Search the Community

Like it or not, Stefan Molyneux has shifted his discourse to a more nationalist discourse lately, and he's routinely discussed in /pol/ when he posts new videos or he's listed in the diagrams of the Alt Right as a libertarian nationalist. So this topic is a way of opening a discussion on nationalism, the alt right, how it relates to Freedomain Radio, and how memes and propaganda are winning people over on the internet. In particular I'm posting videos that exemplify in broad terms what it happening with the movement. Walt Bismarck posts videos of Disney songs with altered lyrics. This one fits really well with the characters and how moving to the right is basically joining the dark side. This is the definitive Trump propaganda rock opera. The song wasn't meant to be about him, it's actually inspired by a videogame, but it doesn't matter now. NAZI! ANTISEMITE! WHITE SUPREEEEMIST! - ramzpaul is someone I've been listening for a while, and in this video he talks about how the cliche notion of white nationalism is for edgelords. In broad terms he advocates national identity for all people while making fun of neonazis. And while the unicorn ideal of a free society is still the final goal, what is ultimately going to take people there must first pass throught the ring of fire called "defeat the left" and "abandon democracy" and the only movement currently gaining any traction in this road is not the libertarians, but the alt right. I don't see it as the end game, but it can't hurt to realize nothing else has a chance of making a dent in the globalist's agenda so far.

Is the Universe finite? Is it only so at the time it is measured? Is this dependent on the position of the measurer a sort of "condition of possibility" (Transcendental Idealism). If I was to try and measure the Universe and be Omniscient would I in effect have to be outside of time, a kind of 5th Dimension? or is the Universe infinite? or is it Both? (Absolute Idealism). Can Political Ideologies be Absolute Idealist positions? Can a "Classless" Ideology like "Communism" be logically consistent, would this be in effect Left-wing Anarchism, where the right to private property is not respected. Is Anarcho-Capitalism essentially the opposite of Communism? Can Nationalism be a logically consistent position? If so, is there a thesis and anti-thesis of positions?

