.
    I totally agree with your main statement: “human beings can get along and play nicely.” but the main f***ing point of libertarianism is: There is no such room with “the controls of all of society”
    (And there will be a concemnation of violence. If somebody uses violence on you, you can use violence to defend yourself. So basically there shouldn’t be a situation, where one person or group outpowers another.)
    So, anyway, did you go trough all the stuff Stefan Molyneux put online for free about anarchism and society ? I guess the content is very good and it’s on my todo list. Then we maybe can continue the discussion.
    What I actually like about libertarianism is, that you pay for your own mistakes. And I really think, that less government IS THE SOLUTION (or at least a step towards the right solution)
    * So should women want career. Ok, so be it. But there is no state behind them, to negotiate their contract for them.
    * Should a woman want a divorce ? Ok, but there is no state which steals all the belongings from the man on her behalf.
    * Should a woman choose the bad boy ? Ok, so be it. When the asshole leaves her, there will be no state and no welfare – and only living in the street. If we switch to this model, we will be the last generation with this mass of single mothers. The next generations will think twice or 10 times before landing on the street.
    * There will be no incentives for migrants to live of the welfare system, as there is none.
    In general, it would be interesting: Split the country in 3 different areas: The conservative, the liberal/socialist one, and the libertarian.
    Oh wait, at least with the socialist one, we already know, how this will end. Libertarianism was never tried before, as I understand.
    So if I had to choose between conservative or liberal/socialist, I be for sure on the conservative side. If libertarianism is an option, I’d try it.
    I look forward to the discussion !

    1. “Split the country”: yep, i’m an advotae.
      Funny how those anti-white-male commie feminists never mention that. Simply because “who would be their slaves?”

    2. Another addition maybe:
      If a state, then only people with a stake in the game should be able to vote. E.g taxpayers ? As they pay the money in, they should have the say the direction in which it will be going. But it’s not an optimal solution. It has to be heavily overhauled to make it fair & moral – and give a chance to rise to the ones, who are not working/paying taxes and enable them to participate in the economy if they want to.
      One base thing: How do you morally justify taxes ? Why should the state take away ressources from you by gunpoint ?!
      Next thing: Fiat mone / central banking, etc. As long as the state has control over it, it can skew and manipulate the economy how it wants. And the problem is, there are many idiots playing at the controls atm (or they try to enrich themselves even more).

        1. “No private banks.”
          What do have against bankers?
          A bank is a firm that seeks profit through the business of selling its own credit. Through banking, bankers exchange their credit for the credit of others.
          As a refiner of credit, bankers transmute credit, bankers transmuting property into credit through coining less merchantable property into more merchantable property, which is credit of general acceptability.
          Bankers always have been manufacturers of credit. Without credit, there could not be modern civilization.
          Businesses manufacture credit all of the time as well with promissory notes and letters of credit. There is a whole field of factoring that involves buying up accounts receivables at discount.
          If you are are opposed to bankers, you must also be opposed to all credit.
          The problem is this: Under an elastic currency system such as the Federal Reserve, there are no means against bankers by which to inhibit the production of credit other than the Fed Res BoG artificially raising the interbank lending rate (Fed Funds Rate) or imposing higher reserve requirements.
          In the days of money (coined metal by weight and fineness), the people could put a check on excess credit growth merely by presenting a demand to sell their bank credit back to the bank and buy gold. When enough did so, a so-called bank run would get underway and bankers would be brought to their knees.
          Today though, no one has money. Dollars are merely bank credits circulating in perpetuity. Coins are tokens with the melt worth of the metals less than the face value of the coins.
          A people can not have a legit, strong, advanced economy without a credit mechanism. So railing against the bankers per se is expression of silly-mindedness.

        2. Thomas Jefferson:
          “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies,” Jefferson wrote. ” If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around(these banks) will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
          “The issuing power of currency shall be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
          That’s why.
          How about Hank Paulson and other bankers rolling into government and then back to Goldman Sachs? “Give us money or there will be tanks on the street”.

        3. All of these discussions are mostly theoretical wishful thinking.
          We recognize the problems created over the past 100 years by politicians working for lobbyists. Especially, and initially, female voting, Federal Reserve, Income tax, financing of the Russian Revolution, etc, etc
          History clearly shows what is happening.
          The only thing that can be done is vote in the present system.
          Supreme Court nomination, FISA release…exciting times…many women are joining Republican movement as they are disgusted with Democrat tactics…
          I have registered to vote for first time.
          I still believe in Trump and his team…

        4. @BadMan
          Thank you for elaborating on the money / banking system aspect. And I agree that this is exactly the problem.
          I just hope we even can make some change, as this current cancerous money and banking system is now able to manipulate everything and will probably fight till end, to keep itself alive.
          Maybe next gen crypto currencies are the solution for that ?

