But hey, feminazism, that limits everyone and treats women as children and men as criminals is totally libertarian! They want to limit even how long you can make eye contact and what words you can use to describe yourself, but it's all about muh freedoms.
They want to tax you to death so the party member women who behave the way feminism wants them to behave will live consequence free. (Fuck the women who choose to not be animals.)
Laws ratifying how many women HAVE TO be in every group, from boardrooms, to doctors to makers of a movie.
A fuckton of new laws that are all subjective and intentionally unequal for people.
Outrageous punishments, including prison sentences for men who breach said laws, like being offensive.
If you're abiding by Leftist rhetoric, you're not a Libertarian. There is no such thing as a Left Libertarian, or a Socialist Libertarian. There are, however, shills that call themselves Libertarian because they make rationalizations of Corporate and Socialist dominance.
If a 'Libertarian' tells you that walls are immoral, he's a fucking liar and a Communist
against female video-game designers suspected of feminist leanings
Jesus Christ, Joe McCarthy is freakin' immortal. McCarthy and HUAC went after current (and former) members of the foreign-controlled CPUSA, not people who read The Communist Manifesto and thought, "heh, cool." That is a huge distinction, and one lost on Ms Garvin (who deserves the honorific due to his stellar and unthinking efforts on behalf of feminism), since almost all of the "gamers are dead" movement were avowed feminist activists.
In this article they lump together many different conspiracies as well.
I suppose the truth of that claim depends a bit on how you define "current day." But the certainty that international Jewry was plotting to enslave the world and had even boldly transcribed its plan in a book called The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion swept the globe 120 years ago and is, even now, popular in Japan and the Middle East. The manic belief that the murder of John F. Kennedy more than half a century back was the sinister centerpiece of a coup by (take your pick) the CIA, the Mafia, Big Oil, or World Communism is still a planetary obsession. Then there are the 9/11 Truthers, the faked moon landing crowd, and of course the cabal of Freemasons who sank the Titanic. And don't get me started on the cover-up of Paul McCartney's death.
Before GamerGate I barely gave these kinds of things the time of day, but you end up with "If they're trying so hard to slander this one thing I know, what else are the media lying about?" becomes a much more compelling thought. I have since gained the belief that many of those things are not to be dismissed so quickly.
The more you see the news faked in front of your very eyes (whether green screen, "misinterpretations", or other gaslighting) the more it should drove you to question the history that they have taught you.
But the certainty that international Jewry was plotting to enslave the world and had even boldly transcribed its plan in a book called The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion Das Kapital swept the globe 120 years ago and is,
The Protocols are quite an obvious forgery. As for the other things, I no longer doubt that political leaders are morally capable of something like 9/11 - Andrew Cuomo did five of them and barely anyone complained. Though whether they could practically pull it of is another matter.
"Forgery" simply means being copied from something else, it does not mean a fabrication or inherently false. Either way, you just need to see how much they apply to the modern day or not.
"Forgery" simply means being copied from something else,
Yeah, from a work of fiction. Or did you really think that Napoleon III had conversations with Niccolo Machiavelli? It would explain why you have enough screws loose to make the Protocols your Bible.
does not mean a fabrication or inherently false.
ROFL. "Fake but accurate".
Even Joseph Goebbels realized that the Protocols were as fake as it gets. But he had a Ph.D. in literature when it meant something, while you are a witless Stormfag.
I'm just saying that the media's tactics to discredit something is to immediately call it a "forgery" which has nothing to do with the content itself, just that it was not the original source. You see this a lot with historical documents that people would rather not want to be acknowledged.
I haven't actually read it myself, just seen the knee-jerk response that happens when somebody isn't willing to outright dismiss it. And with the recent amount of things being "debunked" that tends to mean you should give it pause, but obviously not totally believe it because of that alone.
I'm just saying that the media's tactics to discredit something
If it were just the media saying it, people would be justified in not believing it one way or the other - as nothing that the media says should be believed on its say-so.
You see this a lot with historical documents that people would rather not want to be acknowledged.
Like what, the Donation of Constantine?
just seen the knee-jerk response that happens when somebody isn't willing to outright dismiss it.
It takes someone either completely ignorant of its contents, or quite stupid, to not 'dismiss' it.
