Why Are American Conservatives Pro-Freedom?

[@MonsieurDean]

ASK MONSIEUR Z ANYTHING PATREON: www.patreon.com/monsieurz/membership

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Would maximilian of México have done good For the country if he managed to stay in Power?

[@MonsieurDean]

@@danielsantiagourtado3430 Most likely. Mexico has shown that it needs strong, stable leadership, and as far as emperors went, Maximilian was very benevolent and even excited to do big things for the country.

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

@@MonsieurDean shame he didnt last

[@crusader2112]

What are your thoughts on a North American Union and could you do a what if video on it?

[@keatonkapus7061]

What if Austria Hungary was made of chocolate?

[@madisonhasson8981]

Yes, it was very frustrating to talk to Europeans about American politics, because they had European definitions for American terms.

[@crusader2112]

As an American, I honestly prefer European political definitions over American ones.

[@victorrosenheart8036]

"Your definition of socialism is not our definition of socialism"

[@proeramoka9168]

@@victorrosenheart8036 socialism is when gubnant

[@victorrosenheart8036]

@yujirohanmaisbestdad I would say it is but I am no expert. And I am merely quoting what a German shithead told me.

[@Abs0luteCha0s]

@@proeramoka9168 socialism is the government actively suppressing the free market. For example: free healthcare isnt socialist. Outlawing private care is.

[@mr.normalguy69]

Politics nowadays: "I would absolutely support an authoritarian government if it is aligned with my politics, I would absolutely despise an authoritarian government if it is not aligned with my politics"

[@Exodus26.13Pi]

Who can argue with me being in power. Not a question.

[@longtimelongtime44]

good

[@masonmorrow8521]

To the tory our founding fathers where authoritarian. It all comes down to who's in power and who isn't in power

[@bvzv]

“The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.”

[@danielbob2628]

Because it's good when the government does good things and it's bad when the government does bad things. We can talk all day about the institutional deficiencies of the public sector, and how they can turn a good deed from the government into a bad deed, but that doesn't give the government any intrinsic moral quality. Besides, the private sector is extremely political nowadays, and that means government is your only option to make change if you oppose the interests of rich social-leftists. Boycotts don't work anymore. Even the Bud Light thing is incredibly overblown.

[@trench_raider8247]

When wanting to restore the constitution to days of old is considered "anti government" then never have I in my life never been a prouder anarchist

[@MonsieurDean]

What if we repealed every amendment to the constitution to have pure constitutionalism? 🤔

[@FranklinThe1]

@@MonsieurDean🗿

[@trench_raider8247]

@@MonsieurDean then only strength and will is all that's left, and I shall own my own my 20 square mile micro nation along my river among my throne of ammunition and firearms

[@sychoboy12345]

​@@MonsieurDeanWhat if we didn't throw the baby out with the bath water?

[@Charles-pf7zy]

@@MonsieurDean you want slaves?

[@morsecode980]

As a Blue Dog Democrat, I like having government for welfare programs, roads, police/military, etc. But the last few decades have had WAY too much government overreach with the Patriot Act, controlling media, not letting states decide how to handle COVID, etc

[@jeremiahkivi4256]

Enjoy getting robbed.

[@thefrozongamer5071]

​@yujirohanmaisbestdad they don't help 9 out of 10 times now, tho. They just make it worse

[@Devieus]

Sounds to me the issue isn't the size of the government, but the quality.

[@holy3979]

​@@DevieusIssue is that big government and poor quality tend to go hand and hand due to all the bureaucracy that bigger governments have. The position a lot of American conservatives take is that a smaller government with naturally be of a high quality, and even if it isn't, having it be smaller lowers the amount of damage a poor quality government can achieve.

[@thefrozongamer5071]

@@Devieus the government means poor quality... meaning we should shrink the size of it

[@TnD_BigJax]

To Americans, freedom and individual liberty IS conservatism It is what the United States was founded upon hence the reason we consider it a conservative ideology, much similar to the monarchies and religious theocracies which led to the rise of Europe and the Middle East

[@Cyricist001]

Any American idolizing individual liberty must then accept abortion, trans, polygamy etc. I prefer my Euro conservativism which is whatever benefits the ethnic people in the region.

[@SeasideDetective2]

Social attitudes shift with time, however. According to the most recent World Values Survey (very similar to the Nolan libertarian/populist political chart), the USA on average is solidly libertarian but also slightly secularist. So, technically, American culture is now basically liberal rather than conservative.

[@lv67890]

Did you get that in a random word generator? What does any of that even mean?

[@ShadowSkryba]

It is that simple

[@ShadowSkryba]

​@@Cyricist001no, you just recognize some things are bad for the individual and that's all you need

[@sesshomaru11]

I’m a leftist through and through, but I adore this channel. I want to hear the political views of conservatives, this platform would be so much worse off with out strong, articulate viewpoints from all political perspectives. Keep it up man

[@HaiRune]

Idk I came here for the same reason but i started with vids like justifying war with Mexico. I need some vids from this guy that arent as extreme

[@ImperialSenpai]

I mean check out Hamilton and Burke for an understanding of conservative ideology that’s the origin of Anglo-American conservative ideology along with Mises. I’d say those are the big three people who made Anglo-American conservatism.

[@ImperialSenpai]

@@HaiRune I mean taking out the cartels wouldn’t be extreme.

[@HaiRune]

@@ImperialSenpai In theory sure but Mexico actively doesn’t want help so it just becomes war with Mexico and they’re one of our biggest allies. Plus cartels have a lot of channels they go through that involve legal US citizens and law enforcement corruption. The way cartels take advantage of corruption in the US won’t be mitigated by US bombing them. I doubt it’d be quick either. I can see how people would think it makes sense but it just opens up a lot of problems

[@ImperialSenpai]

@@HaiRune Well when one country’s problem cause problems for a another they can’t just say no to them doing something about it when they themselves have barely done anything effective to deal with it. Mexico has become a failed state at this point and needs some serious fixing or to not exist. All corruption needs to routed out both in America and Mexico. If you have a better alternative I’m all ears.

[@MonsieurDean]

Should the government take away freedom of smoke?

[@keatonkapus7061]

What if Austria Hungary was made of chocolate?

[@tirididjdjwieidiw1138]

@@keatonkapus7061what if chocolate was made of Austria Hungary?