        5. @I solve problems
          “will probably fight till end, to keep itself alive.”
          It is playing out now with the SC nomination.
          Desperation -should see many other accusations this week – all without merit…
          And maybe much worse.
          “The ends justify the means” – “by any means necessary”
          The left control the judiciary and swamp creatures withing the executive departments.
          If they stall the nomination and take back congress in November they will lock up everything in lawsuits…
          Imperative to vote R

      1. That just allows rich people to fuck us over even more. If just non-criminal white men (and yes, blacks, native Americans, and other minority men can be involved too) were allowed to vote than we would be fine. Not only that, but your system would be an incredibly hard system to maintain, regulate, and implement if we constantly had to judge each individual man for their “stake in the game” status. Just because some asshole inherited land and wealth from daddy doesn’t mean he should determine the economic and culture direction of this country more so than someone not born into privilege. This would create an even more feudal and fucked up system where the voting bias would trend towards the aristocracy and the unfair preservation of “their” wealth.

        1. That is a good argument on the one hand, and that’s exactly why I wrote my “disclaimer”: “But it’s not an optimal solution. It has to be heavily overhauled to make it fair & moral – and give a chance to rise to the ones, who are not working/paying taxes and enable them to participate in the economy if they want to.”
          And then, you know, usually the middle class pays the bulk of all taxes and usually “the rich” use all possible means to reduce their tax burden. (e.g. tax evasion, paying lots of accountants and lawyers to protect their assets, etc, while also using subsidies like crazy).
          Anyway, Stefan has also a good video on that, where he states a study, that usually the wealthy families disappear again:
          “Shock! 70% of Wealthy Families Lose Their Wealth By The Second Generation!”

          And I think, we should at least find in the red pill community a common ground on which system we would like to operate. When we even as red pill men can’t agree on a system based on reason and evidence, then we should probably take the black pill and let everything collapse indeed.
          So tell us, what a system you’d then favor.

        2. Bro, you just did the stereotypical libertarian thing. The reason 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth is because we DO NOT CURRENTLY LIVE IN AN ARISTOCRACY. We currently have a regulated marketplace, we have progressive taxes, and we have “death taxes”. On top of that, Stephan is using statistics which could mean a number of things, like an old couple who only had one kid then threw that kid to wolves and spent all their wealth on their retirement. Stephan uses, just like his “spanking kids” statistics, statistics that can have lots of biases and different interpretations, and are usually taken out of context. For instance, kids who are spanked are typically fucked up in the first place which causes them to be spanked….the spankings is not what causes the problem, it is just a result….but Stefan manipulates it to fit his narrative that spankings are the problem.

        3. “And then, you know, usually the middle class pays the bulk of all taxes and usually “the rich” use all possible means to reduce their tax burden.” You can thank libertarians for that. They are the ones who worship the rich, allow the rich to outsource our nation, allow the rich to hide their money offshore, and who constantly lower the taxes of the rich. Society needs money to run, so if it doesn’t come from the rich elite, than it will come from the middle class. I don’t understand how you libertarians cannot see this.

        4. The rich still pay the majority of the taxes bro….the middle class really doesn’t exist, and most people live paycheck to paycheck and couldn’t afford taxes even if the IRS came after them.

        5. Interesting, we seem to have totally different explanations for the same observations.
          I’ll think about your perspective more, but to do that, tell us, what a system you’d then favor.

          (Oh, and btw, we are not “enemies” here. Stefan and I are against open borders policies. A society has to be based on genetics and tradition. I think maybe a small amount of skilled labour would be ok, if it makes sense, and if these people are willing to integrate in the local culture.)

      2. Everyone pays tax, VAT, tax on fuel, it doesn’t need to be income tax or property tax. I live in a country entirely funded by VAT and corporate tax, less than 20% of the population pay income tax, no property tax, yet there is free health care for everyone.
        If the USA wasn’t wasting money on armed forces to invade and repress other countries, you wouldn’t need to pay income tax or property tax either.

    3. @ I solve problems
      Your view seems very similar to my view. Conservative Libertarianism I like to call it. Minimal state (military/LE, roads, etc..), low taxes, and “sink or swim” individual liberty. The “nanny state” and “protected classes” are the root of most of today’s evil.

      1. And what happens when military, roads, etc etc etc (whatever etc etc is) costs a lot of money and require 35-40% tax rates on the wealthy? “I am for minimal government” is just another lame excuse/deflection for libertarians who get called out on their bullshit ideology. “Limited government” is a subjective term, and if you sat down with a libertarian and went through each government program in detail ( NASA, the EPA, SS, Medicare) than they would end up agreeing with everything and ALL OF A SUDDEN, BOOM, they essentially accept the same federal government and system we currently have. The problem with our country is demographic, cultural, and the product of a lot of libertarian ideology = “free trade”, low taxes when you cannot afford them, the worship of the rich, the deregulation of the elites, the color blind philosophy of libertarianism. That is the real problem.

      2. Yes, we have fairly similar views indeed. That’s cool.
        As you see, my opinion is not completely fixed, but I try to apply the basic principle just to take the things which haven proven to work in the past (conservatism), and implement sensible things on top of that (parts of libertarianism).
        It’s fairly ironical though, that I grew up and live in Germany and even after more than a decade of school indoctrination, it took only about 2 years for me, to revert all of this bs and get to the current mindset. Tbh, I’d probably got mad here sooner or later without finding the red pill.
        And yes, this “nanny state” here ANNOYS ME LIKE HELL. Crazy experience last month: Police towed my car b/c I left the fucking window open during the heat wave ! (Their explanation: It’s b/c of ownership protection).
        I got two conclusions out of it:
        1. In soviet Germany police steal your car.
        2. And the only thing I’m planning now is to leave this madness. (But a bit problematic to decide where to go, until last year I never thought of leaving the country permanently).
        Anyway, from such a Conservative Libertarianism, we can surely develop our minds further (and always based on reason and evidence in contrast to libtards) and maybe find an even better system with the more elements from libertarism, which work in real life as well.
        My main problem with the state is also this whole mess with the intelligence agencies and the development of the deep state. I would not want such things in our “Conservative Libertarianism utopia”.
        So how to prevent a state from growing too big into cancer ?

