Everyone else was doing some sort of depopulation activity in that same time period?

To a degree, yes. Particularly in the age of "Nationalism" (read: Ethno-Nationalism supported by Progressives), there was a lot of intenitonal de-populations or forced removals of ethnic groups that established governments didn't trust. That being said, this had been an ongoing issue for several hundred years in Europe as different ethnic groups were favored, re-located, pogromed, purged, or otherwise given unfair shakes.

Ethnic Collectivism as a methodology of political control isn't really a new thing.

Anyway, I wanted to ask you to do some more lifting for me and tell me what's beneath "it wasn't real socialism". I gather it's something having to do with the definition of it demanding a certain set of factors, because otherwise it turns into a different form of government that's more functional. I see the boilerplate meme dropped a lot, but I think I've only seen it explained twice in the past 8 years.

There is an aspect of Libertarianism that is effectively nothing more than controlled opposition. This is effectively a group of libertarians that will refuse to object to corporate power, but will use libertarian arguments, or even anachro-capitalist ones, to support that corporate power. A lot of these are some Reason.com, Koch Brothers funded "Lolbertarians".

For example:

• A Koch Brothers funded Lolbertarian demands that we recognize the rights of public corporations, doesn't believe that publicly funded and owned corporations aren't private, advocates for removing corporate taxes (but not property or income tax), and supports open borders as a "true" libertarian position because it will allow unfettered mass migration that will create a vast underclass labor supply to corporate conglomerates in California.

• A genuine Libertarian will stand there and tell you that the 1964 Civil Rights act is unacceptable because the government is intentionally creating protected classes in society that will lead to government sponsored discrimination along those lines

A lolbertarian position sounds like a Corporatist. They embody what the Left wing considers a "Capitalist". A genuine Libertarian is dropping red-pills so hard you'd think he was fucking Neo. To a normal person, he's so anti-mainstream narrative that he sounds like a fucking lunatic.

A Lolbertarian talks about limiting government power, a Libertarian is someone seeking to destroy it.

Liberalism is all about actually setting the power of government against itself in order to render it incapable of harming the individual. Normally by constructing elaborate procedures within law in order to make it too difficult for the government to subvert.

Libertarianism is basically: American Liberalism, or Revolutionary Liberalism. It's about incapacitating the government to the point that it is harmless.

A British Liberal from 1801 advocates private property rights, strict regulation of government power, and road-blocks to the concentration of power, regardless of voting.

An American Liberal from 1801... abolishes the US Navy because the government shouldn't be allowed to have a peace-time navy. If the country needs a navy, call upon the militia and issue a letter of marque from Congress.

A Liberal position is to regulate the Navy from being used against the citizenry, and to have civilian oversight. A Libertarian position is to disband it so it can't be used by the government at all.

Who would a modern normie think is the lunatic? The guy abolishing the Navy. Yup, that's the Libertarian... and it's what our country was actually built to be. That's how far we strayed from our original position. Hell, the US military used to almost fully demobilize after every single war.

So when a Lolbertarian says "This corporation shouldn't be regulated", the Libertarian says "This is a public entity and an extension of government power which should be dissolved".

I have to assume you were lucky enough to have functional coping mechanisms.

Nope, terrible and self-destructive coping mechanisms. I just kinda had to learn my way out of them.

Or perhaps you had positive role models growing up?

Pretty much Spok and Picard.

The things I think about to try to come to terms with my life. I'm not sure if I could have sought out a positive role model. I am not interested in discarding all responsibility for my failings, but I do want to be certain that I am responsible for each one. Some kind of agency complex. Like I can't learn properly from my own mistakes until I'm certain that I could have possibly made a different choice.

I've seen a lot of adults adopting the Christ figure as a useful positive role model, but that's not for me being an antitheist and all.

Though, I'm confused why you would think you couldn't have made a different choice. You can always make a different choice. You just have to deal with the consequences of those choices.

Though now I have to question if the left-right scale is actually useful. Seems like it's sure to leave blindspots, like trying to describe the world with a communism-capitalism scale.

The entire Left-Right dichotomy is false. That's why I keep saying Left & Anti-Left. There is no "Right". The Right is simply: that which opposes the Left's current policies.

