>Socially degenerate as the libs, economically out of touch as the Neo-cons
>the literal worst of both worlds
Still, why did libertarianism become strangely popular among various types of popular media figures, like comedians, filmmakers, and actors?
>>2212888What year was this report from? Because if it's after the 1960s, it's probably bullshit. Most Native American academics are people deeply ashamed of actual current Native American culture, i.e., it being no different from white or black rural American culture, and so they make up bullshit about how ancient wisdom is still present
On the other hand, the guys like the actor you mentioned, who is really no different from rural American white people, but ones who liberals fetishize, and they are well aware of that and exploit it
>>2229409proves how libertarianism is historically regressive
>what if we were just left alonenot in a global economy, bub.
>>2215005Hedonism does have inherent degenerative tendencies.
Something is degenerate if it has a tendency to degenerate.
>>2212941>I don't like libertarianism at all, but before the 1960s, the term was tied to Jeffersonian democracy, a sort of populist agrarianism. Current libertarianism emerged in the 1960s and 1970sJefferson's "ideal" form of society was a town-sized republic where everyone owns their own plot of land and labors for themselves, and a quilt of these petty republics would spread across the land. And since everyone would own land (well unless they were slaves or indentured servants but *whistles while pretending to ignore them*) then nobody would be beholden to the whims of political rulers, since thanks to private property, the individual can restrict such power. But a lot of the nuance, ambiguity and historical context around that has evaporated with modern-day libertarians treating such founding-era historical figures as more like scriptural figures than historical ones (i.e. the blind veneration of a semi-mythic, purer past before the degenerates showed up to ruin everything).
>>2229468>economic libertarianism is self-defeating once one recognizes that actual free markets require a strong state to breakup if not nationalize industries to prevent corporate consolidation and monopolization and subsequent rent seeking. this current strand of libertarianism is the unironic love child of a generation or two of milton-reaganite public relations brainwashing to confuse retards on what capitalism isIt's the libertarian's central dilemma. On the one hand they ardently champion capitalism, but on the other they don't actually want to live in modern capitalist society with its large-scale production, complicated infrastructure, and standing armies. The maintenance of roads and things like that are generally unprofitable to operate, so they see that as "socialism." When you ask a typical libertarian to describe their ideal capitalist society, it's an "American Dream" where you either inherit a small business and continue the family tradition, or you work conscientiously for your boss until you too can open up a small business and live in a bucolic suburban community or farmland. They don't really analyze society beyond that restricted vantage point. (Of course you also have libertarians who envision a sci-fi dystopia with themselves as a freakish human/cyborg hybrid ruling over half the globe.)
>>2229468We see it here as well, the guerrilla myth has always been retarded. However it's not just Vietnam, it’s a mix of misconceptions about Vietnam, the American Revolutionary War and Afghanistan. These conflicts had wildly different circumstances, levels of technology, opponents, and backers.
>The Minutemen lost most of their battles against the British, with the exception of the Deep South, where the Northern Loyalists and British weren’t accustomed to the heat and diseases. Their job was to buy time until a Continental Army could be formed (with aid and training from France). The Continental Army was ultimately the one that won the war.>In Vietnam, there was an organized state that was being funded and armed by the Soviets and Chinese, which allowed them to mobilize hundreds of thousands of men. South Vietnam on the other hand, was a corrupt mess, with different families and factions in constant open conflict, often outright coup attempts against each other and never ending in-fighting >In the two Afghan wars, the Soviets won every major battle but still lost the war due to the massive financial problems it caused for their failing economy. Even after that, the Socialist Afghan state lasted three more years without any world aid because they still had a strong functioning state. Then came the American Afghan War, where the US installed a democracy that was never going to work in Afghan society. As soon as they left, it collapsed within a week, compounded by the fact that the Taliban were being helped and funded by a major US ally, Pakistan, that was openly undermining the USLibertarians have never bothered to do any research on the wars they use as their main political thesis for why they won't end up in tyranny
>>2231286even if you stretch the definition of left wing to include european social democracy the demonkkkkrats can't even institute a basic government run heallthcare service
they are right wing
>>2229468>>2231277Guerrilla warfare is really costly, but I think something like "gumption" and "superior spirit" is really important. What we're really talking about is motivation and determination. It's one of the most important factors in war, if not the most important. In numerous wars, the losing side lost the motivation to fight (if they ever had it). American lost the motivation to keep fighting in Afghanistan, and the Afghan army we were training had no motivation. The Syrian army lost its motivation and collapsed within a week.
