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

Old September 21st, 2009 #81
Hunter Wallace
Member
 
Hunter Wallace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 251
Hunter Wallace
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
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.
The utilitarian value of all sorts of species, most famously the white tail deer and the wild turkey, was belatedly realized after they had almost been annihilated by market hunters. Perhaps the same will be true of the White race in 2142 after our impending non-White majority runs America into the ground.
__________________
Occidental Dissent

"A functioning police state needs no police."
—William Borroughs
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #82
T.I.
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 316
T.I.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the people they attract - the young - the people we need to do business.
Those were the people I was referring to. One was a bright, nerdy college kid whose dad was in the 7 figure salary range. The kid liked all of RPs theories and the concept of freedom and all, but the minute I made the factual, logical and documented connection to the racial and jewish angle, the kid became noticeably uncomfortable.

The story is, I worked with him for about 6 weeks. For about the first week he kept a relative open mind to the facts I presented to him, absorbing stuff he never heard before, and was busy verying for himself. By the 2nd week his defenses were up. By the 3rd week his suspicions were up about my personal motives – and his fact checking stopped completely. After that his mind was shut to anything I had to say. Mind you he still fully considered himself a libertarian.

The facts only momentarily got in the way of his theories.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #83
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,434
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

It is unarguable that private owners take care of property better than the government because they have a stake in it. The Soviet Union destroyed an entire, giant sea! How many species were wiped out? I don't know. I'm sure many kinds of fish were adversely affected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaas Ebbe View Post
#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.
99% of all species that ever existed are extinct, so extinction is hardly something unusual, rather, it is the rule.

One type of pigeon is no longer with us? It is virtually guaranteed that private efforts will lead to the ability to clone this pigeon in the future if they haven't already. Why would we want to, though? Is there something remarkable about this pigeon we can't find in the millions of useless ones polluting every major city?

Quote:
#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.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure there were plenty kept on private farms that would have survived whether or not the feds created Yellowstone so they could play with matches. I can point you to more than one farm here in Missouri that keeps bison. Hell, the people who bought the old Schillie (my great grandmother's) place keep camels on it, I kid you not.

If the buffalo being shot in the early days were on privately owned land, rather than public land, the shooters would not have had the right to shoot them - correct? So, again, public ownership is not the solution, it is the problem. More often than not. Owners take care of things - slaves, rivers, private land, animals. Renters do not. Public schools, public parks, public toilets - are any of these as nice as private schools, private parks, private toilets? There's a principle at work.

Quote:
#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.
This is utterly nuts. There were no deer around because people were hungry and wanted to eat! It was private industry raising the standard of living that allowed us to reach the point that we see deer as cute and something to protect rather than something to kill and eat.

Quote:
#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.
So? Bears are real neat until you're near one, when it suddenly occurs to you that they're giant killers with bad breath. Of course people killed them off - they are threats. They can be eaten, too. It's natural in preindustrial society to kill off threats. Even if we killed them all out of the lower 48, there would have been more in Canada we could have brought back. The idea of bears running around everywhere is cool until you come to face with it, then it loses some appeal, as bears are scary and prone to dumpster diving.

Quote:
#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.
The banning of DDT has resulted in the deaths of literally millions of humans. Granted, most of them are muds, but banning DDT was truly a stupid thing to do. Bald eagles are nice, but let's face it, they're just a prettier version of vulture.

Quote:
#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.
Yeah, and where does all the conservation money come from? It comes, most of it, from taxes on hunting and fishing permits, at least in Missouri.

The fallacy here is that you've got good-guy environmentalists on one hand and bad-guy hunters. No. Hunters are the good guys. Hunters are the environmetnalists. All the early WASPs concerned with wildlife preservation were hunters, big-time hunters, especially Roosevelt, who never stopped shooting until he ran out of ammunition.

Quote:
#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.
Bah humbug. Beavers are giant flat-tailed rats, taking one with another. Very few have attractive personalities. Most of them drudge around in the mud and destroy trees until they have enough to dam rivers. I mean, if they weren't a protected species they'd be the very definition of environment-hating industrialists.

Quote:
#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.
This is more arguable than the others. However, I have my doubts as to the honesty of the people creating the numbers. Just HTF do you count how many whales there are in the world?

Quote:
#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.
Come, come. You are not going to attribute to "freedom" what must be laid at the foot of the jew. It's not "freedom" that designed our immigration policy, it's specific people/groups pursuing a specfic agenda. It is the government that cares more about a stupid invading mussel than invading Mexican, and a golden carp more than a Caucasian. The government is the problem, not private citizens. Private citizens create more white people every day of the year. Government kills them.

Quote:
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.
If the government is better at it, then why isn't it doing it? It's not private citizens who want borders opened, it's the government itself.

