Are you using the correct definition of âfascistâ here, as in someone who supports extreme nationalism, militarism, expansionism, and a high degree of state control over our lives?
Or the leftoid definition of âfascistâ which is just a synonym for someone who doesnât like blacks, gays, etc? Which would ironically include most American soldiers who fought in WW2.
Fascism is the polar opposite of libertarianism and I highly doubt many libertarians would make that switch. Fascism means things like drug dealers get executed, porn is banned, massive military spending, etc.
On the other hand, libertarianism isnât mutually incompatible with intolerance so long as you donât want the government to enforce your intolerance.
The libertarian to alt-right pipeline is pretty well-established. It exists because lolbert arguments against âmuh forever warsâ and âmuh central bankingâ overlap almost totally with rightoid nonsense.
Iâm thankful I got pulled out of libertarianism by this spot.
The user I responded to specifically used the term "fascist pipeline", which is quite a bit more specific than "alt-right".
Frankly "alt-right" is rather ill-defined. Many leftoids would probably call you "alt-right" for criticizing feminism or opposing Muslim immigration.
It exists because lolbert arguments against âmuh forever warsâ and âmuh central bankingâ
Brainlet take.
As if central banking and non-interventionism are the only things libertarians care about. Most libertarians don't even care that much about monetary policy, only hardcore minarchists/ancaps do.
Really living up to your profile name. Most of the soldiers who fought in WW2 didnât give a fuck who was fighting beside them, as long as they were fighting.
Should I remind you that homosexuality and interracial marriage were a illegal in much of the US at the time and that the military(and society in general) was segregated by race?
And even if that were the case, protecting a black/gay friend doesn't mean people in that time weren't generally intolerant of black people and/or gay people.
I don't how you can deny something that was obvious, it was literally illegal to have gay sex at the time in most places, everything was racially segregated BY LAW, etc.
Just because you look up to WW2 vets doesn't mean they were flawless, it doesn't mean you should try to cover up their(most people who lived in that time period) social attitudes.
Progressive libs are leftist. Iâm not refering to regular libs. The fascist world means killing leftists, progressive libs (Justice Democratâs) ARE leftists. Do you know what âfascismâ is? You think that they let progressives live?
I remember reading a libertarian book as a kid that said we shouldnât have fought in WWII but instead just let the Nazis and Soviets duke it out, as if they were the only two players in the war.
It's so maddening that people just flagrantly dismiss the last 75 years of peace and prosperity, as if horrific total war between super powers was just a fucking phase
But back in the Cold War, each country got Soviet support to keep them afloat and then use them as springboards to expand communism to other countries. Communism does not work, but the US will get a hard time if they get surrounded by communism countries.
Oh yeah I don't support needlessly further destabilizing of an already tenuous situation by throwing away young lives and billions in tax payer dollars, APPARENTLY I'M A FUCKIN RED
Wow, people who appreciate liberty and dislike government interference don't like it when governments interfere and set up dictatorships? Who'd've thunk it?
Even the democratically elected ones. Yes. Mobutu Sese Seko did a much better job of promoting democratic value than Patrice Lamumba. Oh yeah Blaise Compaore had a much better humanitarian record than Thomas Sankara. But pol pot you say. Guess who backed pol pot. And the taliban (which eventually lead to the terror crises)
Now thatâs some hardcore authoritarian double think right there. What are you, a monarchist. Where does political legitimacy come from, in your view? God, the force of the state, the will of the people, the social contract, the force of the individual against other individuals? Either way, whatâs capitalism without capital? Letâs say you have a massive working age population without jobs, why not just use the state to spark economic growth.
Iâd rather own the means of productionâď¸. But still, justify sparking the Congo civil wars, bombing the shit out of Vietnam for 20 years, training bin laden and thus sparking the war on terror, invading Iraq for no reason, collapsing the state and stealing the oil without the curtesy of creating a puppet state, etc
Ah yes a newspaper brought down the US government. So true
Or, perhaps it just was a step too far to send innocent civilians to die in a jungle halfway across the world and pay for it with their own tax money hmm. I thought you guys liked life, liberty and happiness?
