see, the trouble with liberalism is it doesn't have hardcore. if you're a rightist, you talk about steve sailer and monarchism, and that's how you show you're hardcore. if you're a leftist, you talk about stafford beer and cybersyn. if you're a really dumb rightist, you talk about evola and groypers and jews; if you're a really dumb leftist, you talk about fanon and sakai and jews. but what do you do if you're a liberal? reinhold niebuhr? the only two people alive who care about reinhold niebuhr are comey and hillary clinton. there's no hardcore! your best option is to become a libertarian!
if you're a really dumb libertarian you probably live in pahrump, nevada or jackson hole, wyoming and talk about the evils of fiat currency, mainstream media, and jews. if you're a hardcore libertarian you're an openfam 2Aer who wants to legalize all drugs, end zoning and noise regulations, and abolish the minimum drinking, driving, and voting age, all despite living in a neighborhood with a population of 65000 per square mile.
george mason university, baby! let's do differential equation shit to highway tolls!
the actual answer is that, if you're a liberal and you're hardcore, you talk about Macchiavelli and Su Chuo
your liberals are very different from DC's. the ones who don't get into maximal spreadsheet infliction mostly talk about quakerism
Quakerism????
...is Macchiavelli Stancil-coded now
you have your right-liberals (GMU numbers fucksteins who think you should have to solve the riemann zeta function to calculate your tax bill every time you use a sidewalk) and then you have your left-liberals (quaker taliban) (sometimes UU taliban)