[@ohnion2815]

​@@tirididjdjwieidiw1138what if made was of chocolate Austria Hungary

[@pyriticbatman88]

Certainly not the federal government. Also something, something, Austria Hungary made of chocolate.

[@ddesmarais7251]

​@@keatonkapus7061it would melt all the same, the breakup would still leave a bitter taste in Austria, and it would finally stop Hungary being hungry

[@michaelcameron2166]

It's not oxymoronic to think police should avoid things like raw milk sellers and moonshiners, small government, but want law and order like going after killers.

[@mcarrowtime7095]

I can agree with moonshine, alcohol is readily available anyway so letting people drink a different kind of alcohol isn't going to do much, but anyone selling raw milk is either a scammer who doesn't care about people's health or an idiot whose stupidity is harming others.

[@bunglebutts3163]

@@jaredrl06yet at the local level there’s even more corruption.

[@NexusGaming857]

Not a conservative, but I believe the government has become too centralized and needs to relinquish a portion of its power back to the state governments. There needs to be an equal balance between centralization and decentralization.

[@MaitreKorda]

In Europe, you would be a dirty liberal communist. In America, you are an evil fascist.

[@ImperialSenpai]

Neo-feudalism? That’s not going to happen unless there’s a revolution or all the socialists get pushed out of power and replaced with conservatives, classical liberals, and libertarians.

[@rainsong1803]

Well when it comes to things like civil rights and worker protections then we need federal government

[@ImperialSenpai]

@@rainsong1803 No we don’t, guilds were a thing and that’s the point of why government exists. It’s in the Declaration of Independence, which it also states that when it becomes destructive towards those ends that the people have the right to alter or abolish said government through revolution for infringing on the people’s God given rights. That’s why America has the Second Amendment and why Jefferson called for the citizen soldier. Because the government can infringe on the people’s rights more than anything else.

[@rainsong1803]

@@ImperialSenpai destructive to those who feel like victims because people want more rights Religion isn’t important and 32% of the population is evangelical and their political ideals aren’t popular with the nation, yet they want to input national religious rules and not give a damn

[@McLovinTRoyce]

Every power you give the government will eventually but inevitably be used against you.

[@weirdlanguageguy]

⁠@@chrisbeer5685yes, but I wouldn’t limit marriage to only 2 consenting adults

[@johnnyjohn-johnson7738]

@@chrisbeer5685 Women killing their own children isn't the answer, if they want control over their body they need to control their sex addiction that gets them constantly pregnant. I'm a "male pig" and I haven't jerked off in a very long time (and I haven't "consumed" pornography in many years), if I can do it then imagine how easy it would be for women who supposedly have less of a sex drive than us disgusting males?

[@1ard103]

yeah that is correct. the government should have no say over that. how ever i sense your alluding to the abortion issue. which hinges on whether or not you consider the body inside your body to be its own body. just like with any other right, it starts and ends where another persons rights begin. you have a right to point yer gun where ever ya like, until its point at another person. then it because assault. likewise yer allowed to Drink as much as ya like, unless your pregnant. then that becomes a crime in most states. because it can harm the baby. which under your logic shouldn't matter because it is infact her body. and has no rights. as such its on you to convince people that a baby inside the womb is not a person. when ever other facet of our legal and social system disagrees with that notion. your going to find it hard to convince anyone of that fact. the issue isn't as black and white as ya make it out to be.

[@seancooper5140]

​@@chrisbeer5685As someone who's always tended conservative... yes. You should be free to live your own life in a way totally independent of my preferences (as long as you're not hurting anyone else, fulfilling your citizenship duties, and not stopping anyone else from having the same freedom)

[@mcarrowtime7095]

@@chrisbeer5685 lots of conservatives do. some liberals are also anti-gay marriage. its not a political thing, its religious. lots of democrats pretend to be Christian (politicians) or just want to fit into the group, but some actually do follow Christian doctrines

[@autotechxbox163]

To answer your question, a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.

[@seanmccurdy80]

...and will only do the latter.

[@yee2631]

I mean, a small government can't give you everything to begin with, so I don't really see your point. They can, however, still take from you; as long as the US military is a powerful as it is, it doesn't really make a difference whether the government controlling it is "big" or "small".

[@crimsoncreamer2390]

But some people, don't DESERVE what they have

[@willmiller9981]

The bill of rights is the main reason dissident voices (like many in this sector of the internet) are even able to express themselves without being dragged in front of an “equity and inclusion” tribunal. Scoff at the idea of American freedom all you want but until you’ve lived under a totalitarian government you’ll never truly understand how valuable that freedom is. You would think people would have learned their lessons after watching the COVID situation and learned to appreciate the freedoms that we do have, the ones that allowed this country to buck the trend more so than the Europeans, rather than spit on it while fellating turn of the century despots.

[@zekeiyf2003]

Not anti-government, more anti-government infringement.

[@DLR1997]

That's more like it. Or more State's power

[@FranklinThe1]

Same thing 🗿

[@tequalssquareplushell5358]

​@@FranklinThe1 Not really like the guy above you. Except anti-government is like anarchy period. While the other is against the government having a big say in law and judgement.

[@Mire-Drive]

@@tequalssquareplushell5358isn’t having a say in law the point of government?

[@connor1734]

Personal Autonomy

[@KageKatze]

Honestly the modern right has changed quite a bit... I used to call myself conservative just because I was a center right libertarian and now I just feel politically homeless

[@JediHobbit89]

Same for me. I'm appalled at how much authoritarians have taken things over since 2016 and are now in an arms race with the authoritarian leftists to see who can be the most totalitarian. I don't want to be ruled by right wing theocrats any more than I want to be ruled by leftist Bolsheviks. In my personal life, I'm very socially conservative and religious, but I don't want to use state power to force these beliefs on others. If anything, I self Identity as a Jeffersonian.

[@lightyagami3492]

Im in the same boat. The Republican party under the Trump era has actually moved slightly away from me politically with some of the more authoritarian stances they have taken.

[@Kaiserboo1871]

@@lightyagami3492 They didn’t become more authoritarian until the Deep State used illegal bureaucratic bullshit to undermine Trump's reforms at every turn. Now the right has responded by basically declaring war on the executive bureaucracy. All we wanted was a strong border and fairer trade deals. The deep state said no, you can’t have that.

[@diggernash1]

The Senate was intended to dilute the power of cities...but we boogered that up.

