Being as I'm new to steemit and dtube: I figured I'd port my about page from my private website followed by my about channel video from my YouTube account. That way anyone who follows me on this platform, going forward, has a basic run down on who I am, what I'm about, etc. etc.
Consider this my personal introduction to the steem community as a whole.
So I popped onto my little corner of the net here and was trying like hell to find a way to better organize how my posts are organized over on the left. the recent posts works ok, but having that Month box is annoying. If I want to find a particular post for the purpose of sharing it on social media when a topic comes up which I have written about: I have to search by month then scroll down.
It would be super awesome fantastic if, instead of a thousand and one tutorials about how to organize by category, I could instead just have a simple interface of year - month, click, drop down listing every post that month. You know, like folders and files have worked since.... well since graphical user interfaces were invented....
Low and behold I see .... this:
2,002 FOLLOWERS!?
Who are all you people and where did you come from!?
Well shit... so apparently I now owe people some content on a more regular basis...
Alrighty then, there is one thing I've been meaning to get around to, may as well do it now. I may even turn this into a static home page so that people who pop onto ObservingLibertarian.com don't have their phone suddenly explode as it attempts to load every post I've ever made simultaneously. We all know how those Note 7's are these days, I wouldn't want to become liable.
Some of this will be posted from other pages, because I've already provided some necessary information on myself and my Ideological / Political background. Including providing examples of actual arguments I've been in with my opposition across social media. This page will simply serve as an introduction of sorts. This way people who happen stance across my website will see this and decide for themselves if I seem like the type of person they want to follow.
I'm perfectly fine allowing the free market to decide. Each person is free to like, share, subscribe or denounce, ignore and block me as they have will to do so.
I am the Observing Libertarian. I've been guest featured by Janet "Judgy Bitch" Bloomfield, have a sizable number of articles posted by the Honey Badger Brigade, I'm on Twitter, Minds and YouTube.
Am I an MRA? No, I'm Libertarian.
Am I a white identitarian? No, I'm Libertarian.
Am I AltRight? No, the Alt Right is further to the Left than I am, I'm Libertarian.
Am I a White Supremacist? No, Supremacists are authoritarians, I'm Libertarian.
Am I Liberal? Yes and no depending on the topic because I'm Libertarian.
So what gives with all the pro-white and pro-men's rights material?
On both cases I'm speaking in opposition of political parties, sects and factions which advocate for establishing two tiered legal systems in which some classes of people ascend to being first class citizens and other classes of people descend into being second class citizens.
That's the end of it.
Why do I oppose group Q and support group P?
Group P isn't advocating to be given superior rights to group Q, group Q is.
It is that simple. I am only tangentially involved. I am not part of any of these movements or groups, I am an outsider lending my voice to the chorus in favor of or opposition to their actions based upon whether or not they are advocating for being given equal rights to those of others or superior rights to those of others.
If we are to be pedantic on the topic:
- By supporting men's rights am I a Men's Rights Advocate? Yes.
- By supporting women's rights am I a Women's Rights Advocate? Yes.
- By supporting gay rights am I a Gay Rights Advocate? Yes.
- By supporting trans rights am I a Trans Rights Advocate? Yes.
- By the dictionary definition of feminism am I a Feminist? Yes.
In practical reality however: I'm just a Libertarian.
I support the establishment of a Rule of Law which provides complete equality before the law: equal rights, equal protections and equal punishments. That no one person is permitted to be infringed upon by any other person or group there of, which includes infringement by the State. A law in which civil liberties, personal liberties and human rights are sacrosanct.
Here’s the banner which adorns my twitter, minds and youtube pages.
A full throttle no holds bared statement that all people regardless of any identity of any kind should be treated equally under the law with no special treatment of any kind be it negative or positive.
No second class citizens, no special privileges, no special protections. Everyone treated equally before the law and their individual rights / civil liberties protected BY the law: against the malevolence of others or even against the state itself.
It doesn’t GET any more classical liberal than this. This is the essence of the greatest political and moral philosophers of western civilization boiled down into a single opus that the rights of the individual are sacrosanct and everyone within society should be protected or punished equally by the same code of law.
In spite of the above example of my personal classical liberal ideology: when I take a spekr test: I’m almost as far right and south as it is possible to be.
So you see, in spite of being a dyed in the wool classical liberal, a constitutionalist and thereby quantitatively a centrist by definition and nature of the fact that I’m a constitutionalist: I plot on the political landscape as far right wing libertarian. How far right wing? Just look at that spekr result: which is mirrored by a host of other similar tests I’ve taken by the way.
That above image was screen capped from a political test I took some 10 years ago or so. I can tell you my political views haven’t changed. In anything: having expanded my library of western philosophers has only further convinced me that the premises upon which I was operating were correct if previously less refined. I have never considered myself left, on the left or a leftist. If the Constitution is held as the center (as it should be), then I’ve always considered myself to be a centrist. yet in the 10 year gap between those two political tests: I think my position relative to the rest of the political landscape has only gone further right.
Here’s the thing…
It’s not that I am moving to the right: it’s that the political landscape under me is moving continually left.
The political landscape has moved under my feet and there’s many many people who always considered themselves to be left leaning yet find themselves agreeing with conservatives in this day and age. Arguing against censorship, against authoritarian rule, against double standard laws. They often remark about how they feel abandoned by the left and begin describing themselves as “classical liberals.” Which, by the way, is exactly how that term came about.
People who didn’t follow suit with the “new left” and the “progressives” on their march ever onward left towards totalitarianism. People like me who adhere to classical liberal principles and philosophical ideas and find that they cannot agree with the left’s constant attempts at enacting illiberal or anti-liberal laws.
There’s a growing sentiment that conservatism is now the new punk because defending personal freedoms has become the counter culture against the double standard laws being proposed and supported by the identity grievance politics of the new left.
In spite of being in the vaunted "99%" and working full time while earning a lower class income, yes a genuine Poletarian unlike the rich kids on college campuses calling people "bourgeoisie" while wearing $400 shoes and snap-chatting it on their latest generation iPhone: I am thoroughly anti-communist and pro-freedom.
So why do I speak against so many of those movements? I speak against them when they produce propaganda and lobby for superior rights to others. When they stop doing that: I'll stop speaking against them. They create a lot of rationalizations, fraudulent faux research, biased studies which are easily disproved. This is why I created the logical fallacy “Ad Minus Aequius”.
What I advocate against: is all those who advocate for special privileges, special protections, special exemptions, preferential treatment and two tier legal systems which promote some groups to being first class citizens and other groups to being second class citizens.
Those people, persons, groups and organizations who DO advocate for special privileges, special protections, special exemptions, preferential treatment and two tier legal systems which promote some groups to being first class citizens and other groups to being second class citizens: are anti-freedom and anti-equality.
No matter how they define themselves or what they define themselves as, even if they claim to be Feminists and the dictionary definition of feminism is all about equality: the dictionary definition of “an advocate of the supremacy of a particular group, especially one determined by race or sex” is a “supremacist.”
If you’re advocating for or lobbying for superior rights to be given to a group or groups OVER THAT of another group or groups: you are categorically, unabashedly and undeniably, by definition, a supremacist.
It’s a simple concept really and it goes utterly unnoticed.