Here in Missouri, I follow wildlife management closely because the dept has a free magazine (free meaning our taxes pay for it) and I've been to the state nursery and know a lot about how it goes about "helping" private landowners. Missouri is supposedly about as good as this stuff gets. For government, it's not as bad as we usually find. That is, altho the mag is loaded with diversity bs, it's pretty clear that the everyday works is 99% non-jew white men. This stuff is much better and more controllable on the state level than the national, as in everything. Mo plans are funded by a small tax and by monies received from hunters and fishermen. It seems to work fairly well. But the fact is, half the people doing the real work are still private people engaged in cleaning up streams and such. The real guarantee that you keep land solid and groovy is that the vast, overwhelming bulk of it is in White private landowner hands. The minute that changes, you get the USSR, which created the worst environmental catastrophes ever seen on earth, whether you're talking about nasty brown-coal smog (which I experienced first-lung in East Germany in 1987 - worse by far than even smog in L.A. in the 1970s), irradiation around Chernobyl, or the intentionally dried up Aral Sea. In the U.S. we've gotten lucky and only had the feds burn down Yellowstone on some wacko theory. The feds as land managers are awful, even in America. You've got the army corps of engineers murdering rivers by straightening them, by building incompetent dikes (New Orleans) and telling people back in the thirties to prevent erosion by throwing all their old junk and appliances into ditches (you can still see the effects of this asinine, later-reversed policy) all over Missouri.

The government is as awful at wildlife and property management as it is at everything else.

Look around. Especially in this day and age, private breeders are the ones truly preserving wildlife - often enough they are creating new forms and new subspecies.

 
Old September 21st, 2009 #84
cillian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,377
cillian
Default

Quote:
There were no deer around because people were hungry and wanted to eat! It was private industry raising the standard of living that allowed us to reach the point that we see deer as cute and something to protect rather than something to kill and eat.
Here in Ireland the red deer was nearly genocided, now it's farmed and venison can be bought in most super markets.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #85
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,434
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaas Ebbe View Post
The utilitarian value of all sorts of species, most famously the white tail deer and the wild turkey, was belatedly realized after they had almost been annihilated by market hunters. Perhaps the same will be true of the White race in 2142 after our impending non-White majority runs America into the ground.
Well, if we're part of the wildlie being managed by these feds who are so much better than private owners, why are we in danger?
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #86
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,434
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

There's also no real accounting for the negatives of wildlife management. Here's one in Missouri:



Missouri's Otter Disaster!

By Hank Reifeus, October 1999

Like a lot of us, Buford and Wilma Urban of Houston, Mo. worked hard to obtain their dream of a piece of Ozark land to retire. They found a beautiful spot on Arthur Creek; a tributary of the Big Piney. Buford fished in the creek. He also built a pond and stocked it with 800 catfish. Two years ago, river otters, stocked by the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), moved up Arthur Creek and over the winter decimated the catfish in their pond. The otters also cleaned out the creek behind their house. I visited these people on an MDC sponsored fieldtrip and saw the pictures documenting the damage.

Three years ago Debo McKinney, a land owner and fisherman inTexas County, noticed a decline in the fishing quality in many of his favorite streams. He saw otters killing and eating fish. He also found large piles of scales from this activity. He has been fishing these streams all his life. He believes the decline in fishing quality is caused by the reintroduction of otters by the MDC.

These are not isolated incidents. Land owners and fishermen across the Ozarks are reporting fish losses due to otter predation. What's going on? The answer lies in irresponsible policy decisions and incompetent biological practices done by the MDC. These policies have threatened our Ozark fishing heritage in our streams and lakes.

This all began in 1982 when the MDC started a program of reintroducing river otters into the Ozarks. A total of 845 otters were released in 43 areas. Stocking ended in 1992. Since then, the otter population has exploded. A recent study done by the University of Missouri shows that by the spring of next year there will be 18,000 otters in our Ozark streams and the population will continue to grow rapidly and expand its range. This animal population has exploded because it was introduced into a totally unnatural habitat. The present Ozarks are nothing like the Ozarks of 100 years ago when these animals existed here naturally. Now there are thousands of fish filled ponds like Bufords that provide an unnatural food source to allow for the otters population explosion. MDC studies show that 90% of adults are breeding and they have 3 to 4 pups per litter. This is an abnormal and unheard of reproduction rate.

The streams themselves are entirely different because of excessive past and present timber harvests, bad land practices, road construction, etc. Because of this, our streams have become gravel choked. The loss of the natural deep holes in the streams has radically changed the habitat. With less places to hide the fish become highly susceptible to predation by otters. Yet knowing this, the MDC still went ahead with reintroduction. That biologically arrogant, indefensible decision is the cause of this catastrophe.

The otters diet consists of crayfish and fish. MDC data shows that during the warm months crayfish equal 60% of their diet and fish 30%. In cold months when crayfish go dormant fish become 60-70% of their main diet. When the bass, suckers, catfish and trout school up in the few holes during the cold months they become highly vulnerable to otter predation. A recent study done by the MDC shows the effects of this predation on bass and sunfish. The ages and percentage of the fish killed are as follows, 40% 1-3 years old, 40% 4-6 years old, 20% 7 years and older. Now I don't imagine that there are many 4 years and older sunfish out there, so almost 60% of these fish are probably bass. A 4-6 year old bass is 12 to 18 inches long and a seven year bass is a trophy. These are the quality fish in our streams that the otters are killing. This is an unprecedented disaster in the making for all Ozark anglers.

Also when these fish spawn, they become highly susceptible to harassment by otters. They are either killed or kept from completing a successful spawn. The MDC's authority on otter behavior was asked if otters would harass fish on the spawning beds. He stated that otters are animals of opportunity and would definitely attack fish on spawning beds. So the fish are not only killed and eaten but their food base is also eaten out from underneath them and then they are prevented from obtaining a successful spawn. A triple whammy! These animals pose a tremendous threat to our fishing throughout the Ozarks.

