Wait, Wasn't Peter Thiel a Libertarian?

The tech billionaire and his contrarian circle are developing new nationalist visions for America's future.


Eleven days after the first case of an American suffering from COVID-19 was reported, an essayist at an online journal run by the Claremont Institute—whose stated purpose is to "restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life"—argued that a sensible response would be to prohibit humans from crossing oceans. "The obvious solution to an emerging pandemic," wrote Curtis Yarvin in The American Mind, "is cutting off flights to China, then all air travel across the Pacific, then across the Atlantic."

This was more than an extreme emergency reaction to an extreme emergency crisis. Yarvin was using COVID-19 as a news hook to push the long-term strategic goal, common among a curious new subset of conservatives, to "refute internationalism" and replace it with an "isolationist vision." Imagine a world, he mused, "where travel between hemispheres is cut off next week—and stays cut off for years, decades, centuries….Would this be a disaster? No—it would actually be fine." After all, Yarvin averred in a trollishly insincere pivot, unmolested global wandering destroyed the vibrant cultures of the mysterious Far East, reducing their unique citadels to just more tawdry simulacra of Boston.

Who is Curtis Yarvin, and what was this atavistic assertion doing under the aegis of Claremont, a staid conservative institution founded by disciples of the late political philosopher Harry Jaffa? The Claremont Review of Books, for most of its two-decade run, has been a polite repository for intellectual conservatism. Jaffa, for his part, had defended the legacy of Abraham Lincoln to many then-skeptical fellow conservatives while elevating the equality of man to near-mystical primacy in the American founding.

Claremont's web journal The American Mind, though, was launched in 2018 with a more provocative agenda: to "rethink the ideological framework of the American Right." The animating idea, founding editor Matthew Peterson explains, is that traditional right-of-center groups are out of touch: They don't even realize that their own staffs include "people under 35" who "fundamentally disagree with supposedly fundamental [classical liberal] tenets of their organization. No one wants to hear or deal with it. They want to stick their heads in the sand." A vibrant and ideologically adventurous new conservative movement, Peterson says, is "bubbling beneath the surface, or even online all over the place. We are not supposed to talk about these things or engage that movement?"

Yarvin is perhaps better known for the pen name under which he rose to internet fame in the late 2000s and early 2010s: "Mencius Moldbug." At his Unqualified Reservations blog, Moldbug, a software entrepreneur by day, unspooled head-spinningly long-winded "neoreactionary" screeds, wielding a broadsword of abandoned pre-Enlightenment wisdom against the squalid lies of equality, democracy, and the smothering tyranny of what he called the communist-progressive "Cathedral." Back then, the Cathedral ruled the discourse so totally and viciously that it wasn't prudent—perhaps wasn't even safe—to burden Moldbug's true identity with his brutally honest thoughts. But TechCrunch outed Moldbug as Yarvin in 2013, and in the Trump era he seems happy enough to publicly be himself.

Yarvin, a follower of the 19th century British polemicist Thomas Carlyle, is the type of outside-the-box thinker who argues that monarchy is inherently better than democracy, that street crime is more of a danger to his readers' lives than all of government's depredations, and that one of the worst sins of modernity is that people refuse to speak candidly about IQ differences across human types. Such notions are by no means new to the American right, but they feel fresh again in 2020 not only because libertarianism has made some inroads against conservative traditionalism over the last few decades but also because Yarvin's extreme anti-cosmopolitanism comes with a genuinely modern twist: He is connected, via friendship, venture capital, and at least some ideological affinity, with one of America's wealthiest and most controversial men, the tech tycoon Peter Thiel.

Thiel, whom the George Mason economist Tyler Cowen in 2019 called "the most influential conservative intellectual with other conservative and libertarian intellectuals," is co-founder of PayPal, the big data analytics firm Palantir Technologies, and the trailblazing venture capital group Founders Fund. The latter entity has funded Yarvin's software company Tlon, the company's CEO, Galen Wolfe-Pauly, told The Verge in 2017. Yarvin and Thiel watched the 2016 election results together, according to a BuzzFeed-obtained email exchange between Yarvin and alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos.

"Peter needs guidance on politics for sure," Yiannopoulos posited in one of the messages.

"Less than you might think!" Yarvin responded. "He's fully enlightened, just plays it very carefully."

Both Thiel and Yarvin trace the ruination of our tech, education, and governing culture to the dominance of progressive political correctness. Associates of Thiel say the financier does not consider himself "neoreactionary," though he did write as far back as 2009 that "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible." That was the same year Yarvin, as Moldbug, wrote that "socialism and fascism produce a mix of substandard and disastrous results, for a simple reason: both originate in democracy, a precancerous growth always pregnant with some malignancy."

Prior to Donald Trump's presidential campaign, Thiel moved through the 21st century like a mysterious science fiction wizard of finance. He was, among other things, the first key outside investor in Facebook (a company on whose board he remains, albeit as a kind of loyal opposition), and he has pumped his V.C. winnings into such colorfully contrarian projects as private space travel, new floating countries, and the quest for human immortality. He paid for the lawsuit that bankrupted the web tabloid Gawker, encouraged kids to drop out of college by offering them prizes via his Thiel Fellowship program, and argued that the ultimate entrepreneurial goal was to create and control a monopoly. In short, he made himself the patron saint of the kind of libertarian-adjacent intellectual exercises that most normies find obscure and sometimes alarming.

Since striding on stage at the 2016 Republican National Convention to tout Trump as an agent for reversing American decline, though, Thiel and his ideas have graduated from the ideological margins to the vanguard of 21st century conservatism. He is now the wealthiest ally, if not quite the most generous funder, of the new conservative nationalist movement, becoming that rare radical right-winger whose dinner parties are covered by the establishment scorekeepers at Vanity Fair.

Sources within the national conservative space say they see no signs Thiel intends to become a financier, in the mode of Charles Koch or George Soros, of the new nationalist conservatism as a political cause. But the fact that the often-reticent Thiel has taken to speaking at national conservative conferences and writing gnomic essays in the Christian traditionalist journal First Things may say more about the depth of his engagement than does his check writing.

This new ferment involving and surrounding Thiel (a man who still occasionally refers to himself as libertarian) shows that ideas libertarians once thought were reasonably and blessedly settled on the right—that industrial subsidies and high tariffs make the world poorer while giving too much power to corrupt and inefficient governments, say, or even that people shouldn't be sentenced to forever reside on whatever land mass they happened to be born on—are now up for grabs.

What Does Thiel Want?

Through his overlapping social and intellectual worlds of venture capital, goal-oriented philanthropy, and Overton window–moving conservatism, Thiel has helped create a kind of rolling debate society in which entrepreneurs and technologists trade ideas with politicians and theorists. This "Thielosphere," says Patri Friedman, is "more willing to engage with deliberately transgressive ideas" than are most groups aiming for concrete power and influence in America.

Friedman, son of anarcho-capitalist David and grandson of Nobelist Milton, established the Thiel-funded Seasteading Institute in 2008 to develop the concept of sovereign seaborne micro-competitors to the nation-state. Yet he happily coexists in the Thielite ecosystem with such aggressively nationalist politicians as Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), to whom Thiel has donated. The key, Friedman says, is that the thinkers and doers surrounding Thiel don't tend to be yes men, and the loose group conversation tends to "grapple with [ideas] in different ways," with participants getting "value in parts even if they don't agree with all the goals."

So what are Thiel's ideological goals? The billionaire took the opportunity to sum up his views at the July 2019 National Conservatism Conference in Washington, D.C., organized by new nationalist founding father Yoram Hazony under the auspices of a freshly launched group, the Edmund Burke Foundation. It is striking that Thiel chose that otherwise inauspicious venue to speak, which again demonstrates that he has made a priority of engaging with this new ideology.

In his hourlong presentation, Thiel expressed no particular libertarian inclinations. Instead, he talked about how public policy decisions should be based on how they would better not individual lives but a collective "America" while crushing her enemies. These latter foes he named as Google, China, and the U.S. university system, advocating vigorous police actions against the first and third and a trade war (at the least) against the Middle Kingdom.

Universities, Thiel said, are spreading the virus of "cultural Marxism" while perpetrating criminal fraud by shackling students with debt that the institutions themselves should be forced to repay. (He's been railing against political correctness on campus since his days as co-founder of the right-wing student newspaper The Stanford Review in 1987.)

Silicon Valley, too, is trying to impose a monoculture of identity politics on an unwilling America, he said. Google's collaborations with Red China on artificial intelligence merit scrutiny from the CIA and FBI, who should ask executives "in a not excessively gentle manner" about their "seemingly treasonous" behavior. The day Thiel gave that speech, July 16, 2019, Trump tweeted regarding Google's supposed treason: "The Trump Administration will take a look!"

Meanwhile, Thiel said, tariffs of 25 percent on Chinese products, negotiated by representatives untainted by free trade dogma, would be a good opening bid.

It's true that China is sinisterly authoritarian, makes for a difficult trading partner, and stretches its prerogatives in and around Asia. But the new conservative nationalists have no well-developed theory of how industrial policy will succeed in hobbling China and no prudent theory of how to fight one of our largest trading partners and debt holders without costs that far overwhelm any imagined benefits.

The dog that never barked in Thiel's long disquisition on national conservatism was any concern about government size, scope, or spending. Nor was there any nod toward the moral value and material fecundity of free markets.

In other contexts, Thiel has said he'd like to see the U.S. be more of a low-tax business haven, attacked NIMBY ("not in my backyard") urban planning and zoning for jacking up the cost of housing, and expressed general scorn about the effectiveness of government. But with Trump as the great disruptor, Thiel is making the bet that a more nationalistic state can outperform its equally sized or even smaller antecedents, managed as those were by politically correct globalists.

Who Does Thiel Learn From?

"The whole issue of human violence," Thiel wrote in a 2004 essay collected in a book titled Politics and Apocalypse, "has been whitewashed away by the Enlightenment." The 9/11 terrorist attacks, he argued, demonstrated the West's urgent need "to awaken from that very long and profitable period of intellectual slumber and amnesia that is so misleadingly called the Enlightenment," whose "easy bromides have become deadly falsehoods in our time." Thiel's essay was titled "The Straussian Moment," in reference to Leo Strauss, best known in the 21st century for his ideas about how philosophers have never felt free to openly speak their real truths. But the main thrust of Thiel's argument was channeling Carl Schmitt.

Who was Schmitt? An internationally influential German political philosopher who defended the notion of dictatorship over the more flabby bureaucratic state well into the 1940s.

"The high point of politics are the moments in which the enemy is, in concrete clarity, recognized as the enemy," wrote Thiel, quoting Schmitt, in his essay. He would later assign the philosopher to a class he taught at Stanford in 2019.

Schmitt was obsessed with how political communities unify in relation to enemies and with the idea that a singular, independent executive is best suited to dealing with threats. If a bloc within a given political community "declares that it no longer recognized enemies," Thiel quoted Schmitt as saying, then "it joins their side and aids them." On the wilder edges of the new nationalist conservatism, libertarians are seen as precisely such quislings in the eternal war with the left.

Written during the George W. Bush administration—a time when governing neoconservatives were employing Straussian arguments to justify an ever-expansive notion of executive power—the essay lamented that "a direct path forward is prevented by America's constitutional machinery" and that no "single ambitious person" can "reconstruct…the old republic."

Especially close to Thiel's heart is his old Stanford professor, the French literary critic and Catholic philosopher René Girard, "the one writer who has influenced me the most," as Thiel has described him. The billionaire in 2007 co-founded with Girard an institute to promote Girardism called Imitatio.

What is Girardism, precisely? The philosopher pushed a complicated set of notions about our inescapable desire to imitate others—what he termed "mimetic" tendencies. But his oeuvre is also purposely obscurantist, with an emphasis on the importance to human history of ritual violence and an intimation that a full understanding of his insights would upend the order of the world.

Mimetic theory tells us that the things we we want and love and fight for (and against) are not authentic to us but rather handed down by our parents and absorbed from our communities. Thiel says Girard cured him of a naively individualistic early libertarianism by teaching him how our very sense of being is irreducibly social.

One crucial Girard insight that you can see the new nationalism's keyboard warriors embody on a daily basis is that opposing tribes are drawn like moths to the flame of an ever-escalating battle. As Girard scholar Cynthia L. Haven put it in a December 2019 essay in Church Life Journal, "moral indignation so often leads us to echo and amplify the very behavior that triggered the indignation" in the first place. "The greater the expression of outrage, the less likely it will lead to any real change, and the more likely it will lead [to] violence," Haven wrote. "Bystanders are drawn into 'taking sides,' in mimetic conformity with admired friends, neighbors, and colleagues. Thus the conflict can envelop a whole society, with cycles of retaliatory (and therefore imitative) violence and one-upsmanship."

Girard, then, saw Twitter's soul before it existed. His theory of mimetic desire leads to an important point: The national conservative covets the progressive's cultural power, while the progressive lusts after the national conservative's political power in the age of Trump.

Some seeming paradoxes in Thiel's corporate actions and political concerns can be usefully interpreted through a Girardian lens. Thiel in 2003 co-founded a company called Palantir, whose board he still chairs. It was seed-funded by an offshoot of the CIA and marshals the forces of big data and artificial intelligence in the solving of large problems, often at the behest of both foreign and domestic law enforcement.

Could there be something, shall we say, mimetic about how a man so fiercely critical of Google's collaboration with China can turn around and help U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) track and deport illegal immigrants? Thiel is fond of lamenting the "eye of Sauron" aspects of technomodernity as a tool of the repressive modern state, a "Chinese Communist A.I." Yet in important ways he emulates the very Chinese he despises. After 200 Palantir employees wrote a letter of concern about the company's collaboration with ICE, co-founder and CEO Alex Karp snapped back that the company was not about to tell "the average American" that "I will not support your defense needs."

One of Thiel's most famous tech-contrarian quips is that "we wanted flying cars; instead we got 140 characters." Yet his investments skew toward companies dedicated to data analytics, financial services, management, security, and social networking rather than moonshot futuristic changes in the physical world. On the spectrum of flying cars to Twitter, he's significantly closer to the latter.