...and, "Donald Trump's Immigration Policy: An Honest Conversation." Some of these things are covered in a few other forum threads, so please excuse the uncited references. I am a Philosopher King donor, who has donated almost a thousand dollars to this conversation. I am close to asking for my money back. I listened to their recent podcast, "Donald Trump's Immigration Policy: An Honest Conversation," and felt angry and frustrated at the rightward, Hoppean turn the conversation took. They seemed to paint almost all Mexican ("illegal") immigrants with the same broad brush. "They come from a society that inflicts abuse on their children!" "They don't peacefully parent their kids and grow up all screwed up!" There are people in the US like that! What am I supposed to do, advocate for a phalanx of border guards at the state border to keep North Carolinians from "invading" my state? If not, why not? Because the line on a map is thicker? As an anarchist, the only borders I respect are property lines. Private property lines. Don't people own the land on the other side of the Rio Grande? (Hey, that rhymes!) Or is the whole premise of "border security" that they outsource that power the government? Is that it? I think Mike mentioned that the US government should still obey the immigration laws in this country. Even if those laws are consummately unconstitutional? The US Constitution only give the federal government the power over natualization. Immigration was originally left to the states. (I have a problem with that as well, but that's another matter.) The US government usurped this power with the Page Act of 1875, as a means of stemming the tide of Chinese "taking American jobs." (Some things never change, unfortunately.) Mexicans (or other immigrants) do not "take American jobs." They do not belong to Americans, they belong to the employers. The employers can (or, at least, should) give those jobs to whomever the employer wants. I also felt angry when I realized that they were very supportive of Trump's policy on this. So, let me get this straight... Ron Paul, no, Donald Trump, Hell Yeah! I felt angered when Stef mangled people in this conversation who dared to say that Dr. Paul should be commended for his support of freedom-oriented legislation, and may even be voted for. (Yes, we all know that voting doesn't solve anything.) But Trump, who isn't freedom-oriented on pretty much anything, gets drooled over by Stef and the gang? I'm curious as to the rationale. (Legitimately. I really can't put the proper tone in a written forum post.) Is it because, unlike Ron Paul, Donald Trump doesn't even give the pretense of being a libertarian? Is that it? Yes, I know that no one of the Freedomain Radio staff would officialy support the Donald politically (Stef can't- he's Canadian), but still... I would advise you to please not fall into the same trap I'm trying to avoid- seeing people as homogeneous. I understand that not all migrants are sympathetic, hard-working, conscientious people, any more than they are all money-grubbing, welfare-statist, child-beating, irrational religionists. I don't think any of us are asserting that. However, you know that national "border security" and immigration policies don't work on a case-by-case basis. It winds up being, "ship alla them Moo-slum sand niggers'a right back whur they came frum!" Or worse, as a local radio talk show host said about people fleeing Cuba a few years back, shoot to kill on sight. Which brings me to the "European Migration Crisis" podcast... A lot of the cultural invasion topics from the Trump Conversation podcast were brought up here, with the subsequent trepidations from me. However, I noted, with some dismay, that Stef didn't address the 800-Pound Gorilla in the Room... the Gun in the Room. Another poster on another forum topic addressing this mentioned this, but for those who haven't read it, let me say it. These diparate people from across the Middle East didn't, en masse, get up one fine, peaceful day in Syria (or Afghanistan) and say to themselves, "You know, Syria is great and all, but you know who needs themselves some Syria? Portugal!" They are fleeing these areas because these European citizens supported their governments' involvement in the War on Terror and have sent some of their fellow citizens there to bomb, shoot, and irradiate these Middle Easterners' families and friends, and depose their leaders. Another governmental program that is attracting those people to Europe is the welfare states. Stef discussed this at length on the podcast, and I commend him on this. But reforming (or, preferably, eliminating) the welfare state is the more humane solution to this problem, not shipping them back to a literal war zone or killing them if they refuse. That's what they're there for! They could have met that fate if they'd just stayed where they were. Bottom line, I don't seem to understand the whole issue, but I have some ideas. The best way I think to handle the problem (as far as anyone rational can influence the government) is: end the War on Terror, eliminate welfare and other unconstitutional benefits for non-citizens, and inform these refugees (or "illegal immigrants,"* or whatever you want to call them) that they are on their own. In a truly free area, there would be no honey to attract redistributionist people and all the land would be owned by individuals or organizations, who would be tasked with keeping tresspassers "off'n their propertah." As far as those who are already here, keep anyone you like off your property for any reason you like, but whomever anyone else allows on their land, or hires, or sells to is none of your goddamned business. (As least as far as government force is concerned.) By the way, Stef mentioned that the best thing for these refugees is to stay and fight where they are. All I have to say is, Anne Frank didn't. Sigmund Freud didn't. Albert Einstein didn't. The von Trapps didn't. And most importantly, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek didn't. They knew a sinking ship when they saw it and, like good and prolific rats, got while the gittin' was good. (Yes, I know these people aren't exactly modern intellectuals steeped in Western Civilization and classical liberalism, but their situation is similar.) I intend to do the same thing. Those people in the Middle East aren't exactly fighting an intellectual war. They're fighting the 3rd US Marine battalion- with guns, and drones, and Hellfire missiles, and tanks, and depleted uranium ordinance. please help me *I call them, "unauthorized movers," like someone going from Montana to Colorado, or Ontario to Alberta. What's the difference?

The idea of "country" is also what keeps freedom fighters fighting, rather than just moving and emigrating. Why fight militarily against governments when you can just move to another country? Sure there are costs, like having to learn another language, etc, but is it really worth dying or fighting? (For me personally, it's just not worth it. Just take your family and leave. You can't sway the outcome much, and there is huge personal risk. The potential prize is what, a better government for one country? If it was to rid of all governments, maybe I might think about it.)Why do freedom fighters fight? I'm sure a large part of their bag of reasons is nationalism, combined with ethnic pride. Having some moral and emotional stake in the geography inhabited by their own ethnicity that contains the traditions, culture, and maybe even physical monuments significant to history. The way I see it, they stand their ground and fight mainly because of the same lingering loyalty to their "country."So yes, the governments are bad, and they propagandize, cause wars, predate on their tax farms, etc. That's a given. I want to make a point beyond that, and shine my little light on the motivation of freedom fighters. If they didn't fight, then there would be no war (granted, it would be so much easier for governments, etc, but lets put that issue aside).As far as the motivation of rebel freedom fighters, the lingering idea and belief in "their country" is probably the biggest reason they stand and fight.