You would expect the MDC Fisheries Division to do a careful and detailed food and habitat study before introducing this large, prolific, and voracious fish killing animal into our Ozark streams. Wrong! Not one study was done before reintroduction. Out of state data from Louisiana was used. A state whose water and habitat is nothing like our free flowing Ozark streams.

The MDC is now half way through a four year study, to the end of 2001, to determine what otters eat. A study that should have been done before introducing otters into your Ozark streams. Let me give you a quote from an MDC publication, 'Missouri River Otter Update' that was handed out at the 'Otter Advisory Committee' meeting held in Houston Mo. on 6/19/99. An MDC spokesman states, "Knowledge of otter food habits is one of the essential elements missing from our current understanding of otter biology in Missouri this study is obviously a first step and a basic need." Their first step should be to gain control of this animal and the basic need must be to protect our Ozark sportfishing heritage.

The MDC will put its spin on all this like any other government bureaucracy itself. A bureaucracy always fears accountability. MDC apologists will scream for loyalty and to trust the professional 'experts'. I happen to believe that the thoughtful and reasoned questioning of poor policy and actions is much more commendable than blind faith. The days of 'Trust me, I'm the Expert' ended with Vietnam. No excuses or rationalization will change the cold hard facts. I know that the MDC does good work and I understand this problem did not begin with the present administration, but this disaster is happening on their watch. If the MDC claims the successes of past administrations, they must also accept responsibility for their failures and mistakes and move to correct them. The MDC has the right and the obligation to the landowners and sportsmen of this state to quickly correct this problem. This animal was introduced into a completely unnatural habitat. The animal is an out of control exotic species. The MDC has every legal and biological right to vigorously control it.

Imagine the MDC reintroducing cougar and wolves. Then when these animals start decimating the deer and turkey in the state, the MDC saying that they need to do a four year study to determine what the wolves and cougars eat, before they act on the problem. Deer and turkey hunters would never accept this. They would demand that the problem be fixed and fixed now! Fishermen and landowners throughout the Ozarks must demand no less. You must hold the MDC accountable for this disaster.

Now that you know the problem, what can you the Ozark sportsman and landowner do? First you must tell the MDC to take action against this animal before the end of the 2001 study. Take action before the animal becomes more firmly entrenched and your fishing is degraded even more. If they can't figure out what they're eating by now, tell them to ask Debo and Buford. The MDC has already moved to control otters that threaten their fishery. An MDC fisheries supervisor acknowledged that the state has removed otters that were threatening their hatcheries. They need to move just as quickly to protect your fishery.

Tell them you don't believe that sport trappers alone, even with an extended season, will be able to control this animal. They may have to bring in professional animal control agents to work with local trappers. Yes it will cost money but look at the alternative. And they have money. The MDC is the second highest funded state conservation organization in the country. California is first. Tell them to take the physicians oath, "Above all do no harm." and quit playing around with exotic species. When the Ozarks return to their original glory, then they can reintroduce species. But until then, tell them to get back to basics; habitat improvement and meaningful enforcement.

But to tell them all this you must have a voice. Publications like this and groups like the Mo. Smallmouth Alliance, www.smallmouth.org allow you to be heard. But to be heard you must use that voice.

You can have an immediate impact on this problem but only if you write and demand action. You should be enraged by this. Get mad. Speak up! If we don't hold this taxpayer funded department accountable for this disaster and demand action, we have lost all credibility as true sportsmen who care about the future and restoring our Ozark fishing heritage. Write MDC Director Conley now!

Jerry Conley, Director
Missouri Department of conservation
P.O.Box 180
Jefferson City Mo. 65102
E-mail: [email protected] --

http://www.smallmouth.org/MissouriOtters.html
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #87
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,434
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

There's also no real accounting for the negatives of wildlife management. Here's one in Missouri:



Missouri's Otter Disaster!

By Hank Reifeus, October 1999

Like a lot of us, Buford and Wilma Urban of Houston, Mo. worked hard to obtain their dream of a piece of Ozark land to retire. They found a beautiful spot on Arthur Creek; a tributary of the Big Piney. Buford fished in the creek. He also built a pond and stocked it with 800 catfish. Two years ago, river otters, stocked by the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), moved up Arthur Creek and over the winter decimated the catfish in their pond. The otters also cleaned out the creek behind their house. I visited these people on an MDC sponsored fieldtrip and saw the pictures documenting the damage.

Three years ago Debo McKinney, a land owner and fisherman inTexas County, noticed a decline in the fishing quality in many of his favorite streams. He saw otters killing and eating fish. He also found large piles of scales from this activity. He has been fishing these streams all his life. He believes the decline in fishing quality is caused by the reintroduction of otters by the MDC.

These are not isolated incidents. Land owners and fishermen across the Ozarks are reporting fish losses due to otter predation. What's going on? The answer lies in irresponsible policy decisions and incompetent biological practices done by the MDC. These policies have threatened our Ozark fishing heritage in our streams and lakes.

This all began in 1982 when the MDC started a program of reintroducing river otters into the Ozarks. A total of 845 otters were released in 43 areas. Stocking ended in 1992. Since then, the otter population has exploded. A recent study done by the University of Missouri shows that by the spring of next year there will be 18,000 otters in our Ozark streams and the population will continue to grow rapidly and expand its range. This animal population has exploded because it was introduced into a totally unnatural habitat. The present Ozarks are nothing like the Ozarks of 100 years ago when these animals existed here naturally. Now there are thousands of fish filled ponds like Bufords that provide an unnatural food source to allow for the otters population explosion. MDC studies show that 90% of adults are breeding and they have 3 to 4 pups per litter. This is an abnormal and unheard of reproduction rate.