This Is War

The American right once aspired to limit government and unleash the free market. Now, with encouragement from Thiel, it increasingly seeks to unleash government and limit the free market. What explains such ideological whiplash?

Part of it "is just the need to engage with existing political systems in order to accomplish actual change," Friedman says in an email. But also, times have changed.

"In a well functioning 'liberal' (enlightenment values, not libertarian) society, as we had in the '80s & '90s, pushing for more freedom makes sense. But when there are paramilitary extremist groups fighting in the streets," Friedman continues, referring to groups such as antifa and their right-wing street-fighting foes, "that lack of basic civil harmony seems like a bigger problem than government spending." He thinks Thiel "would point to things like leftist bias in universities, low interest rates, technological stagnation, as being more problematic in 2020" than taxes and regulation.

Thiel, who moved his operations from the Bay Area to Los Angeles in part to escape the ideological conformity of Silicon Valley, seems to view lefty political correctness as both a trivial distraction from grave matters of import and an active menace to be urgently confronted. "Until the left is able to move beyond identity politics," he said in a 2019 Manhattan Institute lecture, "it's not going to be able to focus on the scale that we need to be focusing on for this country."

So what are the new nationalists focusing on? Big-heave manifestos calling to empower the state and attack the woke left and its Big Tech enablers. In December 2019, a group of thinkers from The American MindThe American Conservative, American Renewal, Human Events, and First Things jointly proposed a "Tech New Deal" to bring increased government oversight and management to U.S. technology companies in the name of "American greatness."

"The turbulence of the Trump administration has cleared away old conceptual brush and made room for clear-eyed perceptions of the world as it is, not as fanatics imagine it should be," the manifestoists proclaimed. The real fanatics, to them, are those who don't understand that the nation must forcibly harness innovation to "serve human ends." The essay makes a sly nod toward Thiel himself, noting that only "billionaires" have the nerve to oppose "the creepiest transhumanists and posthumanists" in tech or to admit that "in the name of economic growth, human life is being diminished."

The document, like so much of the new-nationalist ferment, is shot through with hostility toward progressive political correctness. "We must strengthen safeguards against the use of tech power to establish a radical secular religion within America's public institutions," the writers advocated, demanding punishment for private social media companies that censor conservative or traditionalist viewpoints. "As important as de-platforming the worst of moral degenerates may be, our free democracy depends even more on ensuring Americans can openly deliberate foundational questions, from the significance of citizenship to the biology of sexual differences."

As that last comment illustrates, the Thielosphere devotes significant time and emotional energy to fighting for the ability to say things that offend the sensibilities of progressives. In practice, that means controversy-courting observations involving race, immigration, gender, and the like.

Eric Weinstein, the managing director of Thiel's personal investment firm, Thiel Capital, coined the term "intellectual dark web" to refer to opinion slingers uncowed by the prevailing orthodoxies (and, as a result, frequently shunned by mainstream and elite institutions). As Thiel once said, "it's so important for me to have environments in which people who don't agree on things, but agree on what constitutes a conversation, can sit down with an idea [and] that nobody's going to leave the table with their reputation in tatters to the extent that they can't find a job on Monday to support themselves."

The Edges of National Conservatism

Libertarians generally agree with the new nationalists that the parameters for what is considered acceptable debate should be expansive. They just don't want to use government as a crowbar toward that end, nor do they take the same transgressive delight in making negative collective judgments about entire population blocs—very often segments of the population that have been historically discriminated against.

In The American Mind last year, one loud new voice complained that too many cowed conservatives "are fanatical believers in the public religion of the regime—they've internalized 'antiracism,' hysteria about 'anti-Semitism,' and similar taboos….They are regime toadies and kapos, much like the journalists attacking me." So wrote a pseudonymous shock jock known as "Bronze Age Pervert," or BAP for short, under the once-sober auspices of the Claremont Institute.

BAP's self-published book, Bronze Age Mindset, was reviewed respectfully and at length in The Claremont Review of Books by Michael Anton, a former Trump administration official most famous for penning a then-pseudonymous 2016 essay in that same publication, "The Flight 93 Election," which analogized a Hillary Clinton presidency to "Russian Roulette with a semi-auto." Bronze Age Mindset had been gifted to Anton by none other than Thiel's pal Curtis Yarvin.

That secondhand link does not, of course, mean BAP necessarily shares ideas with Thiel. Far from it. But Anton's choice to establish the chain of custody endows the Pervert's transgressive wildness with a semi-respectable pedigree. Even if Thiel himself wouldn't go where BAP dares to tread, Anton and others seek to connect the latter's thought to their new form of conservatism, one that is totally unmoored from any connection to libertarian principles.

"Tax cuts, deregulation, trade giveaways, Russophobia, democracy wars, and open borders are not, to say the least, getting the kids riled up," Anton wrote in his review. So what's quickening youthful pulses these days, according to BAP? Apparently, "teenage put-downs," "crude sexual or scatological slang," and "sweeping generalizations about women, homosexuals, and, to a lesser extent, national and ethnic groups."

Anton squinted hard enough to see the virtues of such anti-Enlightenment conservatism. "On reflection, I came to believe that some of the ridiculousness is intended to help the unscientific and unphilosophic grasp concepts beyond their conceptual framework," he wrote, echoing some of the mysticism that surrounds Girard. "And a great deal of BAP's silly outrageousness seems to be there to provide air cover for the outrageous things he means in deadly earnest."

In a response essay in The American Mind, BAP insisted that he is indeed earnest about (among other things) bringing "unvarnished, unedited Nietzscheanism" to U.S. politics, defending whites against the "violent racial hatred" of the left, and lamenting "the religion of our time…unquestioned and absolute worship of human equality." Suck it, Harry Jaffa!

The Pervert is little more than a long-winded, reactionary, Jack Kerouac/Hunter S. Thompson–style materialist atheist who justifies his drunken revels in the Far East's fleshpots with a pseudoscientific celebration of hormonal vitalism and argues that "the peoples that have arisen out of nature must be preserved in their distinct forms." His game is to gin up enthusiasm among aimless, underemployed young men using a brew of physical bravado and passionate resentments. It all reads as fascist, and deliberately so. Of course, in the meme age, you are the sucker for letting such things troll you—even if what you're repulsed by is exactly what you think it is.

There's something both desperate and decadent about a respected intellectual institution giving considered attention to a work containing such one-liners as "At Masada and at other times the Jews killed their own children to escape subjection, when they were still a noble people" and "Imagine lesbian mulatta commissars with young Martin Sheen face and haircut manning the future Bergen-Belsens, installations that will span tens of miles." But hey, the international elites have failed us, the woke left keeps marching on, and at least the Pervert is learned—he quotes Carl Schmitt, after all.

We might never fully understand what Peter Thiel, or the new nationalist conservatives, really want. But to the extent they claim to be defending "the West," attacking the Enlightenment is an odd way to go about it. Claremont's embrace of BAP and Yarvin, and its publication of government-aggrandizing manifestos about the need to shackle the tech industry for the national good, should serve as fair warning to libertarians that principles such as free trade, equal rights, and drug legalization are considered boring "Cathedral" ideas on the hip new right. It's more thrilling to make ordinary people mad by flirting openly with racism and fantasizing out loud about political violence. Libertarians, clinging to their no-longer-cutting-edge preferences for toleration and the minimization of force, will no doubt shiver seeing the likes of Claremont Institute President Ryan P. Williams writing that Americans are stuck in a "cold civil war" in which one side or the other must win "decisive and conclusive political victory."

On the front lines of this cold civil war are rhetorical warriors in the mold of Bronze Age Pervert (though they're more likely to be Christian than to openly embrace his paganism), exuding an extrapolitical disgust with progressive freaks and their decadence, their tattoos and their obesity, their transgenderism and their whining about the sins of the West, their porn and their just plain weakness. The New Right that Claremont is promoting is consciously grooming a young generation to obsess over how the dominant mores of post-1960s liberalism have failed them.

Immanentizing the Eschaton

Generating human flourishing is hard, as is changing the culture around you via the state. Knowing that, Thiel has long favored visionary and experimental proposals for enacting change through a variety of novel mechanisms. But of late his engagement on that question has generated strange bedfellows.

Fifty years ago a generation looked at the dominant traditional mores, found they left many people distressed and dissatisfied, and advocated loosening them. Now a generation growing up under a new dominant set of mores has also—surprise—found they leave many people distressed and dissatisfied. Conservatives used to understand that one cannot and should not try to use government power to "immanentize the eschaton"—to bring about heaven on Earth. That was a heresy only communists believed in. Much of the new nationalist conservatism has forgotten this central insight, seeking instead to sic the state on everything that feels wrong about the economy and the culture alike.

Only a genuine, principles-based, rights-oriented classical liberalism—one that understands that your side can't always control every relevant citadel of social or intellectual power—can enable the republic, however imperfectly, to continue flourishing. An ever-escalating politics of hostility, as Schmitt's intellectual opponent F.A. Hayek recognized, places that noble project in jeopardy, because it threatens "the self-ordering forces of society and the role of law [as] an ordering mechanism."

A conservatism influenced by the likes of Girard or Schmitt can quickly turn into a danger to civic peace and to the republic itself. The choice to engage in a mimetic war with the opposing team's devils—whether over belief or comportment or ethnicity—can become a self-fulfilling Manichean prophecy.

NEXT: The Global Environmental Apocalypse Has Been Canceled

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. ●▬▬▬▬PART TcIME JOBS▬▬▬▬▬●

    I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience masses freedom now that i'm my non-public boss. that is what I do......
    ↓↓↓↓COPY THIS SITE↓↓↓↓


  2. Every month start earning more cash from $20,000 to $24,000 by working very simple j0b 0nline from home. I have earned last month $23159 from this by just doing this 0nline w0rk for maximum 3 to 4 hrs a day using my laptop. This home j0b is just awesome and regular earning from this are much times better than other regular 9 to 5 desk j0b. Now every person on this earth can get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow instructions on the given web page...

  3. If libertarianism has accomplished anything, it's at least managed to delegitimize the notion that there's any such thing as a "good" liberal.

    1. Getting stomped by your betters in the culture war has made you -- and the other clingers, incels, and bigots -- quite cranky.

      1. Having Trump's orange cock shoved down your throat for 4 consecutive years has made you - and the other pedophiles, Marxists, and welfare queens - quite irate. Hope you're up for 4 more years of curb-stomping us in the culture war Rev LMFAO.

        1. Trump has accomplished nothing. Except perhaps accelerating the conservatives' decline in the culture war. And illustrating for the liberal-libertarian mainstream that appeasing the half-educated bigots, superstitious slack-jaws, anti-social incels, and disaffected clingers is a waste of time.

          Look at the bright side, though . . . the Republicans will still have Mississippi, Wyoming, and Alabama to lord over for a few more years.

          1. Trump has accomplished nothing.

            Then what exactly have you spent the last 4 years complaining about on a daily basis? Why do you fear his reelection? Why do you fear the white supremacist Nazis he's supposedly enabling? Why do you project your first-generation-out-of-Appalachia self-loathing insecurities and last-century impotent Marxist power fantasies onto society you sad, terrified little bitch?

            Also, we'll take Mississippi, Wyoming, and Alabama and you can keep San Francisco, New York and Chicago. Seems like the half-educated bigots, superstitious slack-jaws, anti-social incels, and disaffected clingers don't have so many problems with hepatitis outbreaks due to street-shitting, tens of thousands of Covid deaths, weekly chimp-outs, and a murder rate higher than a Brazilian favela LMFAO.

            1. I do not fear clingers.

              I mock them. I despise them. I stomp them in the culture war, then kick them around some more for sport.

              I enjoy the lamentations of their women.

              1. The Clinger women aren't lamenting anything. They're living the lives they want to live.

                All the Karens are liberals, crying about every little thing and stamping their feet all day.

                1. The clingers do not call the shots in this society. They comply with the preferences of better Americans.

                  1. You lost and have to do what Trump tells you.

                    1. Shreek is pretty fun to troll.

                    2. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . KGb . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

                      Heres what I do............► Home Profit System

                  2. Arty, you’re likely going to end up in a landfill very soon. Along with your progtard pals when the rest of us have had our full of you. Hint: that time is coming soon.

                    1. All-talk clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties. Their bigotry and irrelevance are complementary in modern America.

                    2. All-talk hicklibs will be my favorite shooting war casualties. Their simping and unwarranted self-regard will be complementary in future America.

                  3. One thing I have learned from being surrounded by progtards like you my entire life is that you can get away with being a racist, sexist, and homophobic son of a bitch in their company so long as they think you are one of them. Case in point - heard one of my neighbors whose lawn is covered with virtue signaling signs for BLM and against Trump say to my wife that she would not go to a certain store because “that’s where the Hispanics shop and they’re spreading COVID”.

                  4. What is a clinger and why are you so obsessed with their mouths?

                    1. The Artshole has a bit of a rape fetish.

              2. Wouldn't you have to win something first?

              3. Looks like Mr. Cooper struck a nerve 🙂

                Would those be the same 'betters' who need to cheat their way into secretarial jobs that qualify them for food stamps? Because I couldn't help laughing when I noticed that the lion's share of Americorps office internships required or preferred applicants with at least a two-year degree. "Bachelor of Arts in Paper Jam Clearing" has such a nice ring to it!

              4. Clinger women dont lament. They load the shotgun.

                1. Somebody has to shoot that squirrel for dinner while the 'man of the house' is busy scoring some street pills down on Main Street.

                  1. Arthur L. Hicklib speaks from experience.

              5. "I enjoy the lamentations of their women."

                A veiled Conan reference? Dammit. I was kind of hoping you were real, but you're obviously a sock. Albeit a pretty consistent one up until this point.

          2. Trump has done nothing, just ignore the criminal justice reform, lower taxes, and troops leaving Afghanistan.

            1. Defined the Supreme Court for a generation...

              1. Where "a generation" = "until 2021"

                1. Keep clinging to that hope!

                  1. He’s a clinger, and probably a Klinger too.

                2. Ginsberg; she's sick, really really sick....don't think she's gonna make it another 30 days, 60 tops.

                  Now Amy Barrett, she's in great health. Probably be around for decades.

