We libertarians in particular are looking for a meaningful and stringent explanation of the Ukraine conflict these days. An intellectually appealing in-depth explanation that has not already been devalued in advance by the moralistic propaganda of one of the parties to the conflict. During my research, I came across a very interesting lecture by Hans Hermann Hoppe from last year. It opens up a libertarian view of state conflicts in general and the Ukraine conflict in particular. Click here to watch the video:
105 sats \ 3 replies \ @cascdr 12 Feb
Thanks for sharing. I made a TLDR of the top points of this using the CASCDR YouTube AI Agent
Top 5 Most Relevant Points from Hoppe's Speech:
-
The Nature of States: Hoppe emphasizes that states are not productive enterprises, but rather criminal gangs that exploit and rip off productive individuals for their own benefit. This understanding is crucial in analyzing the actions of states, particularly in the context of war. By recognizing states as criminal entities, we can better understand the socialization of war costs and the privatization of potential gains.
-
Neutral Position in War: Hoppe argues that as libertarians, it is essential to maintain a neutral position in times of war. He advises staying away from both warring parties and avoiding provocation. The focus should be on personal, private, and local security rather than national or collective security. By advocating for decentralization and private decision-making in war, the cost and destruction can be limited.
-
Critique of Nationalistic Perspectives: Hoppe criticizes the nationalistic and collectivist sentiments that often cloud the understanding of libertarian principles, particularly in Eastern Europe. He highlights the importance of revisionist historical research and evaluation, as official nationalistic narratives tend to dominate education and shape people's perspectives. Hoppe encourages libertarians to question and challenge these narratives.
-
Misconceptions about Support in War: Hoppe challenges the notion of seeking support from other countries during war. He argues that as libertarians, it is inconsistent to ask for support from gangs running other countries, as they are not the legitimate owners of the resources they would be sending. Instead, a libertarian perspective would be to ask for less support and of a different nature, focusing on the well-being of the people rather than the interests of the ruling gangs.
-
Propaganda and Media Influence: Hoppe highlights the role of propaganda in shaping public opinion and support for war. He criticizes the mainstream media's portrayal of the conflict in Ukraine as a clash of good versus evil, perpetuating a narrative that justifies intervention and support for one side. Hoppe urges libertarians to be critical of the propaganda spread by the US NATO gang alliance and its media associates.
Intriguing Aspects of the Transcript:
Hoppe's speech raises several intriguing aspects that challenge conventional perspectives on war, nationalism, and state power. His emphasis on the criminal nature of states and the socialization of war costs provides a unique lens through which to analyze conflicts. The call for neutrality and decentralization in war decision-making challenges the traditional notions of national defense and collective security.
Furthermore, Hoppe's critique of nationalistic perspectives and the influence of propaganda highlights the importance of independent thinking and revisionist historical research. By questioning official narratives and challenging the mainstream media's portrayal of conflicts, libertarians can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities involved.
Overall, Hoppe's speech offers a thought-provoking perspective on war, state power, and the role of libertarians in times of conflict. It encourages critical thinking, individualism, and a focus on personal liberty and property rights in the face of war's destructive forces.
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @TomK OP 12 Feb
Cool app. Thanks. How much do we have to stream for converting maybe 1h of video material to get this type of summary?
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @cascdr 12 Feb
It's currently in alpha. If your video is under about 90 minutes it will definitely work and it's just a 1 time payment of around $0.26 USD (flat rate). It is not streamed. I am actively making numerous upgrades specifically: making it so you can get alerts/summaries/blog posts about the content straight to your nostr DMs for a given channel.
Open to feedback or your thoughts! Feel free to comment her or DM me on nostr anytime: https://primal.net/e/note125cx9qg4vxk7zvqh55ufphxcrujaa0pumyg5htdx3s94jswjdgxszw7tw5.
reply
30 sats \ 0 replies \ @TomK OP 12 Feb
yes, thanks for the info. i had recently been looking for a similar app. the fact that it is now also available with a connection to the Lightning network is all the better. looks very good i will take a closer look at it in the next few days. good luck to you and the team, i'm sure it will be really good
reply
197 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford 11 Feb
I like Hoppe. Haven't watched or heard him speak on the topic but the standard common positions on this war are pretty ignorant and black and white. American politics tend to frame every conflict as villain and hero which is rarely reality. Usually its villains using plebs blood to gain more power. Each painting themselves as saviors or victims. Its the same thing over and over. The older I get the less spun up I get about it.
reply
33 sats \ 0 replies \ @TomK OP 11 Feb
You're absolutely right. To me it was refreshing listening to him meanwhile the propaganda machines are running hot
reply
31 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 12 Feb
Love that he described the powers as mafia families.
reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @TomK OP 12 Feb
He always had a special manner of insulting commies
reply
42 sats \ 3 replies \ @Bell_curve 15 Feb
Russia has no interest in taking Kiev or all of Ukraine.