The streams themselves are entirely different because of excessive past and present timber harvests, bad land practices, road construction, etc. Because of this, our streams have become gravel choked. The loss of the natural deep holes in the streams has radically changed the habitat. With less places to hide the fish become highly susceptible to predation by otters. Yet knowing this, the MDC still went ahead with reintroduction. That biologically arrogant, indefensible decision is the cause of this catastrophe.

The otters diet consists of crayfish and fish. MDC data shows that during the warm months crayfish equal 60% of their diet and fish 30%. In cold months when crayfish go dormant fish become 60-70% of their main diet. When the bass, suckers, catfish and trout school up in the few holes during the cold months they become highly vulnerable to otter predation. A recent study done by the MDC shows the effects of this predation on bass and sunfish. The ages and percentage of the fish killed are as follows, 40% 1-3 years old, 40% 4-6 years old, 20% 7 years and older. Now I don't imagine that there are many 4 years and older sunfish out there, so almost 60% of these fish are probably bass. A 4-6 year old bass is 12 to 18 inches long and a seven year bass is a trophy. These are the quality fish in our streams that the otters are killing. This is an unprecedented disaster in the making for all Ozark anglers.

Also when these fish spawn, they become highly susceptible to harassment by otters. They are either killed or kept from completing a successful spawn. The MDC's authority on otter behavior was asked if otters would harass fish on the spawning beds. He stated that otters are animals of opportunity and would definitely attack fish on spawning beds. So the fish are not only killed and eaten but their food base is also eaten out from underneath them and then they are prevented from obtaining a successful spawn. A triple whammy! These animals pose a tremendous threat to our fishing throughout the Ozarks.

You would expect the MDC Fisheries Division to do a careful and detailed food and habitat study before introducing this large, prolific, and voracious fish killing animal into our Ozark streams. Wrong! Not one study was done before reintroduction. Out of state data from Louisiana was used. A state whose water and habitat is nothing like our free flowing Ozark streams.

The MDC is now half way through a four year study, to the end of 2001, to determine what otters eat. A study that should have been done before introducing otters into your Ozark streams. Let me give you a quote from an MDC publication, 'Missouri River Otter Update' that was handed out at the 'Otter Advisory Committee' meeting held in Houston Mo. on 6/19/99. An MDC spokesman states, "Knowledge of otter food habits is one of the essential elements missing from our current understanding of otter biology in Missouri this study is obviously a first step and a basic need." Their first step should be to gain control of this animal and the basic need must be to protect our Ozark sportfishing heritage.

The MDC will put its spin on all this like any other government bureaucracy itself. A bureaucracy always fears accountability. MDC apologists will scream for loyalty and to trust the professional 'experts'. I happen to believe that the thoughtful and reasoned questioning of poor policy and actions is much more commendable than blind faith. The days of 'Trust me, I'm the Expert' ended with Vietnam. No excuses or rationalization will change the cold hard facts. I know that the MDC does good work and I understand this problem did not begin with the present administration, but this disaster is happening on their watch. If the MDC claims the successes of past administrations, they must also accept responsibility for their failures and mistakes and move to correct them. The MDC has the right and the obligation to the landowners and sportsmen of this state to quickly correct this problem. This animal was introduced into a completely unnatural habitat. The animal is an out of control exotic species. The MDC has every legal and biological right to vigorously control it.

Imagine the MDC reintroducing cougar and wolves. Then when these animals start decimating the deer and turkey in the state, the MDC saying that they need to do a four year study to determine what the wolves and cougars eat, before they act on the problem. Deer and turkey hunters would never accept this. They would demand that the problem be fixed and fixed now! Fishermen and landowners throughout the Ozarks must demand no less. You must hold the MDC accountable for this disaster.

Now that you know the problem, what can you the Ozark sportsman and landowner do? First you must tell the MDC to take action against this animal before the end of the 2001 study. Take action before the animal becomes more firmly entrenched and your fishing is degraded even more. If they can't figure out what they're eating by now, tell them to ask Debo and Buford. The MDC has already moved to control otters that threaten their fishery. An MDC fisheries supervisor acknowledged that the state has removed otters that were threatening their hatcheries. They need to move just as quickly to protect your fishery.

Tell them you don't believe that sport trappers alone, even with an extended season, will be able to control this animal. They may have to bring in professional animal control agents to work with local trappers. Yes it will cost money but look at the alternative. And they have money. The MDC is the second highest funded state conservation organization in the country. California is first. Tell them to take the physicians oath, "Above all do no harm." and quit playing around with exotic species. When the Ozarks return to their original glory, then they can reintroduce species. But until then, tell them to get back to basics; habitat improvement and meaningful enforcement.

But to tell them all this you must have a voice. Publications like this and groups like the Mo. Smallmouth Alliance, www.smallmouth.org allow you to be heard. But to be heard you must use that voice.

You can have an immediate impact on this problem but only if you write and demand action. You should be enraged by this. Get mad. Speak up! If we don't hold this taxpayer funded department accountable for this disaster and demand action, we have lost all credibility as true sportsmen who care about the future and restoring our Ozark fishing heritage. Write MDC Director Conley now!