                  1. "What, a woman left the court, a woman joined the court, I don't get why you're complaining. Here, I'll go one further. Now she's the Chief Justice. Feel better? First female one of those!"

    2. There are plenty of good liberals. They are just vastly outnumbered and outshouted by regressives and Marxists on their left.

      1. Outshouted, yes. Outnumbered, not so sure.

    3. If libertarianism has accomplished anything, it’s at least managed to delegitimize the notion that there’s any such thing as a “good” liberalconservative.


      1. Chipper "I don't have a team" wood weighs in.

      2. I used to have an idea what a “conservative” is. Now if you tell me your “conservative”, I would still have to ask you what your political beliefs are.

        It’s getting to be like that with “libertarian”, too.

    4. Ugh, too many Tulpa socks pigeon-chessing up the thread. Reason needs to start moderating more. So I'll just leave a couple of points and jet.

      1) I've been saying this for years. Libertarians have very little in common with modern conservatism.

      2) Holy shit, Patri Friedman totally sold out. I've noticed that anarcho-capitalism seems to be a gateway to neo-reactionary and national conservative/alt-right intellectual cul-de-sacs.

      3) Brian, this is a brilliant passage, bravo:

      His game is to gin up enthusiasm among aimless, underemployed young men using a brew of physical bravado and passionate resentments. It all reads as fascist, and deliberately so. Of course, in the meme age, you are the sucker for letting such things troll you—even if what you're repulsed by is exactly what you think it is.

      Great article. Thanks.

      1. chipper calling for comment bans again. Lol.

        1. He lets his inner fascist out when he isn't allowed to dominate the conversation.

        2. I guess you can call moderation "comment bans" to make it sound like some violation of your civil rights or something, but moderation is totally a legit thing for a website to do.

          Reason just doesn't have the resources to do it, so don't worry, you have years of calling people "asshole" and "dumbshit" ahead of you.

      2. .0000000017/10

    5. I dunno. I still believe that most liberals have good *intentions*. Also, as a libertarian, I agree with liberals on issues such as civil liberties.

      1. It's America's fucked up definitions. A real liberal believes in laissez faire economics, free speech and civil liberties.
        A North American liberal on the other hand is a pseudo-prog statist who fancies Keynesian or early fascist economics, and believes in free speech only for ideas he agrees with.

        1. True.

      2. Where are liberals good on civil liberties again? At least on the national scale I’m not seeing much of it.

        1. Recently, maybe not so much. Historically, they have been concerned with civil liberties.

          1. Historically they expected their enemies to be the ones in a position to violate such liberties. Literally, the ACLU was founded by communists who defended freedom of speech to protect themselves. Their concern with civil liberties evaporated right around the time they decided they were going to be the ones in that position.

        2. They're pretty much only good on civil liberties where it involves unconventional sexual preferences, the more unconventional the better.

          I think it's because such people tend to make good political shock troops, not being tied up with raising families.

      3. I agree with liberals on issues such as civil liberties.

        So you believe that civil liberties are dependent on whatever the majority of American decides you deserve?

        1. Let's reduce the beliefs of a huge chunk of the people in this country to a simplistic, inaccurate cartoon of what they actually believe. OK.

          1. There are two clear positions: either civil liberties (like free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, the right to bear arms, etc.) are either inalienable or they are (sometimes) not. There is no ambiguity, no intermediate position.

            Liberals and progressives clearly take the second position: if a majority desires it, or if there is a public interest, then civil liberties can be restricted. That's an essential tenet of US liberalism and progressivism.

            I don't see what you think is inaccurate or cartoonish about that observation.

  4. Yes, the billionaire Koch brothers professed to be libertarians too, at least for themselves, but they favored peasantry for you and me.

    1. China good. Orange man bad.

      1. Orange Man bad?!? He BAD, all right! He SOOO BAD, He be GOOD! He be GREAT! He Make America Great Again!

        We KNOW He can Make America Great Again, because, as a bad-ass businessman, He Made Himself and His Family Great Again! He Pussy Grabber in Chief!

        See The Atlantic article by using the below search-string in quotes:
        “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet” or this one…

        He pussy-grab His creditors in 7 bankruptcies, His illegal sub-human workers ripped off of pay on His building projects, and His “students” in His fake Get-Rich-like-Me realty schools, and so on. So, He has a GREAT record of ripping others off! So SURELY He can rip off other nations, other ethnic groups, etc., in trade wars and border wars, for the benefit of ALL of us!!!

        All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!

        Most of all, HAIL the Chief, for having revoked karma! What comes around, will no longer go around!!! The Donald has figured out that all of the un-Americans are SOOO stupid, that we can pussy-grab them all day, every day, and they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing us right back!

        Orange Man Bad-Ass Pussy-Grabber all right!

        We CAN grab all the pussy, all the time, and NONE will be smart enough to EVER grab our pussies right back!

        These voters simply cannot or will not recognize the central illusion of politics… You can pussy-grab all of the people some of the time, and you can pussy-grab some of the people all of the time, but you cannot pussy-grab all of the people all of the time! Sooner or later, karma catches up, and the others will pussy-grab you right back!



          1. Bradley Cooper is intellectually bankrupt, and cannot actually address the issues! What a surprise!

            1. The issue of your declining mental health?

            2. Wow, R Mac is even MORE intellectually bankrupt than Bradley Pooper! Or maybe R Mac just wants what Pooper can poop out, to eat and smear all over they-self?

              Is R Mac even capable of debating facts and principles? I'll believe it when I see it! All I see now, from R Mac, is shit and more shit!

              1. Wow, Mikey Hihn literally can't go one thread without wallowing in his scat fetish!

                1. It’s gross that he eats shit, but since I don’t have to see it in person I can just laugh at it.

            3. Mikey Hihn is reposting the same copypasta he's been using since 2015 in every fucking thread 20-40 times per day and throwing a tantrum when people treat him with all the seriousness that his half decade old memes warrant! What a surprise!

              1. Orange man bad.
                Orange man bad.
                Orange man bad.
                Orange man bad.
                Orange man bad.
                Orange man bad.
                Orange man bad.
                Orange man bad.
                Orange man bad.
                Orange man bad.
                Orange man bad.
                Orange man bad.
                I'm now 12 times as smart as Bradley Pooper! And I could go on and on being smarter!

                1. Why can’t you recognize and ignore Tulpa?

                  1. Lol. Self awareness isn’t one of your strengths.

                    1. Ya gotta give credit where credit is due... At least R Mac is self-aware enough to recognize shit when they see it! R Mac ***IS*** shit, and recognizes shitself!

                    2. SQRLSY One
                      July.2.2020 at 5:11 pm
                      Port-a-potties ARE buffets


                  2. You couldn't and still can't, apparently.

                  3. Is this fake "I don't post on weekends" sarcasmic or were you lying about that too?

                    1. I wouldn’t look to those idiots for anything approaching consistency. At least beyond consistency of stupidity.

            4. The issues being your boring and tediously copy and pasted nonsense?

              1. Says the "they" who would ban boycotts in order to make they's speech control "Ministry of Truth" work "correctly"!!!

                Speech NAZI! Why should a sane person give you ANY credence at ALL?!?!

                “Now, to “protect” Reason from this meddling here, are we going to REQUIRE readers and advertisers to support Reason, to protect Reason from boycotts?”
                Yup. Basically. Sounds rough.

              2. Shall we also hold sellers of pens, pencils, and papers responsible for the letters that people write on them?

                Hey you pencil-seller you: If you refuse to sell pencils to an institution that you believe to be horribly, NAZI-like racists, then… “If you wish to censor, fine. What you don’t censor becomes your speech. It is your call”

                June.24.2020 at 11:11 am (above)… Is OK with using Government Almighty to FORCE you to support buying magazines and selling advertising to organizations that you do not support!!!

                “Now, to “protect” Reason from this meddling here, are we going to REQUIRE readers and advertisers to support Reason, to protect Reason from boycotts?”

                Yup. Basically. Sounds rough. (Quote damikesc)

                Do you REALIZE what an utterly fascist authoritarian you are? Some self-examination is in order here! From WHERE do you get your self-righteous micro-management-of-others pig powers?

                1. You really don’t understand the difference between being an open platform and being a curator of content argument?

                  Oh, and your schtick is fucking stale.

                  1. When people (posters) have a history of being utterly moronic NAZIs (like Rob Misek, Holocaust denier) I think that fellow readers should know about it, so that their NAZI opinions can be ignored!

                    damikesc is another near-NAZI, so damikesc babblings should be ignored!

    2. Progressives favor peasantry for all. Except the Top Myn in the ruling class.

    3. They get lumped together but one brother is more libertarian and one is more conservative. And I think there may be one or two more that aren’t particularly political at all.

  5. "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible."

    Somebody's never read The Federalist Papers.

    Thiel is making the bet that a more nationalistic state can outperform its equally sized or even smaller antecedents

    MAGA! As long as you accept that the individual exists to serve the state and your ability to live your life as you see fit is less important than boosting the national numbers.

    This whole idea that somebody must steer the collective in the "right" direction is bullshit - let the market decide. What you think is a sub-optimal outcome is what each individual within the collective has decided is best for them. And who are you to argue that everybody else is wrong to want what they want?

    1. All is for the Hive! All Hail the Glory of the Hive!

    2. let the market decide

      This presumes that you're operating in a market that isn't being systemically manipulated by other nations for anti-free market wit, everything that China has done in the last 30 years.

      Selling you the rope to hang yourself is probably not the outcome you want.

      1. i am sympathetic to this suspicion

      2. Damn, I hadn't thought about that! It's a good thing you are wise enough to have caught China manipulating the markets! Does anybody else know about this? Perhaps we should alert the authorities? Are you in hiding now that you and you alone are on to their nefarious schemes? If only people were smart enough to avoid buying shit from those cheating bastards instead of being so goddamn stupid as to continue doing things that are bad for them!

        1. It's extremely fun to watch you realize your point was moronic.

      3. Yes let the market decide if we maintain the ability to feed our own people and maintain our capacity for military defense. If China took over those functions nothing could go wrong.

    3. "As long as you accept that the individual exists to serve the state and your ability to live your life as you see fit is less important than boosting the national numbers."

      I'm afraid we crossed that bridge decades ago.

      "This whole idea that somebody must steer the collective in the “right” direction is bullshit – let the market decide."

      Shall we start with education? The Libertarian Party used to realize that Yuri Bezmenov was right, and that statutory freedoms don't matter much unless people are psychologically free when they reach the age of majority. From the 1980 platform:

      “We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”

      Thiel is actually closer to the old, hard-core LP than Reason or CATO are.

      1. Your first generation LP members wouldn't be recognized as libertarians by today's institutional libertarian movement. They had too many practical concerns about things like path dependence, or whether people would actually WANT to be free.

        Part of the problem is that "liberalitarian" alliance allowed the left a foot in the door to take over the movement's institutions. But part of it is that the early libertarians drifted away from those institutions once the major parties finished making 3rd party politics futile; When I first joined the LP back in the late 70's, we knew quite well we had a limited window in which to grow too large to suppress, or else the major parties would erect all sorts of obstacles using the power of the state.

        Well, we didn't, and they did, and that's the story of the LP. By the late 90's third party politics in the US had become a dead end, and the serious people left the party to pursue other approaches, or just get on with their lives.

        1. It's good to know that there are some veterans of that effort lurking here. Do you have any thoughts on where a younger guy could get in touch with people who are interested in those things?

  6. Hi evry one……..Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page. … Click For Full Detail.

  7. This is great for a real scare in the morning. A world where wealth and privilege are supported over the masses. Think of all the silly political correctness in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. All people are equal and have rights. Or of poets like John Donne advocating that "no person is an island". I think I rather live in a country open to the world and take my chances.

    1. I think I rather live in a country open to the world and take my chances.

      Don't let the door hit you on the ass.

      1. Bradley Cooper would rather live in a nation where the Dear Leader can, willy-nilly, suddenly outlaw a piece of software that is used to facilitate communications, AKA speech! Today, speech via software, or at least one form of it, can be killed by the Trumptatorshit. Book-burning tomorrow!
        Trump says he will ban TikTok

        1. Mikey Hihn is happy living in the Medicare-funded nursing home where he is mercifully but slowly dying from senile dementia, shilling for communist China for 50 cents a post inbetween eating his own shit.

          1. Good job debating facts and principles... NOT! Fascist moron!

            1. Your delusional ravings are neither facts nor principles Mikey Hihn. But then you also mistake your own shit for food so it's hardly surprising you can't tell the difference.

              1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

                So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

                Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

                Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

                Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

                At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

                Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to .

                Thank You! -Reason Staff

                1. faCts aNd PrinCiPLes!

                  1. Isn't he the cutest?

        2. Trump will ban TikTok? Now where will you post your shit-munching videos for the ChiComs to laugh at?

          1. They expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps, to escape moral responsibility by wailing: "But I didn't mean this!”

            1. We will end all you progressives before we let you out us in camps.

              1. Don't you think you people should do something about that massive obesity problem first?

                1. 6'1" 175 here
                  I need to get myself back into peak shape, but I don't think my current condition quite qualifies as obese

                2. The coof is already taking care of that. It's why I'm not all that worried about it.

            2. "They" should probably stop conducting open rebellion against the US, then.

    2. "no person is an island" clearly donne did not see the newest sports illustrated swim suit edition

      1. That's no moon. It's a space station.

  8. Much of the new nationalist conservatism has forgotten this central insight, seeking instead to sic the state on everything that feels wrong about the economy and the culture alike.

    After watching Marxists and their Libertarian fellow travelers successfully obliterate the economy and culture over the course of 40-50 years by siccing the state on everything they didn't like conservatives are finally learning how to play the game. Naturally this displeases Marxists and their Libertarian fellow travelers, who are now crypto-anarchists who are ready to embrace a state small enough to drown in the bathtub. Go fuck yourself.