And with the recent amount of things being "debunked" that tends to mean you should give it pause
It's one thing not to latch on to 'debunked' like some soyface, it's quite another to believe the most absurd things.
"Forgery" simply means being copied from something else
That's plagiarism.
it does not mean a fabrication or inherently false.
That is exactly what it means. A forged check is an attempt to drain someone else's bank account. A Vermeer forgery is a painting designed to cash in on Vermeer's reputation, by imitating his style, by imitating his subject matter, by using the paints and canvases he used, by aging the painting. "Forgery" is identity theft.
Let's turn this around:
Being a dedicated Americanist (i.e., a person who wants to undo the New Deal, and then institute new, capitalist reforms that work far better and are less intrusive), I want to destroy the reputation of leading Democrats. To destroy them on health care, I have the following:
In 1992, Hillary touted "single-payer" health care. Unlike the UK or CA NHS systems, doctors are not directly employed by the government, but all would be paid by the govt, so the distinction is moot.
In 1994, Billary was rewarded with a total rout in Congress by the GOP.
Obama was to the "public option" (AKA single-payer in slow motion) what Thomas Jefferson was to emancipation, offering more promises of it the further he was re-election or any political power. In Aug 2008, it was in his platform one, two. Even Politifact noted it: one, two.
Bernie Sanders wants "Medicare for All," which is just single-payer under another name.
Look at the links. These are all reputable sources (ha! Well, I suppose they were). All of the above is true.
Now, if I was a boring, normal person, I would just point out that every Democrat since 1992 has been cuckoo for single payer since forever, regardless of who you vote for. Bernie Bros who whine about Hillary (in between shooting up GOP congressmen) are really only whining that Hillary isn't deploying the Marines to force us all onto Medicare (and its massive, massive taxes) at gun point. And of course, BBs are racist, because they don't whine about Obama in the same way.
But, if I was a retarded freak, then I would forge something called, say, The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of the DNC, in which I would pack all the above evidence into words inserted into O'Billary Sander's mouths, and also say that fetuses are not sold for medical experiments, but actually ground into pâté, and that the Trump administration is about to bust Big Pâté, and that everyone should sit back, do nothing, and wait for the prophesied HYUGE REVEAL, instead of doing something insane like going out and getting politically involved.
Just remember: many of those "conspiracy theories" are in fact pushed by other conspirators to create dissension.
If you want to read two books on the Kennedy assassination, I strongly recommend:
Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK by Gerald Posner, 2003. Amazon, Barnes & Noble
Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism by James Piereson, 2007. Amazon, Barnes & Noble
The first book is, in effect, the biography of Lee Harvey Oswald, showing you how he was definitely the only man in Dallas with the means, motive and opportunity to shoot Kennedy, and who was also ID'ed on the scene by witnesses.
The second book shows you how the first conspiracy theory about JFK's death was promulgated by Jackie Kennedy and The New York Times within 24 hours of the shooting.
Talking about cutting programs, cutting taxes, ending government agencies, ending inflation, de-regulating the economy, and promoting economic activity outside of the mainstream is extremely threatening to the establishment. It cuts at the heart of their power.
Talking about GDP is irrelevant because it's a useless measurement set up by a series of fraudulent internationalist organizations.
Ending the deficit is not to be tolerated because it cause a complete halt to the monetary system's debt-based power structuring. Cutting taxes increases the individuals ability to spend without being bailed out by the government, and reduces the tax burden on competition, creating the risk of the cartel corporations of any given industry going under.
Libertarianism, when enacted, presents a decentralized threat at the heart of the establishment systems power.
There's a reason when people do weird An-Cap nonsense they get put in prison for 50 years, and when people do stupid An-Com nonsense they get released after 4 and get book deals.
There's a man serving 40 years in prison right now because he mass released all the scientific papers that several universities had hidden behind paywalls. The guy who invented Silk Road has been targeted by damn near the entirety law enforcement agency in the world. A bunch of autists on reddit liked the stonks and not only did congress step in, but so did multiple federal regulatory agencies and multiple private companies to stop them whether they broke the fucking law or not. Parler has been effectively wipped from the internet. Subscribe Star had to take on Bank of America, MasterCard, Visa, and more, just to stay afloat.
Money is the most important aspect, because that's the whole fucking point.
