Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old September 21st, 2009 #61
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

To the dumb Southerners and Midwesterners we say, we are going to liberate you from the jew-imposed tyranny of nigger/mestizo violent crime.

To the self-reliant, intelligent middle class we say, we are going to liberate you from the tyranny of taxation and regulation.

Who has ever combined those?

Why wouldn't that approach work?

We look at the libertarians and laugh, not because their ideas are stupid, but because they can never be tried save in an all-white context, since minorities will never follow the non-aggression principle if there's booty to be gained.

The white middle class looks at us and sees retarded costume freaks who would be hard put to manage a lemonade stand, let alone a nation.

I'm overgeneralizing, but in rough terms what I say is accurate.

What I'm saying is that just maybe a mix of racial homogenity + economic liberty would get us farther than what we offer now.

I'm very much against worrying about what "appeals" to white people in general, because it enhances the misperception that we're trying to appeal to people. We are, but not in the sense that term is ordinarily used. Rather we are offering whites who don't want to go down with the multicultural ship a way off. The idea of living in an all-white nation, to twist jew Ignatiev, is so attractive that it is inconceivable that any white person could be opposed to it. The idea of living in an all-white nation without economic tyranny in the form of regulation, licensing and taxes is...even better.

I say frank admission to investigators is the way to go. We say, bluntly, "Yes. We are willing to kill over race. Allowing jews to manipulate other races among us, and keep on with the endless every-form anti-White bombardment creates a lowest common social denominator that we literally cannot live and reproduce with. We are willing to tolerate no opposition on this point. Either flee or accept our terms."

Then we step back and say, "But, if you can accept the idea of an all-white state, even if you have misgivings, here's what else you'll gain that you don't have now - true adult liberty. The right to make all the major decisions. To drive, buy, smoke, eat what you want. No licensing, regulation, work-half-the-year-for-ZOG."

White privacy and freedom go together very naturally with an all-White state, no matter how that state is brought about.

Onlookers with some sympathy toward our cause because they know the racial truth will be turned away by the legions of little-man losers we attract: men who are obviously incompetent in that they can't even spell simple words, and men who, like all simpletons, relish the idea of Power and Strength and using these to Crush anybody who thinks differently. Combine these with the nazi or confederate fetish, and too many of these competent white men with brains will just shake their heads and walk away.

A middle class white man concerned with, say, his neighbor's kid being beaten up on the PS bus by a nigger will look at obese braying Klan retards and realize the intellectual and social gulf is too big to bridge.

Really - ask yourself this question. Where do we find intelligent WN writing about anything? The libertarians put out dozens of stories daily dealing with the money system, with gold, with the Fed, with inflation, with diet, with foreign policy. Where is the intellectual head of WN - where is our mirror to their offering? What we have instead are semi-literate donkeys braying and posturing. To the extent we have intelligent men writing regularly, they always, always, always exhibit not a desire to lead but a shallow cleverness and one-upsmanship. They are lookers-on. They are advisers to imaginary potential leaders.

If there is any value in the disagreements over the last few weeks it lies in fleshing out just precisely who we are and what kind of nation we want to live in after we dispense with the muds. I think that clarifying just what type of nation we want to live in will have a greater than marginal effect in determining the type of new investigators we convert, and the speed with which they join us.

Unless we hold out some kind of appeal to the right half of the bell curve, we're mired in the little-man power fantasies that are wildly unattractive to people with enough brains and money to create real change. We hear a lot about the greed of the superrich, but the superpoor are every bit as greedy and there are a hell of a lot more of them.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #62
cillian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,375
cillian
Default

But Alex, some of us think that social marxism is so ingrained in our society that it would carry on it's suicidal notions even without the jews, and some positive propaganda would be needed for a generation or so to get rid of the 'dumb fat white guy' or the 'stupid blond whore' identity that our race has grown up with.

Do you agree with this?
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #63
Julian Lüchow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 888
Julian Lüchow
Post reply to alex

Quote:
All my words are prefaced by the fact that I am writing about, when I touch on 'libertarian' ideas, a nation in which there are

NO JEWS AND NO MUDS.
Fair enough. You and I agree that this is the only context in which ‘libertarianism’ could actually work.

Quote:
It is symptomatic of the low character and IQ that respondents, even the smart ones, cannot deal with what is actually said, but only strawmen.
I hope you don’t mean me. I’ve not resorted to strawmen to describe your position. For time reasons I cannot follow every debate on this board and thus I cannot know where you come from without having you spell it out.

Quote:
It is not MY arguments that posit a situation like what we have now but with us WN in power.

I'm talking about a situation in which Whites control all North America, and have driven mestizos south of the isthmus. There are no blacks left in America. No Asians. No jews. All is white.
Good.

Quote:
Under these conditions...how should white men live with one another?

I have laid out my vision. It takes advantage of, I fancy, the best in the American past combined with knowledge of white nature and things that WN and non-WN have pointed out regarding the curious inefficiency of government.
Have you read anything by James Bowery over at MR? It seems that you and he share a similar vision, the only difference being that he is more concerned with steps in the present whereas you are more interested in crafting a macro-system for our societies once said parasites are ousted.