    1. Why do you hate today's America, you bigoted, disaffected, antisocial, vanquished, no-count clinger?

      Don't bother answering. Every time you open your mouth, better people will just shove more of this damned progress down your whimpering, impotent throat.

      1. LMFAO. What are you gonna do there billy badass, lose another presidential election and spend another 4 years crying about white nationalism? I'm terrified. Terrified I tell you. Ask Garrett Foster how your LARP plays out in real life, because I'm game any time you are motherfucker. I'll even fuck your little faggot ass while you're bleeding out so you can experience one last thrill because I'm tolerant like that.

        1. Spending your entire life complying with the preferences of your betters has made you a whiny bitch. But you get to whimper about it all you want, because in America, even bigoted, disaffected, inconsequential culture war casualties have rights.

          Just be sure to continue to toe the line established by your betters, clinger. You get to cry about it, but not much else.

          1. Spending your entire life complying with the preferences of your betters has made you a whiny bitch.

            I'm the big bad Nazi that's perpetually haunting all your nightmares. It's our world now. That's why you need to burn empty buildings and play act a revolution until you get a nice chunk of hot lead through your skull when you fuck up and leave the downtown corridor. Try not to forget.

            1. You're the obsolete bigot whose tongue I have been wiping the soles of my shoes on for the entirety of our lives, clinger.

              So long as you continue to obsequiously comply with your betters' preferences, feel free to whimper about it as much as you want. We don't care whether you like it, we just insist that you toe that line.

              1. Get used to the taste of that bronzer in your throat, it's gonna be another loooooooong 4 years of my Nazi boot on your faggot neck you sad sack LARPing cunt.

                1. There just aren't enough bigoted slack-jaws remaining in America to position Trump for another three-cushion longshot at the Electoral College.

                  America becomes less white, less bigoted, less rural, less religious, and less backward every day (as clingers take their stale thinking to the grave and are replaced by better Americans in our electorate). Four years of this improvement have put Trump and his disaffected, desperate, deplorable followers even harder behind the eight ball.

                  You ready to go 'the full Lavoy' yet?

                  1. You used bigot 17 times in three posts.

                    You seem very upset.

                    1. You are free to wallow in political correctness, but I prefer to call a bigot a bigot. Why let bigots hide behind euphemisms -- 'traditional values,' 'family values,' 'conservative,' 'Republican' -- when bigot is available?

                      I also call a superstitious slack-jaw a superstitious slack-jaw, a can't-keep-up backwater a can't-keep-up backwater, and a disaffected, half-educated clinger a disaffected, half-educated clinger.

                      This straightforwardness seems to bother some people, mostly because better Americans have arranged it so that bigots don't like to be known as bigots any more, at least not in public.

                    2. That's a lot of words just to admit you're upset about your poor vocabulary.

                    3. disaffected

                      God damn still using that crutch lololol

                    4. "That’s a lot of words just to admit you’re upset about your poor vocabulary."

                      Sadly, word-of-the-day TP can only take someone like the rev so far

    2. Don't have much use for self-ownership and individualism, do you?

      1. Putting people in jail for not serving faggots at their bakeries is individualistic as fuck my guy. Really got me there.

        1. Please tell us when Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf ever advocated that.

          Why are you allowing the intergalactic sub-smegmonic Boogoidian Strawmen to penetrate your tinfoil hat and take over your puny brain?

          1. Please tell us when Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf ever advocated that.

            You've outed both of these socks multiple times Hihn, just stick to the same one until the thread comes to a complete stop you senile fucking retard. And you advocated for compulsory cake baking on both of these accounts multiple times. The actual point that sailed over your Alzheimer's-addled little head is that supporting things like having national borders and not letting foreign corporations steal intellectual property is no more a betrayal of self-ownership or individualism as your constant white knighting for murderous totalitarian communism. Now go eat another pile of your own shit.

            1. Tulpa is utterly incapable of honest debate.

              "...not letting foreign corporations steal intellectual property..."

              So this justifies the Trumptatorshit outlawing some software used to communicate with? The Chi-Coms can also steal hard-copies of handwritten letters... Can the Trumptatorshit now outlaw papers and pens?

              1. Trumptatorshit

                Mikey Hihn demonstrates his sophisticated grasp of the issues with compelling arguments. No wonder he demands to be taken seriously!

                Just FYI, the Trumptatorshit hasn't outlawed anything. And that also wasn't the topic under discussion. You're really fucking bad at this.

                1. Tulpa didn't address the argument I just made, because Tulpa is full of shit! Few if ANY neurons to be found in Tulpa's fake brain!

                  Try again, moron!

                  “…not letting foreign corporations steal intellectual property…”

                  So this justifies the Trumptatorshit outlawing some software used to communicate with? The Chi-Coms can also steal hard-copies of handwritten letters… Can the Trumptatorshit now outlaw papers and pens?

                  1. SQRLSY One
                    July.2.2020 at 5:11 pm
                    Port-a-potties ARE buffets


              2. It is weird watching you, brandy, sarcasmic, and WK all claim others are the ones arguing dishonestly.

                And by weird I mean fucking hilarious.

                1. Says the GRAND CHAMPION of lying!!!

                  Readers, beware! Do not be deceived by JesseAZ! JesseAZ does NOT believe that LIES are bad in ANY way! Only ACTIONS matter, ethically or morally! See
                  “Words are words dumbfuck. Actions are where morals and ethics lie.”, says JesseAZ. When confronted with offers of hush money, illegal commands (from a commanding military officer), offers of murder for hire, libel, slander, lies in court, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, inciting riots, fighting words, forged signatures, threatening to kill elected officials, false representations concerning products or services for sale… these are all “merely” cases of “using words”. Just like the Evil One (AKA “Father of Lies”), Jesse says lies are all A-OK and utterly harmless! So do NOT believe ANYTHING that you hear from JesseAZ!

                  Also according to the same source, JesseAZ is TOTALLY on board with dictatorship (presumably so long as it is an “R” dictator that we are talking of).
                  With reference to Trump, JesseAZ says…
                  “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”

                  I say again, this is important…
                  “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”
                  We need a BRILLIANTLY persuasive new movie from JesseAZ to “Wake Up, America!”, to flesh out the concept that “The Triumph of The Will of The Trump, Trumps All”! Including the USA Constitution. In fact, USA military personnel should start swearing allegiance to Trump, NOT to some stupid, moldering old piece of paper!
                  Previous Powerful People have blazed a path for us to follow here, slackers!!!

                2. Meanwhile, JesseSPAZ regards theyself as a brilliant intellectual genius, right up there with “Stable Genius” the Orange-Haired!

                  Stable Genius Junior keeps right on advocating more and more and MORE POWER to the Trumptatorshit, NEVER EVER being smart enough to realize that sooner or later, said new POTUS-powers will end up in the hands of the BidenFuhrer or other political enemy of the oh-so-smart JesseBahnFuhrer!

                  So JesseBahnFuhrer… 1 or 2 days before the likely upcoming inauguration of the BidenFuhrer, next January, will you STILL be advocating more power for the Trumptatorshit? Just HOW arrogantly stupid and short-sighted ARE you, anyway?

                  1. SQRLSY One
                    July.2.2020 at 5:11 pm
                    Port-a-potties ARE buffets


                    1. He is so easy to rile up into a shot eating mess.

    3. This. Doherty's hit piece is as shameful as it is obvious.

      No enemies to the left is not a libertarian mantra, yet it's SOP here at Reason.

  9. 6 paragraphs into the piece it finally mentions something about Thiel, is there any editing going on at Reason? Between this and the train wreck of a misreport on Senator Cotton I am wondering if I should just stop reading the publication.

    1. Just skip to the comments.

      1. This.

        The only journalism to be found at Reason is in the Comments Section.

    2. Yeah, I got a bit exhausted too. It seems like that tangent about neoconservatism should have placed elsewhere if they want to do a better job tying Thiel to it.

    3. "Between this and the train wreck of a misreport on Senator Cotton..."

      "Evinces a pattern" are the words you are seeking.

    4. Jeez, just about every day there are complaints that ENB doesn't do enough original journalistic investigation -- in the morning blog post.

      Then Reason posts a long-form article from the print magazine on the website, and the complaint is it is too long.

      It's such a strange thing to do with the precious minutes of your life: hang out all day at a website for a magazine you dislike, and nitpick endlessly. It's so pathetic.

      1. "and the complaint is it is too long"

        Hi you're very fucking stupid so let me help, no one made that complaint.

  10. It's more thrilling to make ordinary people mad by flirting openly with racism and fantasizing out loud about political violence.

    Like when Reason supports race riots?

  11. Thiel has always been an especially angry misfit, prone to rage-driven extremes. Just look at how he "solved" his incel issues.

    1. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

      Still impotently raging that you got out-fagged in the Gakwer affair there Rev? Didn't like that big tasty white nationalist gay cock down your throat?

      1. Arthur has it right above: you apparently need a separate handle to be your true bigoted self, but only because "your betters" have made you feel some small but inescapable shame for being a bigot. You're welcome.

        1. You're just mad because even though he's gay, Thiel refused to fuck you.

          1. I am not convinced Thiel is gay. Like many anti-social right-wing coders, he may just be a hopeless incel who settled.

            1. .000000017/10

  12. The attempted global monoculture of the left is by the far the most insidious ethos to hit the world on centuries. The belief that all outcomes must be equal is disastrous. The belief that one culture can one government can exist is equally disastrous.

    Life works best based on evolutionary principles. Let different areas and different people attempt different forms of government that compete for best principles is the preferred method. Competition is good despite educational liberals giving participation trophies for 3 decades.

    The description of Theil here has taken him to an extreme caricature of this views and ideals. What he fights against most is globalism which is unworkable.

    1. What he fights against most is globalism which is unworkable.

      They used to call it the Communist International but it turns out when you're honest about your desire to commit atrocities most normal people get turned off. What you have to do is skinsuit a few think tanks and cast your Marxist aspirations as global peace and free trade. And wouldn't you know it, Marxist supranational global governance just happens by pure coincidence to be the only possible way to achieve such lofty ends.

      1. This is why idealism is so funding pathetic. Many on this site claim to be libertarian idealists, but idealism doesn't work. Ideal states are used to teach introduction to theories like introductory physics. But quite a few posters only spout idealistic nonsense. It is for the ignorant who ignore realism. Life is full of chaos. Life is full of disagreement.

        Parents argue over how to raise their children. School boards argue how to teach local children. Cities have competing parties. States even more so. As the group of individuals get larger, disagreement does too. Yet globalism seeks to unify all cultures and beliefs under a single banner, denying reality.

        This is why idiots like those above who claim these ideal principles like never tariffs are so ignorant. They refuse to acknowledge other actors as bad. Yet life is full of bad actors. That is why retaliatory actions are justified under libertarianism.

        1. tarriffs are a tax on your own people though. why penalize them?

          1. tArIfFS arE A tAx oN yOUr oWn PeoPle!!!

          2. They are not always. If seller a and b have enough supply to fund all demand and a tariff goes on seller b, then seller a can make up the demand and there is not a tax, just a supply shift.

            And likewise the argument against Chinese tariffs as US taxes only works if you ignore all other trade costs outside of tariffs. Costs such as supply chain risk (PPE) or costs from theft (billions of dollars a year).

            It is why your defense against retaliatory tariffs is sophomoric.

        2. "Yeah, you're right. We should just deal with nice people." -- Gregg Beam, Quantum of Solace

        3. Perhaps, but cutting off your own nose to spite your face is just dumb. Example: Supporting Trump because you think he is going to save you from globalism and progressives.

    2. The left has tried this PC nonsense in the past. It died down then, it will die down later. They always overreach and fail eventually. This time will be no exception. They are bot a serious threat in the grand scheme of things, they are an annoyance.

      1. Have you slept through the last 30 years?

        Seems like you're just looking for an excuse to keep lying down

        1. So, what is the defensive strategy against the grown of the left? Believing in Donald J. Trump as your savior?

          1. Did that make sense in your head?

            You seem to be unraveling more and more by the day now

    3. The solution to globalism isn't isolation. The best solution to globalism is being very open to the whole world. Let them try to establish some global mono-government; the very diversity that you just explained the value of will make them fail.

      Also, the left may aspire to a monoculture, but they will never achieve it because they habitually contradict their own beliefs and eat their own.

      1. In other words, there is way too much worry about progressives and globalism. And supporting a buffoon like Trump is certainly not a good move, especially if it is motivated by some trumped-up, paranoid fear of progressives and globalism.

        1. .0000000014/10

  13. People using government power to get their way? Color me shocked.

    People who get used to power becoming corrupted by power? Shocked, I tell you, shocked!

    As usual, government itself is the problem. A government strong enough to give you what you want is strong enough to take what it wants.

    1. SQRLSY OneÁ àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf
      July.2.2020 at 5:11 pm
      Port-a-potties ARE buffets


  14. ●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started………Click For Full Detail.

  15. If a bloc within a given political community "declares that it no longer recognized enemies," Thiel quoted Schmitt as saying, then "it joins their side and aids them." On the wilder edges of the new nationalist conservatism, libertarians are seen as precisely such quislings in the eternal war with the left.

    This makes sense only in the context of assuming there must be a strong monopolist coercive government.

    Cultural Marxism certainly is a threat, but only because they would use monopolistic coercive government against everybody else. The solution is not to use that same monopolistic coercive government against the cultural Marxists, but to get rid of the monopolistic coercive government.

    That's where Trumpistas go off the rails too. Just a bunch of statists of a different color. They won't even admit that individual self-ownership exists. Trade and immigrant wars stomp all over individual rights? Too bad, so sad, orange man good, so stuff it, losers.

    Principals? Never heard of them. It makes you wonder what new kingpin they will idolize when Trump is out of office. Not that Trump is anywhere as bad in practice or ideology as Hitler, but I always wondered, what did all those soldiers think when their loyalty oath was switched from Germany to Hitler personally? Not even the Nazi party, or the position of Nazi part leader, but directly to Hitler. Did they think he would live forever?

    When your ideology depends on a mortal, you have given up even the pretense of principles.