There is a reason FDR criminalized the ownership of Gold and Silver
What in the ever loving fuck are you talking about? Establishment Republicans not only talk about tax cuts, they actually pass them. They just passed one a couple of years ago.
Tax cuts as a way to cut in-flows of money. The only reason the government is okay with tax cuts is because they print money. That printed money takes more out of your pocket than the tax cut will return.
Huh, I was sure it would be the dangerhair Elizabeth Nolan-Brown, but it turned out to be an obscure writer named Glenn Garvis. Perhaps an investigation of his Twitter history is in order.
I've yet to dig my way through it, but I'd argue that's just an extension of Leftist Inevitability Doctrine.
It's like saying that Atheism should be criminalized by the government to prevent Leftism. But I can point to you that the Catholic Church has been dominated by Leftists using Liberation Theology. Part of the problem is that using government force to create a hierarchy of power within the government, creates a keystone position of power that the Left will always, and I mean always, attempt to seize.
Gate-keeping does not have to be done by the state. It has to be done by the people. The authoritarian mind only argues that social order must be imposed by an authoritarian, but that's simply not the case. In fact, it's rarely the case. Order is an emergent property. It does not have to be imposed by anyone. Individuals will self-order. The question is whether or not your care enough about the order you create to smash it to pieces at the first sign of Communist agitation.
As an Atheist, I do not seek to kill your God for you, there just isn't one. I do not seek to replace him with a Communist, I'd like you to be mature enough to adopt your own moral code & philosophy. If you are so weak as to appeal to a Communist when you lose your faith, that seems more like your failing rather than mine. The Communist can subvert God, only because God was a crutch to you.
I take that same point with Libertarianism. Government is a weapon. It is not salvation, and it can't actually help you. It should be treated like one.
Leftists seize corporations because the government institutionalize corporate power. Generally, Leftist ideas are shit and are fairly unpopular because they depend on a wealth paternalist to protect others.
If you keep the government from interfering in the free market, you deny Leftism the means to seize power through their traditional methods.
Governments let corporations censor the hell out of things, for example.
Corporations that exist at the behest of the state's legal protections, tax cuts, subsidies, federal programs, and information sharing.
Governments let Nickelodeon groom children, a state of affairs you have defended.
That's a lie. I don't even talk about Nickelodeon.
Our immigration laws are corporate friendly, for example, and you libertarians still can't get your shit together on immigration.
Nope, the answer on that is clear because property requires a border. "Pro-Business" and "Pro-Market" policies are in direct conflict with one another. "Corporations should be allowed to form plantation colonies in the US" is not a Libertarian positions. It is a Corporatist position, which is Leftist.
Anyone who argues that they stand for Libertarianism and demands open borders and corporate oligarchy is as much of a Libertarian as a "Libertarian Socialist"... which is to say: not.
Wouldn't mind it. Sole Proprietorships all the way down since corporate structures are merely legal constructions to limit liability and consequences.
Do you wish for the government to step in and stop their child grooming?
I wish for people to stop it. Adults aren't eager to have their kids consume this, people are pushing it. Specifically massive financial institutions that are protected and in league with many aspects of the government.
. I've never seen anything approaching a consensus.
Libertarians don't have a vanguard, they don't organize well, and that's part of an intentional conditioning to keep Libertarians from acting out. Libertarian principles already mean to focus on protecting you and yours by succeeding, so any shill or grifter can call himself a libertarian while disregarding every possible aspect of any Libertarian or Liberal philosophy. This is what a "Socialist Libertarian" is: a liar.
Milton Friedman's argument is to a room of effectively Leftists, frankly, so is Hayek's. I've personally condemned them for being tolerant of what the Left was doing, but the Left was more in power than than it is even now. Nobody would have said to Unions in the 1960's. No one wanted to break up the cartel industries, especially not the Socialists because it was their cartels.
Open borders within a society is reasonable. Otherwise the state is interfering on your ability to trade with your own neighbors. However, outside threats exist no matter how your frame it. Borders must exist in some way, it's not even an option to say no.
That's not clear at all. Are you referring to a country as "property" ?
One of the only reasons a state should exist at all is to protect the property rights of it's citizens. That includes from invasion and colonization. Hence, why you need a border.
Oligarchs love libertarianism, though.