Here in America I agree that Federalism and devolution of central powers will work. The Europeans, however, might have different ideas for their system. I suppose that’s their concern since not many of us American WN will be living in Europe anytime soon.

Quote:
Here I part with traditional WN who are essentially uneducated in and uninterested in anything but racial differences and fantasies about power or historical men and parties. What I have tried to convey is that the truly interesting thing is the growing evidence that, leaving race aside, government is incapable of doing almost anything well.
Who becomes an employee of gov’t in this country? Generally, a person who is not employable in any other field. In some historical instances though, gov’t did recruit from a more promising pool which is why the gov’ts of, for example, Peter the Great or Frederick the Great ran like clockwork rather than like molasses.

I think it’s a matter of quality. If you were to devolve power as you plan, gov’t officials would likely be chosen on a merit basis. I.E. Who is the best defender? And so forth. Gov’t would certainly not consist of the bloated bureaucracies which exist today.

Quote:
We are leaving that central insight to the libertarians. They are making hay with it. It is a very attractive idea to the people we're trying to attract, and we can take those people away when we add the kicker: that none of this new evidence can be applied except in a white context. Mud- and jew-world have never known anything but tyranny and manipulation.
I’ve said many times that the amount of resources which are drained away providing for muds and jews is astronomical. If you were to cut out this dead weight loss, it is hard to imagine how much we could increase our standard of living in the context of a cornucopian industrial civilization. It would mean leaps and bounds of progress.

Quote:
White men don't need central government. At most they need a collective defense against racial enemies.
So, militias organized on the state level should do the trick.

Quote:
What my attempt to discuss questions about how whites should live together IN AN ALL-WHITE STATE is that perhaps more WN than not have a religious faith in government regulation. Most WN appear to want a government more or less exactly like we enjoy under ZOG, but without racial discrimination.
I don’t. The state has never done anything for me in this life other than shake me down. If a state is to exist, I want to have a direct say in its policies, be it in the realm of military or economic policy. And with federalism/devolution this could be possible.

Quote:
Why not go for a 2 for 1? Why not get rid of regulation and regulatory bodies that don't work at the same time we get rid of jewish tyranny?
We can establish our own regulations on a community-by-community basis after jews are out of the picture. I’m not against regulation on a micro-economical level.

Quote:
A White state should be designed for the benefit of those who work and save and act responsibly, not for the benefit of military and civilian welfare bums.
So you want those of thrift and responsibility to not be deprived of the fruit of their labors in order to provide for deadweight? Well, I want the same. Most of the money I earn, I save. And it rankles me to have to pay a chunk of my labor to scum who don’t deserve it.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #64
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Our appeal must be to BOTH halves of the bell curve.

To the left half we say, no, we are not going to hold your cock and wipe your ass in the new white state. If you fuck up, you will pay the personal price. Don't like it? Then die off and we'll call it eugenics. What we WILL promise you is that:

- you keep the money you earn
- your savings will not be debased by inflation caused by counterfeit fiat money
- you will not be discriminated against because of your race (or because you're a man)
- you will not be victimized by mud violent crime
- your children will not be expended needlessly in foreign wars

To the right half of the bell curve we say, for the first time in over 100 years, you are able to exercise your abilities without restriction. You can enjoy all the fruits and dangers of genuine adulthood in a world without endless PSAs, 50% taxes and moralistic browbeating.

We say the same thing to both halves of the bell curve, but we shift the emphasis.

We say to both halves, as what distinguishes our White race from other races is the remarkable individuation of its members, we have seen fit to provide you with a mechanism to allow you to group yourselves, under the protective umbrella of the Defender over-state, as you see fit. Questioning the racial basis of the state is off the boards, and if pursued will lead to capital punishment. But short of challenging the basis of the nation, you are free to live the way you think best, provided you agree to allow this same freedom to your White adult equals.

I say the above is workable. I say it is desirable.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #65
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krystian Kowalczyk View Post
Fair enough. You and I agree that this is the only context in which ‘libertarianism’ could actually work.
Yes. I don't mean to be insulting. But I get particularly tired when people make straw men or assume I'm writing about some kind of conditions other than what I explicitly say. My writing about how we arrange things in an all-white state assumes exactly what I've said: there are no non-whites -- no jews and no muds -- anywhere in North America, from the north pole down to Columbia in South America. So, anything written without taking those particular conditions as the starting point has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Now, GETTING to that point is a separate issue, and obviously and important one. But it has nothing to do with my writing about us living in an all-white state, and how it could and should be arranged.

I really get tired of people riding their frooking hobbyhorses over me with their eyes shut and ignoring what I say. Start your own thread. That's the whole purpose of a fucking forum with illimitable room and time. I'm not claiming I'm some frickin genius - theoretical politics is largely a mug's game for amateur utopians. I know that. My background is Burke. I actually feel foolish writing about things that don't exist. But I don't see a way around it, and I do see a need for it. The more I write, the greater a need I see, because more people respond and more people get pissed off. This is because covered up disagreements rise to surface once we get beyond talking about things that we all agree on - nigger crime and jew perfidy. When we see what we all really think about government, we learn, for the first time, who we really are. What we see, it appears, is slightly more WN than not are what we might call socialists. They see government as having a basic responsibility for the health, education, defense and welfare of the people. I don't see it that way myself, of course. But it is good to know exactly where we WN, or at least we WN at VNNF, stand. Probably we should have a poll on this question, a non-prejudicial poll, just to see where precisely we are.