[@deutschesvaterlandfankanal]

Boogered is a fucking understatement

[@HypnoticChronic1]

Yea we sure as hell did, I do have to wonder if doing something similar to what Nebraska and Maine do would help balance that out a bit, I can't imagine it would be any worse than what we already got. For example if cities/metro areas reach a certain threshold in population say as a placeholder 1mil, then it gets broken off electorally from the rest of the state, I think we would see quite the shift in places like California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Minnesota, Georgia etc. Personally I find it a bit absurd that a single city (such as in the case of Illinois or Georgia) can dictate the will of the whole state, its almost voter disenfranchisement in a way given that the whole of a state can vote one way, but a single city can vote the other way and overturn the rest of the state. Plus gerrymandering itself is a big problem to especially given the people don't get a say in the matter either, likewise I think alternative voting (instant-runoff voting) or single transferable vote systems would be highly appreciated among voters as well, given that in both cases it would effectively do away with the primary season, not forcing parties to pick a singular candidate to solely run and allow the voter to not have that dread of "picking the lesser of two evils" when voting or not even voting at all because they fundamentally despise both candidates and likewise allow them to vote for 3rd parties and not feel like their vote is a throwaway. Suffice to say our whole system is screwed up from top to bottom and needs to be fixed or else our elections are gonna mean less and less than they already do.

[@Alfonzridesagain]

The very phrase 'big government' feels very last century. What we need is the right type of government, willing to stand up for our people and their interests

[@vaderbuckeye36]

Agreed, there are so many times when the government sides with the wealthy upper class that it should be protecting and promoting the interests of those people who dpnt make 1 million + dollars a year. We need a government of some size amd strength to serve us but that same government has often used that power to smother us.

[@jaredwilliams2357]

Who are “our people”?

[@funveeable]

How about the government says they will do as you want and that the other guy won't do what you want so you should vote for them. Then when you do, they don't keep their promise and tell you the other guy that you didn't vote for is somehow stopping you from getting your rewards. So you vote for the same guy again hoping it will get better but they use the same excuse again and you fall for it again.

[@TheKeksadler]

@@jaredwilliams2357 Americans?

[@whodarboilebamnames3990]

​@@jaredwilliams2357"our democracy" They mean themselves, not you or me, we can go rot.

[@DissidentClipper]

For better or worse liberalism will always be in the blood of Americans. It is our founding principle

[@Mikalent]

I do not have an issue with Liberalism, it's when liberals, or the insane, start mandating things that can not work, will not work, but they try to force to work anyway. You can have a robust social net, but then you can not have mass unfettered migration. You can have mass unfettered migration, but then you can not have a social safety net, they are mutually exclusive. You can not support mass electric vehicles, but only support wind and solar as a means of harvesting energy. You can not support interventionist policy, but demand we cut 50% of our military spending. You can not have a safe neighborhood and place to live if you demand criminals be released and charges dropped while destroying community values. It does not work, and modern liberal positions are often contradictory.

[@Mikalent]

I do not have an issue with Liberalism, it's when liberals, or the insane, start mandating things that can not work, will not work, but they try to force to work anyway. You can have a robust social net, but then you can not have mass unfettered migration. You can have mass unfettered migration, but then you can not have a social safety net, they are mutually exclusive. You can not support mass electric vehicles, but only support wind and solar as a means of harvesting energy. You can not support interventionist policy, but demand we cut 50% of our military spending. You can not have a safe neighborhood and place to live if you demand criminals be released and charges dropped while destroying community values. It does not work, and modern liberal positions are often contradictory.

[@proeramoka9168]

Unfortunately

[@constantinethecataphract5949]

That's just means that Americans and the American political experiment are inherently cringe.

[@DissidentClipper]

@@constantinethecataphract5949 lol pretty much. Some good came out of liberalism tho.

[@diggernash1]

There are very, very few fiscal conservatives in our central government. The Constitution is designed to limit the power of the ce tral government. Until the necessary amendments are ratified, the popular majority should be irrelevant, but starting with Lincoln the Constitution has been neutered.

[@bunglebutts3163]

wrong

[@diggernash1]

@@bunglebutts3163 Explain.

[@cjvoerman5591]

“Snek” and “Birb.” More of that two-party system that George Washington warned us about.

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Love your content Z! Never miss an upload!😊😊😊❤❤❤

[@MonsieurDean]

Always a pleasure to see you here!

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

@@MonsieurDean same!

[@keatonkapus7061]

​@@MonsieurDeanWhat if Austria Hungary was made of chocolate?

[@levijackson767]

I don't believe a call for law and order contradictory to small goverment, most of the issues we see are born from too much of a focus from everyday people on the federal when the local is what matters. Southern small goverment conservitism is all about the states doing as they like and the feds focusing on foreign affairs, trade and war and immigration. The issue is the tools of the opposition not being destroyed, for the supremcourt for instance they aren't ment to legislate from the bench, but to rule the constitutionality of issues. Population density is another issue the electoral collage was made so states of differing populations had a more level playing field, within the states we need this so a handful of cities don't decide a state. The whole reason we have states is so we can move to where we feel best represented, but "BIG GOV" won't allow that every state has to be California. The tools of big gov need to be destroyed.

[@Gamemaster0225]

Birb and Snek made me laugh

[@Antonio18677]

Well because we are Americans patriots who fought against the British during the war notable figures like Nathan hale etc All fought and died for this way of life. ❤️ “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country” Nathan hale 💪

[@Byzantium.]

Europe: the last batte is a very interesting documantary.

[@DanielMorales-my4ez]

A certain group of people control everything(for legal reasons I have to say this is a joke👀🤥)

[@teddyroosevelt9542]

Based 👍

[@Rocka7038]

Cringe

[@NordicHyperborean]

Great video describing topics public schools are unwilling and seem incapable of teaching 👍🏼

[@keatonkapus7061]

Better question: what if Austria Hungary was made of chocolate?