Oligarchs are antithetical to libertarianism. Oligarchs despise libertarianism, that's why they promote regulation and government involvement.
It isn't Whig history. It is a critique of liberalism, in that libertarianism is to socialism as republicans are to democrats. They are both facets of liberalism.
I don't agree with that assessment at a fundamental level. Something that is purely illiberal can't be Liberal in philosophy.
That's my whole rant about the idea of Leftism as a philosophy of War. Leftism simply uses Liberal values as a mechanism when it suits them. They also use religiosity as a weapon of war, but I'm not saying that Socialism is an extension of Theocracy. Leftists have used nationalism and isolationism as well.
To a Leftist, at best, principles are simply tools to attack your enemies with using moral force. At worst, they are intentional weak points to be exploited by stupid people who don't understand how to use power to win. To a Leftist, if you hold to a principle, then you are a conservative/reactionary when the time has come to adjust the Left's currently asserted principles. Principles are a tactical vulnerability that should only be used when necessary.
I would not even say that Socialism is some sort of shadow-realm Liberalism. It is fundamentally antithetical to the nature of Liberal philosophy. Leftism is a philosophy of War, like I've pointed out in other comments War isn't a philosophy. The entire approach of the Left is wrong. It's not a set of foundational beliefs or ideas at all, just series of stratagems to take power. It is equally an extension of Liberalism as it is an extension of Islamism, or Monarchism, or Capitalism, or Zoroastrianism.
The only reason the Left chooses to identify a history with Marx is because it suits a current narrative and nothing else. It has a tactical value now. If, and frankly when, the Left finds that it should associate itself with something else, it will immediately do that. Every book will be re-written and anyone who claims Leftism stems from Marx will be identified as a reactionary fascist. "Progress was made, comrade. You wouldn't want to look at everything with old and debunked ideas, would you?"
There's nothing of ideological substance to the Left.
liberalism's promise of equality by resolving the contradiction between liberalism's promise and capitalism's outcomes (constantly rising inequality).
Equality under the law is Liberalism's promise, not equality of the universe. That's just maddness. Now, you can blame some of the Enlightenment for that because of Rouseau, but I don't think you can blame Liberalism for that.
The "will to power" stuff you are talking about has more to do with the JQ than it does leftism as analyzed independently as an ideology.
No, the JQ is just Marx being a resentful worthless shit.
The thing that you're calling Will to Power is what has to happen to any individual if he wishes to succeed in the world. Nietzsche formalized it, but I don't think anyone in the universe could have misunderstood Nietzsche more completely than the National Socialists.
Of course, leftism can never truly be decoupled from the JQ since Jews are the reason it exists at all
Leftism is effectively not something that has a real root, but it is linked primarily in modern Europe through whites, not Jews.
This country has been run by Keynesian Socialists for decades earlier than that.
Marx didn't invent the JQ. WTF are you talking about?
I'm sure somebody ranted about Jews before Marx, but only Marx turned it into an ideology, and secularized it to apply to non-Jews by calling them Capitalists.
Vast swathes of the leftists academics, revolutionaries, and their benefactors were/are Jewish.
And the vast majority of Leftist academics, revolutionaries, financiers, and benefactors were White European, because Europe is where Socialism originates from.
But hey, feminazism, that limits everyone and treats women as children and men as criminals is totally libertarian! They want to limit even how long you can make eye contact and what words you can use to describe yourself, but it's all about muh freedoms.
They want to tax you to death so the party member women who behave the way feminism wants them to behave will live consequence free. (Fuck the women who choose to not be animals.) Laws ratifying how many women HAVE TO be in every group, from boardrooms, to doctors to makers of a movie.
A fuckton of new laws that are all subjective and intentionally unequal for people.
Outrageous punishments, including prison sentences for men who breach said laws, like being offensive.
So liberty, much freedom.
If you're abiding by Leftist rhetoric, you're not a Libertarian. There is no such thing as a Left Libertarian, or a Socialist Libertarian. There are, however, shills that call themselves Libertarian because they make rationalizations of Corporate and Socialist dominance.