        1. @ I solve problems
          “So how to prevent a state from growing too big into cancer ?”
          Great question sir.
          The original US constitution tried to address that.
          And until the US Civil War it did a very good job.
          After 1913, it has not helped at all.

    4. Ross Ulbricht, creator of Silk Road, was a passionate Libertarian. You can read about what happened to him.
      Everyone knows Libertarianism is unworkable.

      1. Wow, good post, never heard of that guy; but ya, he seems like your typical libertarian when put in charge of anything.

    5. The whole libertarian/socialist thing is a bit of a misnomer because rich people greatly benefit from the government when it fits them.
      Libertarianism and a certain type of conservatism are mental masturbation, alpha male virtua signaling and a show of virility.
      People want to appear tougher and smarter than they really are, which is why tens of percents of people with meager incomes and trade educations vote for the right in Europe. They are voting against their own interests.
      People who were born into money and affluence should vote for the right as far as self-interest is concerned because they can use all the tax tricks, inheritance, moving or setting up office in another country and what not in their benefit. They will also go into politics as esteemed professionals and will get to decide who gets to share a piece of the pie and how big of a piece by restricting access to education and other factors. If you’re in a high paying field it is in your interests to game the law and rules in such a way that fewer people can enter your field (whether it be business, law, medicine etc.) and drive down the wages and increase competition for you.
      Let me give you a small isolated example of how the government helps the wealthy get more wealthy. In my country we have a form of social security called housing benefit which is basically a monthly deposit you get from the state to help you cover your rent. The number of people who apply for housing benefit is very high because the rent is high in major cities. Why is the rent so high? Well the landlords could do with far more meager payments and still benefit from renting out but knowing that the state will funnel out extra cash for the potential tenants in case the rents are high (to a certain limit) the landlords will love to raise the rent so they can get even more from the state into their pockets.
      Yet when we think of people who apply for benefits we think of them as a net loss and as losers who cannot pay their way while the rich kid (not saying they’re all like that but just making a point) who had his/her parents buy apartments for them are the generous high paying taxpayers and the people to look up although they game the state for money and make the poorer tenant have to apply for the housing benefit.
      There is MUCH more to gaming the government for money than using social services which is a form of government aid for the poorer people. Being poor can make you needy and being wealthy can make you (more) greedy.

      1. Some interesting points here, have to think about them, too.
        And as usual good example, how the state skews the market, so I don’t quite understand why you write “Libertarianism and a certain type of conservatism are mental masturbation,”
        b/c you basically give arguments for them …
        Apropos “rich people greatly benefit from the government when it fits them”, not only that, but they usually push the government in the direction, which fits them the most.
        See Stefans videos on, he explanins many more similar examples like that.
        The Truth About Taxes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TpIDX49b_A
        FACTS ABOUT TAXATION https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt2Ag9kWYtg
        I find these are very good arguments against taxation and democracy (as we have it now)

        1. What I think is that we need government. Government and in the modern sense democracy are responsible for human rights considered inalienable. Some rights cannot be touched on regardless of what voters say or what some aspiring politician tries to do. So we all basically agree on some things.
          I looked at the comments under that other taxation video and it had people repeating that taxes are theft and that single mothers and welfare recipients are bad. That’s what they want you to think because it’s easy to blame such people instead of those who hold real power. If we were to enter the ‘night guard’ state where the government would be barely noticeable, the privileged people would still be powerful and the disadvantaged ones would be much more vulnerable because modern democracy and its legislation protects average people against predation and starvation.
          Most people want to contribute to society but there’s not space and place for anyone to fit in every time. From what I understand some american states even briefly ran an experiment where all unemployed people were subject to a basic living ‘wage’ for doing nothing (not looking for work etc.) and it did not affect their productivity negatively; many european politicians advocate for this kind of basic income now, which would also greatly reduce costly bureaucracy but the traditional right wingers do not like that as it would rid them of free workers in countries where unemployed people can be forced to work jobs for unemployment benefit while others in the same workplace are doing the same job for a respectable wage. People are always looking to improve their lot in life and the ones who do not are not to be envied because they are probably sick in some way even if they have not been diagnosed.
          The way I imagine it is the people who complain about taxation are either upper middle class people who are very comfortable or idealistic students who are complete hypocrites as far as the practical side of the debate is concerned.
          You cannot conflate some issues that the average person has no understanding of (like frivolous military spending) and draw a connection between that and someone’s welfare check. The frivolous military spending may be bad, very bad but it seems to me as if these people will do some mental gymnastics to use those facts to direct their attention to a sorry lot of people who are not employed (long enough, on the private sector etc.) just because it all falls under the wide umbrella of ‘taxation’.