Jerry Conley, Director
Missouri Department of conservation
P.O.Box 180
Jefferson City Mo. 65102
E-mail: [email protected] --

http://www.smallmouth.org/MissouriOtters.html
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #88
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,434
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Private owners can only mess up their own land. Government workers can mess up everybody's land, and they can do it with no real repercussions. In the morning they'll still have a job, a paycheck, and a fawning press.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #89
Hunter Wallace
Member
 
Hunter Wallace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 251
Hunter Wallace
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
It is unarguable that private owners take care of property better than the government because they have a stake in it. The Soviet Union destroyed an entire, giant sea! How many species were wiped out? I don't know. I'm sure many kinds of fish were adversely affected.
Their record suggests otherwise. The bottom line is that countless species exist today only on account of the establishment of inviolable wildlife refuges and prohibitions on market hunting. The passenger pigeon, Carolina parakeet, heath hen, Labrador duck, the great auk and the Eskimo curlew - to name a few North American animals - were not as fortunate as the eight other species mentioned above. Dozens of species are still going extinct every day as a result of unrestrained human economic activity.

Quote:
99% of all species that ever existed are extinct, so extinction is hardly something unusual, rather, it is the rule.
The rate of mass extinction going on now is almost without precedent in human history. It is up there with anomalous events like the asteroid strike in the Yucatan that wiped out the dinosaurs. At the present rate, more than half of the world's species will be extinct in 100 years.

Quote:
One type of pigeon is no longer with us? It is virtually guaranteed that private efforts will lead to the ability to clone this pigeon in the future if they haven't already.
It was the careless and unrestrained license of private individuals that led to the extinction of the passenger pigeon in the first place. Whether it can be revived at some later date (along the sci-fi lines of Jurassic Park) is besides the point: it is simply not true that the private sector is better than government at wildlife management.

Quote:
Why would we want to, though? Is there something remarkable about this pigeon we can't find in the millions of useless ones polluting every major city?
The flora and fauna of North America should be preserved for our posterity. Madison Grant dedicated his life to the cause. Lewpus and his fellow philistines would pave over Yellowstone and cut down the California Redwoods and sell the timber at Wal-Mart Supercenters if they had the chance.

Quote:
Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure there were plenty kept on private farms that would have survived whether or not the feds created Yellowstone so they could play with matches. I can point you to more than one farm here in Missouri that keeps bison. Hell, the people who bought the old Schillie (my great grandmother's) place keep camels on it, I kid you not.
There were a few herds kept on private farms by a handful of conservationists. It wasn't enough to save the species from extinction though due to lack of genetic diversity. That required the federal government setting aside enormous tracts of public land in multiple locations. The buffalo would have been exterminated in its last hold outs if unrestricted market hunting had been allowed to continue. As with the wild turkey and white tail deer, the utilitarian value of commercially exploiting the bison for profit was realized years after the fact, only after government intervention had rescued the species.

Quote:
If the buffalo being shot in the early days were on privately owned land, rather than public land, the shooters would not have had the right to shoot them - correct?
A combination of factors led to their demise. The market hunters who sold their remains for profit are mostly responsible, but the federal government's attempt to pacify the Plains Indians by destroying buffalo herds also played a role. I seriously doubt the species would have been preserved if the public domain had been sold off into private hands. Ranchers and farmers generally considered the bison to be a pest and shot them like other 'vermin'.

Quote:
So, again, public ownership is not the solution, it is the problem. More often than not. Owners take care of things - slaves, rivers, private land, animals. Renters do not.
In the bison's case, the opposite was true: government intervention played a decisive role in preserving the species whereas market hunting drove them to near extinction. The federal wildlife refuges were a phenomenal success.

Quote:
Public schools, public parks, public toilets - are any of these as nice as private schools, private parks, private toilets? There's a principle at work.
It depends. There is nothing wrong with the public schools in Western Europe and parts of the United States. It usually depends on the quality of the patrons.

Quote:
This is utterly nuts. There were no deer around because people were hungry and wanted to eat!
Americans were hardly starving. We have always been robust compared to Europeans. There were so few deer around because the market hunters were allowed to wipe them out. Americans had a taste for venison and there were vendors around to cater to their appetites.

Quote:
It was private industry raising the standard of living that allowed us to reach the point that we see deer as cute and something to protect rather than something to kill and eat.
I disagree. The adoption of game laws is what allowed the white tail deer and the wild turkey to thrive again. In a completely free market, both species would have been destroyed decades ago in the narrowminded pursuit of short term profit at the expense of the common good.

Quote:
So? Bears are real neat until you're near one, when it suddenly occurs to you that they're giant killers with bad breath. Of course people killed them off - they are threats. They can be eaten, too. It's natural in preindustrial society to kill off threats. Even if we killed them all out of the lower 48, there would have been more in Canada we could have brought back. The idea of bears running around everywhere is cool until you come to face with it, then it loses some appeal, as bears are scary and prone to dumpster diving.
I don't see why the grizzly bear or the black bear need by exterminated out of fidelity to some ridiculous liberal abstraction. There is nothing wrong with the system we have in place today: both species are thriving across the Eastern United States in the various wildlife refuges. Bears don't pose much of a public safety threat to anyone. Canada passed conservationist legislation comparable to our own.