If a 'Libertarian' tells you that walls are immoral, he's a fucking liar and a Communist
Jesus Christ, Joe McCarthy is freakin' immortal. McCarthy and HUAC went after current (and former) members of the foreign-controlled CPUSA, not people who read The Communist Manifesto and thought, "heh, cool." That is a huge distinction, and one lost on Ms Garvin (who deserves the honorific due to his stellar and unthinking efforts on behalf of feminism), since almost all of the "gamers are dead" movement were avowed feminist activists.
Most of the use the word to imply being a lefty but being on the “cool” I’m not like other lefties that hate me.
That’s why you get a lot of fruits in the nut salad
In this article they lump together many different conspiracies as well.
Before GamerGate I barely gave these kinds of things the time of day, but you end up with "If they're trying so hard to slander this one thing I know, what else are the media lying about?" becomes a much more compelling thought. I have since gained the belief that many of those things are not to be dismissed so quickly.
The more you see the news faked in front of your very eyes (whether green screen, "misinterpretations", or other gaslighting) the more it should drove you to question the history that they have taught you.
The Protocols are quite an obvious forgery. As for the other things, I no longer doubt that political leaders are morally capable of something like 9/11 - Andrew Cuomo did five of them and barely anyone complained. Though whether they could practically pull it of is another matter.
"Forgery" simply means being copied from something else, it does not mean a fabrication or inherently false. Either way, you just need to see how much they apply to the modern day or not.
Yeah, from a work of fiction. Or did you really think that Napoleon III had conversations with Niccolo Machiavelli? It would explain why you have enough screws loose to make the Protocols your Bible.
ROFL. "Fake but accurate".
Even Joseph Goebbels realized that the Protocols were as fake as it gets. But he had a Ph.D. in literature when it meant something, while you are a witless Stormfag.
I'm just saying that the media's tactics to discredit something is to immediately call it a "forgery" which has nothing to do with the content itself, just that it was not the original source. You see this a lot with historical documents that people would rather not want to be acknowledged.
I haven't actually read it myself, just seen the knee-jerk response that happens when somebody isn't willing to outright dismiss it. And with the recent amount of things being "debunked" that tends to mean you should give it pause, but obviously not totally believe it because of that alone.
If it were just the media saying it, people would be justified in not believing it one way or the other - as nothing that the media says should be believed on its say-so.
Like what, the Donation of Constantine?
It takes someone either completely ignorant of its contents, or quite stupid, to not 'dismiss' it.
It's one thing not to latch on to 'debunked' like some soyface, it's quite another to believe the most absurd things.
That's plagiarism.
That is exactly what it means. A forged check is an attempt to drain someone else's bank account. A Vermeer forgery is a painting designed to cash in on Vermeer's reputation, by imitating his style, by imitating his subject matter, by using the paints and canvases he used, by aging the painting. "Forgery" is identity theft.
Let's turn this around:
Being a dedicated Americanist (i.e., a person who wants to undo the New Deal, and then institute new, capitalist reforms that work far better and are less intrusive), I want to destroy the reputation of leading Democrats. To destroy them on health care, I have the following:
Look at the links. These are all reputable sources (ha! Well, I suppose they were). All of the above is true.
Now, if I was a boring, normal person, I would just point out that every Democrat since 1992 has been cuckoo for single payer since forever, regardless of who you vote for. Bernie Bros who whine about Hillary (in between shooting up GOP congressmen) are really only whining that Hillary isn't deploying the Marines to force us all onto Medicare (and its massive, massive taxes) at gun point. And of course, BBs are racist, because they don't whine about Obama in the same way.
But, if I was a retarded freak, then I would forge something called, say, The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of the DNC, in which I would pack all the above evidence into words inserted into O'Billary Sander's mouths, and also say that fetuses are not sold for medical experiments, but actually ground into pâté, and that the Trump administration is about to bust Big Pâté, and that everyone should sit back, do nothing, and wait for the prophesied HYUGE REVEAL, instead of doing something insane like going out and getting politically involved.
Now do you see why we don't trust you?
Just remember: many of those "conspiracy theories" are in fact pushed by other conspirators to create dissension.
If you want to read two books on the Kennedy assassination, I strongly recommend:
The first book is, in effect, the biography of Lee Harvey Oswald, showing you how he was definitely the only man in Dallas with the means, motive and opportunity to shoot Kennedy, and who was also ID'ed on the scene by witnesses.