Quote:
I hope you don’t mean me. I’ve not resorted to strawmen to describe your position.
No, you haven't. I thought you might be and was intending to forestall you. I am extremely short-tempered due to chronic illness I cannot beat yet, and I don't have a strong enough character not to snap at people. I saw a great quote the other day, I think from Huxley, something about illness and suffering not ennobling anyone but making them bitter and irritable. That is the absolute truth, if my case is anything to go by.

I just get r-eeeee-al tired of writing something out at length, making it clear I'm talking about precise conditions (life within an ALL-WHITE NATION) and having resprodents blithely ignore it so they can destroy the position they want to attack which isn't mine. That's no way to discuss.


Quote:
For time reasons I cannot follow every debate on this board and thus I cannot know where you come from without having you spell it out.
I have done that in major part, though there remains more to do, namely nailing down the scope and duties of the Defenders who comprise the over-state. I've made some hints and suggestions but not laid it out in detail. Partly because I haven't thought it all through yet.

Quote:
Have you read anything by James Bowery over at MR? It seems that you and he share a similar vision, the only difference being that he is more concerned with steps in the present whereas you are more interested in crafting a macro-system for our societies once said parasites are ousted.
Yes, I follow him over there. He has some very specific and technical ideas. I don't understand them, but the meta-meaning of James Bowery is good. That is, he is the type we need LOTS more of in WN because he is open to evidence, he has the brainpower to handle libertarians on their own level (and since he's not raceblind out of fear/dogma he can defeat them), and he is the opposite of the traditional BKR - braying Klan retard. He's THINKING about stuff. That is crucial. He's seeing that there are lots of very interesting, verifiable economic and other ideas out there that the internet has ginned up, or showed to exist, and even though they don't directly deal with race, they are highly relevant to our situation and any appeal we might make. Race and IQ and crime are problems, but they are not intellectual problems. They are problems only because we don't have the power to make them go away. The size and shape of the state - this is a real intellectual problem, and the libertarians are the most interesting folks going in discussing this stuff, and it is high time we WN coopted/stole their thunder, and Bowery is at the forefront of that. We need a lot more like him.

It's not just a matter of brains or focus, it's a matter of personality. Prozium can claim that libertarians are too theoretical, but I don't see that. I observe the paradox that although they are dogmatic individualists, libertarians are very good at developing effective networks. They sell their books very effectively, they sell gold, they make loads of speeches, they take advantage of new technology very quickly - they attract young people. All these were things that the nazis themselves were very good at. Another thing I observe about the libertarians is the high average brainpower coupled with the ability to get along. This is where you start to get to winnin' time. I remember that Ben Stein in his book about jews dominating the media (The View from Sunset Boulevard, one of the first book reviews ever written for VNN) said that Norman Lear's production company exhibited the highest level social intercourse he had ever seen. If we want to be effectual, if we want to beat the jews, we need the high brainpower, the dedicated work, and the smooth social intercourse the libertarians and the jews have achieved. Braying semi-literately about nigger crime aint getting the job done.

Quote:
Here in America I agree that Federalism and devolution of central powers will work. The Europeans, however, might have different ideas for their system. I suppose that’s their concern since not many of us American WN will be living in Europe anytime soon.
Yes, I'm not writing about Europe. Europe's challenges are different, though similar. It makes less sense to speak of Whites over there as they do not perceive themselves that way but rather members of discrete nations. Of course, that might change over time as they are loaded with Muslims and Africans. It is certainly true that Europeans of any nation feel more in common with each other than with 3rd-world interlopers. So the White Nationalism some Europeans make fun of might have more relevance to them as time goes by than they think. I think respect is needed from both sides. White is a real category in America, and, as Prozium has showed, it was here even before we became a country.

Quote:
Who becomes an employee of gov’t in this country? Generally, a person who is not employable in any other field. In some historical instances though, gov’t did recruit from a more promising pool which is why the gov’ts of, for example, Peter the Great or Frederick the Great ran like clockwork rather than like molasses.
Government now absorbs about fifty percent of the economy, I believe. In this depression, it is virtually the only sector hiring. People want to join it today because its work demands are few, and its benefits are better than what you can get in private companies. This is a terrible state of affairs. Government is an easy way for a huge number of people to live off the others. Now, the desire to live off the work of others is a morals or ethics problem. It won't go away in an all-White state. The only possible way to circumvent it, or to lessen the problem, is to get rid of government altogether, or as near as possible.

See, one thing WN, like other whites, lack is imagination. They truly are the prisoners of circumstances and conditioning. They literaly, quite literally, cannot imagine what it is like to be...free. They cannot imagine what it means to live in a world in which a white man working as, say, a waiter, can earn and KEEP enough money to raise a family. Such a concept seems utterly utopian and impossible to them even though it was the case as recently as the 1950s. But this is what we want to get to again, or at least I do. A WN state in which a White man remains a ward or child is hardly better than what we have now. But many, many WN or NS really do appear to desire a state in which virtually every major decision is made by government, and in which there is a department for everything. The farthest I am willing to go to accommodate these animal-men is to allow them to set up a microstate in which they tax each other like we're taxed now in order to provide the same shitty drainage and illusionary regulatory safety. I personally am willing to kill to avoid a bossman state every bit as much as I'm willing to kill to live in a mud-free state. Others feel differently, that much is clear.

