The Election Was Rigged to Quash America First Patriots and “MAGA Republicans”

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/status/1579623103516545024
ZPF5lTq.png
 
And this was over a decade ago, if you know human nature, then you know that there were people that have done nothing, but work at making digital votes even more accessible.

 
A Son of Liberty said:
There are no major metropolitan areas in Wyoming, and plenty of relatively inexpensive land to be had.

The way I see it, there's nowhere else left... I'm not aware of another country that is a better option (so far, anyway). The East is lost. The west coast is long gone. I'm not going to Florida or Texas. Oklahoma has OKC and Tulsa (no disrespect, [MENTION=12430]acptulsa[/MENTION]). Montana could be an option, as well as ND or SD. But as for me, I'm making Wyoming my goal.
Click to expand...

The USA is ranked like 20th for individual freedom lol, take your head out of the sand.
 
BSWPaulsen said:
Much like all the other numbers that come out of elections, the 2% Libertarian vote is likely no more reflective of reality than the numbers attached to the two major parties. You could concentrate every libertarian in the country in one House district, have them vote for the same candidate, and the result would still be 2% in that race. If it caught the media's attention, then articles would be produced about how long-time Libertarians decided that Democrats were right all along at the last minute.

It is all theater. What the actual truth is can only be known by an omniscient God.
Click to expand...

libertarians have 8% of the seats in parliament here, which is an actually meaningful voting block.

(L)ibertarians are stuck at 2% as only 2% of the population are INTJ. The way it markets itself and the intellectual masturbation that motivates the faithful is why it won't be more.

Out in the real world individualism is endemic. Marxists write books about how hopelessly ingrained capitalism is. Socialists can't imagine a future without individual rights and liberty and free trade any more. It is called Capitalist Realism.

Every 'woke' marxist movement gets co-opted by liberalism, because liberalism is a better home for individual freedom than socialism. Neo-liberalism, the worldwide phenomenon is widely defined by the people implementing it as preferring markets over state intervention. The USA almost tried neo-liberalism but it was still born because y'all are addicted to corruption. Ron Paul campaigned on that point pretty vociferously. Both sides want to end the corruption, just not *their* corruption. Its not that American's don't like freedom, it is more that they are so full of fucking FEAR that they are out to get theirs before 'the end'. The answer isn't 'freedom' its to stop shitting your pants every time a brown person goes past. Being white isn't the same as being free. (except in the USA it kind of is....)

When I did my exchange at Chapel Hill for my MBA, the communications lecturer explained to the incoming foreigners that the difference for American's was that being right wasn't important for who you follow as leaders, what mattered more was that you sounded confident that you were right. All of us from free nations with liberty and pretty healthy democracy were aghast. The dude was right though.

So stop pretending this tiny 2% of the population is the only group that cares about liberty. Just stop. Its embarrassing.
 
Last edited:
idiom said:
So stop pretending this tiny 2% of the population is the only group that cares about liberty. Just stop. Its embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Everybody cares about their own liberty, no matter what words they write on paper. That is as true of a Leninist, Marxist, Maoist, Castroist as it is of anyone. It is true by definition.

Liberalism (classical) or libertarianism is unique because it's not just about caring about my liberty, it's about securing the liberty of the people, generally. In the end, it's ultimately a battle between two worldviews -- do you believe in slavery, or do you believe that all men are born free? The latter view excludes almost all the political philosophies of note throughout history, down to today. If you take seriously the idea that all men are born free, then you cannot be a statist of any form, because all forms of statism are based on the master-slave dynamic -- they are slavery with extra steps.

So no, no one who does not place liberty as chief among the civic virtues actually cares about liberty or any other public virtue. That is because liberty is constitutive of virtue. If you point a gun at my head and order me to give $200 to a homeless man, that is not virtue on either my part or your part. It's just robbery-and-redistribution -- it's a temporary enslavement of me to your whim, which happened at that moment to be to force me to give $200 to a homeless man. In order for the act of giving to the poor to be virtuous, it must be done freely. This is true of all other virtues.

Without liberty, you cannot be good.
 
ClaytonB said:
Everybody cares about their own liberty, no matter what words they write on paper. That is as true of a Leninist, Marxist, Maoist, Castroist as it is of anyone. It is true by definition.

Liberalism (classical) or libertarianism is unique because it's not just about caring about my liberty, it's about securing the liberty of the people, generally. In the end, it's ultimately a battle between two worldviews -- do you believe in slavery, or do you believe that all men are born free? The latter view excludes almost all the political philosophies of note throughout history, down to today. If you take seriously the idea that all men are born free, then you cannot be a statist of any form, because all forms of statism are based on the master-slave dynamic -- they are slavery with extra steps.