Everyone else was doing some sort of depopulation activity in that same time period?

To a degree, yes. Particularly in the age of "Nationalism" (read: Ethno-Nationalism supported by Progressives), there was a lot of intenitonal de-populations or forced removals of ethnic groups that established governments didn't trust. That being said, this had been an ongoing issue for several hundred years in Europe as different ethnic groups were favored, re-located, pogromed, purged, or otherwise given unfair shakes.

Ethnic Collectivism as a methodology of political control isn't really a new thing.

Anyway, I wanted to ask you to do some more lifting for me and tell me what's beneath "it wasn't real socialism". I gather it's something having to do with the definition of it demanding a certain set of factors, because otherwise it turns into a different form of government that's more functional. I see the boilerplate meme dropped a lot, but I think I've only seen it explained twice in the past 8 years.

There is an aspect of Libertarianism that is effectively nothing more than controlled opposition. This is effectively a group of libertarians that will refuse to object to corporate power, but will use libertarian arguments, or even anachro-capitalist ones, to support that corporate power. A lot of these are some Reason.com, Koch Brothers funded "Lolbertarians".

For example:

• A Koch Brothers funded Lolbertarian demands that we recognize the rights of public corporations, doesn't believe that publicly funded and owned corporations aren't private, advocates for removing corporate taxes (but not property or income tax), and supports open borders as a "true" libertarian position because it will allow unfettered mass migration that will create a vast underclass labor supply to corporate conglomerates in California.

• A genuine Libertarian will stand there and tell you that the 1964 Civil Rights act is unacceptable because the government is intentionally creating protected classes in society that will lead to government sponsored

A lolbertarian position sounds like a Corporatist. They embody what the Left wing considers a "Capitalist". A genuine Libertarian is dropping red-pills so hard you'd think he was fucking Neo. To a normal person, he's so anti-mainstream narrative that he sounds like a fucking lunatic.

A Lolbertarian talks about limiting government power, a Libertarian is someone seeking to destroy it.

Liberalism is all about actually setting the power of government against itself in order to render it incapable of harming the individual. Normally by constructing elaborate procedures within law in order to make it too difficult for the government to subvert.

Libertarianism is basically: American Liberalism, or Revolutionary Liberalism. It's about incapacitating the government to the point that it is harmless.

A British Liberal from 1801 advocates private property rights, strict regulation of government power, and road-blocks to the concentration of power, regardless of voting.

An American Liberal from 1801... abolishes the US Navy because the government shouldn't be allowed to have a peace-time navy. If the country needs a navy, call upon the militia and issue a letter of marque from Congress.

A Liberal position is to regulate the Navy from being used against the citizenry, and to have civilian oversight. A Libertarian position is to disband it so it can't be used by the government at all.

Who would a modern normie think is the lunatic? The guy abolishing the Navy. Yup, that's the Libertarian... and it's what our country was actually built to be. That's how far we strayed from our original position. Hell, the US military used to almost fully demobilize after every single war.

So when a Lolbertarian says "This corporation shouldn't be regulated", the Libertarian says "This is a public entity and an extension of government power which should be dissolved".

I have to assume you were lucky enough to have functional coping mechanisms.

Nope, terrible and self-destructive coping mechanisms. I just kinda had to learn my way out of them.

Or perhaps you had positive role models growing up?

Pretty much Spok and Picard.

The things I think about to try to come to terms with my life. I'm not sure if I could have sought out a positive role model. I am not interested in discarding all responsibility for my failings, but I do want to be certain that I am responsible for each one. Some kind of agency complex. Like I can't learn properly from my own mistakes until I'm certain that I could have possibly made a different choice.

I've seen a lot of adults adopting the Christ figure as a useful positive role model, but that's not for me being an antitheist and all.

Though, I'm confused why you would think you couldn't have made a different choice. You can always make a different choice. You just have to deal with the consequences of those choices.

Though now I have to question if the left-right scale is actually useful. Seems like it's sure to leave blindspots, like trying to describe the world with a communism-capitalism scale.

The entire Left-Right dichotomy is false. That's why I keep saying Left & Anti-Left. There is no "Right". The Right is simply: that which opposes the Left's current policies.