Quote:
The banning of DDT has resulted in the deaths of literally millions of humans. Granted, most of them are muds, but banning DDT was truly a stupid thing to do. Bald eagles are nice, but let's face it, they're just a prettier version of vulture.
White Americans (and the bald eagle) are better off today without DDT.

Quote:
Yeah, and where does all the conservation money come from? It comes, most of it, from taxes on hunting and fishing permits, at least in Missouri.
Libertarians, of course, decry taxation as a form of theft.

Quote:
The fallacy here is that you've got good-guy environmentalists on one hand and bad-guy hunters. No. Hunters are the good guys. Hunters are the environmetnalists. All the early WASPs concerned with wildlife preservation were hunters, big-time hunters, especially Roosevelt, who never stopped shooting until he ran out of ammunition.
I haven't said anywhere that hunters per se are bad guys (only that market hunting decimated countless species). I raised the subject because I happen to be reading the Spiro book about Madison Grant at the moment and it touches upon many of these issues. The conservationists later realized the importance of hunters and natural predators in eliminating surplus population.

Quote:
Bah humbug. Beavers are giant flat-tailed rats, taking one with another. Very few have attractive personalities. Most of them drudge around in the mud and destroy trees until they have enough to dam rivers. I mean, if they weren't a protected species they'd be the very definition of environment-hating industrialists.
Would you scrap the entire apparatus of game laws, national wildlife refuges, and international treaties that protect endangered species? Do you honestly think that private efforts alone could do a better job of preserving North American biodiversity?

Quote:
This is more arguable than the others. However, I have my doubts as to the honesty of the people creating the numbers. Just HTF do you count how many whales there are in the world?
There are international organizations and agencies that keep track of this sort of thing.

Quote:
Come, come. You are not going to attribute to "freedom" what must be laid at the foot of the jew.
We've discussed this before. It was the "freedom" that comes with inviolable property rights that enabled the Jew in the first place. I see nothing sacrosanct about the right of Jews to produce and distribute interracial pornography and other material that promotes the ideal of race suicide.

Quote:
It's not "freedom" that designed our immigration policy, it's specific people/groups pursuing a specfic agenda.
From 1790 to 1952, we had racialized naturalization laws that prohibited non-Whites from becoming U.S. citizens. Libertarians believe in open borders and would eliminate virtually all restrictions on immigration that now exist.

[quote]It is the government that cares more about a stupid invading mussel than invading Mexican, and a golden carp more than a Caucasian.

No, it is the people who control the government; the ones who were brought here to toil as a cheap labor force in the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries.

Quote:
The government is the problem, not private citizens. Private citizens create more white people every day of the year. Government kills them.
You advocate driving entire races of private citizens out of our borders and would use the government to expel them. There is nothing libertarian at all about that.

Quote:
If the government is better at it, then why isn't it doing it? It's not private citizens who want borders opened, it's the government itself.
The private citizens behind the Business Roundtable and U.S. Chamber of Commerce have spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying the government for open borders. The same is true of the private citizens behind the SPLC and ADL.

Quote:
The government is as awful at wildlife and property management as it is at everything else.
If it weren't for government, countless species of North American animals wouldn't be around today. Private citizens would have been allowed to massacre them in pursuit of private profit.

Quote:
Look around. Especially in this day and age, private breeders are the ones truly preserving wildlife - often enough they are creating new forms and new subspecies.
... wildlife whose utilitarian value was only realized after the fact.
__________________
Occidental Dissent

"A functioning police state needs no police."
—William Borroughs
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #90
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,434
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaas Ebbe View Post
Their record suggests otherwise. The bottom line is that countless species exist today only on account of the establishment of inviolable wildlife refuges and prohibitions on market hunting. The passenger pigeon, Carolina parakeet, heath hen, Labrador duck, the great auk and the Eskimo curlew - to name a few North American animals - were not as fortunate as the eight other species mentioned above. Dozens of species are still going extinct every day as a result of unrestrained human economic activity.
I've seen that number claimed, but I doubt it's true. If it is true, the extinctions take place in Africa, where the government has done all it can to drive out responsible whites and increase the population of retarded negroes, who will eat anything they can get their thick lips on.

Quote:
The rate of mass extinction going on now is almost without precedent in human history.
Sounds like leftist hype to me.

Quote:
It was the careless and unrestrained license of private individuals that led to the extinction of the passenger pigeon in the first place. Whether it can be revived at some later date (along the sci-fi lines of Jurassic Park) is besides the point: it is simply not true that the private sector is better than government at wildlife management.
That's your opinion; it's not mine and it's not fact. You expect people to go from nothing to advanced civilization without any mistakes, but that's not reasonable. Of course any free public good will be used up by private citizens. That's not an argument for state control but for private ownership.

Quote:
The flora and fauna of North America should be preserved for our posterity.
The question is the best way to do that. Government is not it. The Missouri Department of Wildlife did a magazine cover story on the future of wildlife preservation, and guess who was picture on the cover and the bulk of the inside? Niggers. That's the government for you. You want to rely on that force to preserve our wildlife - the same government that is letting in tens of millions of third-worlders who have not evolved to the point at which they see animals as something other than food. Private ownership is the only way to ensure nigs/mexes don't destroy everything. In our first newspaper we had the story from a White Zimbabwean whose brother owned a 15,000-acre animal reserve/commercial farm in Rhodesia. Guess who took it away and destroyed it? The government.