      2. Very well said! Most of the US would be voting for a liberal if the Democrat party didn’t turn anti-white, anti-male, anti-middle class, anti-American. If Trump will be able to properly vet immigrants and forcefully expel more then half of illegals (which are around 33 million today), the Democrats will be forced to support the whites and middle class once again.
        To me, the Demoncrats are too far gone by this point and you will see nothing but the rich getting rich and the middle class and poor becoming poorer because everyone angry with the Democrats will be voting for a Republican (most are globalists and support the .01-1%) because Trump purports himself as being anti-globalist and for the man. Whether Trump is genuinely honest is hard to swallow because Americans have been lied to for far too long!

    6. Freedom isn’t the problem here but an overeaching nanny state which elevates one sex above another via taxpayer funding and legistration . If the US was a true pro freedom meritocracy the patriarchy would dominate because on average men are Superior to women in most jobs. Most women will learn this painful lesson on inequality in effect making motherhood a more desirable option for many women.
      Articles here slamming the Libertarians are too simplistic and apply this philosophy in a one size fits all.
      I guess I have some Libertarian beliefs on the national level and feel states should have more power to experiment with different programs however I also do not believe in the quote “Society owes you nothing.” By that reasoning I owe society nothing. If a society wants productive taxpayers then that Society at the very minimum owes you an education that enables you to become a productive adult and reasonable welfare programs which encourage a return to work.

  3. Firat and most important
    “Enemy of my enemy”
    Which is anything left.
    I registered to vote because of the outspoken FL antiwhite commie canditate.
    Also I have noticed massive amounts of normal women outraged at leftists crap last week – intending to vote R.
    Even my own mothers ears pricked up when i mentioned that(no rational reason, following the heard)

  4. You describe a Libertarian position that is the “pure”, extreme, open borders libertarianism. I agree that this position is foolish.
    Ron Paul on the other hand is a great example of a mixture of conservative and libertarian views. Pat Buchanan would agree with most if not all of his positions.
    Take a look at his 2008 positions from when he ran for POTUS:
    For lower taxes.
    Against amnesty.
    Against birthright citizenship.
    Against gay adoption.
    Against affirmative action.
    I agree that no government at all would be insane.
    But it needs to be smaller than it is. Much, much smaller.

    1. Yep much much smaller.
      The present issue is swamp creatures. Such as Rod R
      I watched this video of body language. Its ok. But good message is she points out that R senators are being redpilled about deep state and their immunity…And they are angry/sad. Same as all of us…
      Hopefully, not for much longer.

        1. That is because he has finally been released from his abusive homosexual relationship with John McCain.

        2. I’ve noticed quite a change in Miss Lindsey ever since his sidecuck McStain croaked but only time will tell if Graham version 2.0 is genuine. Judging by his history, I’m not buying it.
          He’s spent his entire political career shilling for the tribe and cam-whores harder than a 16 yr old girl. I’m pretty sure he’d happily shove a menorah 🕎 up his backside if it pleased his ZIO masters. Hell, he’d probably even enjoy it.

  5. It is heartening how quickly we have moved beyond the naive idea that libertarianism can be a viable solution to all of these complex problems.
    I was a Ron Paul fan and supporter (not as an American citizen) when he was campaigning, and this was in large part due to his being the only alternative to the Establishment. I didn’t really think his ideas all the way through, but he was the closest thing I saw to a “please just leave me alone to mind my own business” political party, and this has been my sentiment for almost a decade now. Ron Paul was against the Iraq war, wasn’t a complete cuck to Israel, and he advocated that the people should be as independent and sovereign as possible. I had to rationalize to myself his economic plan, but this overall platform seemed to have the greatest vision and highest ethic on its side.
    But I think part of what pulled me to his vision was Ron Paul’s personality and what I now interpret as his authentically deep and personal Christian ethic. Ron Paul is a reasonable and kind-hearted man, but in a true libertarian no-holds-barred society with limited Rule of Law, men like Ron Paul would either be immediately destroyed or forced into a state of constant war – and it is not clear that his type would be strong enough or ruthless enough to come out on top. A State would inevitably need to be created to restore order and protect the citizens from their own worst natures, and the parasitical class prepared to exploit them.
    Proposing the idealized libertarian society with almost zero government, what would be the outcome in our current context? The monopolies of international finance, the various branches of technology, pharmaceuticals and medical, and communications outlets would literally dominate what was left of the country. The entire libertarian idea hinges on these players being inherently benevolent, or at least on the idea that capitalist market-forces would support the most benevolent self-starters, but is this realistic?
    So what if you don’t have to pay property taxes? You and your vegetable garden will have zero power in comparison with the big (((managers))) who will secure even more power for themselves and feed your kids porn and opiods. And when you are too broken and tired to continue working on your open-air plantation, they will just import a new population to carry on.
    Is my take essentially correct or have I misunderstood the libertarian point of view? Would eliminating nearly-all government systems lead to utopia, or at least a significant improvement over where we are and where we are going? I personally believe that to think so is hopelessly naive.

  6. Are thwre any Kiwis here?
    Whats deal with the PM? Heard she went full fem-commie-retard at UN?!?!?
    And how do they achieve that coalition bs?