    1. The solution is not to use that same monopolistic coercive government against the cultural Marxists, but to get rid of the monopolistic coercive government.

      Damn bro you're so right! Why didn't anyone think of that before? Imagine how many lives could have been saved if Jews just got rid of the monopolistic coercive government in Nazi Germany. Or if the Russians just got rid of the monopolistic coercive government in Stalinist USSR. Or if the Chinese just got rid of the monopolistic coercive government in Maoist China. I mean just get rid of the coercive monopolistic government. It's that easy!

      1. At least he gets to watch Muslims get killed by the hundreds of thousands in China while feeling moralistic since he freely supports open trade with china.

        1. Wrong, as usual. The subtlety is beyond you. I support the liberty of individuals choosing to trade across borders. This is not trading with the nation of China, it is trading with the people in that nation.

          Funny how even that fine a distinction want fit into your narrow mind.

          1. Looks like you're trying to convince yourself more than anything

          2. There are no individuals in China, only The Chinese.
            There are no individual muslims, only The Muslims.
            There are no individuals at protests, only BLM or antifa or rioters.
            There are no individual Americans, only The Democrats and The Republicans.

      2. It's a really good idea to know what you are aspiring for, even if it is hard to achieve.

    2. Imagine thinking that you need to organize politically in order to oppose a totalitarian state wielded against you by people who want you dead. Trumpistas amirite? Like grow up bro. Just get rid of the monopolistic coercive government!

      1. Too bad for you that your philosophy is so starkly you vs everybody else that there is no room for subtlety. Your sarcasm would benefit from just the tiniest comprehension.

        1. Too bad for you that your philosophy is so starkly you vs everybody else that there is no room for subtlety.

          That's interesting considering you just told me a few minutes ago that my philosophy can't tolerate individualism. It's almost like you're a colossal fucking retard with no idea what you're talking about and hoped desperately that your utterly non-responsive rejoinder here might substitute for a defense of the idiotic thing that you said for which I excoriated you publicly and made you look like a stupid cunt. Again.

          1. You vs the world is not individualism. Individualism is recognizing that others, too, are individuals. You quite clearly do not recognize that. You do not believe inindividualism.

        2. Lol. You literally called everyone who disagrees with you a trumpista you ignorant shut.

          Please keep claiming you don't have a team.

          1. You mean like you, a well-known Trumpista? If you have ever disagreed with Trump, you have kept it well-hidden.

          2. A team I do not have. I have me, an individual. That of course is beyond your ken.

            1. Dogmatic adherence to theories developed by others, without regard to other views and values, is totes the pinnacle of individualism

          3. He did use the word, Trumpista. That much is true.

      2. "Just get rid of the monopolistic coercive government!"

        And that's Reason's grand vision -- don't you understand? One election soon, new immigrants and their next-generation offspring are going to come around to the realization that bloc voting for constitutionalism, limited government, anti-welfare state policies and Libertarian Party candidates all the way down the ballot obviously serves theirs and their adopted nation's longterm interests, even if seems counterproductive (or even nonsensical) in the short run. Just you wait and see!

        1. American-born socialists are going to have socialist babies... We must ASAP, give the Trumptatorshit the power to sterilize American-born socialists, whenever and wherever the Trumptatorshit sees socialists! To PROTECT us all!!!

          1. Exactly the point. We've got enough problems with homegrown socialist voters like you. No need to import more.

            And in typical progressive projectionist fashion, your diseased mind goes straight to state-sponsored eugenics and genocide fantasies.

            A perfectly humane, constitutional and democratic prescription for curing the ideological pestilence afflicting our body politic would be to defund publicly financed neo-Marxist education systems and institutions -- something that self-professed conservative and libertarian-leaning candidates in the political mainstream used to campaign on all the time.

            1. Do you believe that native-born citizens are capable of being educated into RightThink, but foreigners are born with an ideology?

              1. By "RightThink" do you mean instilling in them a respect for the principles of free speech, property rights, individual freedom, rule of constitutional law and an embrace of self-determination? If so, then yes, I believe native-born citizens are capable of being successfully educated in that tradition -- just like they are capable of being duped into brutish cults of "gimme-what-you-got" collectivism, which is clearly your preferred ideology -- and for that matter, the preferred ideology of those who operate this country's public education system.

                As far as the foreigners go, until we get our own political house in order -- that is to say, defeat or radically debilitate the ability of people like yourself to sabotage our civilization -- I'd say it is basically suicidal for libertarians who actually want to live in a freer society to favor a come-one-come-all immigration policy. And by the way, it ain't about race, it's about politics. Because as every honest observer of immigration debates knows, if the vast majority of immigrants weren't reliably voting Democrat and welfare state expansion, y'all wouldn't clamoring to bring them here in the first place. You'd have built a border wall long ago.

                1. So it would be suicidal for libertarians to adopt a libertarian position right now.

                  You can blame Democrats for your problem all you want, but that's still a pretty big problem you have there.

        2. Is this that whole theory that we have to keep all immigrants from socialist countries out because there was that one survey of the political beliefs of immigrants that showed a slight liberal leaning?

    3. "The solution is not to use that same monopolistic coercive government against the cultural Marxists, but to get rid of the monopolistic coercive government."

      What a moronic attempt at a rhetorical sleigh of hand.

      AS IF Marxists would be content with little or no monopolistic coercive government. They would never EVER seek to fill a power vacuum with street thugs.

      LOL, fuck of crypto Marxist slaver.

      1. You'd rather see Nazis than Marxists in control, not recognizing they are two sides of the same coin.

        1. Nazis are marxists, ignorant bigot

          1. Actually, not. The Nazis were trying to promote a new type of socialism that was explicitly not Marxist.

            Maybe you should think twice before throwing around accusations of ignorance.

            1. "The Nazis weren't marxist because they said they're against marxists... just like antifa can't be bad guys because they call themselves anti bad guys and BLM cares about black people's lives because that's what they named themselves!"

              Totes dude.
              Way to really dig into the fundamentals

              1. OK, believe whatever you want to believe. And keep calling other people ignorant.

                1. You know people can read all these here replies, no?
                  I'm quite capable of demonstrating the logic behind my statements, as I often do.
                  Below, for example.
                  I've yet to see you do anything other than make unsupported assertions.
                  You, white knight, are both ignorant and dishonest

          2. THAT is why NAZI Germany invaded the USSR, then? THAT is why Hitler called Stalin "scum of the Earth"?

            Project much? Because YOU are schizoid, everyone else is, as well?

            1. Super weird that ideologies would form competing styles and have rivalries among leaders and animosity between their faithful.
              I guess Trotsky wasn't marxist either, since Stalin opposed him.
              On a related note, I've always thought of Shia and Sunni as the two main branches of Islam, but now you're telling us one of them isn't Muslim...

          3. Wait... OK! I get it now! EVERYONE who is NOT Nadless the Nardless (or they's twin, JesseSPAZ, or they's other-other twins, R Mac or Tulpa, or Ann Coulter, or Attila the Hun), is a MARXIST!!!

            1. It seems there is nothing to you but all consuming hste.
              You should work on that

              1. Says an "hsteful" (sic, hateful) asshole who, from time to time, has joined Shitsy Shitler in telling other posters (like me) to commit suicide! I have NEVER done THAT, hateful one! Not even to Tulpa!

                Try working on your self-awareness!

                1. .000000016/10

                2. Suggestions that you commit suicide don't come from a hateful place, they're just the logical conclusion

    4. It is funny watching you join teams to denounce those you dislike while claiming it is only others on teams.

      Tell is again how allowing China to dictate trade policies is good. Tell us again how letting near monopolies control the narrative is a good thing.

      You talk about non coercive functions here but refuse to do jack shit about coercive functions because you live in a fucktarded world view of idealism.

      1. Tell is again how allowing China to dictate trade policies is good.

        You ignorant Trump-tards believe that.

        The TPP would have dictated US trade policy to the entire Pacific Rim (including our most valuable export - IP) then done the same to China by establishing a Pacific framework they would have to join into.

        Instead Trump has dawdled aimlessly on Pacific trade and will leave office in January having wasted four years doing nothing on China.

        1. No one is going to take a pedophile like you seriously, especially when you can't even scrape together enough bread to pay a tiny bet.

        2. Hahahahahaha.

          Shriek, the fucking demfag, actually believes this.


      2. Yes, see? You do not recognize individualism. You do not recognize trade between individuals. You think countries trade, which is a central planner's wet dream.

        You are no individualist. You have no principles.

        1. It doesn't seem like you have principles either, just dogma

        2. This is a stupid argument. Governments have set trade policy for literally as long as they have existed. And even in today’s global economy, most individual Americans are not dealing with individual non-Americans.

          Even if that’s what we wish it would be like.

    5. And, as we've seen expressed a lot lately on this comments board, Trumpistas don't even recognize individuals as a thing, only collective buckets that they lump people into: If a peaceful protestor stands too close to a rioter, he becomes a rioter.

      1. More like, if a peaceful protester is standing next to a rioter, doesn’t attempt to stop the rioter and then gives cover to the rioter, it’s reasonable to say they aren’t actually peaceful.

        1. Yes, some commenters here have argued that.

          Also, some commenters here have gone way beyond arguing that to saying that anyone in the vicinity of a rioter is guilty, guilty, guilty. (By association.)

  16. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….HERE? Read More

  17. "argued that a sensible response would be to prohibit humans from crossing oceans."

    Like New Zealand did

    1. yeah, first liberals called Trump's travel ban racist, then they said he didn't implement it soon enough

  18. This article is something of a mess, meandering about, mashing things both good and bad together in an attempt to draw a single nefarious narrative.

    Which is reflective of the topic, I suppose. Stating from the outset that Theil's view's are eclectic and then attempting to squash the eclectic into a single narrative was bound to fail.

    You aren't likely to find much fertile ground here for the notion that there is anything wrong with railing against the "cultural Marxism" of college campuses. I got the impression that we were supposed to find that notion ludicrous and totalitarian - but it really is hard to deny that there is such a problem, given the state of national discourse in the age of BLM hegemony ("Now is not the time for you to speak. Now is the time for you to listen and support us.") We also live in a world where the ludicrous campus notions of "your words are violence" is an accepted norm for much of the population, justifying actual violence in response to the very notion that you might possibly speak some words they disagree with.

    This article is replete with such landmines, undermining the narrative we are supposed to be following. Perhaps the reason is that Thiel is a complicated person with complex views - and more problematic, he does not always enforce rigid conformity to all of his views among people he supports or associates with. Should that be the case, drawing a single through-narrative from his associations and the actions of his fellow travelers would be doomed to failure.

    Starting with a strange article about travel bans was an odd choice, given current circumstances. Way back when Trump was for travel bans, it was popular to lampoon them as ridiculous. But now that we didn't do effective travel bans, the left has moved on. If you listen to prominent left-wing science communicators and analysts, Trump doomed us all to death because he did not effectively lock down international travel. They are holding up current examples of success in battling the virus like Vietnam and Hong Kong - places that have had iron lockdowns and extreme restrictions on travel. Vietnam has just marked their first Covid-19 death.

    So by taking the "isn't this nutty" side, you've been flanked by the anti-Trump left. They have now swung around to the position that travel bans, both internal and external (Hi Cuomo!) are essential tools for fighting the virus and that Trump is totally the most evil person in history because he didn't institute strict travel bans.

    Perhaps this meandering mess is a useful exercise. It reminds us that people are complicated and no one label describes most of us. It also reminds us that anyone can write a version of your life story that casts you in any light they desire, should you have enough accomplishments to actually provide material for such an article. Bill Gates can be the philanthropist billionaire who has quietly eschewed public life and carefully avoided overtly partisan politics - or Bill Gates can be the puppeteer behind the scenes, using his untold billions to drive a globalist vision around the world, bending countries to his will through his charitable organizations and various high-dollar donations. Elon Musk can be a big-government environmentalist activist, using his money to suckle at the government teat and using his companies to further his wacky environmentalist goals - or he can be a dangerous capitalist, stealing wealth from his workers and flaunting government authority in everything from violating covid lockdowns to flaunting SEC rulings to openly smoking pot with noted right-wing conspiracy theorist Joe Rogan.

    1. You aren’t likely to find much fertile ground here for the notion that there is anything wrong with railing against the “cultural Marxism” of college campuses. I got the impression that we were supposed to find that notion ludicrous and totalitarian

      This is the same Brian Doherty who wrote a spirited defense of cultural Marxism in these very pages, so you shouldn't be surprised.

        1. You really don't have room for any thought between enemy and self, do you? Marx didn't invent cultural Marxism; is that such an alien concept to grasp?

          If you blame Marx for everything wrong today, you are as piss-ignorant as those who blame Trump for everything wrong today.

          1. Marxism, not Marx. Asshole faggot.

            1. That must be an example of Kumquatism, not Kumquat. A distinction without a difference, I bet you'd say.

              1. This is a really, really bad thread for you

          2. Marx didn’t invent cultural Marxism; is that such an alien concept to grasp?

            Keynes didn't invent neo-Keynesianism either. Pretty simple. Also not what was argued in either of the linked pieces. Doherty argued that cultural Marxism is not real. That it is a made-up right-wing conspiracy theory. That it doesn't exist. And that any manifestations of Frankfurt school ideology that the radical right might possibly misconstrue as cultural Marxism are actually positive manifestations of a free and libertarian society.

            1. Sorry, what, was you talking 'bout neo-Marxism or Marxism? Did you have a point? Or even a neo-point?

              1. .0000000008/10

          3. Just in case it's helpful in the future, there are smaller words after the big bold ones at the top of the page. If you read those they sometimes contain a more complex narrative.

          4. "Marx didn’t invent cultural Marxism"

            And Werner von Braun didn't invent the Saturn V, yet damned if his name doesn't come up a lot when talking about the Moon missions.


            We get it, you are a Marxist, being an obviously stupid one in public is not really helping your cause.

            1. It's almost as if anybody who doesn't agree with you is a Marxist. I wonder where we've heard that before.

              Your philosophy is too damned tiny to be bankrupt.