[@DameOfDiamonds]

Then i would eat it

[@keatonkapus7061]

​@@DameOfDiamondsGerman mustache man already did

[@TheGunNerd]

Because genuinely believe that dangerous freedom is superior to peaceful slavery

[@zaktan7197]

This a good series helping to disambiguate some related but still distinguishable ideas. For example, some confuse conservatism with mere establishmentarianism (supporting the current system and opposing change). I prefer Sowell’s constrained vs unconstrained visions for the conservative vs progressive dimension. When it comes to government power one should consider both the scope (what it should do) and the scale (how much should it do it). In terms of scope, in general, conservatives believe in mitigating evil while progressives believe in pushing good. Of course this depends on their views on what is good and evil. When it comes to democracy vs republicanism, there is also monarchy vs republicanism and monarchy vs democracy. This is because monarchy vs democracy is a spectrum of how many men should govern, while republicanism refers to how much the government should be constrained by the law (both constitutional and natural law). Public discourse gets confusing when political parties use these terms in their names and parties like people don’t always align with the ideals they publicly identify with. Just some thoughts. God bless.

[@HistoryfortheAges]

Everyone should be considered with big government. Any sort of authoritarian government from any political position harms liberty

[@Charles-pf7zy]

there are few principled libertarians nowadays. Broadly speaking, both sides want big government in places they want to control, and small government in places they dont

[@HistoryfortheAges]

Generally, I would agree with you, but I can find more places those of the left want to control than the right. And they both are responsible for an ever-expansive debt in the U.S. @@Charles-pf7zy

[@clericaltotalitarian]

And that is why authoritarian governments are good, if all Americans weren't such bots infected with the disease of liberalism, they would understand this.

[@zIkA835]

Collective freedom for the nation against new forms of colonialism>"freedom" for individuals to do whatever they want even at the expense of the collective (recent trends include lgbt)

[@Argonhubert]

⁠@@Charles-pf7zy It’s a shame, it’s like everyone is aware that the government will eventually be full fledged authoritarian so they end up jumping on the bandwagon because they want their type of authoritarianism. They just created a self fulfilling prophecy. Unfortunately whether it is right wing or left wing authoritarianism a lot of people will be hurt by said outcome. There isn’t enough people out there to embrace a government that rejects authoritarianism in all its forms. Authoritarianism is the most natural form of government, people have to actively oppose authoritarianism to make sure it doesn’t come to the US. People have just become lazy and don’t realize the other side does not have greener pastures.

[@Eringobragh1861]

Me Iam for state's Rights anti communist and anti socialist

[@notthefbi8707]

Can you do a what if Germany bought königsberg back in the 1990?

[@darthobsidian]

It often depends how you define Freedom. Democrats and Republicans have different perspectives on what Freedom means.

[@fighterofthenightman1057]

The biggest sign that Americans are ideologically confused? That ANYONE would say Jefferson is to the right of Hamilton just because of muh small government…

[@johnweber4577]

That’s one of my biggest pet peeves as well. Taken in their historical context, with some exceptions in each of course, the first two party systems saw the Federalists and Whigs on the Right while the Jeffersonian Republicans and Jacksonian Democrats were on the Left. The massive upheaval of the Civil War period in which the Republican Party wasn’t fully formed yet and the Democratic Party was a shadow of its former self is what really confuses the issue. Not helped by the fact that that seems to be the place where almost everyone wants to start their analysis and extrapolate everything before and after from there.

[@pikachuthegayatheist6215]

Yeah, but here’s the thing less government does not always equal freedom, all it means is that corporations to the wealthy can create their own form of government.

[@FrangkyMind]

Socialism is also a centralized goverment but the thing is is not always work

[@crusader2112]

The Uber-Wealthy and government are already colluding. It doesn't matter the size of the government. Many large corporations actually push for regulations because while they can tank through them, their smaller competition can't. It's a way for them to be free of competition.

[@brothers_of_nod]

I do appreciate your videos and analysis.

[@monsieurcharcutier4490]

Why does Thomas Jefferson look like Robb Stark in a wig?

[@TheStickCollector]

Why should they? They can have completely control over the economy if big enough

[@nosotrosloslobosestamosreg4115]

Corpos are left-leaning dictatorships, and conservatives do not want a pencil neck suit telling us how to live and think and handing over our kids to big rainbow govt.

[@lautystrike1]

They don't want big government to control because there's will be no more liberals to help with the cultural wheel

[@manuelgarcia-ve5vm]

it's called libertarian conservatism

[@Dingusdongus257]

I hold many "conservative" ideals like honoring the constitution primarily the 1st and 2nd amendment. But i also believe in the legalization of cannabis and less rules on what me an adult can put in my body including the failed war on drugs. I mean George Washington was a hemp farmer!! Hemp = Cannabis = Weed = Marijuana.

[@crusader2112]

I'm fine with weed, psychedelics, and lesser drugs being decriminalized but as a counter there should be anti-drug campaigns discouraging drug use.

[@helvis7336]

freedom is a relative term.....

[@elijahrittenhouse3943]

I don't want small government. I want freedom.

[@WestlehSeyweld]

hard to have the later with out the former

[@Yabadooo12973]

It’s crazy to see how RFK is now seen as a republican even tho by definition and family history he’s a true Democrat.

[@LiamSGue]

While me and the bois hate totalitarian government, we don’t hate authoritarian government.

[@Conservatismfailedus]

You guys seem to be ok with locking up people for smoking a plant. So yea whatever

[@jthemagicrobot3960]

All government is authoritarian and totalitarian

[@27sports90]

Valid homie.

[@syedabishosainrizvi7817]

You and the boys are fools

[@Charles-pf7zy]

who's "the bois"? bunch of incels?

[@RandomOrthodoxMan]

The snek on the KZbin video profile caught me off guard.

[@zephodb]

That's the thing... after American Freedom from England... it became Liberal, which is NOT Leftist nor Conservative. Liberalism is about freedom, and it has spread all over the world... Far people on the Left tend to be Authoritarians and people far on the Right tend to be Authoritarians. Basically, Authoritarians can go 'Hop it, Squire'. True Liberalism is about individual freedom, individual property, and the marketplace of ideas... Those who want to control tend to toss out multiple of those, including during a certain 'medical emergency period' where someone was shouting 'they are the science' >.< No, that's not how that works.

[@logannichols5848]

So I think that one of the most useful tools of the 21st century is the political compass, which there are 4 sides an up and and a left and right. Right is conservative, left is progressive. Up is authoritarian down is libertarian. You can be libertarian and conservative.

[@resvero8342]

No you can't

[@Cool-123]

I just like the little birb and snek ._. Also good vid

[@Archdornan9001]

Give it time, we'll get our own version of Sheev Palpatine in office (and the uniparty puppets in congress and senate will give him or her emergency powers).