Quote:
I think it’s a matter of quality. If you were to devolve power as you plan, gov’t officials would likely be chosen on a merit basis. I.E. Who is the best defender? And so forth. Gov’t would certainly not consist of the bloated bureaucracies which exist today.
Read some conservatism. The tendencies of government are independent of party or race; government bloating and spreading are inherent in the nature bureacracy. This shit has been written out and documented for at least 100 years. There is no solution, literally no solution. The best that can be done is not creating the government body in the first place. There will always be white men, and a large percentage of them, to whom it is obvious we need a government body to do every single thing that people do. The better whites will perpetually need to be on guard against them.

Quote:
I’ve said many times that the amount of resources which are drained away providing for muds and jews is astronomical. If you were to cut out this dead weight loss, it is hard to imagine how much we could increase our standard of living in the context of a cornucopian industrial civilization. It would mean leaps and bounds of progress.
Not just muds. The DOD and military contractors waste trillions of dollars, and most of that goes in the pockets of greedy non-jew white men.

Quote:
So, militias organized on the state level should do the trick.
I wish, but I doubt it. We live in an age of nuclear weapons. Going by the principle of subsidiarity, the proper level to deal with nuclear threats is not local or state or regional but national. It's one of very few problems that is, in fact, logically deal-withable nationally (at least as far as I can conceive).

Remember that Israel and China have nukes. I don't think China would be a problem to an all-White nation controlling all North America. Terms could be reached. Israel, on the other hand, well might be a problem. Not only for what it could do if such a nation arose, but because it has controlled the US for so long that it might already have nukes or other deadly weapons in place to destroy large chunks of our major cities at a time of its choosing. If you read Ostrovsky, you know nothing is beyond the pale with this people of hate. I see no way to deal with our racial defense but collectively, through the power of the federal government - the over-state as I call it. This would be the one and only duty of The Defenders - providing a technical, martial, media and intellectual defense of our race, and seeing to it that nobody, foreign or domestic, dared to try to undermine the racial basis of our state.

Quote:
I don’t. The state has never done anything for me in this life other than shake me down. If a state is to exist, I want to have a direct say in its policies, be it in the realm of military or economic policy. And with federalism/devolution this could be possible.
You as a man will have more control over local than state or national. That is the idea behind subsidiarity and devolution. Controlling everything from a single point -- centralization -- is a great lure to exactly the type of enthusiastic or malevolent idiot you don't want behind the wheel.

What the libertarians have shown, to their credit, is that virtually every function for the last 100 years unthinkingly thought the province of govenrment is more efficiently carried out by private arrangement. WN can ignore that fact or use it to appeal to investigators.

Quote:
We can establish our own regulations on a community-by-community basis after jews are out of the picture. I’m not against regulation on a micro-economical level.
Almost nothing needs to be done on the federal level. Arrangements can be worked out much more easily at the micro-state level, and individual voices will have that much more power. The fact that there are different types of micro-states will allow people to pick and choose. The key is that if one state fails, it won't drag down every other. Which is the opposite of what we have now: single-point dictatorship. Local school boards can't even choose what books they want their kids to read because the parameters are set by the department of education in Washington, D.C. That's a microcosm of the whole rotten system - you are 50% taxed by jews 2,000 miles away to indoctrinate your kid to hate himself and his race, and you have no say in the matter.

Quote:
So you want those of thrift and responsibility to not be deprived of the fruit of their labors in order to provide for deadweight? Well, I want the same. Most of the money I earn, I save. And it rankles me to have to pay a chunk of my labor to scum who don’t deserve it.
I think it is time to try to build a monofunctional ministate. A state based not on harnessing the productive to serve rich crooks and welfare bums but on the sole purpose of providing collective racial defense against foreign enemies and domestic mental perverts.

Last edited by Alex Linder; September 21st, 2009 at 03:17 PM.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #66
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cillian View Post
But Alex, some of us think that social marxism is so ingrained in our society that it would carry on it's suicidal notions even without the jews, and some positive propaganda would be needed for a generation or so to get rid of the 'dumb fat white guy' or the 'stupid blond whore' identity that our race has grown up with.

Do you agree with this?
I don't think it would take generations. Make tv a force for good, simply remove ZOG's thumb, provide a few instructive public trials and execution - I think most of the problem would dry up overnight.

