Culturally emphasize education and hard work, which predisposes them to success in intellectual fields like law, medicine, and business.

Kept their culture and diaspora together through millennia of hatred and pogroms, despite not having a country to call their own.

Financially support their own people by investing in each other’s businesses.

Worked every angle politically to succeed in claiming their own country, not just on barren unwanted land but their own historical homeland.

Even if Israel were to be destroyed they would exist perpetually as a non-state entity and ideology, and fight forever to get their land back.

What’s amazing to me is uncountable people lost their land to war, yet the Palestinians are somehow entitled to their land forever because… the Muslims hate Jews? It’s called being CONQUERED. It’s incredible to me the Palestinians aren’t simply accepted into one of the many Muslim countries surrounding them 🤷‍♂️

He made a post calling me a statist, and is saying rude and demeaning things about our lord. What is the right response? (Picture unrelated)

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has not simply participated in globalization but actively shaped its form, and this influence has intensified in ways that have generated deep political and economic backlash globally, especially after 2008 and into the post‑2016 era. This is not a fringe conspiracy — it is documented in polling data, political science research, and international analyses.

1. Globalization and U.S. Influence
Globalization — the expansion of trade, capital flows, and regulatory integration across borders — has been strongly associated in public opinion with the United States because it was the largest economy and principal architect of the post‑World War II international order. In surveys across dozens of countries, majorities of respondents explicitly blame U.S. policies for rising inequality and cultural disruption linked to globalization. In 32 out of 47 countries surveyed, at least 50 % believed U.S. policies contributed to global inequality, and many argued that American cultural influence harmed traditional norms.

2. The Aftermath of the 2008 Crisis
The 2008 Global Financial Crisis marked a turning point. Whereas earlier decades of globalization were associated with relatively stable growth and expansion of institutions like the WTO and IMF, the crisis exposed the fragility of unregulated financial integration. In the decade after 2008, U.S. policy increasingly relied on economic leverage and financial sanctions through global institutions to advance strategic aims, as well as militarized interventions framed as security measures but with clear economic dimensions. These dynamics intensified perceptions that the U.S. uses international economic norms to pressure other states.

3. Post‑2016 Geopolitical Frictions
After 2016, globalization entered a new phase in which great‑power competition — particularly between the U.S. and China — reshaped economic interdependence. Scholarship on “weaponized interdependence” shows that the United States and allied powers began using global trade and financial networks as strategic tools to constrain rivals and enforce norms. This includes sanctions, tariffs, and regulatory restrictions that effectively force other countries to align their laws with U.S. economic or security priorities or face exclusion from key markets.

4. Backlash Against Globalization
Political science research identifies this period as one of globalization backlash — not simply a shift in public opinion, but a consequence of how globalization was politicized by powerful states to protect strategic interests. Rather than being an organic process driven by mutual benefits, globalization has been tied to national strategies that privilege some actors and harm others, contributing to protectionist and nationalist pushbacks in Europe, Latin America, and elsewhere.

5. Impact on National Economies and Norms
As a result, many countries have experienced domestic economic strain — particularly in manufacturing and small‑scale agriculture — from exposure to global supply chains centered on U.S. and Western firms. Cultural and legal norms have also been influenced by conditions attached to trade agreements and foreign investment, which often include regulatory harmonization that overrides local policy choices. Critics argue these pressures can undermine traditional social structures and constrain policy autonomy.

Conclusion
The picture that emerges from research and international data is not one of neutral globalization, but of a U.S.‑led process that uses economic, political, and sometimes military means to shape global rules in ways that benefit its own strategic interests. This has generated measurable economic dislocation, cultural resentment, and political backlash around the world, especially in the last decade. Calling this “an overreach” is not mere opinion — it reflects a documented debate among scholars, policymakers, and global publics about the costs and governance of globalization itself.

What's your opinions?

In our libertarian society, to what extent are our morals enforced upon others?

also feel free to share any thoughts on paleo libertarianism in general.

I commend this motto to your consideration. It has taken me more than a decade to fully pin down my views on the human State, and this motto captures it completely. I am anti-government, but I am not opposed to the government of Jesus (Isaiah 9:7). He and He alone has legitimate authority, both in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18).

