Comments by "No Fate But What We Make" (@SonoftheAllfather) on "Too Cool to be a Liberal: Neolibs are Boring and Dying Out" video.

  1. Real liberalism i.e. classical liberalism is what the Left should be aspiring towards. EDIT: I am not a Leftist, FFS. Assuming makes an ass out of u and me.
    93
  2. You have a really poor understanding of classical liberalism and conservatism for that matter. Conservatism is really just resistance to progressivism i.e. social liberalism. The bedrock of American conservatism is classical liberalism. Unless of course you don't espouse civil liberties under the rule of law, individual rights, separation of church and state, free market capitalism, and economic self determination. Classical liberals are anti welfare state and group rights. "Social liberalism" is a perversion of classical liberalism and is really just social Marxism. Socialists are adverse to classical liberal ideas.
    15
  3. Agreed. Marxism is cancer and should be purged from the political lexicon.
    6
  4. Actually classical liberalism is more like modern day right libertarianism. Classical liberals such as John Locke and Thomas Jefferson are the architects of the concept of limited and decentralized government and republicanism in the U.S.. You're conflating modern "liberalism" (a misnomer, which is essentially socialism) with the original historical tenets of liberalism.
    5
  5. I agree. These people aren't liberal at all. They're authoritarian social Marxian moralists.
    5
  6. A based assessment. Neoliberalism and neoconservatism also need to be purged from the political lexicon. They are just centrist establishment movements that serve to enslave Americans by way of taxation, globalism, oil dependency, funding foreign interventionism etc. I more identify as a nationalist, a paleoconservative, and a classical liberal.
    5
  7. That's true, but it's all about nomenclature. You can witness the wanton ignorance evident on this thread concerning this issue. I'm a far-right leaning, Trump supporting nationalist. Real liberalism is not Leftism. Liberal is a misnomer, even a euphemism for what the Left has become.
    4
  8. I agree with everything you said, but I wouldn't identify myself as a liberal in any modern context.
    4
  9. That is true. Dave Rubin gets attacked by his fan base constantly and accused of being a Rightist. Dave knows that the Left doesn't espouse truly liberal tenants anymore, but he's desperately clinging to his self-proclaimed "classical liberal" political identity.
    4
  10. All of you? You think I'm a Leftist? lol that's funny. You're an idiot.
    3
  11. ThreeFingerG I identify with the elements of paleoconservatism that stress tradition, Western identity and anti-immigration and anti-multiculturalism. Those values aren't really included in the classical liberal doctrine, but are very important to me. Classical liberalism is the base on which paleoconservatism and nationalism can be built.
    3
  12. I agree with everything you said there except one thing. I don't think "Progressives" intend to simply "progress liberalism," I think they want to shift to Marxist socialism under the guise of progressivism, which will turn our system into the antithesis of liberalism, in all actuality. You can see this phenomenon taking place already. Most of the civil unrest taking place in the West is in response to democratic processes, and is being undertaken by those claiming to be communists.
    3
  13. You come off like a child, attacking my character and insinuating I don't read and all I do is parrot others. My opinion is that "neoliberals" and "neoconservatives" are both just establishment shills that skulk in the malleable center of the political spectrum. They claim to be to the right or left, largely for appearances, and can do so only because the Overton window in reality only encompasses the center in the U.S. They are definitely not "far-right." That is retarded.
    2
  14. counselthyself we dumb Americans are the only reason Israel exists and the only thing keeping Israel from being wiped off the face of the Earth. Classical liberals are against welfare state concepts like socialized healthcare and subsidized higher education. GTFOH with your pinko communist horseshit.