[@fettbub92]

Americans are all mostly liberal, with traditionalists, libertarians, progressives and moderates. Traditionalists are the "conservatives," progressives are the "liberals," libertarians and moderates are called "centrists."

[@jeremyf6821]

To be fair, American Liberals hate the government as well. It’s one of those things every American can generally agree with, we hate our government, no matter whose in charge.

[@CC--jk6cr]

Pretty much, but neither side hates the same things, so the issues never get resolved.

[@maxwellli7057]

American liberals love the government when its on their side, its the leftists that hate it.

[@rt_huxley9205]

American Liberals have been boot lickers for over 60 years.

[@ImTitan16]

The difference between them is that libreals want to refrom the goverment but consertives want to limit it

[@kingmortales8257]

What blows my mind is we all agree on that, and yet while most people abstractly believe the government lies about everything and has your worst interests at heart, they still blindly obey it and believe everything it says.

[@caseclosed9342]

Doesn’t surprise me rural people would like an authoritarian government, in China the communist party came to power largely with the help of rural residents.

[@roach590]

I don't think this is necessarily the case tbh, many conservatives can be against freedom when it is about things they don't like

[@Polska08]

In the United States, we distinguish ourselves as conservatives, liberals and centrists, but in reality, the majority of self-proclaimed liberals aren’t actually liberal. Since the foundation of liberal thought in the enlightenment era, liberals advocated for liberty, individual rights, personal freedoms, natural rights and limited government intervention in people's lives and the economy. By the early 20th century, the ideology itself evolved, and some began advocating for a welfare state, but they still retained their passion and support for individual liberties, personal freedoms and capitalism; we call this sub-ideology, social liberalism. On Wikipedia and various websites, the official ideology of the contemporary Democratic Party is social liberalism, but are they really?! Democrats have recently softened their support for individual liberties. A significant proportion of them don’t perceive the first amendment nor the constitution as obsolete, advocate for vaccine mandates, support cancel culture and seek to eliminate perceived-hate speech, etc. Additionally, a substantial number of Democrats advocate for socialism and possess a disdain for capitalism. In fact, according to a Pew Research Study, 57% of Democrats hold a positive view towards socialism and only 46% share the same feelings towards capitalism! Personally I would like to hear these respondents define socialism, because I don’t think the majority are advocating for a society in which the means of production are owned by the community. They’re probably referring to social democracy but misunderstand socialism since it is commonly thrown around like “liberal”, “fascist” and “communist”. Personally, I am a social liberal but I distance myself from modern social liberals (particularly American social liberals) because they’re not actually liberal. They’re just authoritarian progressives.

[@RealHufflepuff]

Pretty sure that's a picture of Hamilton, not Jefferson

[@noclipperalta5722]

A South american here, and yes, some factions of the republican party are liberals (in the correct sense of the word). While the democrat Party had a liberal factions, which popularized the term in the 1890's but since that time the democrats become progressive, interventionist and even social democrat using the term wothout the true definition, in europe and some america still use the term liberal properly. (Some countries such as mexico or colombia had liberal parties, which become anti-liberal or died.)

[@Choicexband]

"but what if the roles were reversed"

[@MonsieurDean]

"Imagine the outrage if the roles were reversed".

[@jmtz3149]

Unfortunately (imo) yes American conservatives are liberal. They are close to classical liberals and take it to its extreme by being very libertarian. Although young populist conservatives are shifting more authoritarian. Paleoconservatism is growing.

[@michaelwolf8690]

While Conservatives in the past have had attitudes that were pro-freedom from regulation or restrictive, we have not lived in an era where any Conservative Party in America has pursued legislation that provides freedom to citizens of the United States. They have persistently been a force for the retraction or stagnation of your rights and freedoms.

[@dustincarner7427]

Kentucky shouldn't be grouped in with the Union completely during the Civil War era as it was a Southern state that had both a Unionist and Confederate Government, and was considered the 13th member of the CSA by the Confederacy. It at the very least should be striped both blue and gray as control of the state shifted back and forth through out the war.

[@communistduck1988]

Big government stinky

[@fuge74]

I think you misunderstand one thing about the "new"-republican party. it suggest a decentralized but not un-centralized government policy on divisive issues so that individuals can experiment and test ideas on whether they work or not. it is essentially a rebirth of progressive-ism.

[@NuclearFalcon146]

The underlying cultural conflict of the first civil war is yet unresolved and if mismanaged can easily lead to the second. The way Reconstruction was handled it was more like the South was conquered and occupied than reintegrated. Now with immigration and other issues as well as the types of propaganda and information warfare from the establishment the feeling of "invasion and occupation" intensifies.

[@kingorange7739]

I think the issue of states rights hasn't been resolved either. Fact of the matter is I question if the President and Congress even has any respect for things like the 10th amendment anymore.

[@peterb8904]

​@kingorange7739 they don't

[@NuclearFalcon146]

@@kingorange7739 They have not ever since the United States became the front for the American Empire.

[@kingorange7739]

@@NuclearFalcon146 And that needs to change one day my friends.

[@dakotalange2858]

What if USA, Canada & Mexico combined to form the first Hyper Nation

[@mickeytwister4721]

It would be an abomination that would destroy the lives of other peoples as well as it’s own people.

[@someguy9293]

Why are Conservatives pro-freedom? The real question should be 'Why are Liberals anit-freedom?'

[@chiangkaishrek5123]

They’re not?