Your view is that private people will destroy everything unless mommy and daddy government smack them on the wrist and restrain them. That's not how it is. The private landowner has real love for his land, and he puts a lot more $$$ and effort into it than the state does.

Quote:
Madison Grant dedicated his life to the cause. Lewpus and his fellow philistines would pave over Yellowstone and cut down the California Redwoods and sell the timber at Wal-Mart Supercenters if they had the chance.
That's an ideologically driven distortion of their position, which entails a very good number of intellectual serious approaches to doing what the feds do either not at all or very poorly. You think private landowners would have let Yellowstone burn down?

Quote:
There were a few herds kept on private farms by a handful of conservationists. It wasn't enough to save the species from extinction though due to lack of genetic diversity. That required the federal government setting aside enormous tracts of public land in multiple locations. The buffalo would have been exterminated in its last hold outs if unrestricted market hunting had been allowed to continue. As with the wild turkey and white tail deer, the utilitarian value of commercially exploiting the bison for profit was realized years after the fact, only after government intervention had rescued the species.
All that proves is it took awhile for people to realize what was going on. Once they did, they lobbied to reform. I'm sure bison, deer and turkey would have survived without state effort, but not without private effort.

Quote:
A combination of factors led to their demise. The market hunters who sold their remains for profit are mostly responsible, but the federal government's attempt to pacify the Plains Indians by destroying buffalo herds also played a role.
Well that kind of works against your position. Just as I said above, you're not counting the negative, of which there are very many examples, such as the reintroduction of otters to Ozarks, leading to huge fish depletion.

Quote:
I seriously doubt the species would have been preserved if the public domain had been sold off into private hands. Ranchers and farmers generally considered the bison to be a pest and shot them like other 'vermin'.
Attitudes change. Back then people didn't know as much as we know now.

Quote:
In the bison's case, the opposite was true: government intervention played a decisive role in preserving the species whereas market hunting drove them to near extinction. The federal wildlife refuges were a phenomenal success.
That doesn't mean there aren't other ways of preserving wildlife that are better than a Washington, D.C., solution. Which are the kinds of things libertarians discuss. Why pay government to do something if private citizens will do it? And before you say they won't, they usually will.

Quote:
It depends. There is nothing wrong with the public schools in Western Europe and parts of the United States. It usually depends on the quality of the patrons.
! take a look at our British forum - there is perhaps one regular poster who is not an out-and-out illiterate. If I applied the same rules to the British posters as to the rest of the forum, not one of them but Bev would be posting! British private/public schools are even worse than American. German schools are technically not too bad, but they indoctrinate anti-German lies, and that renders them worthless. All US schools 'celebrate diversity' and like garbage.

Quote:
Americans were hardly starving. We have always been robust compared to Europeans. There were so few deer around because the market hunters were allowed to wipe them out. Americans had a taste for venison and there were vendors around to cater to their appetites.
So today they're preserved and we get to run over them every ten feet.

Quote:
I disagree. The adoption of game laws is what allowed the white tail deer and the wild turkey to thrive again. In a completely free market, both species would have been destroyed decades ago in the narrowminded pursuit of short term profit at the expense of the common good.
There are plenty of private preservation agencies. A lot of those scare stories are simply government wildlife agencies trying to justify their taxes.

Quote:
I don't see why the grizzly bear or the black bear need by exterminated out of fidelity to some ridiculous liberal abstraction.
Abstraction? Like rattlesnakes, they were killed off because they are physical threats, the farthest thing from an abstraction. Same with big cats.

Quote:
There is nothing wrong with the system we have in place today: both species are thriving across the Eastern United States in the various wildlife refuges. Bears don't pose much of a public safety threat to anyone.
Bears and big cats pose a very definite threat to anyone around them. If they get into public areas, they have to be shot, if they develop a taste for garbage food.

Quote:
White Americans (and the bald eagle) are better off today without DDT.
To reckon that you'd have to calculate the costs of the nasty insects the ban leaves alive, and the costs and other problems of developing alternative control.s.

Quote:
Libertarians, of course, decry taxation as a form of theft.
Is there another way to reckon it? The fact of the matter is all taxes are taken by force. You can say that they're used for the public, but that is merely an opinion, it does not carry the same weight as the nature of the extraction.

Quote:
I haven't said anywhere that hunters per se are bad guys (only that market hunting decimated countless species).
And I would bet that the vast majority of these assassinations occurred on publicly owned land. Think about it. If you owned 500 acres full of white oak, or some other good wood, would you tell the commercial logger to "go in there and chop down every last oak you can find." No. You would give great thought to the preservation of the marketability of your timber, and the overall effect on your forest. So it would be with bison. If you owned big acreage, you're not going to let some clowns go in there and shoot every last bison. It doesn't make any sense. That's like saying that cows have commercial value, so we need the feds to protect them lest commercial hunters hound them to extinction. Which tells me that the feds must have owned the land these buffalo were shot on, they just, because they weren't privately owned, hadn't put any thought into their policies until some private preservationists pointed out where things were headed. Then they put in the right public use policies and take credit for saving a species.