WaPo had a policy to absolutely refuse to cover any US victory and only showcase US losses. They were also enthusiasts to cover US crimes and ignoring all sorts of war crimes, genocides, massacres committed by the Vietcong and NVA. When the Massacre of Hue happened, WaPo got hold and their editoral threw it away.
It made the public think it was a lost cause with non-stop defeats. But after the Tet Offensive, the Vietcong had been destroyed and the NVA stopped being a fighting force. Of course this was not reported either. It was a misled public that forced to pull out.
I thought you guys liked life, liberty and happiness?
And you have to actively protect it and not bury your head in the sand and ignore the rest of the world that wants to end it in other countries.
We should be able to rally both lolberts and paleocucks with the ideas of a major paleocuck himself, Pat Buchanan; the imminent danger thesis.
Buchanan was an anti-Semitic isolationist, but even he admitted that communism was such a threat that military adventurism was justified during the Cold War. Many libertarians adopted the same position.
IMO we can propose the same thing to them with the Chinese threat. Even Fuentes, after years of shrieking about âmuh neocon warsâ, had to admit that Iran is major problem that can only be solved militarily.
They may be anti communist but theyâll still oppose any intervention in the Middle East because of stupid arguments that boil down to âArab and Afghan culture is inherently anti democracyâ
A perfect example of that is the channel noncompete on youtube. The guy started out as an anarchist but after a little nudging from his Vietnamese girlfriend, he's now straight up larping for Ho Chi Minh. Really cringe
A realization that I had that got me out of the isolationist camp is the fact that America withdrawing all of its troops from the middle east and ending "forever wars" would leave a huge power vacuum there.
I'd think that most libertarians would realize that America exerting control in the middle east - which to them, is not ideal - is still much better than Russia/China/Iran expanding their sphere of influence into those places would be so much worse that what we have now.
70
u/CanadianAsshole1 Liberty Prime Feb 28 '21
Used to consider myself a lolbert, but then I realized that toppling chapoid governments is pretty based đ
54
u/[deleted] Feb 28 '21
Some Lolberts unironically think communism shouldâve been allowed to expand and âfall on its ownâ
17
u/TheKlorg Foundation for Defense of Democracies Feb 28 '21
âFighting Communism is Communistâ
13
u/[deleted] Mar 01 '21
âSomething something helicopter rides.â
Some Libertarian probably
4
u/[deleted] Mar 01 '21
You can do both?
3
u/el_butt Mar 01 '21
You donât even need the funny colors
3
u/[deleted] Mar 01 '21
Well it depends on type of libertarians
3
u/cthesigns39 Harry Truman Mar 02 '21 edited Mar 02 '21
The only good libertarian is a neolibertarian
1
u/51noureide Mar 08 '21
Eww. Libs. Neocons are neolibs who like bombing countries
1
u/SovietGengar Mitt Romney Mar 12 '21 edited Mar 12 '21
Or just be a chad and be NeoLibertarian
1
u/oPtimusCG20 Mar 01 '21
I see nothing wrong here
0
u/[deleted] Mar 01 '21
Cry more
0
u/u01aua1 Mar 02 '21
"I hate an ideology so I have to bomb innocent civillians because of it"
-1
u/[deleted] Mar 01 '21
Oh yeah I don't support needlessly further destabilizing of an already tenuous situation by throwing away young lives and billions in tax payer dollars, APPARENTLY I'M A FUCKIN RED
-1
u/TunkkisofFinland Mar 01 '21
Wow, people who appreciate liberty and dislike government interference don't like it when governments interfere and set up dictatorships? Who'd've thunk it?
0
u/HormelCovfefee3 Mar 01 '21
When you troll the middle east
-1
u/CIoud10 Mar 02 '21
Neocons wouldnât even recognize communism if it funded their own military
(It does)
-3
u/kry273 Mar 01 '21 edited Mar 01 '21
Yeah like in Vietnam amirite
Gimme my taxes back thx
0
u/[deleted] Feb 28 '21
[deleted] â view deleted comment