People say whites are greedy, selfish, materialistic etc etc. In my view, they exaggerate the problem. What they're doing when they say this is obliquely praising themselves more than offering accurate criticism. Everybody loves money and things, and should and always will, no matter who's running the government. Yes, Big Jew has created some particularly nasty forms, but people are not radically different from what they ever were. Simply hose the shit system out of the way, a hell of a large percentage of white people will get what's going on and act accordingly. Kill off the troublemakers, provide genuine educational alternative (true history on tv, in curriculums) and we're pretty much back to safe ground.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #67
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
People say whites are greedy, selfish, materialistic etc etc. In my view, they exaggerate the problem. What they're doing when they say this is obliquely praising themselves more than offering accurate criticism. Everybody loves money and things, and should and always will, no matter who's running the government. Yes, Big Jew has created some particularly nasty forms, but people are not radically different from what they ever were. Simply hose the shit system out of the way, a hell of a large percentage of white people will get what's going on and act accordingly. Kill off the troublemakers, provide genuine educational alternative (true history on tv, in curriculums) and we're pretty much back to safe ground.
We take power. We get one guy on tv who speaks with my tone in this thread. All over the continent the dog ears pop up. WTF is this? What it is, busters, is the first time in your life you're hearing someone neither speaking down to you NOR kissing your ass like democratic politicians always do.

You need a standard-issue, no-frills, no-personality, Germanic hardass type (NOT a Hitler, he had frills, or a Celtic tearjerker like Gibson - you want not a rollercoaster effect but a steamroller effect) to take the lecturn. He just says, real slowly and pointedly,

"We're going back to normal."

Real slow, staring right through the camera...

"You know what I mean? ... You do, don't you."

"Now...you act normal...we're not going to have any problems."

"You want to keep up with whatever nation-destroying perversion you're into, we will track you down. We will find you, and we will shut your shop, and you will be filled with great heaping scoops of not liking it." Pause...keep eyes into camera until the message sinks in.

We're not here to take your money.... We're not here to lecture you.... We're not here to hold your cock when you piss and wipe your ass when you shit....

You are now living in a new White free adult nation, White MAN (emphasis)... and each one of those words carries liberation and responsibility for you personally.

Carry your weight, White man...and you will have no problem.

Drop your weight, White ward...and we will sort you out in short order.

Long live our white race...and long live the white men who make it.

Good night.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #68
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

"White free adult nation"

free White adult nation
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #69
PeterKramer
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T.I. View Post
C’mon, that’s an easy one. Because libs, like jews, work in cooperation with each other to further their own interests. Because they, like jews, couldn’t give a shit about anyone but themselves. And then, just like jews, they give their selfish scheme a fancy name for credibility.
Most libertarians aren't like jews they are jews.

That's why libertarians don't operate under the same handicap that we do. They're part of the anti-White system, a small part of the false opposition. A libertarian society would cost jews their government jobs and their dream of White extermination. The latter is so important to jews that libertarianism is far less popular with jews than communism was. A White nationalist society would cost jews their host society, and in some cases their lives.

You're way off about Alex, though. White men love freedom. That's why all the jew's false conservative, patriotic and right wing pseudo-freedom movements are almost entirely White. The modern regulatory state is the application of Talmudic totalism on the goyim, and the White man rebels against it instinctively. That's the reason for the constant media programming and government education, to keep the White man's mind enslaved.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #70
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
"White free adult nation"

free White adult nation
Depends. If you us the more conventional order, you get people blipping over, as it's a cliche. If you change the word order, you force the listener to pay a bit more attention, maybe consider each word individually.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #71
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Smoothness is not the effect you seek when you're banging your listener in the head. Your word order must reflect that. Changing the conventional order disrupts just enough that each word has its own weight, which reflects the overall message.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #72
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterKramer View Post
Most libertarians aren't like jews they are jews.
That's not true of the LRC crowd, and they are one of the top two libertarian schools - in fact, altho they do look up to two jews as their northern stars (von Mises and Rothbard), for practical concerns they are anti-jew in that they are extremely hostile toward the other main libertarian school which is essentially neocon-coopted libertarianism - Reason magazine, Cato and a few other think tanks. The LRC have nothing against jews, but they indirectly oppose Big Jew on so many things (warmongering, funny money, big centralized government in general) that they end up getting attacked by the same jews and in the same terms as we WN do. WN like Johnson and MacDonald and TOQ who suck up to faileocons would have a much stronger case for sucking up to libertarians, if they were looking for people who are, in practical terms, carrying our water. (It doesn't go without saying that the LRC crowd should not be sucked up to.) LRC writers spread doubt about the state. The fact they don't call the state by its real name, ZOG, is too bad, but the practical effect of their efforts strongly helps us WN, certainly it aids us much more than anything the puling, remonstrating, backwards-looking paleocons do. The LRC are young and growing; the faileocons do nothing but turn a few more Yale queers into young fogeys at one of their stupid conferences. The LRC may not have the guts to realize or point out that only Whites can handle decentralization, but that doesn't stop us! Nearly everything LRC do helps our cause, even if LRC intend the opposite. All we have to do is take the people they've prepped and give them racial context. Perfect. They say: end the fed! We say, Yes! And end the jews who created it!

Why you say most libertarians are jews, that simply is not true. The vast majority of LRC writers are not jews, nor are the people who write in to them, as you can tell from the letters Lewpus puts on the blog.