    2
  15. The United States prior to the New Deal is what pure unbridled capitalism and imperialism looked like. It is not the politics or the economics of the United States that has "pulled so far right," it has simply gradually shifted. The most drastic shift has taken place in the rest of the "advanced industrial" world, which has pulled towards the Left and becoming social welfare states. Look to Western Europe as the example of that, where they have socialists in control of most of the government and a corrupt post-national authority lording over them, stripping them of their national sovereignty. Even communists openly run, and with a marginal degree of popularity there. You clearly don't have the self determinant spirit requisite to conceptualize a state without a strong centralized welfare system actually working. Instead you advocate for systems that are destined to fail. The government cannot spend money unless it first takes it away from someone else. The problem is that there is a finite amount of wealth, even in the "capitalist class." Once there is no money left to take, these systems implode under the weight of the parasitic leaches that they are sustaining. Add mass unfettered immigration and open border retardation, and you have yourself a failed state, unable to sustain its utopian dream. Still, the U.S. is moving that direction, and the massive bureaucratically controlled central government and the growing welfare state here is already clearly unsustainable, especially when mass immigration is factored into the equation.
    2
  16. No, I tend to live in the realm of realism, where I know the reverse is true, but I do understand a lot of people of all ages, but especially the young, espouse "liberal progression" because they hope it will lead to a utopian dreamscape, when in practice, it leads to an authoritarian hellscape.
    2
  17. Every lazy, retarded Leftist in the Western world is envious and bitter towards any concentration of wealth or power in the market system. One of the most logically flawed Leftist notions is that wealth inequity is the same as wealth inequality. Even though they live in nations that give them the most wealth mobility in the history of human civilization, they fixate on this perceived discrepancy in the capitalist market system and act as if the Marxist formula actually leads to a more just distribution of wealth and power. As another liberal theorist, Immanuel Kant, said "this may be true in theory but it does not apply in practice."
    2
  18. You'll also see synonyms in the common dictionary sources painting any Rightist position as extreme/bigoted. Examples: synonyms for nationalism/nativism = xenophobia; synonym for conservative = reactionary/extremist.
    2
  19. "somehow think that your theory is flawless" Hardly. I simply think it is exponentially better than communism and other forms of socialistic welfare systems. "automatically pivot to boxing the left into Marxist theory whenever there's an argument against a laissez faire marketplace. There's no either/or here." Actually, I'm not for unbridled, completely deregulated capitalism either. I think it's safe to say most American Rightists aren't either. I simply advocate for a reversal of the welfare state. Most American Leftists are pushing for "democratic socialism," which is essentially just socialism lite and is fundamentally Marxist in principle. I'm just calling a duck a duck, honestly. Also, as you well know, Marxist theory transcends economics and politics. There is cultural Marxism as well, which is culpable for many of the perverse postmodernist forms of degeneracy that are infecting our society today. I agree with your assessment on cronyism, mismanagement and misallocation of taxpayer dollars, politics and spending being influenced by corporate interests, etc. Riddle me this, however...given how incredibly inept and corrupt big centralized government has proven itself to be, why should we feel compelled to place more power and tax dollars into their hands? It seems as though some Leftists contradict their criticism of the government as inept by advocating for more government control, more taxes, and more bureaucratically run programs.   Overall, that was a very well structured argument. Props.
    2
  20. I agree, actually. I also believe in a constitutional amendment protecting internet freedom (which Styx has proposed) and I believe in revising the 14th amendment to include a clause that a person born in this country to two illegal immigrant parents is not a citizen.
