On 3/27/19 4:03 PM, Punk wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 15:41:36 -0400 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
[...]
I guess it just shows to go ya: I must hang out with a hip crowd. I, too, would have to cite media personalities appearing in propaganda placements, to name a Libertarian who embraces the Religous Reich agenda.
I am sure such folks must exist, somewhere (and that there is pr0n of it), but I would view THEM as Libertarian Heretics,
Not sure what you mean. If you think I am handpicking a few 'heretics' among a set that's mostly composed of anti-clerical free-thinkers then you are mistaken.
I just go by the people I have known 'in real life' and folks I have corresponded with (and/or seen correspondence from) on teh interwebs. To date I have not seen Fundamentalist and Libertarian identities coexisting in one head. But hey, as I said I do not doubt it can happen - though I suspect that easily led fools who get their self-labeling directives confused would account for most cases.
And this is just as it should be. Fake libertarians and true conservatives have to embrace pilars of conservatism such as economic corporatism and 'religious' corporatism (jew-kristianity)
Ah so: "Fake Libertarians" resemble "true Conservatives" and display the same gang signs, so to speak. I can relate - see above. But since some "fake" guise own the rights to the Libertarian™ brand, and the infrastructure of the U.S. Libertarian Party, I find it convenient to just call them "Libertarians." A hypothetical not-fake-Libertarian, I would most likely call an Anarchist. But even so, I somehow missed seeing the association between the Libertarian Party, or the folks who call themselves Libertarians in online venues, and the Religious Reich's theocratic agenda. Could it be that "failure to denounce" other people's religious beliefs means one shares them? I would view that perception as the product of a Rebel As You Are Told propaganda regimen. We get that all the time, as part of a larger Divide The Conquered agenda that keeps electoral politics from having adverse impacts on the authority of the U.S. ruling class.
Yet another feature of these 'libertarians' is their rabid opposition to free speech and the idea that children are the 'property' of the parents. Both views are based on a laughable and fallacious 'theory' of 'property', which goes to show that these 'libertarians' do not actually value liberty.
Libertarians, fake or real per any kind of consensus definition, who show "rabid opposition to free speech"? I will need to see examples before I can comment on that. But I must admit to grave skepticism... :o/