Quote:
That's why libertarians don't operate under the same handicap that we do. They're part of the anti-White system, a small part of the false opposition.
No, that isn't true or fair. They are not part of the system. You don't see Lew Rockwell on tv lying like Pat Buchanan. You can blame Cato and the Reason crowd maybe, but the LRC are not part of the system at all. Almost everybody who writes for LRC is in private business, rather than working for one of the big media companies or some state bureacracy. For the libertarians to be part of the false opposition they would have to end their support for free association, and I have never seen one do this. Now, they certainly don't emphasize their position in that regard, but neither do they deny it. They know darn well that free association would result in segregation, which would allow the white race to protect itself, and from time to time one of them acknowledges it. They are not bothered by it, they just don't emphasize it. Certainly fear has something to do with that. They are wrong about race, but that's all it is - they're wrong; the libertarian doctrine is wrong on race. Many or I think most of them are wrong honestly. They get no personal benefits from lying the way chickenshit tv conservatives do.

Quote:
You're way off about Alex, though. White men love freedom. That's why all the jew's false conservative, patriotic and right wing pseudo-freedom movements are almost entirely White. The modern regulatory state is the application of Talmudic totalism on the goyim, and the White man rebels against it instinctively. That's the reason for the constant media programming and government education, to keep the White man's mind enslaved.
I think white men are mixed. The smart and competent ones like freedom. The dumber ones like government. Certainly a higher percentage of white men is self reliant and instinctively hostile to government than you'll find in any other race. Whiteworld is awakening to the fact that it no more needs government than it needs niggers and jews. That's the Zeitgeist, at least, I hope and think.

Last edited by Alex Linder; September 21st, 2009 at 04:24 PM.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #73
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

"For the libertarians to be part of the false opposition they would have to end their support for free association, and I have never seen one do this"

I actually ran across a libertarian site that denied free association. The guy said: "If a group tries to form a gated community based on racial exclusion, they should be stopped by outsiders, by force."

I spent hours trying to find the site, to no avail.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #74
PeterKramer
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
That's not true of the LRC crowd, and they are one of the top two libertarian schools - in fact, altho they do look up to two jews as their northern stars (von Mises and Rothbard), for practical concerns they are anti-jew in that they are extremely hostile toward the other main libertarian school which is essentially neocon-coopted libertarianism - Reason magazine, Cato and a few other think tanks.
You may be right about that. I haven't checked the LRC roster to see how kosher it is. I'm talking about the libertarians who run for local office, write op eds for local papers and collect signatures to get their candidates on the ballot. Those people are disproportionately jews.

The LRC crowd is hostile to Lincoln and sympathetic to the Confederacy. I read some libertarian blogs during the Ron Paul campaign and they were apoplectic about that, and Paul's association with Rockwell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I think white men are mixed. The smart and competent ones like freedom. The dumber ones like government. Certainly a higher percentage of white men is self reliant and instinctively hostile to government than you'll find in any other race. Whiteworld is awakening to the fact that it no more needs government than it needs niggers and jews. That's the Zeitgeist, at least, I hope and think.
They may not be libertarians but on most issues when polls are broken down by race White men tend to favor smaller government, lower taxes and less regulation than any other group.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #75
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
"For the libertarians to be part of the false opposition they would have to end their support for free association, and I have never seen one do this"

I actually ran across a libertarian site that denied free association. The guy said: "If a group tries to form a gated community based on racial exclusion, they should be stopped by outsiders, by force."

I spent hours trying to find the site, to no avail.
Geez, Rick, don't put yourself out! I will freely stipulate the site exists. I mean, hell, as LRC shows nearly daily, a hell of a lot of so-called libertarians are out-and-out big-government statists. (What I mean is, LRC, on its blog, fairly often writes about the Reason-Poole-Cato school, which has made its peace with big government. What I mean, there are people actively misrepesenting libertarianism, just as there are people actively misrepresenting conservatism - and to the same big-state, jew-serving ends.) Really, the jews have done to libertarianism what they did to conservatism. Or, maybe it's more accurate to say, libertarianism was never all that much, but the jews have invested some efforts in building up support for their warfare/welfare state even among nominal anti-statists.

I think the main point here is that the LRC branch has written a lot of good books, attracted a lot of good white men, to its genuinely anti-state message, and through almost every campaign it carries on (pro-hard money, anti-Fed, anti-war) it sets the table for WN to eat.

Last edited by Alex Linder; September 21st, 2009 at 05:19 PM.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #76
T.I.
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 316
T.I.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
All we have to do is take the people they've prepped and give them racial context. Perfect.
The SECOND you make any overt racial connection to anything a libertarian claims to believe on principle, they put you in the tinfoil-wearing, racist, anti-jew camp and flee from you in horror.

They may still have their same ideas privately, but they no longer want anything to do with you.

Quote:
The guy said: "If a group tries to form a gated community based on racial exclusion, they should be stopped by outsiders, by force."
How do you figure to make the nuts and bolts connection here between us and them?
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #77
Hunter Wallace
Member
 
Hunter Wallace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 251
Hunter Wallace
Default Stuff Libertarians Hate

#1. The Passenger Pigeon



Consider the fate of the passenger pigeon. It was once the most common avian in the world. There used to be billions of them in the United States. The pioneers that settled Transappalachia often encountered flocks containing millions of birds. That was until settlers and loggers destroyed their habitat and market hunters annihilated the species. A cheap buck could be made in turning their carcasses into hog feed.

#2. The Buffalo



The American bison used to roam the North American heartland from Idaho to Georgia. Before the Civil War, there were 30 to 60 million bison on the Great Plains. By the 1890s, the bison had been hunted to near extinction. There were only around 1,000 of them left in North America. The bison would have gone the way of the passenger pigeon if the federal government hadn't intervened at the last minute by creating the first wildlife refuges.