[@whodarboilebamnames3990]

Progressives want equality in outcome. The ideologies differ quite a bit on how close that equality should be, some are ok with a expansive welfare state with stronger government involvement in the economy. Some want complete forced equality in outcome. However the basis is the same, differing in how extreme the equality should be. Freedom inherently results in unequal outcomes. As the variables of the person, their environment, the opportunities they get, the decisions they make are all going to be unique. As the variables are unique, so is the outcome. That is why progressives hate freedom, wish to restrict actual rights (natural, god given, negative or whatever else you want to call em) while pushing for things which aren't rights to be treated as such. Respect of rights = freedom = vastly different outcomes in life Hate of rights = tyranny = forced equality of outcome irrespective of different variables

[@hopeintruth5119]

​@@whodarboilebamnames3990progressive are literally way more for the freedom of minorities than conservatives are or should I just say liberals. Progressive socially have way more freedom gay marriage, women rights to her body, protecting religious minorities etc. Something conservative have been oppose too. Progressive are pro union so the union can have bargaining power. Which gave us the minimum wage, workers protection, etc. Supporting poor communities and giving them resources allowing them to keep up with children of more upper class communities and having the same chances in getting into a well off school. I can go on. Also progressive talk way more about reforming the prison system. Which steal a lot of Innocents people freedom and have been extremely bias towards certain grouos

[@whodarboilebamnames3990]

@@hopeintruth5119 You just proved my point, you just stated you support the welfare state, you just stated you're looking for more equality of outcome. No matter how much window dressing you put on it, you proved exactly what I just said. Being pro union means nothing, plus it's extremely problematic that many progressive states force workers to join unions, instead of leaving it as a choice for the employee. This goes into the same for worker protection. It's not a choice if an employee wants to chip into social security, nope, it's forced. Minimum wages are one of the most stupidest things in existence, a basic understanding of economics instantly dispels minimum wages as a blight. Minimum wages do not increase buying power, as everything inflates to match up to the new minimum wage. It makes small businesses not be able to compete against massive corporations because during a minimum wage raise, they can't take those hits like massive companies can, so many don't survive till inflation catches up. Due to both that, and the fact people cannot hire for less then the minimum wage, meaning that every employee has to handle extra workload, meaning more hours. They're stuck doing tasks which produce less value with tasks that produce higher value, basically they could be making more money if they weren't stuck also doing tasks which are suited for a lower wage. Basically a minimum wage makes everyone poorer, kills small businesses and local businesses, and forces people to work more hours for less average pay. Also no, progressives were historically against religious freedom for minorities as it was viewed as something that threatens the progressive ideal, same with every other group you've mentioned. The pro minority, pro lgbtq+ mainstream progressives have only really become a thing in the last 20 years. Also, it was the supreme court that codified gay marriage has legal, you know, while Obama was on sixth year in office. Who had a democrat majority in both the senate and Congress for the first two years, and a senate majority for most of his time in office. Where was the bill? Also, welfare states is just, there's just way too much wrong with welfare states. They're incredibly bad at actually being efficiently using funds, the average for state run welfare was a 70/30 split between paying for beurcracy and actual welfare. "The Costs of Public Income Redistribution and Private Charity" for further reading. Also by women's bodily autonomy I'm assuming you mean abortions. Abortion is not a right, so yeah, moving on. When it comes to minorities, the Republican party were staunchly against slavery, Lincoln was a Republican. Eisenhower was also republican, being the first president to pass a civil rights bill. Progressives in that era were anti immigrant, and saw immigrants, especially those who held onto some of their culture as threats to american progressiveness. Also, residential schools were a progressive institution. The reason behind all of this is American Republicans, have traditionally been constitutionalists and classic liberals. So, they put the most emphasis on the constitution, and put the respect and protection granted in the bill of rights paramount. They also preferred having a smaller federal government and allow for more self governance by the states. There is a reason the original Confederate states didn't flip to Republican fully till 1996. Plus by now you should know that American conservative does not inherently mean socially conservative, you know, instead of straw manning an entire cluster of very different ideologies (fun fact, conservative can also be used to refer to fiscal conservatives). Progressives always were, and always will be against freedom.

[@hopeintruth5119]

@@whodarboilebamnames3990 my comment is being deleted for some reasons. 1. Progressive want everyone with the same same bad line not same outcome. Stop trying to twist things, abortion is a right because you literally can't get mad at someone telling you this will not happen to their body no matter how you feel. Republicans who staunchly against slavery were the liberals and the Dixie crates were the conservatives so sure. Umm no modern conservatives are still more socially conservative and has been proven constantly this isn't a strawman like pulling out of thin freaking air. Also everything you just said about progressives were heavily pushed also by the conservative wing. Which isn't a suprise because the country and politicians weren't as divided as they were now. They minimum wage should kill small businesses that can't afford too. Like why tf are you opening a business that clearly isn't successful enough to give a living wage to the people. Minimum wage was literally suppose to be changing throughout the years to fit the living standards of the time. But it was stagnant and remain low so they can get more out of workers and force them to work more hours to make a living. What corporate goon propaganda and you sucking on.

[@FollowerofWotan999]

why is new england birb

[@Antonio-ej8wp]

2:18-2:19 He was a classical liberal

[@alexanderthegreat2678]

Another great series to watch in conjunction with this is: Lincoln The Shattering of an Icon. It was made by a sedevacantist “Catholic” so be warned but it’s a good series that brushes up on a lot of what’s in the beginning of this video

[@alexanderthegreat2678]

@croatiangambler8059 He's a very socially conservative youtuber that talks about the root of the civil war in a very politically incorrect manner as well as what was actually being fought over. In the video he's also critical of the mythos republicans have built around Lincoln since he's very traitorous to the interests of conservatism and Christianity in a variety of different ways. One of these ways that are covered in the video is how Lincoln was friends and personal pen-pals with Karl Marx, stated in letters that he was very open to marxism and evidence that Marx's views greatly influenced the sitting president.

[@bigchungus1920]

@croatiangambler8059thank you I didn’t know this

[@johnweber4577]