So no, no one who does not place liberty as chief among the civic virtues actually cares about liberty or any other public virtue. That is because liberty is constitutive of virtue. If you point a gun at my head and order me to give $200 to a homeless man, that is not virtue on either my part or your part. It's just robbery-and-redistribution -- it's a temporary enslavement of me to your whim, which happened at that moment to be to force me to give $200 to a homeless man. In order for the act of giving to the poor to be virtuous, it must be done freely. This is true of all other virtues.

Without liberty, you cannot be good.
Click to expand...

Yeah lots of people are happy to give homeless people money freely.

As always you can move? Oh wait, you get to dictate how your society operates because you were born there and refuse to move?

America is so different though because it totally wasn't founded on the Doctrine of Discovery, paving over 500 other nations whose liberty didn't count for shit.

The country you are in is voluntary to stay in. There's no fucking gun. Its just a massive wank to imagine that 98% of people have no virtue, that they wouldn't die for their liberty or that of their countrymen.

Of course they would. They are just also happy to include freedom from oppressions that are more than just state based. Neo-liberalism is an expansion of classical liberalism to recognize market coercion and social coercion. They're real things.

Also there is more than one state, meaning there is in fact a global anarchy, free market, and all states have to compete with each other to win your support. If you don't vote with your feet you are fucking that market mechanism up and calling it patriotism.
 
Last edited:
A Son of Liberty said:
There are no major metropolitan areas in Wyoming, and plenty of relatively inexpensive land to be had.

The way I see it, there's nowhere else left... I'm not aware of another country that is a better option (so far, anyway). The East is lost. The west coast is long gone. I'm not going to Florida or Texas. Oklahoma has OKC and Tulsa (no disrespect, [MENTION=12430]acptulsa[/MENTION]). Montana could be an option, as well as ND or SD. But as for me, I'm making Wyoming my goal.
Click to expand...

I haven't been to Wyoming in a few years, but if it is anything like Nebraska it isn't a place you can go and run away and hide.

Any town that has a meet processing plant, factory, or any type of industry will be full of immigrants.

Another thing people don't understand is how cold it gets in this part of the country.
 
idiom said:
Yeah lots of people are happy to give homeless people money freely.
Click to expand...

So, I just want to point out before answering in detail that every point you raised is either a red-herring, strawman or some other fallacious deflection from the issue at hand (do any non-libertarians care about liberty?) That said, I will answer the best version of the counter-argument that is mostly closely related to your irrelevant objections, for the benefit of lurkers.

As always you can move? Oh wait, you get to dictate how your society operates because you were born there and refuse to move?
Click to expand...

Well, your point might be relevant if I was whinging about the hopeless political reality in the United States. But I'm not.

The best version of your argument would be something like this: individual states are not "aggressing" on our liberty by unilateral imposition of taxes, fines and other regulations so long as the borders are open for exit. The problem with this argument is that it side-steps what liberty is and what it means to value liberty (or not). This is just another way of saying, "I don't want to talk about liberty, I want to justify why I think the State can do whatever it wants to you, and it's OK so long as we don't lock the door."

America is so different though because it totally wasn't founded on the Doctrine of Discovery, paving over 500 other nations whose liberty didn't count for $#@!.
Click to expand...

This is completely irrelevant. Both the colonists-as-victims and colonists-as-predatory-monsters narratives are ahistorical and false.

The country you are in is voluntary to stay in. There's no $#@!ing gun.
Click to expand...

As above, this point is not relevant, and it's really just side-stepping the issue.

There are countless people for whom it is not voluntary -- we can start with the roughly 2% of Americans who are in prison or jail or another form of movement-restriction. There are countless reasons, many of them quite trivial, that you can lose the supposed "freedom to leave". In fact, it would be a great idea for us to add protection of the freedom to leave as an amendment to the Constitution because, when the Founding Fathers wrote it, it would never have crossed their mind that anyone who wasn't directly accused of a crime or in debtor's prison could be prevented from leaving. Americans at that time were free to leave without giving notice or filing paperwork of any kind, a level of freedom so far removed from the tyrannical modern status quo that it is practically unimaginable to us.

As for the gun in the homeless-Robin-Hood scenario, it's not about the gun. I was not giving a "find the gun-in-the-room" thought-experiment (although those are quite valuable). Rather, the point is that liberty is constitutive of any other virtue and, therefore, it is a kind of meta-virtue. If you don't care about virtues, that's a whole separate argument. But either way, this is not about the gun.