#3. The White Tail Deer



As hard as it is to believe, the white tail deer was once extinct nearly everywhere east of the Rockies, and thrives now only on account of the game laws that saved the species. In 1930, there were only about 300,000 of them left in the United States. They have since made a spectacular comeback thanks to government intervention.

#4. The Wild Turkey



Enjoy Thanksgiving? A turkey sandwich? The wild turkey (which Benjamin Franklin wanted to be America's national bird) was similarly pushed to the brink of extinction by habitat destruction and market hunting. A century ago, there were only 30,000 of them left. The wild turkey could only be found in secluded areas like the swamps of Alabama. A coordinated effort between government agencies, the National Wildlife Turkey Federation, and the hunting industry brought the wild turkey back for sportsmen to hunt.

#5. The Black Bear



The black bear, Alabama's state mammal, had been pushed back to a few isolated wilderness pockets by the twentieth century. Bears were shot as vermin, food, and trophies. The black bear population was wiped out in most of the Eastern United States. Like countless other species, the black bear was saved by legislation which outlawed market hunting.

#6. The Bald Eagle



What could be more American than the bald eagle? It is our national bird and a symbol of the United States. In the eighteenth century, there were once as many as 300,000 to 500,000 bald eagles in U.S. and their range extended across the continent. By 1950, there were only a few hundred nesting pairs left in the Lower 48. The use of pesticides like DDT, habitat destruction, and market hunting decimated the bald eagle population which rebounded after DDT was banned and commercial hunting was outlawed.

#7. The Pronghorn Antelope



The majestic pronghorn antelope was once a common sight in the Old West. By 1908, there were only about 20,000 pronghorn antelope left in the United States thanks to market hunters. The population only recovered after wildlife preserves and hunting restrictions were established.

#8. The Beaver



There used to be as many as 60 million beavers in the United States before the fur trade drove the American beaver to extinction in most of its original range. The European beaver was likewise hunted to extinction throughout many parts of Europe. Both species are recovering on account of the game laws which outlawed market hunting.

#9. The Blue Whale



Blue whales were abundant in the world's oceans until the twentieth century. They could be found along the Pacific coast from Alaska to California. In a mere sixty years, 99% of blue whales were hunted to extinction by market hunters. There are only an estimated 5,000 to 12,000 of them left alive today. They have experienced a slow recovery since whaling was banned under international treaties in the 1960s.

#10. The White Man



Last but not least, White people are projected to become a minority in the United States by 2042. A perfect storm of third world immigration, miscegenation, abortion, and differential birthrates - which are all rationalized in the name of 'freedom' - have conspired to bring down the White man too in his native habitat. Like the black bears, wolves, cougars, and mountain lions of yesteryear, the White man is now despised as vermin and is denied an exclusive habitat and positive sense of racial identity by our Jewish cultural establishment.

So, I would say to Alex: there is something that government is definitely better at than private markets - wildlife management - of which White Nationalism is but a logical extension. Bring back the laws against third world immigration, miscegenation, abortion, and integration and perhaps the White race will thrive again in its former range.
__________________
Occidental Dissent

"A functioning police state needs no police."
—William Borroughs
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #78
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T.I. View Post
The SECOND you make any overt racial connection to anything a libertarian claims to believe on principle, they put you in the tinfoil-wearing, racist, anti-jew camp and flee from you in horror.

They may still have their same ideas privately, but they no longer want anything to do with you.
I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the people they attract - the young - the people we need to do business. Ron Paul is the only thing I've seen apart from Matt Shepard and Obongo that has actually created intellectual excitement and political movement among young white men. Of course you're not going to persuade public libertarians they're wrong, altho some of them will admit it privately. They want to continue to write for the big-name site, LRC, and he has a proven history of banning people who are "too hot" (ie, write honestly about race). The point is the LRC/Paul crowd actually has people talking seriously about money and the Fed. That's more than WN have achieved - one hand of the jewish stranglehold under examination (the other jew hand around the American throat being media).
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #79
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
#4. The Wild Turkey



Enjoy Thanksgiving? A turkey sandwich? The wild turkey (which Benjamin Franklin wanted to be America's national bird) was similarly pushed to the brink of extinction by habitat destruction and market hunting. A century ago, there were only 30,000 of them left. The wild turkey could only be found in secluded areas like the swamps of Alabama. A coordinated effort between government agencies, the National Wildlife Turkey Federation, and the hunting industry brought the wild turkey back for sportsmen to hunt.
You're obviously not familiar with the story of the turkey here in Missouri. It took a private sector fellow years and years to get the state department even to consider reintroducing turkeys because they said to a man it would never work. Guess what, it did. Our county, Adair, is one of the top hunting counties for turkeys in the nation. All because of a private citizen's efforts.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #80
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

IV. The Tragedy of the Commons
By Mr. John C. Goodman and Mr. Richard L. Stroup / Posted: April 15, 1991

In a classic article published in 1968, Garrett Hardin argued that most environmental problems stem from a single cause: the misuse of resources that are owned in common. [69]Since the air, the water, most species of mammals and fish and public lands have no private owners, they have no protectors or defenders. The use of these resources creates private benefits. But their misuse results in costs that are borne collectively – which means by no one inparticular. As a result, people who use the "commons" bear only a small portion of the social costs of their own actions.