The second book shows you how the first conspiracy theory about JFK's death was promulgated by Jackie Kennedy and The New York Times within 24 hours of the shooting.
Fucking lolbertarians at it again?
This is why I cannot take the libertarians seriously.
Why on earth would you take seriously a group whose political party has arguments in favor of child pornography?
"Who wants to see my dildo?"
Major bonus points if anyone gets that reference.
Reason exists for containment, same with the Libertarian party.
That's just wrong.
That's just the opposite.
Talking about cutting programs, cutting taxes, ending government agencies, ending inflation, de-regulating the economy, and promoting economic activity outside of the mainstream is extremely threatening to the establishment. It cuts at the heart of their power.
Talking about GDP is irrelevant because it's a useless measurement set up by a series of fraudulent internationalist organizations.
Ending the deficit is not to be tolerated because it cause a complete halt to the monetary system's debt-based power structuring. Cutting taxes increases the individuals ability to spend without being bailed out by the government, and reduces the tax burden on competition, creating the risk of the cartel corporations of any given industry going under.
Libertarianism, when enacted, presents a decentralized threat at the heart of the establishment systems power.
There's a reason when people do weird An-Cap nonsense they get put in prison for 50 years, and when people do stupid An-Com nonsense they get released after 4 and get book deals.
There's a man serving 40 years in prison right now because he mass released all the scientific papers that several universities had hidden behind paywalls. The guy who invented Silk Road has been targeted by damn near the entirety law enforcement agency in the world. A bunch of autists on reddit liked the stonks and not only did congress step in, but so did multiple federal regulatory agencies and multiple private companies to stop them whether they broke the fucking law or not. Parler has been effectively wipped from the internet. Subscribe Star had to take on Bank of America, MasterCard, Visa, and more, just to stay afloat.
Money is the most important aspect, because that's the whole fucking point.
There is a reason FDR criminalized the ownership of Gold and Silver
Tax cuts as a way to cut in-flows of money. The only reason the government is okay with tax cuts is because they print money. That printed money takes more out of your pocket than the tax cut will return.
No, but there's a similarity.
Huh, I was sure it would be the dangerhair Elizabeth Nolan-Brown, but it turned out to be an obscure writer named Glenn Garvis. Perhaps an investigation of his Twitter history is in order.
Judging by his history, he's the television reviewer for Reason:
Academic Agent had a good series on how libertarian deterritorialization can only serve socialist reterritorialization: part 1, part 2, part 3.
I've yet to dig my way through it, but I'd argue that's just an extension of Leftist Inevitability Doctrine.
It's like saying that Atheism should be criminalized by the government to prevent Leftism. But I can point to you that the Catholic Church has been dominated by Leftists using Liberation Theology. Part of the problem is that using government force to create a hierarchy of power within the government, creates a keystone position of power that the Left will always, and I mean always, attempt to seize.
Gate-keeping does not have to be done by the state. It has to be done by the people. The authoritarian mind only argues that social order must be imposed by an authoritarian, but that's simply not the case. In fact, it's rarely the case. Order is an emergent property. It does not have to be imposed by anyone. Individuals will self-order. The question is whether or not your care enough about the order you create to smash it to pieces at the first sign of Communist agitation.
As an Atheist, I do not seek to kill your God for you, there just isn't one. I do not seek to replace him with a Communist, I'd like you to be mature enough to adopt your own moral code & philosophy. If you are so weak as to appeal to a Communist when you lose your faith, that seems more like your failing rather than mine. The Communist can subvert God, only because God was a crutch to you.
I take that same point with Libertarianism. Government is a weapon. It is not salvation, and it can't actually help you. It should be treated like one.
And don't hand it to a Communist.
Leftists seize corporations because the government institutionalize corporate power. Generally, Leftist ideas are shit and are fairly unpopular because they depend on a wealth paternalist to protect others.
If you keep the government from interfering in the free market, you deny Leftism the means to seize power through their traditional methods.
Corporations that exist at the behest of the state's legal protections, tax cuts, subsidies, federal programs, and information sharing.
That's a lie. I don't even talk about Nickelodeon.
Nope, the answer on that is clear because property requires a border. "Pro-Business" and "Pro-Market" policies are in direct conflict with one another. "Corporations should be allowed to form plantation colonies in the US" is not a Libertarian positions. It is a Corporatist position, which is Leftist.
