View Single Post
Old July 23rd, 2012 #49
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[posted this at Yeager's site, still waiting approval]

"National Socialism was designed for the highest collective good, not for individual good."

At its high point barely 30% of the population voted for it. By definition, 70% not wanting what you're selling means you're not representing the what the collective itself sees as its good, you're representing your own minority conception of what's good for it.

The problem is, Carolyn, there's no agreement on what 'collective good' means, apart from not being genocided by jews. And in fact, there's a hell of a lot of white people who don't even agree on that - they're called liberals. And they're perfectly happy with whites being blended out of existence. And they're just as white as you or I are. 'Collective good' is a phrase with no objective meaning. It's just a way to privilege one's own view over others' views.

What we all stand for is not the collective good, but a political outcome and arrangement we prefer AS INDIVIDUALS: an all-white nation, meaning not that we lord it over jews and coloreds, but that we have no jews or coloreds in our living space. At least that's what I want. I'm presuming everybody else here wants that too. And that's probably the only thing we all agree on.

Once we remove the racial enemy trying to destroy us, (1) how do we preserve our victory permanently?; and (2) how do we arrange things so that we can live most amicably and productively amongst ourselves? Those are the questions my conception addresses:

(1) A racial-defense dictatorship at the national level ensures the racial basis of the state. Defense is defined as narrowly as it can be and as widely as necessary. The scope cannot be nailed down a priori because it depends in part on circumstances.

(2) Beneath that national level, at the state and lower levels, we have decentralization into such groups and arrangements as white men see fit.

Since whites disagree about economic and religious questions, the bread and butter questions of daily life, and since these differences are profound and irreconcilable, let the white members of this new racial state divide up as they see fit - into states, or microstates, or city-states or whatever you want to call subnational political units. I could see a Mormon Utah city state; the South; a libertarian state; and a middle-ages-style Catholic state; and a Swedish-style welfare state. Who knows? Whites are very inventive. It is anti-White to crush their genetic individuation by means of coerced association - as we have today under the jews.

I think this is the best arrangement we could make. Understand that I'm perfectly willing to fight other white men _not_ to live under cradle-to-grave socialism, I detest it that much. And I grant you socialists the same, that you're willing to fight me. So let's separate since we can't get along. For me, the chance to live as a free adult ought to be the _larger_ part of the appeal of our racial cause, not an afterthought that almost no WN ever mention. The jew and racial stuff is merely a necessity - putting a fire out necessarily takes precedence over all other considerations.

The tools of the times allow decentralization and customization. Why stick with the outmoded notion of one-size-fits all? why subject everyone to the whims of some new post-card painter and armchair general who wants to reorder society according to his private whims?

White men don't need government running their lives. Niggers do. Most of my critics have never actually considered what it means to be White. I have. Decentralization is the only truly White form of politics because only Whites are capable of it. Centralization and dictatorship are a jew-mud thing.

Realize that all too many on our side have sub-100 IQs, and are essentially white niggers. Just like the black ones, they want what they can't obtain by their own efforts, and think a white government should give it to them. Contrast these with the intelligent, driven, angry young white men Ron Paul has collected. As individuals, they are more impressive than most racialists. But what they don't understand, because Paul won't tell them, is that you can't have the specific freedoms they want except in a white racial context. We are both individuals _and_ members of a racial collective. Both identities are real. To ignore either one is a great mistake. The chance to live as as a free, responsible adult in a White state is a lot more appealing than the chance to be live under a white socialist dictatorship. At least, it's a lot more appealing to the people we ought to be worrying about - the right half of the white bell curve.

We are white men. And 'white men' has two parts: the WHITE and the MAN. _Both_ identities are important. Not just one. I'm not going to destroy ZOG in order to turn it over to some NS clown who's going to treat me like a child or subject. One of the largest appeals of our cause, which we never use as a selling point is, or ought to be, the chance to live as a free adult. And make all the key decisions in your life. But these unseeing NS types simply envision the same old failed sclerotic socialism that has caused our race's spirit to die in the first place (with a tremendous assist from the vile christian cult, of course).

White men who can't run their own lives are no better than niggers, and if we subsidize them with racial socialism, we will get the same result as the Bonoite do-gooders who keep feeding the Africans: an ever-larger population of defectives and weaklings. No...our government will protect the racial basis of your community. The rest is up to you and your fellow white neighbors to work out.

Voluntary, private arrangements is the way to go, wherever possible. The libertarians have demonstrated this copiously over the years at lewrockwell.com . But you know what's most interesting? and only superficially paradoxical? These "individualists" the NSers despise get along much better, collectively, than racialists do - they are more cooperative, and carry on at an intellectually higher, friendlier social level than those on 'our' side. There is meaning there. No other group or political position, by contrast, is as fractious and ego-ridden as supposedly collective-good-seeking white nationalists/NS.

So these are my ideas, and I appreciate Ms Yeager having me on the show. If you have better ideas, post them here, or join my forum, at vnnforum.com , and post them there too. A.

http://thewhitenetwork.com/2012/07/2...r/#comment-591