    1. Jacinda Ardern is seriously going to fuck up NZ with her gay/feminist attempted utopia.
      She was pregnant when she was running for parliament, but didn’t tell anyone until well after she won the election. I would have thought being honest about your condition before expecting someone to vote for was pretty important.
      A new mother should be looking after her baby rather than trying to run a country full time. You guessed she even pulled the paid maternity leave card rather than doing the most important job in the country.
      Just another typical modern woman, expecting all the perks but none of the responsibility.

  7. Conservative or Liberal? Right-wing or left-wing? Republican or Democrat? Trump or Hillary?
    Is there really any difference?
    They are or part of the same establishment – and the establishment is not out there to help you.
    Part of the red pill wisdom is not to be distracted by the circus that is mainstream. The people working for that shitshow (The politicians) will get paid for that- you won’t get paid for wasting time and effort on them.
    Have not voted in elections since 1997, gave up caring about mainstream politics altogether in 1998. (I am 48)
    I spent the time and spent money on things that actually mattered. Started a business, traveled abroad, found a wife, got married, fathered and raised three children.
    ROK should publish more articles on general red pill wisdom rather than on political non-sense.

    1. Even if what you say is true, Trump and Hillary are part of the same establishment, there are several very important reasons why you should participate in the process:
      2A. Clinton already banned “assault rifles” once. Luckily it expired after 10 yrs. If they were in charge, you might could have to hide and bury your ARs.
      The Wall. It’s going up, slowly, but it’s happening.
      Supreme Court nominees. In the era of Judicial Activism, this is where all legal conflicts are settled. And unfortunately it is never based on interpretations of law and constitution, it is based on feelz.
      The Cortez movement.
      “Not there to help you” has its degrees. One wants to rape-fuck you in a Venezuelan gulag, the other wants you to be happy worker bee spending units.

  8. “They support libertarianism” YES, THANK YOU. And don’t let morons try to tell you that these people are not “realllll libertarians”, because they totally are and they run most libertarian groups/parties; and they are the ones creating the same ideas that libertarians constantly regurgitating in discussions and forums like this discussion thread. Our degenerate and f**ked up culture is a product of individualism and detribalization. Some of the most staunch open border/low wage labor people are libertarians. Libertarians share the same drug policies as leftist hippies. Libertarians are essentially Marxists who just don’t want to financially participate in Marxism, but other than that they agree with every social and cultural policy that Marxist leftist agree with. Libertarians are a product of a defeated and demoralized conservative party; they are essentially saying “I give up Marxists, you win, just leave me alone and to myself” which will never happen because cowards and capitulators never win and are never given what they want.

      1. This is literally what I always post.
        -> “Libertarians are a product of a defeated and demoralized conservative party; they are essentially saying “I give up Marxists, you win, just leave me alone and to myself”” I have literally repeated this same thing on almost every discussion thread I have been in.

        1. “…This is literally what I always post.
          -> “Libertarians are a product of a defeated and demoralized conservative party; they are essentially saying “I give up Marxists, you win, just leave me alone and to myself”” I have literally repeated this same thing on almost every discussion thread I have been in…”
          You do. And you’re wrong.
          I don’t know what is weirder, the OP claiming conservatives can be socialists so down with libertarians who’re liberals, or Wes claiming in comments he agrees as libertarians are really anti-liberal me-too conservative Marxists so down with libertarians, and BTW let’s adopt self-destructive socialist policies.
          Oh wait, Wes & OP talk like commies.

        2. The old libertarian….OMG, I am wrong!!!! NOOOO!!! Actually, I am pretty sure I am right. Your comment proves nothing either you old geezer. Muh Muh someone is criticizing my utopia!!! More than likely our government, culture, and country failed squarely on the backs of morons like yourself. I am honestly not sure what would make me happier, actually taking our country back, or watching the brown hordes and feminists take away the libertarians land, guns, and rights while they sit there and cry “but muh consitition”!!

    1. “Our degenerate and f**ked up culture is a product of individualism and detribalization”
      NO, it’s a push by the cultural Marxists.

      “Libertarians share the same drug policies as leftist hippies.”
      Sorry, but the drug polices are currently messed up beyond repair. On the one hand, 25% of the population gets antidepressants, there is a morphine crisis, as I heard, and everything is prescriped by the medical profession !
      And then you have this nice graph:
      Tell me please, why the hell are caffeine, nicotine and Alcohol allowed then, while the (left lower, less dangerous) rest is banned ?! As usual with the state, the policies made by these bureaucratic morons don’t make sense.

      “Libertarians are essentially Marxists who just don’t want to financially participate in Marxism,”
      I don’t know. Interesting thought and I’ll have to think about that more, but atm I’d say just no, that’s not true. That’s not the distinction here. You have this other dimension: Authoritarian. Everything, when the state forces you to do something is authoritarian and the more authoritarian, the more it is a tyranny.
      Libertarian are maybe overlapping with the moderate “leftists”, as they are against an authoritarian state. That’s all.
      And who the hell are you, and why do you think, you have the right to tell other people how they should life their live ?
      I’m ok, if the leftists/marxists want to mess up themselves financially, ok why not as long it wont become my (financial) problem. And maybe their whole existence was just meant to serve as a warning for others.