The problem is not new. It has been around for as long as human beings have occupied the planet. Take the case of commonly owned grazing land. If a single cattle herder conserves some grass for the coming year, the odds are small that he will derive any benefit from that action – since the grass is then available for consumption by all of the other herders. With commonly owned grazing land, no single herder can reap the full benefits of his "good" behavior. Nor does he bear the full costs of his "bad" behavior. Thus all herders find it in their self-interest to overgraze the land, even though in the long run all are worse off as a result.

Hardin's analysis can easily be extended to other environmental problems. Most of us wouldn't even consider dumping trash in our neighbor's privately owned backyard. But since air and water are commonly owned resources to which we have free access, we find it in our self-interest to use them as dumping grounds for all manner of waste. Private timber companies are often exemplary environmental stewards of their own land. Indeed, much of what we know about forest management comes from pioneering discoveries by private companies. [70] By contrast, some of these same companies have caused environmental harm in the federally owned commons of the U.S. forests. The lessons can also be applied to endangered species:

One hundred years ago, there were three billion passenger pigeons and very few chickens. But because chickens were privately owned, whereas pigeons were common property, today there are three billion chickens and the passenger pigeon is extinct. [71]

Two hundred years ago, buffalo greatly outnumbered cattle in America. Today, privately owned cattle flourish, while the buffalo is almost extinct. [72]

In those African countries where elephants are owned in common, their numbers are dwindling rapidly – the victims of poachers in search of ivory. But in India, where elephants are owned by villagers, they are almost never killed for their tusks. [73]

What can be done about the tragedy of the commons? To many reactionary environmentalists, the answer is to change human nature – to remake humans so they no longer act in their own self-interest. "We need a transformation of the human spirit," says John Boorman (British Green who directed the movies Hope and Glory and The Emerald Forest.) "If the human heart can be changed, then everything can be changed." [74] But since there is not the slightest chance that human nature really will be changed, the reactionaries invariably turn to government.

Why Government Solutions Often Don't Work. Most environmentalists, regardless of other differences, agree on one thing: U.S. government agencies charged with protecting the environment have done a poor job. And this is a judgment about the most environmentally conscious country in the world. In every other country, government management is even worse.

In an internal study at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), staffers were asked to rank EPA programs in order of their environmental importance.

When this ranking was compared to a ranking of programs based on the amount of money the EPA spends, the findings were almost the reverse of each other.

The EPA spent the most on those programs which were politically popular and very little on those which might advance environmental objectives. [75] This finding was echoed in an outside review of the EPA by scholars at Harvard University. [76]

Studies of other government agencies also have documented a poor environmental record. These include the U.S. Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Federal Highway Administration and the World Bank. The results of some of these studies will be discussed below.

The problems of government mismanagement of environmental resources do not arise because government has too little power. As noted above, even worse problems exist in the Soviet Union, where government power has been enormous. In 1921, Lenin signed a decree prohibiting any development of natural resources in Soviet national parks. Yet under the pressure of five-year plans, bureaucrats increasingly saw protected resources as raw material for economic growth. Only Lenin's personal interest prevented complete surrender to the development-at-any-cost mentality. Once the Stalinists came to power, Lenin's concerns were totally ignored. [77]

The principal reason why government solutions usually don't work is that the political process is itself a "commons." [78] People who support bad policies bear only a small part of the costs of those policies. The vast bulk of the costs are borne by others. On the other hand, people who support good policies reap only a small portion of the benefits. As a result, the pursuit of political self-interest all too often results in environmental harm.

Progressive environmentalists know that we cannot successfully reach environmental goals by substituting a "political commons" for an "economic commons." In fact, trying to achieve environmental goals by simply turning the problem over to government often creates even more environmental destruction.

Solving Problems Through Market-Based Institutions. A primary reason why private property came into existence was to solve the "commons" problems. For example, in the early West, cattle ranchers established private property rights on the open range. Cattle management associations were -formed to enforce these rights and to arrange for compensation when one rancher's cattle grazed on another's land. They also protected ranchers' rights in the cattle by warding off cattle thieves. To help enforce grazing rights, branding was introduced and cowboys were hired as human fences. And because the costs of enforcing these arrangements were so high, innovators had strong incentives to find a cheaper solution – thus leading to the invention of barbed wire. [79]

Today, the solution to the problems of the open range seems quite simple. But in an earlier era it was comparable to some of our most difficult "commons" problems today. The problem of the open range was solved because it was in people's self-interest to find solutions and because they had the freedom to implement those solutions.

Can the lessons of cattle ranching be applied to modern-day environmental problems? Progressive environmentalists believe that in many cases they can. The message coming to our shores from virtually every country on every continent is: markets work far better than government bureaucracies. Cognizant of that message, progressive environmentalists seek ways of creating market-based institutions within which people will find it in their self-interest to solve environmental problems.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=6065
 
Reply

Tags
jew talk, jew von mises, liberaltarianism, libertarianism is jewish, libertarianism is white, state withers away

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:09 PM.
Page generated in 0.21396 seconds.