Russia wants to take the Russian part of Ukraine as a buffer zone.
Russia invasion of Ukraine was defensive. Putin doesn’t want NATO bases in Ukraine.
The west created this conflict by trying to extend NATO membership to Ukraine.
NATO is an enemy of Russia.
Ukraine is an enemy of Russia.
NATO engagement with Ukraine is a provocation for war.
George Kennan and Paul Nitze predicted this in 1996 when NATO enlargement was starting.
I chided a college classmate who wrote her thesis on supporting NATO engagement in 1997. I told her you are reading the wrong people and don’t understand how Russia views this as a provocation. Poking the Russian bear.
Listen to John Mearsheimer lecture on Ukraine in 2014 which still relevant.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 15 Feb
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @TomK OP 15 Feb
Good summary.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 15 Feb
https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/the-myth-that-putin-was-bent-on-conquering
reply
21 sats \ 33 replies \ @Bell_curve 12 Feb
deleted by author
reply
10 sats \ 31 replies \ @TomK OP 12 Feb
Yes. That's a done deal.
reply
10 sats \ 30 replies \ @kristapsk 15 Feb
LOL. Western Ukraine is montaineus area that have hated Russians like forever. They were part of Austria-Hungary before WWI. Russians don't have military and manpower to hold it even if they somehow manage to conquer it, it will be partisan warfare hell for them.
reply
21 sats \ 4 replies \ @Bell_curve 15 Feb
Russia has no interest in taking Kiev
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @TomK OP 15 Feb
would you please do me a favor and explain this aspect in more detail to all these propagandized people here? i'm talking and writing my head off here.
reply
42 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 15 Feb
Of course, I will assist you.
By the way, the climate change expert is hopeless since he believes the great reset is right wing manipulation
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @TomK OP 15 Feb
yes, thank you very much for that. yes, the guy is lost - I've already realized that too
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kristapsk 15 Feb
LOL. when they started this "special military operation", their plan was to "take Kyiv in 3 days".
reply
10 sats \ 7 replies \ @TomK OP 15 Feb
Lol. He meant (at least I) eastern Ukraine.
And Lol: aren't you one of these pros who keep claiming that Russia wants to conquer all of Europe? how is that possible if he can't even hold the shithole of western Ukraine? you need to start thinking before you argue.
reply
10 sats \ 6 replies \ @kristapsk 15 Feb
Not all of the Europe, but Putin wants to restore Empire. That, in addition to Ukraine and Belarus, means Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Finland. He even has painting of tsar Nicholas I in his room, who was ruler when Russia had the biggest territory ever. Ironically, Nicholas I also failed miserably, losing Crimean War. And desires and abilities of Putin are different things. It's mistake assuming he always acts rationally. He wants to go into history books as the guy who made Russia great again.
reply
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 15 Feb
Belarus is an ally of Russia. Ukraine is a different animal. Putin wants a neutral Ukraine and wants to annex the Russian part of Ukraine as a buffer zone.
Maybe in 2010 Putin had imperial ambitions but that ship has sailed and Putin knows it.
He views Ukraine as a defensive war because Ukraine aided by NATO is national security threat for Russia
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kristapsk 15 Feb
"Russian part of Ukraine" is Russian propaganda myth. I personally know people from eastern Ukraine, their native language is Russian, but they don't consider themselves Russians and don't want to be part of Russia.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 15 Feb
Myth will become reality when this conflict ends. Ukraine doesn’t have the manpower and artillery and tanks to push Russia out of the east
reply on another page
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @TomK OP 15 Feb
Ok. you are ignoring any form of geopolitical consideration point i think the discussion no longer makes sense if it is only manifestly argued in terms of good and evil. the Russian army would never be able to occupy Europe permanently, that should be clear to everyone. at the same time, NATO is completely bled dry, both economically and militarily. the prehistory with the maidan coup in 2014 and the attacks on the Russian population in Donbass, the decimation of the population there, none of that plays a role in your considerations. that's okay with me, but you are simply victims of the propaganda of your own newspapers. have fun with that. and, I think I've explained this here 20 times by now, the rearmament of the Ukrainian army, the total shithol of Europe, into a top NATO army should actually make you wonder, shouldn't it? at least if you're prepared to switch your brain on again at some point. plus the eternally broken promise of NATO's expansion to the Russian borders. none of this matters, does it? and besides: what do you call the wars of aggression by NATO in recent decades and the United States? Kosovo Vietnam Korea Iraq one Iraq 2 Syria afghanistan-all with hundreds of thousands of civilians as collateral damage. those were probably all peacekeeping missions in your ideology, huh?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 15 Feb
Agree with your analysis. Ukraine needs men and artillery to prolong the war but draft dodgers make it impossible. Even money to Ukraine would not help.