  9. “That doesn’t equate to hating them but rather recognizing they lack logic which,”
    They don’t lack logic. Without it you simply cannot survive. The issue with women is that their emotions will often override their logical side.
    Women are often exceptionally good at scheming and planning – ie. using logic. This is why they typically win the divorce battle.
    Lust often overrides mens logical brain. This is why they behave highly illogical around women. Exhibit A:
    “Women like Ann Coulter or Faith Goldy are rare. A beautiful rarity, I might add. In truth, I’d vote for Faith Goldy for mayor of Toronto.”
    Men quite literally become dumber when women are around.
    “Karremans et al. (2009) asked research participants to engage in conversations about neutral topics. The students were randomly assigned to interact with either a same-sex or opposite-sex partner. Cognitive performance was assessed both before and after the interactions using demanding working memory and attention tasks. Men’s performance on these tasks declined significantly after interacting with a woman (relative to the same-sex condition), and even more so after interacting with an attractive woman.”

    1. “The issue with women is that their emotions will often override their logical side.”
      The bottom line is that logic is not applied for whatever the reason. Six of one, half-dozen of the other.
      “Women are often exceptionally good at scheming and planning – ie. using logic. This is why they typically win the divorce battle.”
      The reason they win the court battles is because family law is festering with man-hating women, traitorous lawyers, fake psychs, and fake judges set on destroying men in a rigged game and they all shroud the woman in a thin veil of legitmacy that otherwise would quickly be removed were it not for certain people with big guns and small minds in cars with flashy lights on top protecting them. Child support should be voluntary and women who try to destroy men should be ostracised rather than rewarded.

  10. Dave is open about his liberalism, the guy is from Young Turks. He’s not exactly hiding it.
    The lesson we can all learn from him is to truly listen, delve into this ideologies, and then decide for yourself.

  11. Explaining why Dave Rubin is a “liberal in disguise”? What’s next? A lengthy article convincing us why men and women are two distinct sexes? All J-ws become rabid “liberals” as soon as they step foot outside of the Zionist Entity. The title and topic of this article should be “2 signs to identify a shabbos goy”.
    Sign #1: Considered an authority on politics and/or sociopolitics but avoids the giant (((elephant))) in the room like the plague and constantly deflects (e.g. “the Saudis own Hollywood”, “There is no [J-wish] conspiracy. Get it? No [J-wish] conspiracy” )
    Sign #2: Has a Jewish wife, relatives and/or Jewish friends/colleagues.
    Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones are all perfect examples.

  12. “but I’d support a female who is anti-immigration and pro-borders.’
    Nobody asked fuckin pussified & pussy whipped shit hole Canada to allow them as (legal) immigrants !! That fuckin country itself (literally) “begged” for Skilled Immigrants and Talented people !!
    Fuckin pussified shit hole country; where MEN are not even treated as Human beings! Stop blaming the talented, intelligent and hardworking guys! If that fuckin Canada has enough talent & people who can fill the jobs/vacancies; then why even allow “immigration” !?

    1. @ Ravi
      “If that fuckin Canada has enough talent & people who can fill the jobs/vacancies; then why even allow “immigration” !?”
      We’ve gone over this several times here concerning the H1 program in the US.
      I believe Canada is most likely similar.
      These countries have H1-B programs because corporations lobby the governments for a less costly labor pool. It is well documented that these jobs are not new jobs with no native born people to fill the vacancies. They are most often existing positions where native born, overwhelmingly older male workers are being laid off. I have seen this many times in my career with people I have known. Some of them have been friends. Luckily it has not yet happened to me.
      I personally have seen this. In fact, two contracts ago, I witnessed a company force an American manager to write a recommendation for a green card for an H1B visa holder, stating that this H1B was the only person who could do the job at hand. The manager and I both knew this was a complete lie. We could have gotten any one of 100 programmers off the street to do the same job. But someone high up liked this guy and wanted to get him a green card.
      Anyway, like I have said in the past, I harbor no grudge against the individuals who take advantage of this program. My gripe is with the US government that allows it and the corporations that exploit it.

  13. “A conservative could be a socialist on a nationalist level.” ~ Edgar Tru
    Edgar Tru’s article is retardation publicly expressed. In his foolishiness, Tru has tried to co-opt the word conservatism in the U.S. context and re-define the word to his liking.
    If he truly believes his explanation is right, he does not know at all anything about U.S. politics and U.S. political history.
    In a nutshell: Authentic U.S. conservatism means striving to repeal of the laws and regulation of Progressivism.
    Institutional progressivism began with FDR’s “Alphabet Soup” of agencies, continued with Johnson’s Great Society (Civil Rights Act, Hart-Celler Immigration Act), grew with Nixon (EPA, closed gold window — August 15, 1971), grew further with excessive illegal immigration under GHW Bush, Clinton (NAFTA), GW Bush and Obama. Progressivism USA continues to grow with Obama (Obamacare).
    The Conservative Movement in the USA coalesced in the 1930s to achieve one goal — roll back FDR’s progressive social democracy as expressed in his alphabet soup of agencies under his control established by Congress during the Great Depression.
    True conservatives have been trying to preserve the republic that existed before the nationalist social democracy radicalism of Wilson and then amplified by FDR. Thus true U.S. Conservatives have sought to repeal all that remained from FDR and all that has come up since.
    Real conservatives only fight to do these acts:
    • Repeal FDR’s Alphabet soup of agencies
    • Repeal Great Society — Hart-Celler Immigration Act, Civil Rights Act, Medicaid and Medicare Act, HUD
    • Repeal Nixon’s EPA
    • Repeal Nixon’s closing of the gold window
    • Repeal Carter’s departments of Education and Energy
    • Repeal Obama’s Obamacare
    • Put forth a constitutional amendment to ban abortion and get it passed through enough state legislatures.
    Neocons are not conservatives. They are defectors from the Democratic Party. That is all. They were labeled neocons as a pejorative by those whom they rejected, the Democrats themselves.
    The GOPher Party “conservatives” are not conservatives. They have done nothing to roll back:
    • FDR’s Alphabet soup of agencies
    • Johnson’s Great Society — Hart-Celler Immigration Act, Civil Rights Act, Medicaid and Medicare Act
    • Carter’s departments of Education and Energy
    • Obama’s Obamacare
    And they have never put forth a constitutional amendment to ban abortion.