The U.S. went into Iraq and Afghanistan with motivation because of the 9/11 attacks. But once we got there, we started to wonder whether our reason for being there had anything to do with 9/11 (we're kind of slow and it takes us time to learn things). This creates problems for motivation of soldiers. Anyways, you have to ask how many of these libertarians are willing to wage an armed struggle for decades in which most of them will be killed in the process. That takes a lot of motivation, and I think that has both subjective and objective factors going into it. The subjective factors include the motivation that comes from within and building of a disciplined army, but also objective factors like extreme oppression, and a large population of young people who are more willing to take risks (and risk their lives) compared to older people.
Another factor in guerrilla warfare is that it's weak vs. the strong. But one thing about fighting weak enemies is that you can come to believe that they're not real enemies. Like in a game where you just dab on children, you lose your motivation. When you fight a weak opponent, you become weak. But when you fight a strong opponent, you can become strong.
>>2212978There's a very weird element in Canadian academia right now where because elite institutions are all declaring themselves systemically racist against FIrst Nations, they will give you quite substantial favouritism to hiring you if you're indigenous. So this means all the people who've got a drop of indigenous blood (which if your family history goes back far enough in Canada, means everyone) comes out of the woodwork. This also means it is the most white-passing people who get the most righteously outraged that people would fake indigenous status (but not them, they're the good guys!)
I remember seeing a CBC article which verged on self-parody with all these (totally not white!) professors denouncing the fakers
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/queens-professor-indigenous-identity-claim-questioned-1.6067594 >>2231468If you also made this post:
>>2231277I think you are really onto something.
I did once make the point that if the US wanted to have a military victory in Vietnam it always had the option of full nuclear annihilation.
However it would be a purely military victory, at the cost of a few nukes and at the very most zero economic, diplomatic, etc. gains.
Fact of the matter is as you say, it could not reliably take on an enemy that had a well trained & disciplined army abd massive economic military assistance from two huge countries with advanced militaries of their own
>>2233225Not sure anyone's taking that guy particularly seriously, he's one of those 90s North American anarchists from AJODA and those types of post-left publications.
I font know if you've noticed but that period of history, seen most explicitly in the USA, is over. Class war is very much back on the menu.
>>2231981>old westdamn it im mad at this fucking image again
>most crime was in the cities where ALL THE FUCKING PEOPLE WEREno way!
>most violence was done during the ONGOING GENOCIDE no way!
>>2233225Sounds about right.
I've seen it many times where non-ancom anarchists characterize a historical example that is bassically "local militia + tribal council" as statelessness (in the sense of lack of government).
In other words, what ever other political ideology recognizes as defacto informal government, these kinds of anarchists try desperately to characterize as historical validation that what they desire can exist (even its extremely obvious they would hate to live in such kinds of societies and would scream "STATIST" when the tribal council punishes them for for not contributing a portion of the spoils of a hunt or running around naked high on mushrooms in the village center in broad daylight)
>>2231350Been meaning to watch this.
We should make a /leftypol/ movie list.
>>2239088There's a whole website dedicated to the subject
https://pretendians.comMany of the claimants are professional activists and/or academics. The latter were so widespread and unchallenged for decades, even though their claims would quickly be thrown in the trash if anyone bothered to do a little research.
>>2231981I can't speak for other regions, but the Wild West is interesting because it wasn't anywhere as "wild" as it is portrayed in the media. The main source of violence weren't "outlaws", but mostly organized violence in range wars also called cattle wars, where wealthy cattle barons would hire thugs and employees to steal or rob their competitors' cattle, or simply kill the cattle so their competitors would make less profit. These organized groups would then have violent shootouts with each other. That's where the spark of the Wild West comes from. It wasn't particularly wild/lawless though then the frontiers of any nation at the time and it ended pretty quickly within a generation.
It was actually Buffalo Bill and his circus act that popularized the myth of the gunfighter. He was a master of trick shooting and created a kind of carnival show that traveled from town to town, with plays about cowboys and indians combined with horse and gun tricks. It was enormously popular and we probably still feel its influence today with the idea of the cowboy is part of the American identity, even though the vast majority of Frontier men and women were just trying to make a living and find a long-term opportunity that wasn’t available in the city, and were mostly just farmers.
>>2272153put your gay nazi flag on so you can keep
normalizing colonialv violence as natural
>>2272153This makes a lot of sense. Most of the time,the greatest enemy of a given bourgeois entity is another bourgeois entity.
Its only in moments pf deep crisis that this changes and the proletariat becomes a greater threat; whether or not the bourgeois state can actually repress them is another issue.
Unique IPs: 63