@@alexanderthegreat2678 The idea of Lincoln and Marx being closely linked is a pervasive myth that simply isn’t true when you actually look into it. It’s often asserted that the two were pen pals but the extent of the interaction, if you can even call it that, between them is as follows: -A collection of social activists in Europe that included Marx sent Lincoln a letter to congratulate him on his re-election and show their support for him in the war. Marx drafted it under a different name and his own is lower on the list of signers. -A response was sent back written not by Lincoln but by a member of his administration Charles Adams, thanking them for their show of support and that the president hoped he would prove himself worthy of their confidence. It wasn’t even sent to Marx himself. That's literally it. It can’t even be proven that Lincoln read that particular letter anymore than he did the other thousands of then he was at the time. Not to mention how despite attempts to attach themselves to Lincoln publicly in their private correspondences Marx and Friedrich Engels were actually quite critical of him and hardly considered him a fellow traveler ideologically. Here’s an example from a letter Marx sent to Engels dated September 10, 1862: “The way in which the North is waging the war is none other than might be expected of a bourgeois republic, where humbug has reigned supreme for so long. The South, an oligarchy, is better suited to the purpose, especially an oligarchy where all productive labour devolves on the n-s and where the 4 million ‘white trash’ are flibustiers by calling. For all that, I’m prepared to bet my life on it that these fellows will come off worst, ‘Stonewall Jackson’ notwithstanding. It is, of course, possible that some sort of revolution will occur beforehand in the North itself.“ Later in another letter dated September 7, 1864 Marx would write: “Lincoln has at his disposal considerable means for achieving election. (Needless to say, the peace proposals made by him are mere humbug.) The election of an opposition candidate would probably lead to a genuine revolution. Nevertheless, there is no mistaking the fact that during the next 8 weeks, in the course of which the matter will be decided pro tem, much will depend on military eventualities. This is undoubtedly the most critical moment since the beginning of the war. Once this has been shifted, Old Lincoln can blunder on to his heart’s content.” Ironically, Marx and Engels were both excited by the ascent of Andrew Johnson to the presidency after Lincoln’s assassination. Marx would say in a letter dated May 1, 1865: “Johnson is stern, inflexible, revengeful and as a former poor White has a deadly hatred of the oligarchy.” Later in the same letter he’d say: “He will make less fuss about these fellows, and, because of the treachery, he will find the temper of the North commensurate with his intentions.” For his part, Engels would write in a response dated May 3, 1865: “Johnson will insist on confiscation of the great estates, which will make the pacification and reorganisation of the South rather more acute. Lincoln would scarcely have insisted on it.” As you can see, neither Marx nor Engels really saw Lincoln as a fellow traveler. At least not in the long run. At the end of the day both saw him as ultimately being a standard bourgeois politician at best. The idea that Lincoln was some kind of nascent crypto-socialist is tenuous and an example of historical revisionism. All of what Lincoln actually said about economic policy and class warfare is incompatible with socialism. Including these gems: “The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This, say its advocates, is free labor-the just, and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way for all, gives hope to all, and energy, progress, and improvement of condition to all.” -From Lincoln’s address to the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society delivered September 30, 1859 “It is best for all to leave each man to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war on capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.” -From Lincoln’s speech in New Haven, Connecticut delivered March 6, 1860 “Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." -From Lincoln’s response to the New York Democratic Republican Workingman’s Association dated March 21, 1864 That’s not just him extolling individual striving and private property but supporting the profit motive and wealth creation. All while decrying the idea of class conflict. Something that’s completely antithetical to Marx’s view of the world. Seriously, that KZbinr’s case isn’t off to a great start to my mind.

[@merlinshorb4324]

No left, no right, only birb 🐦

[@masonmorrow8521]

As long as the union was faithful to her trust or something like that

[@LanternOfLiberty]

You say that it's paradoxical that the Republicans want law and order and small government. Maybe take political science 101 and learn about the "Night Watchman State" concept ("minarchy")?

[@Meyer-gp7nq]

As a conservative myself I can confirm that I would like to return to the feudal system.

[@Ramcharger85]

We need to scale back big government. Restore power back to the people. Respect our constitution and bring home our troops.

[@SergioPop-po7ni]

That thumbnail is like *Birb* vs _snek_

[@Critguards]

The answer is: no.

[@kaydenchan7093]

Great video, but I think it would better if you gave an example or definition of Conservatism abroad and and the US and tell us the differences between the two.

[@TheRockinAwesomeOne]

I desperately want the federal bureaucracy to be shrunk immensely, want the executive branch to cede power back to the Congress, matters that were meant to be left to the Congress. Most importantly some federal powers being pushed back to the State level, and the actual rights that we are supposed to have to be ceded back to the individual.

[@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617]

Fucken yeah we do!

[@kaycee7651]

Ive never really understood it when conservatives say "big government." For some conservatives, it means the government dictating what they do with their personal lives. For others it means government intervention and welfare spending. Like... how can you measure "bigness?" Is there a bigness in government scale? As far as i can tell, it just means whenever i dont like it when the federal government does something they dislike. When a Republican is in power and they do something in a liberal state, its protecting American tradition, and when a Democrat is in power, and they do something in a conservative state, its a violation of states rights and its governmental overreach. I just don't understand it.

[@HaiRune]

big governement is basically the same as woke I feel like where anything that isnt a traditional nuclear family is considered woke just like giving a social safety net to people down on their luck is big government

[@Sharukurusu]

You’ll never find a real definition because there isn’t one, conservatism even at its most intellectual is a machine meant to cover for the domination of society by the wealthy, always has been. They want ‘states rights’ because they have dominance in some states, they want less regulations because they don’t care if workers die if they can make more money, they want social security gone because old people can’t contribute and should die poor and spent.

[@Argonhubert]

Conservatives don’t actually know what they want. That is why libertarians exist.

[@hopeintruth5119]

​@@Argonhubertlibertarians don't even agree on many things. Have you heard libertarians argue with each other. It's more of which one can sound more ridiculous

[@whodarboilebamnames3990]

​@@hopeintruth5119Um yes? Is everyone just supposed to blindly agree to every other ideology? No. What united libertarians, be them ancap or minarchists, it's that the state must be shrunk. That there should be a separation between economy and state. That consent is the fundamental basis for a libertarian system, and NAP is the basis of the legal system in such a state. Disagreements are good, that's how ideas are developed.

[@Rocka7038]

Freedom > security

[@gorilladisco9108]

This is what it supposed to be : Liberal ----------------- center ----------------- Conservative This is what it currently is : Woke ----------------------------------------------- Far Right --- Liberal ---------- Conservative

[@themetalgamer9864]

They're not. Their entire platform is a list of people they don't want to be free.

[@maxstrongCW]

You said democracy in this clip!!! That will trigger some snowflakes 😮

[@josiah5776]

A meritocracy based on virtue assumes there are actually any virtuous people around. Take a look around you and decide whether those even exist.

[@jefferyindorf699]

There are virtuous people around, but unfortunately they don't want to be in government. It seems that the unvirtuous, power hungry love the idea of government "service ", meaning serving their own interests.

[@josiah5776]

@@jefferyindorf699 I totally agree. I think most virtuous people would be repulsed a the thought of going into politics. That field attracts the power hungry and a large percentage of psychopaths and other malignant personality disorders. My personal opinion is that the primary requirement for holding office should be not to want to hold office ... but how would you check for that?

[@chickenfishhybrid44]

Some exist around me. If they don't in your area i think that might be a you problem.