  14. Living in the US has become impossible.
    When just murder and theft were illegal, obeying the law was easy.
    Now everything is illegal, but no feels safe because everyone is a criminal and you must fear the Gestapo.
    How the fuck are you supposed to survive when depositing or withdrawing less than $10,000 from your own bank account is against the law?
    Starting a business is illegal.
    No one will hire criminals.
    Criminals can’t get welfare.
    Begging is illegal.
    What are you supposed to do?
    What’s wrong with freedom?
    People were born in the past without birth certificates.
    People could travel without passports.
    People can learn how to drive without driver licenses.
    Business that don’t have business licenses will go bankrupt if they provide bad service.
    People won’t starve if they don’t have food stamps.
    People can find cheap doctors in the world without Obamacare.
    People won’t have a vested interest in driving dangerously if there are no liability insurance laws.
    People could travel in the past without being groped.
    Would crime rise if everything was legal?
    The government is destroying the US with wars, debt, and tyranny, but what do we need government for anyway?
    If a private association like the MPAA can regulate movies, why can’t the private market regulate other things?
    When the TSA fingers your asshole and pulls your cock, is the real purpose to protect you or to make you feel like a degraded slave?
    When people smoke now, people just call the police on them, but people in the past either took some personal responsibility and ignored smokers, moved away from smokers, or asked smokers to go somewhere else. The problem with a police state is everyone now is either or a slave or a criminal. Who pays the taxes to pay for tyranny?
    If smoking is dangerous, can’t nonprofits raise funds to pay for educational campaigns that warn of the dangers of smoking instead of outlawing smoking?
    Can’t people use the BBB to verify if a business is good or not instead of forcing companies to pay fees to get a government business license?
    Can’t private charities funded by volunteer donations provide homeless shelters and soup kitchens instead of being forced at the point of a gun by the government to pay taxes that fund welfare?
    Can’t people use guns to protect themselves instead of relying on the Gestapo?
    Can’t neighbourhoods hire private security firms to protect their homes?
    Can’t the free market provide toll roads?
    Can’t the free market provide private airports?
    Can’t the free market provide private schools?
    Can’t the free market provide private mediation services instead of being forced to use courts?
    Can’t volunteer fire departments provide fire protection services?
    Can’t the free market provide disaster relief instead of FEMA?
    Can’t the free market run delivery services instead of the USPS?
    Can’t the free market run railroads instead of Amtrak?

  15. Libertarians are nothing more than progressives that love weed and guns. They support gay marriage, and open borders. They think we have a duty to be colorblind and to financially support third world invaders. They love to brag about being rebels that voted for Gary Johnson, and they’re still reliving the glory days of Ron Paul which are really not glory days because Ron Paul didn’t win shit in some ways libertarians are more dangerous than progressives. Especially the anarchist militia types. They’re the nuttiest of the whole bunch. I fucking hate them.

    1. Yes, Reason.com libertarians are libertine morons easily manipulated by the benefactors of that publication, the globalist-mercantilist Koch brothers.

  16. Homos are a threat to civilized society. Inside almost every homo there is a potential molestor

  17. If you’re for women’s rights you have to be for women’s responsibilities.
    The flaw is that leftists claim they’re for “rights” for women but they never mention responsibilities.
    That makes them appealing to females because one thing women fear is actually being held responsible for their own consciously, deliberately chosen behavior with no ability to evade consequences by bursting into tears or showing cleavage.

    1. @DCM
      Yes, this is a very good point.
      Rights without responsibilities wont work. There is just the correct feedback loop missing.

      And while I mentioned feedback loops: Another point of our representative democracy is the missing feedback loop for politicians, if they don’t hold their promises, or even make a 180° turn.
      This is a main reason, why our representative democracy system can’t work in the long run / or requires absolute honest and loyal people in these roles (which is impossible)

  18. I don’t know what is weirder, the OP claiming conservatives can be socialists so down with libertarians who’re liberals, or commenters like Wes claiming in comments he agrees as libertarians are really anti-liberal me-too conservative Marxists so down with libertarians, and BTW let’s adopt self-destructive socialist policies.
    Oh wait, those commenters & OP talk like commies.