Everyone else was doing some sort of depopulation activity in that same time period?

To a degree, yes. Particularly in the age of "Nationalism" (read: Ethno-Nationalism supported by Progressives), there was a lot of intenitonal de-populations or forced removals of ethnic groups that established governments didn't trust. That being said, this had been an ongoing issue for several hundred years in Europe as different ethnic groups were favored, re-located, pogromed, purged, or otherwise given unfair shakes.

Ethnic Collectivism as a methodology of political control isn't really a new thing.

Anyway, I wanted to ask you to do some more lifting for me and tell me what's beneath "it wasn't real socialism". I gather it's something having to do with the definition of it demanding a certain set of factors, because otherwise it turns into a different form of government that's more functional. I see the boilerplate meme dropped a lot, but I think I've only seen it explained twice in the past 8 years.

There is an aspect of Libertarianism that is effectively nothing more than controlled opposition. This is effectively a group of libertarians that will refuse to object to corporate power, but will use libertarian arguments, or even anachro-capitalist ones, to support that corporate power. A lot of these are some Reason.com, Koch Brothers funded "Lolbertarians".

For example:

• A Koch Brothers funded Lolbertarian demands that we recognize the rights of public corporations, doesn't believe that publicly funded and owned corporations aren't private, advocates for removing corporate taxes (but not property or income tax), and supports open borders as a "true" libertarian position because it will allow unfettered mass migration that will create a vast underclass labor supply to corporate conglomerates in California.

• A genuine Libertarian will stand there and tell you that the 1964 Civil Rights act is unacceptable because the government is intentionally creating protected classes in society that will lead to government sponsored

A lolbertarian position sounds like a Corporatist. They embody what the Left wing considers a "Capitalist". A genuine Libertarian is dropping red-pills so hard you'd think he was fucking Neo. To a normal person, he's so anti-mainstream narrative that he sounds like a fucking lunatic.

A Lolbertarian talks about limiting government power, a Libertarian is someone seeking to destroy it.

Liberalism is all about actually setting the power of government against itself in order to render it incapable of harming the individual. Normally by constructing elaborate procedures within law in order to make it too difficult for the government to subvert.

Libertarianism is basically: American Liberalism, or Revolutionary Liberalism. It's about incapacitating the government to the point that it is harmless.

A British Liberal from 1801 advocates private property rights, strict regulation of government power, and road-blocks to the concentration of power, regardless of voting.

An American Liberal from 1801... abolishes the US Navy because the government shouldn't be allowed to have a peace-time navy. If the country needs a navy, call upon the militia and issue a letter of marque from Congress.

A Liberal position is to regulate the Navy from being used against the citizenry, and to have civilian oversight. A Libertarian position is to disband it so it can't be used by the government at all.

Who would a modern normie think is the lunatic? The guy abolishing the Navy. Yup, that's the Libertarian... and it's what our country was actually built to be. That's how far we strayed from our original position. Hell, the US military used to almost fully demobilize after every single war.

So when a Lolbertarian says "This corporation shouldn't be regulated", the Libertarian says "This is a public entity and an extension of government power which should be dissolved".

I have to assume you were lucky enough to have functional coping mechanisms.

Nope, terrible and self-destructive coping mechanisms. I just kinda had to learn my way out of them.

Or perhaps you had positive role models growing up?

Pretty much Spok and Picard.

The things I think about to try to come to terms with my life. I'm not sure if I could have sought out a positive role model. I am not interested in discarding all responsibility for my failings, but I do want to be certain that I am responsible for each one. Some kind of agency complex. Like I can't learn properly from my own mistakes until I'm certain that I could have possibly made a different choice.

I've seen a lot of adults adopting the Christ figure as a useful positive role model, but that's not for me being an antitheist and all.

Though, I'm confused why you would think you couldn't have made a different choice. You can always make a different choice. You just have to deal with the consequences of those choices.

Though now I have to question if the left-right scale is actually useful. Seems like it's sure to leave blindspots, like trying to describe the world with a communism-capitalism scale.

The entire Left-Right dichotomy is false. That's why I keep saying Left & Anti-Left. There is no "Right". The Right is simply: that which opposes the Left's current policies.