by Chris Black
Fascists are hyper-statists who say state = good always and libertarians are hyper anti-statists who say state = bad always.
Fascists will always seek to glorify the state and demonize the private sector, while the libertarians will do the reverse (state bad, private good).
Reality is not black and white and so they’re both wrong and they’re both autistic because their ideology is so rigid.
The state can do good or bad and private citizens or institutions can do good or bad, depending on who exactly is in charge of them and what their morals are.
It makes perfect sense why the Ruskies have promoted the autistic libertarian crowd (Ron Paul, Kokesh, Libertarian Party, etc.) in the West because they will move Western states towards total weakness and isolation on the world stage (defense spending cuts, zero foreign policy), which the Ruskies and Chinese are giddy about so they can then fill the void and project more of their own power abroad.
It also makes sense that they support other tendencies that are seemingly the opposite of libertarianism like socialists because socialists still worship Russia as USSR ideological motherland and work towards its best interests.
Same reason they have cultivated links to the “Dissident Right” via satanic Crowleyite Dugin so they can shift them towards Russophilic and Sinophilic positions.
Putin’s PR guy Surkov said the tactic was to “crawl inside everything and make it serve the Kremlin’s goals.
This political trichotomy (fascism, communism, liberalism) that I see some people spout comes from homicidal Eurasianist Dugin and it’s utter garbage.
There are infinite more political variations than just these three things, which are often ill-defined.
Fascism and communism are not even politically distinct enough to categorize separately, you could put both under the Communism category because they’re so similar.
Liberalism doesn’t really mean anything these days.
People called liberals are generally socially liberal I guess, but they may not be “liberal” on other issues like gun ownership, free speech, or economics so it’s not correct to exclusively put this label on them.
Generic “conservatives” are also supporters of classically liberal positions like free speech, gun rights, freedom of protest, freedom of association, & free enterprise etc. which the people they call “liberals” are against… making them more liberal on those issues than their opponents.
So the whole thing is muddled and doesn’t encapsulate the complexity of views people have.