Its just a massive wank to imagine that 98% of people have no virtue, that they wouldn't die for their liberty or that of their countrymen.
Click to expand...

Correct! And that's not what I was asserting. We must differentiate between the philosophical assertion that "non-libertarians care about liberty" from the common-sense fact that many non-libertarians care about liberty. The resolution to this "paradox" is that most people are very sloppy thinkers, and they don't think through the logical contradictions between their many, strongly-held opinions. No doubt, many soldiers in Che Guevara's army truly believed they were fighting for the liberation of the countries they fought for, despite the fact that Marxism is one of the most finely-tuned philosophical rationalizations of enslavement of the masses by a tiny oligarchy of political elites ever constructed.

Of course they would. They are just also happy to include freedom from oppressions that are more than just state based. Neo-liberalism is an expansion of classical liberalism to recognize market coercion and social coercion. They're real things.
Click to expand...

It's interesting how moderns strongly evade the use of the word "slavery", even in criticism of ideologies they disagree with. Slavery is, according to the modernist revision of history, a phenomenon that only existed in the American South between such-and-such dates and was forever ended by the American hero Abraham Lincoln. Even modern neoconservatism and neoliberalism cannot be called "slavery", despite their Hegelian synthesis of left/right politics into a steady march into ideology-free enslavement of the masses by a tiny oligarchy. They are divided on the finer points of how to manage the slaves, but both wings of the modern political spectrum agree that the masses need to be enslaved. Excuse me, it's not slavery, it's "oppressions" or "coercions".

But you're right -- coercion is coercion. Slavery by any other name is just as repulsive. It manifests in many forms, but nowhere in more crystallized form than in the power of the State's broadsword, and the whip-wielding Egyptian taskmasters who staff its bureaucracies. Corporate bureaucracies utilize the same tactics on a smaller scale, but it's the broadsword that backstops the entire pyramid of power. Should any group of slaves, or even malcontent taskmasters with an awakening of the conscience, be tempted to step too far out of line, they will be put down with a sufficient application of violence, of which the State has a practically infinite supply.

Also there is more than one state, meaning there is in fact a global anarchy, free market, and all states have to compete with each other to win your support. If you don't vote with your feet you are $#@!ing that market mechanism up and calling it patriotism.
Click to expand...

I already addressed the "vote with your feet"-deflection above.

The patriotism objection is also irrelevant to the point in discussion (you raised no relevant points in this post). But for the sake of argument, I will try to imagine you are arguing that patriotism is some kind of "price distortion" of an imaginary "global market of competing states." This is false on a few dimensions.

First, the philosophy of liberty is not logically tied to any particular nation. So, patriotism is not equivalent to libertarianism, nor is it necessarily entailed by it, even if they are frequently found together in the wild. But continuing on the point of patriotism, you already granted that the nations that make up the global "market" of states are coercive. So, if I coerce you with patriotism, what's the complaint? Even if I'm logically inconsistent, so what, every other political philosophy throws logic out the window because "we can force the issue". OK, so let's lock horns then. Liberty is not only logically true, it is popular (a point you tried to argue above), which means it has the same kind of supra-rational strength as other overtly illogical political philosophies have (e.g. Wokism).

Second, libertarianism is not about not projecting any kind of influence onto one's neighbors or fellow-countrymen. I have my own opinions about "the way it oughtta be". Some of them I can't even fully rationally defend. I wouldn't try to impose them on you through police, but I would not consider many of the municipal measures that some libertarians get OCD about to be truly libertarian issues. Using public money to build a beautiful monument that will attract visitors to the city, for example, is not "anti-libertarian" even though it's "aggressing" against everyone in the city who didn't agree to have the monument built, and still ended up paying for it one way or another. There's a difference between approving a measure to build a monument that some of my neighbors don't want to pay for, versus sending jackbooted thugs into their house on a wrong-address no-knock SWAT raid at 3:30AM.

Finally, America is unique (yes, exceptional) among the nations in the world. Ten years ago, I would not have been able to give a coherent defense for why this is the case. It would have just been something I felt, by virtue of being American. The missing puzzle-piece is in the absolute saturation of slavery throughout all other cultures in the world, both in depth and extent. I had earlier assumed that, while America is the freest country in the world, there must be other places that have at least some of our freedoms, and maybe other freedoms we don't have. But no, there is not even the smallest pocket of freedom in this present, evil world because the dark powers of slavery come up from the pit of hell itself, and their action in this world is exhaustive -- no stone has been left unturned. That is as true in America as it is in the rest of the world. But what makes America different is that we really were the freest nation in the world, and we had a culture of freedom. For this reason, the Beast World Order is maximally interested in bringing America to heel. If the globalist bug-eaters can force America to submit, they can force anyone to submit, without difficulty. That's why the Beast World Order has started here. And that's why it will have to be destroyed here. If we can't destroy it, no one else will be able to...
 