  19. Idk what’s up with this site over the past few months but it’s been plagued with idiocy and bad articles. There is NOTHING wrong with libertarianism. Limiting government control over ones own life REGARDLESS of how valuable/worthless they are to society is a good thing. Sink or swim. The neocons and mainstream conservatives are the ones that have it wrong, with pointless wars, support of massive banking corporations and careless fiscal spending all of us are going to have to pay up for at some point. I honestly can’t believe how stupid some of these articles are. This article literally gave a 3rd graders synopsis on libertarianism.

  20. I hope I’ll get some replies here, although I am a female. My English may not be the best, as it is not my native language. Howsoever, ten years ago I would have been outraged at the idea that women shouldn’t vote. Now I am wiser. I see the mass immigration into my home country, brought about by liberal mindsets. Admittedly, women are indeed less likely to vote for parties that advocate strict immigration rules. Most (not all) women seem to be unable to understand male behavior. Since women are normally not territorial (but rather inclusive), they just won’t see that many migrants may eventually become dangerous embodiments of territorial behavior, eg. in terms of resources, space and also religion. In the end the freedom of women will suffer as a result, in addition to the general safety in one’s home area (and nation). Most women are ignorant about this fact. There is only one question I have: the percentage of men who vote against mass immigration is higher that that among women. But it is still much lower than it could be. Do you think male voting behavior would change if women stayed away from the ballot box? In these days you see liberal-brain washed men everywhere. In the media, as priests (except for some free church organizations), politics and …well, just everywhere.

  21. Amazing how women will call a fetus her ‘choice’, but then if she doesn’t want to kill it, it becomes ‘our’ child. This is because government has become nothing but a bail out for women’s bad choices. You pay for their abortion or their child, they don’t need a decent man when they got the government to tax the shit out of the working man.

  22. I don’t think that Faith Goldy or Ann Coulter would ever want to become leaders over men in any capacity, especially as leaders of a nation. That is part of their strong appeal. I think they both understand the inherent hypocrisy behind such a proposition that would send the wrong message to other women and the adverse effects this would have on families and civilization. That’s why I believe Margaret Thatcher ultimately did more harm than good, because even if a woman “leads” well, she still fails as a leader by implicitly promoting headstrong, insubordinate, unruly females who disdain working at home. All forms or degrees of feminism are harmful to any society. The healthiest families or societies will have zero tolerance towards any degree of feminism in their midst.

    1. The most successful social animal species are led by the males of those species. From wolf packs to apes to lions…males being the leaders leads to success of the social group. The same is true for us humans…which is why the jevvs in family law want to destroy the patriarchal family. They want the family destroyed.

      1. I do not know what you mean by “successful social animals” – what counts as successful is a very subjective measure. Ants and termites, for example, come across as extremely successful species by almost any standard. (And they are certainly not male-led.)
        Perhaps you really mean “successful social species amongst mammals”? But then this does not prove so much, since the biology of mammals in itself strongly favours male dominance. As can be seen, for example, in humans.

  23. Yes, anarchism is libertariansim. One and the same. And yes, unfortunately, they won’t work. If they would, it would have evolved naturally somewhere and there would be some proof of it in history. If it worked well, it likely would have been the dominant form of government in history at some time.
    That said, I’d like to swing as close to libertarianism as I can while maintaining high functioning society. More freedom and less government the better, just so long as you don’t cross that tipping point where everything would go to hell.
    We can achieve this by stepping government back, step by step, just like the progressives stepped it forward, step by step. If we get to the point where the only thing government is paying for is military, basic science, space exploration and infrastructure, then we might not want to step it back any further.

  24. You’re wrong here. More government is not a conservative idea. You’ve missed the mark if you think liberalism and conservatism are separate things.

  25. some other ways to identify a faux conservative is those who support neocons like Anne Coulter and also people who say things like “Less government is, in my view, not the solution”

  26. Strange criteria.
    “If someone is a libertarian, then he is a liberal in disguise”
    …or, perhaps, might he simply be a libertarian? Sometimes the easiest explanation is also the best one.
    “If someone supports women’s right to vote, then he is a liberal in disguise”
    Well, this is a non-issue in the political discourse today, and has been so for a very long time. A vast majority of the public, in all political camps, support women’s vote. Most may not even have thought seriously about the issue, but just gone along with the general consensus. Can really none of these people be considered as conservatives? Even if they agree with you about everything else, including traditional sex roles?
    To me, being a conservative is more about a general outlook than about opinions in specific political questions. For example:
    – The realisation that traditional, time-honoured institutions probably have survived for a good reason and that this reason, even if not clearly visible, may still be relevant in today’s society.
    – The realisation that man by nature is neither a “blank slate” nor a “noble savage”, but a beast with many conflicting urges and inclination, some of which are destructive and need to be kept in check.
    – The realisation that not all change is good, and that radical reforms – even when well intended – often lead to undesired long-term effects which are very difficult to foresee.

  27. Dave Rubin has done a lot of good. Is he everything you’d wish, no, but he gives voice to people much smarter than him. If Dave Rubin represented Liberalism or the Left I could live in that world. He should have Roosh on.

Comments are closed.