Anyone who argues that they stand for Libertarianism and demands open borders and corporate oligarchy is as much of a Libertarian as a "Libertarian Socialist"... which is to say: not.
Wouldn't mind it. Sole Proprietorships all the way down since corporate structures are merely legal constructions to limit liability and consequences.
I wish for people to stop it. Adults aren't eager to have their kids consume this, people are pushing it. Specifically massive financial institutions that are protected and in league with many aspects of the government.
Libertarians don't have a vanguard, they don't organize well, and that's part of an intentional conditioning to keep Libertarians from acting out. Libertarian principles already mean to focus on protecting you and yours by succeeding, so any shill or grifter can call himself a libertarian while disregarding every possible aspect of any Libertarian or Liberal philosophy. This is what a "Socialist Libertarian" is: a liar.
Milton Friedman's argument is to a room of effectively Leftists, frankly, so is Hayek's. I've personally condemned them for being tolerant of what the Left was doing, but the Left was more in power than than it is even now. Nobody would have said to Unions in the 1960's. No one wanted to break up the cartel industries, especially not the Socialists because it was their cartels.
Open borders within a society is reasonable. Otherwise the state is interfering on your ability to trade with your own neighbors. However, outside threats exist no matter how your frame it. Borders must exist in some way, it's not even an option to say no.
One of the only reasons a state should exist at all is to protect the property rights of it's citizens. That includes from invasion and colonization. Hence, why you need a border.
Oligarchs are antithetical to libertarianism. Oligarchs despise libertarianism, that's why they promote regulation and government involvement.
It isn't Whig history. It is a critique of liberalism, in that libertarianism is to socialism as republicans are to democrats. They are both facets of liberalism.
I don't agree with that assessment at a fundamental level. Something that is purely illiberal can't be Liberal in philosophy.
That's my whole rant about the idea of Leftism as a philosophy of War. Leftism simply uses Liberal values as a mechanism when it suits them. They also use religiosity as a weapon of war, but I'm not saying that Socialism is an extension of Theocracy. Leftists have used nationalism and isolationism as well.
To a Leftist, at best, principles are simply tools to attack your enemies with using moral force. At worst, they are intentional weak points to be exploited by stupid people who don't understand how to use power to win. To a Leftist, if you hold to a principle, then you are a conservative/reactionary when the time has come to adjust the Left's currently asserted principles. Principles are a tactical vulnerability that should only be used when necessary.
I would not even say that Socialism is some sort of shadow-realm Liberalism. It is fundamentally antithetical to the nature of Liberal philosophy. Leftism is a philosophy of War, like I've pointed out in other comments War isn't a philosophy. The entire approach of the Left is wrong. It's not a set of foundational beliefs or ideas at all, just series of stratagems to take power. It is equally an extension of Liberalism as it is an extension of Islamism, or Monarchism, or Capitalism, or Zoroastrianism.
The only reason the Left chooses to identify a history with Marx is because it suits a current narrative and nothing else. It has a tactical value now. If, and frankly when, the Left finds that it should associate itself with something else, it will immediately do that. Every book will be re-written and anyone who claims Leftism stems from Marx will be identified as a reactionary fascist. "Progress was made, comrade. You wouldn't want to look at everything with old and debunked ideas, would you?"
There's nothing of ideological substance to the Left.
Equality under the law is Liberalism's promise, not equality of the universe. That's just maddness. Now, you can blame some of the Enlightenment for that because of Rouseau, but I don't think you can blame Liberalism for that.
No, the JQ is just Marx being a resentful worthless shit.
The thing that you're calling Will to Power is what has to happen to any individual if he wishes to succeed in the world. Nietzsche formalized it, but I don't think anyone in the universe could have misunderstood Nietzsche more completely than the National Socialists.
Leftism is effectively not something that has a real root, but it is linked primarily in modern Europe through whites, not Jews.
This country has been run by Keynesian Socialists for decades earlier than that.
I'm sure somebody ranted about Jews before Marx, but only Marx turned it into an ideology, and secularized it to apply to non-Jews by calling them Capitalists.
And the vast majority of Leftist academics, revolutionaries, financiers, and benefactors were White European, because Europe is where Socialism originates from.