Aid to Ukraine is expensive virtue signaling.
I predict there will be a ceasefire with Russia annexing part of Ukraine.
Why does NATO continue to send money to Ukraine when most of its members won’t pay their membership annual fee. USA pays full amount. Europe keeps welching on its financial obligations to NATO.
Another reason they hate Trump who was the first president to publicize this fact
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 15 Feb
Putin doesn’t view the Baltic states as a security threat unlike Ukraine
reply
0 sats \ 16 replies \ @Bell_curve 15 Feb
Sorry for the mistake. I meant eastern Ukraine which is mostly Russian
reply
0 sats \ 15 replies \ @kristapsk 15 Feb
It isn't Russian, it's Russian speaking Ukrainians. Same as not all English speaking Irish are English.
reply
10 sats \ 12 replies \ @TomK OP 15 Feb
yes exactly, and the 95% who voted in Crimea to join Russia were probably Chinese
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 15 Feb
Regardless Ukraine doesn’t have the manpower and weaponry to win. They should cut their losses
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @TomK OP 15 Feb
But the pump needs to be pumping...
reply on another page
0 sats \ 9 replies \ @Bell_curve 15 Feb
What about the 2014 election and subsequent coup?
So much for elections and democracy.
Free dumb!
reply
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @kristapsk 16 Feb
Revolution not coup. It was mass movement. You are stupid believing cheap Russian propaganda. Do you know personally at least one Ukrainian?
view replies
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 15 Feb
Belfast or Dublin?
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @kristapsk 16 Feb
Neither Belfast nor Dublin have Irish speaking majority.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 15 Feb
I meant eastern Ukraine!!!
Big mistake!
reply
31 sats \ 3 replies \ @knorozov 12 Feb
He's great, but this is all very hypothetical. We don't live in a libertarian world.
But if western leaders at least had some common sense and strategic / diplomatic experience, this whole thing could have been avoided easily. We're close to peak stupidity in that sense.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @TomK OP 12 Feb
But what if there are forces (military complex, ex-colonial interests, russian nationalism etc, the credit cycle) that reaaaaally wanted and need that war?
reply
31 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 12 Feb
This is the logical position. Saying we don't live in a libertarian world is a cop out. If people take the mafia at their word instead of their actions I don't know if they can see reality.
It is obvious that the US picks which "evil" regimes to support and which to fight. That alone isn't my issue. My issue is that if you do that you can't claim to support war on humanitarian grounds. Its just bullshit.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @TomK OP 12 Feb
That is true. Yes
reply
21 sats \ 4 replies \ @renielbarretoherrera 12 Feb freebie
I agreed.Hoppe opened my mind to new areas about this conflict.Thats much to say to an openly pro-ukrainian like myself.Definitely nothing is black and white
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @TomK OP 12 Feb
Cheers to that, friend. We need an open debating culture
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 12 Feb
One cannot learn unless he realizes he has something to learn.
reply
118 sats \ 0 replies \ @TomK OP 12 Feb
oh yes, how right you are! a few days ago i started reading the so-called sphere trilogy by the german philosopher peter sloterdijk. i don't know anything! but at least i'm sure of this realization
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 15 Feb
Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe.
Ukraine is no democracy.
Imagine if China or Russia established military bases in Canada and Mexico , how would USA react?
We would bomb the country into submission and annex parts of both countries.
Maybe go nuclear if necessary
Monroe Doctrine
reply
10 sats \ 3 replies \ @zarko 12 Feb
The elites controll both sides.
War is always a good way to cover their tracks, rebuild a new system, and gain even more power.
All world wars was about that
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 15 Feb
And money
ESG politicians and cronies are greedy, the most venal.
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 15 Feb
Money laundering in Ukraine is valuable for western elites and ruling class. Look at the Biden family as one example
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @TomK OP 15 Feb
exactly. in addition, a good portion of the weapons supplied have been reappearing on the world's black markets for some time now. Ukraine itself is a gigantic money-laundering operation in addition to the fact that it serves as a sales market for the warring faction
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SaToSHiWoMaN 12 Feb outlawed
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.