Last edited:
Lol - EVERY election is rigged. If voting changed anything, they wouldn't let us do it.

The people in charge of the institutions of power will ALWAYS craft systems to ensure that power is retained. It's just a matter of how each state crafts their system.

In many red states, they've bought into the premise that voting must be secure and voting window limited. That advantages Republicans... because they wrote the rules.
Conversely, in blue states, they've bought into the premise that voting must be accessible and open, making it as easy as possible for people to vote. That advantages Democrats... because they wrote those rules.

During Covid, many states changed their rules through executive action based on the second premise. And the advantages followed. Most of those rules have not been rolled back.

It's not who votes. It's not who counts the votes. It's who created the system for voting.
 
mtr1979 said:
I haven't been to Wyoming in a few years, but if it is anything like Nebraska it isn't a place you can go and run away and hide.

Any town that has a meet processing plant, factory, or any type of industry will be full of immigrants.

Another thing people don't understand is how cold it gets in this part of the country.
Click to expand...

I've been to Wyoming numerous times. I'm well acquainted with it.
 
idiom said:
libertarians have 8% of the seats in parliament here, which is an actually meaningful voting block.

(L)ibertarians are stuck at 2% as only 2% of the population are INTJ. The way it markets itself and the intellectual masturbation that motivates the faithful is why it won't be more.

Out in the real world individualism is endemic. Marxists write books about how hopelessly ingrained capitalism is. Socialists can't imagine a future without individual rights and liberty and free trade any more. It is called Capitalist Realism.

Every 'woke' marxist movement gets co-opted by liberalism, because liberalism is a better home for individual freedom than socialism. Neo-liberalism, the worldwide phenomenon is widely defined by the people implementing it as preferring markets over state intervention. The USA almost tried neo-liberalism but it was still born because y'all are addicted to corruption. Ron Paul campaigned on that point pretty vociferously. Both sides want to end the corruption, just not *their* corruption. Its not that American's don't like freedom, it is more that they are so full of $#@!ing FEAR that they are out to get theirs before 'the end'. The answer isn't 'freedom' its to stop $#@!ting your pants every time a brown person goes past. Being white isn't the same as being free. (except in the USA it kind of is....)

When I did my exchange at Chapel Hill for my MBA, the communications lecturer explained to the incoming foreigners that the difference for American's was that being right wasn't important for who you follow as leaders, what mattered more was that you sounded confident that you were right. All of us from free nations with liberty and pretty healthy democracy were aghast. The dude was right though.

So stop pretending this tiny 2% of the population is the only group that cares about liberty. Just stop. Its embarrassing.
Click to expand...

This is the guy who told me to take my head out of the sand? And then follows it up with this incoherent babbling? A Kiwi who thinks he's free in New Zealand?
 
idiom said:
Its not that American's don't like freedom, it is more that they are so full of fucking FEAR that they are out to get theirs before 'the end'. The answer isn't 'freedom' its to stop shitting your pants every time a brown person goes past. Being white isn't the same as being free. (except in the USA it kind of is....)
Click to expand...

LOL - Says the person from a country where entry visas and long term work visas are made from Unobtanium and has a Marxist prime minister.

Unless you're Maori, you don't belong there anyway, white boy.

Americunts don't even appreciate this, but we're under invasion here.

Million upon millions (can't even count them anymore) of "brown people" aka South American communists, are pouring into the country every year, from failed narco and communist states to the south.

Not a day goes by in this country where native "brown people" do not take to their soapboxes (that they never seemed to get banned from) to denounce me and my "whiteness" as the worst scourge on the land, needing immediate extermination, whipping up both native and invaders into a genocidal frenzy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Shadowy Forces Behind JD Vance’s Rise and Grooming as MAGA Successor
Replies
15
Views
344
acptulsa
acptulsa
Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
Tucker on the MAGA Movement’s Future and the Snakes in Washington Trying to Change It’s True Meaning
Replies
4
Views
53
oyarde
O
Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
Provoked EP:21 - The MAGA Civil War Has Begun! Tucker Carlson v. Shapiro & Levin
Replies
5
Views
126
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
Donald Trump Eligible to Run for Third Term, Half of MAGA Republicans Say
Replies
6
Views
129
jmdrake
jmdrake
Occam's Banana
Trouble in MAGA Paradise: The PELOSI Act & Trump vs. "second-tier senator" Hawley
Replies
12
Views
186
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top