              1. You could try reading a book that didn't require Imagine Ink to finish. This "no true Marxist" line of argument from you is just sad.

          5. Thats cool and all, but you think fighting against cultural Marxism is itself coercive.

            1. No. Once again, you have shown a lack of any subtlety, any comprehension of the world outside your puny little Trump-first philosophy; if anyone disagrees with you, they are all part of some weird monolithic world. Whatever will you do when he is no longer in office?

          6. And congratulations...

            You managed to derail a conversation about an exercise in tea-leaf reading or connect-the-dots conspiracy-theorizing into .... yeah, I don't even know what point you were supposed to be making.

            1. Of course you don't. Any world outside yours does not exist. "Here be dragons", your moral map might as well say. It is not you, therefore it is a mystery and unfathomable.

              1. .0000000004/10

              2. You should really consider not posting any more today, there might be someone left who thinks you have a shred of credibility.
                Unfortunately, each comment just torches its ashes further

    2. Your last paragraph was a better read than anything I got from the article. And it's spot on.

    3. Thank you for your thorough and insightful remarks. When I first saw 100+ replies to such a provocative piece (though “meandering” doesn’t quite do it justice), I was looking forward to reading some thoughtful discourse - yikes!

      I had to get to the very end before anyone referenced the article in any meaningful way, but thanks for being that someone.

      More to the point, thanks for espousing what I always thought to be most compelling about libertarianism. Beyond the NAP and property rights, is the fundamental belief in individualism. That beyond even our genetic and broader human nature, is the “DNA” of our life - our individual experiences that shape our perspective. What this author and so many of us try to do by reducing some eclectic comments and actions to the crux of a man, is laughable and counter productive.

      Personally, I’ve also looked at this belief as a continuation of evolution and that left to its natural order, the progress we all wish to see, comes to fruition. Not quickly. Not soon. Not even in our grandchildren’s lifetime, but sooner than it ever will come about by force.

      1. SQRLSY OneÁ àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf
        July.2.2020 at 5:11 pm
        Port-a-potties ARE buffets


    4. I concur, it is a real dog's breakfast. Except even the dog wouldn't be able to stomach it. I feel like Brian D. was trying to hit his word quota for the month of July rather than write a coherent article. Or maybe he just doesn't like Peter Thiel because he won't respond to such juvenile inquiries as this one.

      Look, Chuck Koch's current thinking isn't that accessible either, but I would guess he would think Brian is an idiot as well, even though he funds this particularly idiocy. Perhaps he would approve of it, though it feels like a temper tantrum.

      In either case, I'm willing to give Thiel and Koch the benefit of the doubt because they are actually businessmen with relatively large numbers of employees in diverse geographies with diverse views, in contrast to someone with a history like Soros. And while Trump is an asshole, and shares the honor with great American companies like GM of bankruptcy (though without the benefit of government bailout and Obama's personal touch on pari passu), I would never say everything he's done is all bad. I view Thiel (or PayPal compatriot Musk) in the same manner.

      1. And I just read Brian D.'s other articles on Thiel. Talk about rent seeking, no wonder Brian is mad - Thiel living rent-free in Brian's head!

    5. The concept of "cultural Marxism" is as old as the far-right, and invoking it signifies your identity with them (now called the alt-right). It's a (usually antisemitic) trope that assumes the inherent dominance of white Christian culture and the inherent evil of any threat to it. Far from being an eccentric aspect of a multifaceted worldviews, it depends wholly on the most conformist political ideology there is, and it practically says so. We already dominate and that's good, but if you try to dominate it's evil. You could almost call it cultural imperialism.

      1. Cultural marxism refers to employing marxist practices - central planning distribute resources, with all people as merely units of abstract identity classes in constant opposition - in realms outside of economics or politics directly.

        1. And naturally the good, clean white Christian tradition doesn't engage in this sort of behavior, and that's why it should dominate.

      2. Marxism is further focused on control of the means of production.
        In the industrial age, that meant machinery and factories.
        In the information age, it means media and education

        1. So Comcast is one of the more powerful Marxist outfits out there?

          1. Disney certainly would be.

  19. "right wing street fighting foes"

    Yeah lots of them around. WAAAYYY more left wing faggots roaming the streets than steel pots.

    1. So, you and "Bradley Cooper" are leaning a lot on the word, faggot, today.

  20. "These latter foes he named as Google, China, and the U.S. university system...."

    Well, one out of three is pretty good in baseball.

  21. Is it a well-known fact that Peter Thiel supports Trump?

    1. Yes.
      Hence this slightly dishonest article.

  22. "and should not try to use government power to "immanentize the eschaton"—to bring about heaven on Earth"

    "Eschaton" means end times, end of days, day of judgment, Ragnarok, etc. referring to apocalyptic traditions in religions like Buddhism, Christianity, Scandinavian paganism, Islam, Hinduism, Mayan religion, etc.
    It doesn't necessarily mean to usher in utopia. In some cases the very opposite of heaven on Earth occurs.

    1. "one that understands that your side can't always control every relevant citadel of social or intellectual power"

      LOL, rich coming from leftist defender Doeherty.

    2. "Immanentize the eschaton" is a line from "The Illuminatus!" trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson. The book is a lot of things which I won't go into. It was/is also popular among tech people who either went to the San Francisco sex parties or wished they did. It is pre-cyberpunk I suppose. It's a "zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" for the computer folks who really, really felt that tech has something to say about the end or transformation of human knowledge. I am very surprised no one has noted this on this thread.

      I was given the book in the very early nineties by someone who did a lot of LSD, got a STEM doctorate and then went to work for *a big tech company*. Icarus often flies too close to the sun.

      1. Yes, but it's older than that.
        Catholics and Lutherans for instance viewed attempts to do so as blasphemy.

        Modern usage of the phrase started with Eric Voegelin in his 1952 book purchase The New Science of Politics. Voegelin identified a number of similarities between ancient Gnosticism and the beliefs held by a number of modern political theories, particularly Communism and Nazism.

        William F. Buckley popularized Voegelin's phrase as "Don't immanentize the eschaton!" Buckley's version became a political slogan of Young Americans for Freedom during the 1960s and 1970s.

  23. Thiel understands something Reason staff apparently doesn't: in order to have a libertarian country, you need to have a country. And a country that isn't run by socialists.

    1. So you can only achieve libertarianism via unlibertarian means.

      1. But he didn't say that you lying fuck.

        1. He most certainly did. For us to have a libertarian society that respects absolute individual rights without any subjugation to any tribes or groups, we must first make the conditions necessary for libertarianism to come to power by banning immigrants and socialists. Then we can start treating people like individuals with rights.

          1. That's a rather startling admission that a libertarian society would be rapidly undermined and destroyed by its willingness to be subverted.

            1. Power is tempting even to pacifists. One might understand the evolutionary logic of our universal lust for power. We all want to make others agree with us and do the things we prefer. I think it’s key not to have your worldview be too self-important and paranoid.

              1. Power is tempting even to pacifists.

                I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Libertarianism isn't about giving up power, it's about exercising power through voluntary, private agreements. Those private agreements will often be more restrictive than current laws.

                What you want, Tony, is a society in which people have maximum capacity to do what they want. That's not libertarianism, that's communism. You're simply confusing two political ideologies.

                We all want to make others agree with us and do the things we prefer.

                That's what you want. Libertarians don't care what you think, we just want to be left alone by people like you and don't want you anywhere near us.

          2. we must first make the conditions necessary for libertarianism to come to power by banning immigrants [=illegal migrants] and socialists

            And what exactly do you think is not libertarian about that? In a libertarian society, my neighbors and I can get together and ban whoever we want to; those are perfectly reasonable and libertarian choices. And within our current non-libertarian political system, we make those choices through voting.

      2. So you can only achieve libertarianism via unlibertarian means.

        Quite the opposite: freedom of association and absence of redistribution are fully compatible with libertarianism.

    2. Doesn't work that well to have a country run by right-wing authoritarians, either.

      1. That isn't a threat in the US, and never has been.

        1. It most certainly is a threat.

          1. Really? Care to elaborate?

            1. He feelz it

  24. So classical liberalism/libertarianism is being poisoned by conservatism led by the likes of Trump and Thiel?

    We all knew that except a handful of Trumptards here.

    These conservative con men want walls and ocean barriers, 25% tariffs, Christian identity dictators, and Straussian permanent conflict? Conservatives are the very enemies of classical liberalism.

    Fuck conservatism whether it be this new National Fatherland Big Government anti-Google conservatism or the Average-Joe Rush Limbaugh (King of the Rednecks) conservatism - they are both equally vile.

    1. I thought you got banned for being a pedophile.

      1. Go take your Droxy, boy.

        1. Oh wow you're still mad that you trolled the commentariat and were wrong about Hydroxychloroquine.

  25. "Associates of Thiel say the financier does not consider himself "neoreactionary," though he did write as far back as 2009 that "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible." That was the same year Yarvin, as Moldbug, wrote that "socialism and fascism produce a mix of substandard and disastrous results, for a simple reason: both originate in democracy, a precancerous growth always pregnant with some malignancy."

    We need to untangle some knots here.

    Libertarians appreciate the concept of the tyranny of the majority. We see "Congress shall make no law . . . " as being an indispensable part of the First Amendment for precisely this reason. Either our rights exist and should be protected despite being unpopular, or they don't really exist at all, and because of that, Congress is and should be prohibited from passing laws that violate our rights.

    This doesn't mean that democracy doesn't have an appropriate place. A government that can inflict taxes, naturalization policies, spending, treaties, and wars on its people without their consent and over their objections is not a free society. The line circumscribing the appropriate limits of democracy is the question of whether society would be tyrannical if there were no democracy.

    When democracy goes beyond its appropriate limits, as it would in the case of First Amendment violations, for instance, democracy becomes tyrannical. If unaccountable bureaucrats inflict taxes, naturalization policies, wars, and treaties on their people, over the objections of their people and against their will, not only is it tyrannical but also it provokes a reaction with a particular name, "populism". Populism in all its forms, from left to right, is always a reaction to elitism, by which we mean unaccountable bureaucrats inflicting their qualitative preferences on people who do not share them.

    1. So, let's untie that knot:

      1) Never confuse populism with absolute support for democracy.

      Populism is the alternative to democracy in its proper place--not democracy itself. It is the natural result of ignoring democracy's proper place. Letting garbage stack up in the kitchen--that's how you get ants and cockroaches. If you don't want populism, you better respect the appropriate place for democracy.

      2) Never confuse nationalism with democracy.

      Whether we're talking about Barack Obama inflicting DACA and the Paris Climate "treaty" on the American people without any input from Congress or whether we're talking about the people of the UK no longer wishing to be subject to the immigration preferences of bureaucrats in Brussels, championing democracy in its appropriate place is not the same as believing that everything should be subject to the good of the nation state.

      Believing that we should abide by un-libertarian policies because the people want them is a perfectly libertarian position when we're talking about issues that are well within the confines of democracy's proper bounds. In fact, that is the only libertarian position--unless someone here wants to defend the imposition of libertarian tyranny? A very wise man once wrote something to the effect that the purpose of libertarianism has always been to make more libertarians. That wise man was Brian Doherty. There is no libertarian alternative to persuasion or civil disobedience within the proper confines of democracy. Authoritarianism is not libertarian.

      3) Never confuse nationalism with populism.

      There are plenty of Americans who both despise international trade on patriotic grounds and fill their baskets with Chinese manufactured goods when they shop at Walmart. This doesn't make them stupid, evil, or wrong. It just means that people are capable of feeling one way and acting in another despite their misgivings.

      Meanwhile, there is no better gauge for what the people want than looking at what they actually do. And all those patriotic Americans shopping at Walmart would be plenty pissed off if you suddenly replaced their "Everyday Low Prices" with more expensive products that were "Made in America".

      . . . and waving a flag around wouldn't help a bit. In fact, there are plenty of Americans who are patriotic because they believe in America as a place where their choices are not subject to the question of whether what they want to do is for the good of the nation state. Just because they believe that wars, treaties, and trade agreements should be entered into with an eye towards what's best for the United States doesn't make them nationalists either. That is a function of rational self-interests of individual voters--not support for the nation state over their own individual interests.

      1. Excellent point.

        There is a reason the heroes of the enlightenment went for a representative republic instead of a direct democracy. And there is a reason they went for a constitutional republic to become a nation of laws instead of a nation of men. The entire structure of the US government is designed to be a bulwark against tyranny - whether that be from a would-be dictator usurping power or the tyranny of a fired-up mob.

        This is why libertarians should recoil in horror every time the Supreme Court backs in to a decision to support a preferred outcome instead of simply following the black letter of the law to its obvious - if undesirable - conclusion. Forcing congress to fix the law is harder, but it results in a more just society with more limits on power. Kinda like it was designed to do.

        1. And it's important not to conflate defending the proper bounds of democracy against encroachment by elitists who show nothing but contempt for average people and what they want, on the one hand, with support for democracy, in its proper place, on the other.

          Support for individual rights and support for democracy are not mutually exclusive because respect for our rights and respect for the separation of powers is two different issues. Doherty himself would condemn a war that wasn't properly declared by Congress.

          People who oppose democracy because they want free trade are missing the whole point. Because trade agreements are within the proper bounds of democracy, long term support for international trade depends on persuading our fellow citizens to want international trade.

          I oppose letting people get away with murder. That doesn't mean I'm about to support doing away with the presumption of innocence, the right to remain silent, the right to a jury, or the right to counsel--even if getting rid of that meant fewer people getting away with murder.

          It's the same thing with immigration and trade. Because the people want the wrong thing doesn't mean they shouldn't get what they want. If a libertarian can support the right to due process even if it means more people get away with murder, we can support due process for immigration and trade policies--even if the "jury" doesn't want what they should. The fact is that immigration and trade are within the proper purview of democracy just like murder cases are within the proper purview of a jury.

          And it's important to understand why those issues are within the proper purview of democracy. It isn't because the Constitution says so. It's because taking them outside the purview of democracy necessarily and always creates tyranny. You cannot support inflicting wars, treaties, or taxes on an unwilling population without supporting tyranny, and that tyranny will always provoke more of a populist reaction--regardless of whether we're talking about the United States or somewhere else.