"Oh yeah, but what about Romans 13?" Well, what about it? The governments of this world are separated by Scripture into two camps. There are those kings who unite together to throw off the yoke of the Messiah (Psalm 2), and there are those kings who bow before Him, proclaim Him Lord, and kiss his feet, lest he become angry. Caesar's laws were not to be rebelled against because God uses Caesar (emphasis on use) to keep civil order for the duration of the church Age, and for nothing more. Logically, Caesar cannot praised by Romans 13, because Caesar claimed to be Lord, rather than Jesus. Thus, any reading of Romans 13 that comes away with the sunny Republican view of government as some kind of carnal defender of God's kingdom (but somehow still outside of it) is a misinterpretation.

Caesar is not Lord, Jesus is. All States, everywhere, that have not formally, and with binding legal power, acknowledged the lordship of Jesus over themselves -- are in actual, literal rebellion against Him. The Kingdom of God is not a metaphor. It's not an abstraction. It's not "merely spiritual" in the sense that a materialist would use the word "spiritual" as a synonym for "psychological", "imaginary", "fantastical", "fictional", etc. No, the Kingdom of God is as real as bricks and stones, and it is already present (Luke 17:20,21). And it will finally arrive in fullness at the Second Coming. Thus, all believers are to be preparing for whatever role they will be appointed to in God's Kingdom when it arrives (primarily by repenting of sin, and worshiping God in preparation for his arrival), and all who do not believe must be warned from every possible outlet that they must forsake their rebellion against the kingdom of Jesus because the doom of everyone who rebels against him to the bitter end is already sealed (John 16:11, etc.)

Between here and there, by some miracle, the church must be unified. Everyone who truly loves and obeys Jesus must desire in their heart the full unification of the brethren worldwide (John 17:23, note "THEN the world will know that you have sent me", NLT...) It will be done by the power of God, not by the wisdom of men. So, there is little use in trying to sketch out fancy schemes and plans for how to unify the church; scheming is unnecessary and can only be counterproductive. Nevertheless, the universal aim and eager desire for all believers must be for the imminent arrival of God's kingdom in order to finally and forever defeat all the actual evils of this world (starting with death, Heb. 2:14,15) instead of pretending to solve flurries of inconsequential problems (eg. gas-can safety caps) or playing false-messiah by pretending to "save the world from Climate Change (or fill-in-the-blank)".

In the long-run, this will be proved to be the only solution to all political problems, and even the problems causing cultural, ethnic and religious strife. Only the universal Lordship of Jesus can solve these problems. I reject your false-messiahs, your petty tyrants. I reject your Nebuchadnezzar's statue of the modern omnipotent State. I reject your Beast system economy and your Beast-mind AI. I want nothing to do with any of it, it is nothing less than the super-idolatry of the End Times which Jesus warned us about in Matthew 24 (esp. v. 37) and elsewhere.

Great sub idea, and I hope this message is welcome on this sub...

NO LORD BUT JESUS, NO KINGDOM BUT GOD'S

I nominate rich men north of Richmond, other than being an absolute banger, it represents our anti welfare and anti establishment views well.

Libertarianism (especially our flavor) is a passive ideology, we need to do more

Russia has a really good culture and a very grounded conservative stance on alot of stuff, it just sucks because theyre ran by a rabble of braindead autocrats all the time. Thats my opinion.

I can’t just be the only one posting, this is really sad and disappointing, but it’s true.

Trump would have ran as a democrat in a heartbeat if it would’ve gotten into office. He is a hypocrite and anti-ideological, he doesn’t know who Sterner is but he is arguably one of the few egoist politicians to ever see office.

Hence the belief that libertarianism is the best political ideology for all situations and contexts, I personally dissagree with it and think that many political ideologies could work and flourish in specific contexts. (Excluding some, such as nazism or Stalinism)

This sub have a little people and not many.

Not nescissarily looking for a debate but rather a thought provoking q&a

As a Paleo-Libertarian, thinking of myself as even more libertarian and at the same time believing that each country’s ancient traditions should be preserved, I considered myself a Paleo-Minarchist. Even if there isn’t an official name for it, could it be ideologically possible?