    2
  21. "It's very difficult for social democracy to function when the USA empire is pulling, by hook or by crook, further to the right - "free market" capitalism." What a pathetic excuse. Blame the U.S. for all of your economic woes. You're just proving that we indirectly subsidize your shitty social projects. We should pull out of NAFTA and twist the knife. "What you have is private profits and socialized costs FOR THE RICH" The rich (the top 1%) pay between 35-39.6% for income tax here. The highest corporate tax bracket is 35%. The rich pay more taxes here that they do in Canada, income and corporate. "Would you prefer that your tax dollars are spent on a massively bloated military (that receives socialized medical, btw) No actually I would much rather the rest of the West pay their fair share in defense spending to protect interests that are largely their's as well i.e. fund their fair share of NATO or get the fuck out of it, help pay for Israel to not get wiped off the face of the Earth etc. I would much rather our war apparatus be partially defunded and that money reallocated to homeland security, schools, infrastructure etc. But no other Western "industrialized nations" wants to bear the burden of protecting our way of life and paying for the means to have an effective war apparatus. They would much rather just push their weight around as if they deserve to be heard as a world voice, all whilst under the dry umbrella of American protection, and then sanctimoniously sneer and badmouth us as "imperialists" ever chance they get. Meanwhile all of these "visionary" Western countries are trying to sustain these degenerating social welfare states in hopes of establishing some kind of utopia, whilst simultaneously inviting the Third World into their countries. Only a fool would establish a welfare state with open borders, so perhaps you all deserve to be destroyed. It's like a being a parent: they treat you like shit, you sustain them, and you watch as they make childish errors trying "follow their hearts." "would you prefer your tax dollars went to universal healthcare" Absolutely fucking not. There will never be universal healthcare in this country, and I'll tell you why. Firstly, we have 350 million people in this country and that number will be increasing so long as we're allowing illegal immigrants that have an average birthrate of 3 children per woman to enter our country without significant legal consequence. Our largest example of socialized medicine is the Veterans Health Administration which serves about 1.5 million people and costs the Fed about 2% of its mandatory budget per year. If you take the cost of the VHA, and you apply it to the entire population, it would cost the equivalency of 466% of the U.S. federal mandatory spending budget just to provide healthcare that is renown in the U.S. as being horrible (believe me, I'm a vet). The cost of socialized medicine in this country in unsustainable. It would require taxes to increase exponentially. Remember that the population of Canada is only 1/10 of ours, and we have way more poor immigrants that contribute very little tax revenue. Some groups of people in this country are a lot more productive than others, and I'm not talking about people who are unable to produce. The productive class does not want to subsidize the parasitic class any more than they already do in this country. There is already socialized medicine here for the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and veterans. Those that are able to be productive should not be rewarded for their lack of productivity. The majority of career-type jobs have healthcare benefits. Welfare states breed laziness and a false sense of entitlement, and Americans know this. Healthcare is not a right owed to anyone by society, it is a courtesy given to those that are the neediest and unable to produce and sustain the cost of their own healthcare.
    2
  22. "globalism is neoliberalism"  Now we're speaking the same language. Still, I refuse to concede that neoliberalism is "a far-right position." If neoliberalism is far right, what does that make right libertarianism or other extremely decentralized governmental systems? If neoliberalism is far-right, what is  your (cringe) concept of far-Left? As your Wiki article says "neoliberalism emerged among European liberal scholars in the 1930s in an attempt to trace a so-called "third" or "middle" way between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and socialist planning." So in this Overton window, classical liberalism is rightist, neoliberalism is centrist, and socialism is leftist. This is pretty much how most people in the U.S. interpret this. Neoliberals are left-leaning centrists that also pander to cultural Marxism and welfare state concepts. Neocons are right-leaning centrists that pander to cultural Americanism and fiscal conservatism.
    2
  23. It seems as though your argument is that any form of government besides Marxist socialism is an "antisocial, far right belief controlling society." Meanwhile, the U.S. spends a higher percentage of its GDP on social expenditure than Canada does (19.2% as opposed to 17%, and $10,203 PPPY as opposed to $7,352 PPPY) As far as the political spectrum goes, you used a reference that proved me correct that neoliberalism is centrist, and yet here you are, still trying to be the arbiter of what is right and left. By the way, you still didn't provide your concept of far-left, although at this point, I'm not really sure I want to hear it. I think you're a confused person and interpreting definitions of political concepts too literally. Probably because you haven't really formed a solid political view for yourself, which is fine. In the Wiki article you keeping spamming at the end of every post, it says "some scholars have described the term as meaning different things to different people, as neoliberalism "mutated" into geopolitically distinct hybrids as it travelled around the world. As such, neoliberalism shares many attributes with other contested concepts, including democracy."
    2
  24. gumdeo I don't know. I've never seen Shapiro get wrecked. He destroys all Leftists in his path.
    2
  25. I know Styx isn't a Leftist. IMO, I think Styx has way less experience actually debating face to face. He just rants, albeit very competently and articulately, and doesn't really argue that much. He is good live, too, I saw him being interviewed by Tara McCarthy, but she doesn't say barely anything, let alone challenge her guests. I think Shapiro would be caught off guard and Styx would hold with own, but experience would prevail.
    2
  26. Pray tell, what glorious socialist uptopia do you hail from?
    1