          Respect for the will of the people in its proper place is the antidote to all of that, and it's that way everywhere and always. Oppression does not breed libertarianism. It just breeds revolt. It is perfectly appropriate for libertarians to support the validity of unlibertarian policies within the context of democracy--so long as the policy in question is within the proper purview of democracy. To whatever extent Thiel and other ideological libertarians follow that precept, what they're doing is as libertarian as anything needs to be.

          1. A lot of what Ken is saying here has been said before... And yes, I think that we should listen to this idea or set of ideas...

            (Short version up top).
            Ralph Waldo Emerson, who said, ‘The State must follow, and not lead, the character and progress of the citizen.’

            Here is the full-blown quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson:
            ‘Republics abound in young civilians who believe that the laws make the city, that grave modifications of the policy and modes of living and employments of the population, that commerce, education and religion may be voted in or out; and that any measure, though it were absurd, may be imposed on a people if only you can get sufficient voices to make it a law. But the wise know that foolish legislation is a rope of sand which perishes in the twisting; that the State must follow and not lead the character and progress of the citizen; that the form of government which prevails is the expression of what cultivation exists in the population which permits it. The law is only a memorandum.’

            Another relevant Emerson quote:
            “All men plume themselves on the improvement of society, and no man improves.”

            So anyway, suppose that Government Almighty goes too far, and mandates no-meat diets, which many people disagree with, just like the War on Drugs today…

            Then there will be underground, makeshift, amateurish animal-killing-and-butchering shops, where the animals will be treated far less humanely than they are today! (Thank You Do-Gooders!!!)
            You will not be able to let your cat or dog wander through the bushes in your own back yard, for fear of meat-hungry lawbreaking pet-snatchers!

            (But, Meat-Hungry Lawbreaking Pet-Snatchers would make an MOST EXCELLENT name for a garage band!)

            1. SQRLSY One
              July.2.2020 at 5:11 pm
              Port-a-potties ARE buffets


            2. Hear, hear!

  26. "Then, there’s another factor: when Guccifer 2 put out some from files on 15 june of 2016, with the signatures of Russian saying it’s a Russian hack, our fellows in the UK looking at the data found five of those files at a minimum, I don’t know they’re through yet looking, but they found five files that Guccifer 2 posted on the 15th of June with Russian signatures saying the Russians did this because of a signature they found the same five files posted by Wikileaks from a Podesta emails and they did not have the Russian signatures, so that meant Guccifer 2 was inserting Russian signatures to make it look like the Russians did the [alleged] hack. Well, if you go back to the Vault 7 release from Wikileaks again, from CIA, and you look, they have this Marble framework program that will modify files to look like someone else did the hack, and who were the countries that they had the ability to do that, in the in the Marble framework program? Well, one was Russia, the other was China, North Korea, Iran, and Arab countries. Well, to us, then, that means that the fabrication of the insert of the Russian signatures means that somebody modified the file and made it look like it fits the Marble framework definition of doing that kind of activity, which thus says all of this boosts with two materials pointing back now to CIA, as the origin of it, that’s the basic evidence we have, and none of it points to Russia."

    1. This info has been out since the beginning, but never seems to get any mainstream (including Reason) coverage

      1. Thanks for this.
        That clip was cut from a 2+ hour livestream w Bill Binney that is pretty interesting so far. Here’s the link if you or anyone else is curious.

        1. Check out the VIPS site
          They've been on top of the whole mess all the way through

  27. The Night They Drove Old Herman Down

    Herman Cain is my name
    And I jumped on the DonaldTrump train
    Till the Tulsa Rally came and I got on the COVID strain
    Was the summer of Two and O, we were rabid, just barely sane
    Went back to Georgia and fell ill
    Now my kin are reading from my will

    The night we tore our masks off for Freedom!
    And all the people were screaming
    The Day we tore our masks off for Freedom!
    And the COVID was teaming

    (someone else take over now)

    1. "(someone else take over now)"


      You got banned for being a pedophile and are so poor that a tiny bet was too much for you to pay off so you've spent a decade lying about it.

    2. Classy shit, Nuttplug.
      I bet you haven't been this giddy over a black man's death since Emmett Till

    3. Well not sure if Robbie or Levon would have approved. Good effort.

      My favorite by The Band. So thanks for reminding me of it. OK maybe The Weight.

    4. OK, let me try...

      All Hail Der TrumpfenFuhrer, Full of Grace
      Savior of the human race!
      Never mind, us all, He’ll disgrace!
      Conservatards, above all, MUST save face!
      In glory, a glaze of Vaseline,
      Behold Stormy Daniels, our Queen!
      What a scene, what a scene!
      The Donald? NEVER so obscene!
      Now don’t you DARE throw a fit,
      It won’t matter, not even a bit,
      We mustn’t ever, EVER quit,
      We be saved, by The Trumptatorshit!

  28. Making Cash more than $15k to $18k consistently just by doing basic online work. I have gotten $18376 a month ago just by working on the web. Its a simple and basic occupation to do from home and its profit are greatly improved than customary office work. Each individual can join this activity now just by pursue this link……..go to this site home media tech tab for more detail support your hear Here══════❥❥❥❥>>>Click Here.

  29. There's a lot of used-to-be libertarianism going on as of late.

  30. The first time I was directed to one of Yarvin's rambling essays I had trouble seeing why he was popular. His essays combined some obvious ideas (the Left claims to be powerless, but is actually powerful, in other news water is wet) with a lot of nonsense (i.e. his weird obsession with street crime, which has gone down precipitously for 30 years). Reading his comment about how cutting of trade between hemispheres would not have any negative consequences really made it obvious how much of a joke that man is. He says he has spent a huge amount of time reading, which is obvious because that is the kind of stupidity that only an education can produce.

    I guess Yarvin is, in a way, another example of the efficacy of homeschooling. We've long known that universities can instill truly nonsensical stupidity in their students. Yarvin shows that autodidactism can be, if anything, even stupider!

  31. Reason really just needs to get rid of the comments section at this point, because between the fake "libertarian" Trump cum garglers and white nationalists, it's become virtually unreadable.

    1. Awwwwwww are you a triggered little soy bitch? Ever considered fucking yourself up your faggot ass with a running chainsaw?

  32. Any effective opposition to the totalitarian left is helpful right now. Peter Thiel is unlikely to ascend to emperor, so what does it matter what he might do with absolute power he will never possess?

    1. If Trump could become president, how is it possible to use the word "unlikely" anymore.

      1. Reality is still a thing.

        1. If Trump could be elected president, why couldn't Thiel?

          1. Not eligible. Not born in the US.

            1. You'll have to forgive cytotoxic, he's a retarded Canadian with no clue how US politics works.

  33. We're in late stage capitalism, and there are fewer opportunities to strike it rich on your own. Most of the big problems have been solved and what's left is either insoluble (e.g. cancer, aging), or self-imposed (e.g. climate change). Thus kids feel despondent and restless. However the solution isn't socialism (as Bernie Bros fantasize under Biden), but instead for billionaires like Thiel to establish low-cost, low-carbon resort colonies where people can retire and leave jobs for others to work and support themselves and not rely on big government or charity, which can then be abolished. Rest - this is the point and promise of America and the Judeo-Christian tradition (yes it is real). We deserve it. And the residents of the colonies can vote for small government, low tax policies that ensures conservative and libertarian wins for generations. It's the path to paradise!

    1. Most of the big problems have been solved and what’s left is either insoluble (e.g. cancer, aging), or self-imposed (e.g. climate change).

      That's utterly absurd. There are real possibilities that cancer and aging can be solved. With a few thousand dollars, you can start doing research in AI, genetic engineering, software, manufacturing, etc. and potentially create a billion dollar company just by being clever.

      Thus kids feel despondent and restless.

      No, just noisy, brainwashed, dumb leftist kids. They have always been around. There plenty of smart kids around that are diong more useful things with their lives.

  34. "I know better than everyone else how they should be governed."
    "My biggest problem in life is not being able to totally dominate cultural discourse. Thus, that is the biggest problem in the world."

    Pathological narcissism as politics. Tell me why I'm not supposed to be bored by this.

    1. Honestly, thats a fair observation, no one other than you can tell us why your agenda, patholigical narcissism and beliefs bore you.

      1. It's not the narcissism I object to, I suppose, but the crude application of it. The lack of sophistication. I may be in love with myself, but that doesn't mean I'm also dumb enough to believe that giving ruling power to one ideological group because they're "just right" is a good idea. Or that the archetypical conservative fear reaction is the best approach to losing some cultural dominance.

        1. Maybe one day someone will care.

        2. 0/10

          1. = ?

            This is an easy one.

            Great contribution to the discussion.

              1. Not an official score, of course, just an amateur opinion

  35. These days I'd struggle to tell a 'libertarian' from a particularly conservative Republican on any issue except maybe pot and sex work. The comment section here and a Trump rally are the same thing, authoritarian right-wing.

    1. So you're saying your parents were brother and sister.

    2. A lot of the commenters hanging out here are not libertarians. They are conservatives who have taken up residence here because provides a place where they can hang out with virtually no moderation.

      1. Yeah, all the REAL libertarians are getting their stupid LARPing heads blown off brandishing AK-47s trying to kill peaceful motorists passing through city streets while they riot in solidarity with Marxist Lives Matter.

      2. A lot of the commenters hanging out here are not libertarians. They are leftists who have taken up residence here because they are trying to destroy libertarianism like they destroyed liberalism.

        There, FTFY.

        You're not a libertarian.

    3. An example of that "authoritarian" right wing vs the "tolerant" and "empathetic" left:

  36. Conservative dislikes that progressive ideas dominates culture. They assume this is the result of nefarious conspiratorial forces rather than simply a natural outcome in the marketplace of ideas. They seek redress against these historic injustices by various forms of affirmative action. Still no sense of irony.

    1. 0/10

      1. 5/10 for Projection though.

        1. ...and 9/10 for strawmanning

    2. I'd say you are partially correct. Progressive ideas are winning in a marketplace of ideas, but also pushed in certain ways (especially lately) such as college campus culture and cancel culture.

      Conservatives do tend to be too paranoid about it, and cry victim too much. But by far the dumbest thing the conservative world has done is throw themselves behind a buffoon and expect him to be a champion that is going to deliver them from progressives.

      1. But by far the dumbest thing the conservative world has done is throw themselves behind a buffoon and expect him to be a champion that is going to deliver them from progressives.

        I don't know, it seems to be working pretty well. You're getting your faggot agenda shoved back up your faggot ass where it came from and spending 16 hours a day pissing and moaning like a little faggot bitch about it.

    3. Conservative dislikes that progressive ideas dominates culture.

      Progressive ideas only dominate cultural institutions; US culture by and large rejects progressive ideas.

  37. Hi…..Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page. … Click For Full Detail.

  38. Fantastic essay, btw.

    I'm not sure the extent to which self-described libertarians would agree with the idealized characterization here, but one can hope. It may be an accident of terminology that many libertarians are indistinguishable from far-right nationalists. But Noam Chomsky calls himself a libertarian too, and I for one would welcome more of that sort into the discussion.

    I was going to let " distressed and dissatisfied" go in the following passage as a mere understatement before I got to the second sentence which equalizes the grievance:

    Fifty years ago a generation looked at the dominant traditional mores, found they left many people distressed and dissatisfied, and advocated loosening them. Now a generation growing up under a new dominant set of mores has also—surprise—found they leave many people distressed and dissatisfied.

    Replace first "distressed and dissatisfied" with "met with inescapable barriers to entry to the very system promised to deliver freedom and happiness." Replace the second instance with "pissed off that they can no longer totally dominate cultural discourse without being called on it." The crux of the debate here is that one complaint is substantial and one is extremely petty. That is not to say that conservatives don't feel as distressed or almost as distressed, but at any rate the only remedies to their problem are unacceptably authoritarian. Don't all authoritarians seek to guard their psychologies from even the smallest of threats? If progressives are snowflakes, what's a million times more precious and delicate than a snowflake?

    1. 0/10

  39. Libertarians should be celebrating the increasing dominance of progressivism around the world, not only because its a political worldview that values maximizing individual rights and treating people decently, it's apparently a natural outgrowth of the very progress they do champion as a good in and of itself: the flow of capital to productive ends. Open markets create more progressives. It's freedom all around.

    Instead the reactionary forces, which are always present and always poised to react, come armed with the same old (usually antisemitic) conspiracy theories get rehashed again and again. A few liberal arts professors do not control global discourse, I'm sure they'd be happy to learn. The inexorable needs of relatively freely moving capital does.

    "Cultural marxism" was also a term of propaganda used by Hitler. It is an inherently fascist concept. It's a reaction to threats real and perceived against the white Christian patriarchal status quo. People who live in that kind of fear while possessing that kind of power are capable of all manner of evil.

    1. 0/10

    2. "Libertarians should be celebrating the increasing dominance of progressivism around the world"

      Exactly the point I've been making since I started commenting here.

      Although progressives still haven't completely stopped pretending to oppose the billionaire agenda, they're with us Koch / Reason libertarians where it counts. Specifically, our desire for unlimited, unrestricted immigration. In fact Democrats have so successfully reinvented themselves as the pro-billionaire party that Joe Biden has more billionaire donors than Orange Hitler.


      1. Progressives have the luxury of realigning immigration policies at any given time with their principles. Libertarians are required by their principles to accept open borders.

    3. I will acknowledge that most progressives mean well. Their weaknesses are not realizing when they are being self-contradictory, impractical, smug, not treating people as individuals, or stomping on one group of people to help another.

      1. Progressivism: the attempt to create New Man, "correcting" natural selection, through central planning imposed by State force, ultimately totalitarian.