[@chickenfishhybrid44]

​@jefferyindorf699 nothing new, the people that want to do these jobs are exactly the people you want kept away.

[@josiah5776]

@@chickenfishhybrid44 There are some around here too. I moved out of the city a few years back to a rural area. Much better here.

[@Mallos_sqrt17]

Actually bigger government (if implemented correctly) is more democratic. It buys your vote with money from wealthier people, distributing wealth equally (which leads to meritocracy and economic growth, I may explain it in more detail if you want). Small government leads to wealth concentration (and so absent of meritocracy), monopolies (and so weak economy) and, eventually, to a bunch of warlords, setting government-like but authoritarian, not democratic structures. Again, I may explain it in more detail if you want.

[@zaidhernandez4601]

At this point i wouldn't mind an American Ceaser....to a extent

[@ImperialSenpai]

Hamilton said the president should be an elected monarch.

[@elapplzsl]

With every Ceaser comes a Caligular and a Nero, so I wouldn't make that wish.

[@mickeytwister4721]

You mean like Douglas McArthur?

[@k_tess]

​@@elapplzslAnd? During Caligula and Nero's reign the citizens of Rome were terrorized. As in the actual people that lived in the city. Rural people wouldn't suffer much. I imagine American Nero or American Caligula would only torture the citizens of D.C. and NYC. A well. I don't think you can sin against soulless husks, even if you torture them.

[@BrianMarshall1]

Spoiler alert. They don't.

[@danielkelly2210]

They're not. They're in favor of "freedom" as long as it advances conservative ideology.

[@chickenfishhybrid44]

Im done with small government cringe. However there isnt necessarily anything inconsistent with calling for law and order AND decrying Federal power etc. "Law and order" is largely a thing handled at the local level anyway.

[@josefernandovillanuevahida8620]

Republicans are a coallition of social conservatives and economic/fiscal "conservatives"/rightists. For some economic conservatism is support for business. For othes economic conservatism is small goverment involvement. There is also the localism element. Worldwide its support can be progressive or conservative depending of the objectives. In the USA, its core supporters have conservative objectives; altrought progressives also use the state and the local levels of goverment for their objectives.

[@ProLifePatriot]

Conservatives have always looked after the people Nd the little men thank God for them

[@xenos_xd]

I support government power when it's HUEY LONG

[@MonsieurDean]

Another Southern Democratic Strongman like Jackson.

[@xenos_xd]

@@MonsieurDean Lol but nah I don't really like Jackson much especially with the natives... You know... Huey Long stood up to the huge corporations and the political establishment in order to better his state, and I really respect him for that, and his assassination shows people were definitely out to get him for what he spoke.

[@ImperialSenpai]

American conservatism comes from Hamilton and the Federalist Party, the Republican Party was always conservative being the successor to the Whigs who were the successors to the Federalists. Most Americans that are called conservative today aren’t they’re just liberal. Liberals are called conservative and national socialists are called liberal. Also fascism is left wing not right wing.

[@hopeintruth5119]

Can we just say republicans and democrats because liberals and conservatives were never just respectively Democrat and Republicans and gets worse as we talk about them from each state or region of the country in a certain time period

[@danielcavender1092]

Honestly, it's the fact that conservatives support the police so heavily that leads me to believe that their pro-freedom stance is only skin deep. Furthermore, when they commit idolatry over a political figure who raised the age to buy tobacco and grew the influence of the ATF by making them ban a gun part, they are certainly less inclined to believe that they are pro-freedom. Do they like small government? To an extent- certainly more than liberals. However, I'll continue to vote gold instead of red until they put their money where their mouth is by supporting real pro-freedom candidates and stopping their vehement support of the police state.

[@joemaloney1019]

Blue cities have giant police forces not rural red counties. Red counties elect their sherriffs not hire them the way that blue cities do. I would trust an elected Sherriff over a hired police officer.

[@danielcavender1092]

@@joemaloney1019 100% I agree. However (and I know this is anecdotal) I rarely see conservatives make any difference in their rhetoric of PDS vs Sheriffs in their support for the blue

[@chiangkaishrek5123]

@@joemaloney1019Yeah but it’s not like people in the blue areas actually want that police presence, just look at cop city in Atlanta

[@AlbertCamus-r6i]

Most Republicans are just druggies anyhow...

[@chickenfishhybrid44]

Compared to essentially the entire planet American conservatives are more "pro freedom" and small government than anyone else.

[@swedichboy1000]

What if Africa industrialized independent from Europeans?

[@GnosticAtheist]

I love big government. Ofcourse, I live in a nation of under 6 million with 10+ political parties fighting for control, so the moment something bad happens they drop that hot potato into the media instantly. As such, big government behaves pretty well, keeping big corporations down while desperately keeping the people happy in hopes of not getting ousted next election. It works fine. Probably would not work in the US. To big, so you have to accept corporatism instead. Same thing, less accountability.

[@Argonhubert]

It can’t be much bigger than the US if you still have the right to vote?! Just maybe different

[@DarthKieduss]

American conservatives that are currently in power or seeking office don't strike me as pro-freedom, with their anti-choice and homophobic, anti-weed policies. Also the lead Republican candidate just said he wants to be a dictator...

[@ProLifePatriot]

The liberals and the left crying about something again they are pro life and are not anti gay, and anti drug is a great thing conservatives are the best ones to ruin the nation

[@NotDanValentine]

I wish American conservatives were pro freedom. But in reality you'll have to go find libertarians to find people that consistently care about freedom

[@chiangkaishrek5123]

⁠​⁠​⁠@croatiangambler8059No it isn’t, the question is “Are you pro freedoms broadly” when you reframe it as “freedom to do what?” That framing lets you arbitrarily decide what is and isn’t freedom depending on what you morally oppose

[@chickenfishhybrid44]

Conservatives aren't libertarians, shocking.

[@TemplarLux]

It's not about whether I'm a libertarian or an authoritarian. It's about whether the powers that be are pushing my religion (Christianity) or not. If yes, I'm a libertarian. If no, I'm an authoritarian. I'm a theocrat first. Conservative second. The identity of the God in "One nation under God" is not in question. It's only in question for heretics who want it be their false god to be it or want to confuse people into allowing their heresy because "muh coexist."

[@andreluizsouza9555]

make a vídeo If the napoleonic wars had never happened