        - Bismarckian Social Democracy (aka social welfare state); the mildest form, with FDR and LBJ leading the American version
        - Democratic Socialism; a more direct form of Bismarck's State Socialism which retains some features of consensual governance, but replaces property rights with participation "rights"
        - State Socialism/Communism; participation is made mandatory, rights are replaced by promises of distribution in exchange for subservience. Party=State, and decisions are made by a central committee appointed by The Party
        - State Socialism/Fascism; retains nominal property rights, but subject to Party direction
        - Theocracy (like Islamism); Party is replaced by Clergy/Church, and policies are justified by religious theory rather than economic or philosophical

        All are marxist in that people are not individuals, but units of rigid identity classes that are ordered in a hierarchy and determine the "unit's" place in the social order

        1. When does the rejection of all sexual norms come into it? Asking for a friend.

      2. Hitler and his Nazis, like Mao and his Red Guard, had "good" intentions too

        1. Best if nobody has good intentions.

    4. You don't give a rats ass about individual rights.

    5. Libertarians should be celebrating the increasing dominance of progressivism around the world,

      You mean libertarians should celebrate the ideology that brought us eugenics, Keynesianism, segregation, and accolades for Mussolini? I don't think so.

      Fortunately, progressivism is on its way out, both in Europe and in the US.

    6. “Cultural marxism” was also a term of propaganda used by Hitler. It is an inherently fascist concept.

      The term "cultural Marxism" literally occurs zero times before 1960 in any book or newspaper. On the German web, there are exactly five occurrences of the term before 2010, most of them by a pro-Marxist site.

      Tony, your lies are getting more and more bald faced and transparent.

      1. He called it cultural Bolshevism, but same idea. It’s really about the Jews.

        1. You said that "cultural marxism” was also a term of propaganda; "term" means actually those specific words. You're associating an antisemitic term used by Hitler with a different term used by American conservatives in order to deflect criticism of the ideology and propaganda strategy used by Marxists.

          The concept that Marxists and neo-Marxists intend to change culture, both as an objective of Marxism and as a strategy to gain political power, is obvious because Marxists themselves say so. That is what the term "cultural Marxism" refers to. Marxists are simply trying to obfuscate this strategy through terminology.

          How many parents do you think would take their kids to a "Marxist children's movie" or go to a "Marxist art exhibition"? Marx's name is as tainted as that of Stalin, Hitler, or Goebbels, as it should be: the man and his ideology were evil.

  40. This essay is an interesting if somewhat groggy detour into the sources of some right-wing thought. Interesting because US intellectual history is something more people should try charting. Also because US intellectual history draws on so many sources that would not be considered "intellectual" in other contexts.

    I think people use the words "individual" and "collective" to mean a wide variety of things. Sometimes they do this without realizing that they are referring to something very different than another writer is when he uses "individual" and "collective."

    Thiel runs a big data company, the entire purpose of which is to subsume information about solo people into blocks which can be monetized. So Doherty's bit about Thiel accepting the individual as subordinate to the collective due to inheriting from past generations is interesting but not the whole story.

    Things may "feel" very individual to each single person, but Facebook and big data have shown us how, with enough parameters and enough CPU, we can be inexorably grouped into sets not of our own choosing.

    I strongly doubt Thiel has a concept of a real individual, separate from wealth and the ability to dominate; he may feel himself to be an individual, but those he data-ifies are just that, ants in a hill.

    However, the concern of the left with the poor appears to not be compelling to Thiel. Also, having run out the possibilities of individual success as far as he has, it may be anathema to imagine himself subject to any group, after all, he wins on his own judgement. So absent some massive social conscience, if he's interested in tilting his financial and data power over into politics, he's going to wind up on the right. The right will let "him" feel individual, or rather the section of the right he has bobbled into will let him feel individual while railing against various groups.

    However I think Doherty wanted to get to this point but didn't make it there - this concept of the individual, as only achieving individuality after having vanquished whichever groups, is flawed. It appears they are fighting their own personal perspective on the world as made up of irritating groups and then a few people worth talking to. The recognition of the value of the individual as an individual *even without being distinguished very much* - a mediocre, boring individual - is the missing factor, sometimes chalked up to the arrogance of tech. But human rights are human rights, individual rights are individual rights, and they exist whether he imagines it or not.
    So yes, groups appearing in the ideological fog of the "new" right makes sense to me. Their concept that only certain people deserve to be individual has a curious counterpoint in the folks on the left who see the recognition of individual human dignity as requiring group rights.

    1. "This essay is an interesting if somewhat groggy detour into the sources of some right-wing thought. Interesting because US intellectual history is something more people should try charting."

      Brian Doherty, the author of this article, wrote a book about the history of libertarianism, specifically--especially in reference to the sources of its thought.

      That book is still the best book detailing the history of libertarianism, and it will probably remain so for a long time to come. Definitely recommended.

      1. Yes I will certainly take the historical perspective of a mindless cunt who says that Marxism is a right-wing conspiracy theory and 100% compatible with libertarianism. I'm sure it's absolutely fucking stellar and not at all completely fucking piss ignorant like every other thing this pathetic Marxist cum stain has ever written. You should go fuck him up his ass and then jump off a bridge.

    2. Thought-provoking. I hadn't thought before that there might be people out there that have an attitude of "individualism for me, but not for thee". Or that someone's individualism is too mild and boring to count.

      1. I hadn’t thought before that there might be people out there that have an attitude of “individualism for me, but not for thee”.

        That's because you're a totalitarian Marxist who doesn't believe in individual rights.

      2. I hadn’t thought before that there might be people out there that have an attitude of “individualism for me, but not for thee”.

        That's pretty much the essence of left of center ideologies, isn't it?

        Libertarianism, on the other hand, is concerned with liberty and voluntary interactions. Libertarianism is only tangentially related to individualism: you can be an individualist in a libertarian system, but most people choose not to be.

  41. Trump hitting liberal talking points:

    “ Too much income disparity. Changes must be made, and soon!”

    1. Trump hitting liberal talking points:

      Progressives ("liberals") and conservatives agree on problems; they disagree on solutions.

      Progressives believe the solution to income disparity is redistribution, a bigger welfare state, and more taxes.

      Conservatives and libertarians/classical liberals believe the solution to income disparity is deregulation, smaller government, and rapid economic growth.

      One of them has a proven track record, the other one doesn't.

  42. Your realize your own readership (or at least commentership) says the same thing about Reason magazine? Other than Stossel, it does not appear that you employ any actual libertarians.

  43. Wait, weren't libertarians supposed to be against Marxism, race based economics and threats against free speech? Because those things are out in force and libertarians say nothing.

    Reason had no issues taking the tea party to task for not being pure enough on immigration or spending, but they remain silent now on violent jacobins who stand for everything against libertarianism EXCEPT for "police reform". Amusing and revealing, to be sure.

    Thiel isn't the issue. Conservative nationalists aren't the issue, they don't run academia, tech and the economy. Even some BLMers are recognizing that as far as systemic racism is concerned, white liberals practically run all of the "system". The Antifa burning down cities are mostly white.

    No one's going to a stable society with a radical new experimentation where police is replaced by restorative justice and civilian force.

    1. Given the murder rate has increased in many cities, after the cops pulled back, I would say you're correct.

      Don't expect unReason to expound on that . It's all "fuck tha police" here for all time.

  44. The new conservatism sounds like the pre WW2/Cold War conservatives....sound money, free markets internally, and fair trade (gold standard worked pretty well to not push nations into massive debt and kept trade fair), and non -interventionism..along with a good dose of small town American values. Conservatism was hijacked to some degree by the cold war and the influx of troyskyites/neocons. As for cultural marxism..its been infecting America for decades since the practitioners migrated from central and eastern europe into our colleges and media..the "anti European christian" diatribes (anti Irish, anti Italian, anti Greek, anti middle eastern) was being pushed in the 60's and now is standard process...dividing Americans into "tribes" with victim and oppressors and demanding govt action to alter social outcomes. As for Libertarians...I thought we believe govt can't discriminate or pass laws forcing one to discriminate and that is about it..if you don't like certain social a free society do something about it but govt has no place picking winners and losers.. We are now at the point even if factual evidence doesn't support the leftists just by mentioning it will cause your life to be destroyed..and the chairman of the Libertarian party seems fine with that..he sees fascists under every bed and communists under none..

  45. Someone fill me in on why anyone would have "defend the legacy of Abraham Lincoln"?

  46. This was more than an extreme emergency reaction to an extreme emergency crisis. Yarvin was using COVID-19 as a news hook to push the long-term strategic goal, common among a curious new subset of conservatives, to "refute internationalism" and replace it with an "isolationist vision.

    Just like Block Yomomma and his lefty minions are using this manufactured "crisis" to try to push Agenda 21 and fundamentally transform America from a predominantly work-based society into a predominantly welfare-based society.

  47. You can't be a libertarian without being a nationalist. Otherwise, you will permit any and all demographic replacement that destroys your libertarian society. Same goes for open borders and left-libertarians. They're inherently contradictory.

    The challenge is how we define nationalism. Most people conflate all forms of nationalism with ethno-nationalism, but there are many other theories, the most prominent and palatable being civic nationalism. Civic nationalism is really just window dressing for the basic idea that all peoples in a nation should share certain common ideas. In a libertarian society, gatekeeping anti-libertarian values is a must, as the freedoms provided by libertarian society would permit popular takeover if the anti-libertarians ever became the majority.

    Civic nationalism doesn't mean fascism. It doesn't take the form of authoritarians expelling and purging dissidents. It's not that different from what we're supposed to have according to our Constitution. The difference is our government fights on the right side of the culture war, meaning that its policies protect our heritage and social structures. One of the largest ways the government can do this is by enforcing existing immigration law and charging municipal and state actors with sedition for importing and assisting tens of millions of illegal immigrants to pad their electoral votes and steal representation from law abiding states. This alone would radically transform the cultural landscape of the country and not for the reason typically ascribed to civnats. Most people think we just can't stand Hispanic Americans, but civnats are not anti immigration. I just can't stand such open treachery and deceit. Politicians use illegal immigration as a power play and illegal immigration is a modern form of slavery. We cannot allow literal slavers to steal power and influence from the rest of the country. It doesn't matter what their politics are; anyone who would use such a devious tactic to acquire power cannot be good for the health of this nation.

    1. More illegal immigrants have left the US than entered it since the 2007 Bush recession. The year 2007 was a peak. I don’t know what catastrophes you think border crossers and visa overstayers have caused, but it doesn’t appear to be a major problem right now. And let’s not neglect the fact that immigrants legal and otherwise don’t come here because politicians ask them to come destroy traditional values. They come when there are jobs for them. The best thing you could do to fix this alleged problem is to force businesses to hire citizens and pay them at least minimum wage. How does that sound?

      Since you’re worried about a problem that has caused no demonstrable harm to anyone, that is numerically less of a problem than during the Bush administration, and since you are the one who brought up Hispanics despite most illegals being visa overstayers who came by plane, you can understand why someone would mistakenly question your motives.

      1. Interesting how I identified the problem as politicians who take advantage of illegal immigrants to steal federal dollars, electoral votes and Congressional seats from the rest of us, but all you talked about is culture.

        The problem of illegal immigration has nothing to do with who is coming and everything to do with the politicians who benefit by importing a slave class that counts towards representation but has no representation of their own.

      2. Since you’re worried about a problem that has caused no demonstrable harm to anyone,

        Illegal migrants and their legal offspring are overwhelmingly in low income brackets and hence net-recipients of government transfers. By increasing the population of low income earners, US tax payers have been harmed by trillions of dollars.

        1. Just not true in the slightest. The opposite of fact. They pay more in taxes than they take out on social services because illegal immigrants tend not to be old people in need of all the social services. So if that is truly your concern (it’s not) you’d welcome more and more of them.

          1. Just not true in the slightest. The opposite of fact. They pay more in taxes than they take out on social services because illegal immigrants tend not to be old people in need of all the social services.

            The breakeven point where people pay at least as much in taxes than they take out occurs somewhere above median income. That's not just a fact you can look up, it should be obvious from the way taxes and social services work. Anybody who makes less than that is a net minus for American taxpayers.

            "Old people" don't need social services. What "old people" receive is social security, and there again, lower income workers are the ones who take out more in social security than they pay in. So those lower income groups you want to let into the country by the millions not only cost us short term, they continue to drain money from the system after retirement.

            And in addition to their fiscal impact, low income workers coming into the country lower the per-capita GDP, i.e., it makes America a less prosperous country.

            If you don't earn significantly above median income, you shouldn't be let into the country as an immigrant, period.

  48. This article is a pathetic and non-credible attempt by Reason to distance itself from Trump, after it had cynically whored out its own libertarianism in defense of Trump. Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch used "Trump Derangement Syndrome" in every other article a year ago. But now even the blind can see that the emperor wears no clothes, that the worst fears about Trump's authoritarianism and incompetence are realized. Sorry Reason, you are still Trumptards, and you can't just use Peter Thiel as a scapegoat.

  49. To answer the title question...

    You should have figured out the answer to that when he took the stage in 2016.

    And any lingering doubts should have been firmly erased when he accepted a position in Trump's Republican administration.

  50. Making­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Cash more than $15k to $18k consistently just by doing basic online work. I have gotten $18376 a month ago just by working on the web. Its a simple and basic occupation to do from home and its profit are greatly improved than customary office work. Each individual can join this activity now just by pursue this link……..go to this site home media tech tab for more detail support your hear Here══════❥❥❥❥ CLICK HERE

  51. "so fiercely critical of Google's collaboration with China can turn around and help U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) track and deport illegal immigrants"

    Your official position is that communist china's oppression of it's citizenry is equivalent to the U.S. enforcing it's immigration and border control laws? To expel those you admit in this very quotation are "illegal immigrants"? What happened to the primacy of the rule of law among the Libertarian intelligentsia? I tell you this attitude of refusing to stop the civilian invasion from the south has done more to undermine traditional Liberalism and fuel the current nationalist movement than anything else. And yet here is Reason again, saying that a LEGITIMATE (whether it's wise or not is irrelevant) Law should not be enforced.

  52. There are no libertarians

    Just selfish people who see the title as a way to get their way

    Rich libertarians, hmm, against taxation, regulation, ohh gee surprise, self interest at all cost

    what a surprise

  53. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h… someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i'm hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink... strive it, you HERE? learn More

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.