Quote:
I raised the subject because I happen to be reading the Spiro book about Madison Grant at the moment and it touches upon many of these issues. The conservationists later realized the importance of hunters and natural predators in eliminating surplus population.
Yes, but not just hunters, owners. Owners love the land. I'll give you an example I know first-hand. My uncle owns 120 acres in the rural county, a good mix of pasture and forest, with a nice stream. In the 15 years he's owned it I'm sure he has put tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of man-hours into improving it. He paid $$$ to have a bulldozer scrape out a multi-acre pond. He paid hundreds to stock the new pond with fish. He has planted hundreds if not thousands of nut trees. He has girdled all kinds of shit trees (these horrible thorn trees that just grow everywhere, I think they're honey locusts). I will admit that, altho he got the fish from a private fishery, he did the species mix per the recommendation of a Missouri state publication (the right mix of bass, bluegill and catfish), and he does get free and pay for the plants that the state gives out/sells from its nursery in Licking. The property is loaded with deer and turkey and overall very handsome because of his efforts. He is not unique; he is the AVERAGE land owner. And you think some guy with the state department of wildlife is going to give half a fig as much as a private landowner. No way. Even if the fed/state employee wanted to, he couldn't because there aren't enough employees to truly care for and cultivate their acreage.

Man, have some trust in White men. They don't want to kill everything. Those crazy hunters are Hollywood bullshit more than anything, exactly the same as the Deliverance stereotype. The hunters are the guys who are taxed to pay for all this stuff, but they would care for the land anyway.

I'm not saying the STATE (as opposed to federal) management of wildlife is horrible and the worst thing imaginable; it seems to work fairly well in Missouri at least, I'm saying that given what we know about government's failure in every area, and its at best mixed record in land management, and the fact that private owners love and nuture their land, almost all of them, we should listen with open mind to serious intellectuals offering different ways of arriving at the same desirable destination. No one wants species to go extinct.

Quote:
Would you scrap the entire apparatus of game laws, national wildlife refuges, and international treaties that protect endangered species?
Not right off. That would be radical and irresponsible. The fact that something less than ideal exists now does not mean the situation could not be made worse by hasty action based on ideology. The things would have to be studied individually in light of known principles, but always bending to established facts. And of course, a lot of what we get out of people who claim they're environmentalists are not facts.

Quote:
Do you honestly think that private efforts alone could do a better job of preserving North American biodiversity?
Certainly yes. The best fishing and hunting are always on private land, not on public land. You ought to read the book The War on the West if you haven't. The government works hand in glove with some of the private conservation agencies to essentially steal private property. That said, I'm not against public parks and such, where there truly are limited (beach front) or unique goods, but we need to be very careful to recognize that white men are not men if their property can be stolen from them based on claims of public good or protecting animals or anything else. I do also think that, as with everything else, state or local control over parks and such is better than federal control, if we truly need these things at all. What I see is people all the time are donating big chunks to the state wildlife department. If that department didn't exist, there would still be private zoos and arboretums and flower/butterfly houses and parks and ranges and ranches.

I have given you many good examples of government failing in this particular regard, and the examples can be multiplied easily. So let's not have a hasty ideological reaction when a libertarian says he can see a better way to combine property ownership and wildlife protection.

Quote:
There are international organizations and agencies that keep track of this sort of thing.
Ha, yeah. They say they do. I still say that counting whales seems like guesswork to me. Do you watch a square five miles and then multiply the number of whales that swim by? These folks are forever claiming that every species out there is going out of business, so I tend not to take them too seriously. I mean, they claim oil drilling is killing off the oceans, and then you go deep sea fishing and the flipping boat pulls up fifty yards off the rig because it's the only structure out there in the deep blue sea and the fish love it.

Quote:
We've discussed this before. It was the "freedom" that comes with inviolable property rights that enabled the Jew in the first place.
No. Our representatives made a bad decision in the use of their property. The country was established by our ancestors for their posterity. They own, very legally and literally, the right to decide who becomes a citizen. They made a mistake in deciding to allow jews to be admitted as fellow citizens. That's not a knock on property ownership, it's a knock on the owners who made the bad decision.

Quote:
I see nothing sacrosanct about the right of Jews to produce and distribute interracial pornography and other material that promotes the ideal of race suicide.
Me either. I fully agree that the market must be limited. I'm sure we agree on the ways it should be limited with regard to protecting the race, if we disagree in other ways it should be limited.

Quote:
From 1790 to 1952, we had racialized naturalization laws that prohibited non-Whites from becoming U.S. citizens.
Yes. Or, put another way, the citizen-owners of the country behaved responsibly in exercising their rights.

Quote:
Libertarians believe in open borders and would eliminate virtually all restrictions on immigration that now exist.
Oh, no. The vast majority do not. At LRC, virtually alone in favoring if not open borders than tolerating the mexinvasion are Ryan McMaken, himself a half-mex, despite the name, and Anthony Gregory, who is also non-White. The rest of the LRC crew is almost to a man and woman against open borders. Libertarianism's answer to borders depends entirely on the party to whom the particular libertarian assigns ownership. It is true that some, but not even a large minority, believe in, let's call it, world free agency - anyone allowed to move anywhere at anytime. The vast majority do not. The vast majority at LRC at least (and those are the only ones I'm familiar with) would define country ownership as I have. That is, a country, like any property owner, can decide who is allowed on its land under what terms and conditions.

Quote:
No, it is the people who control the government; the ones who were brought here to toil as a cheap labor force in the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries.
The blame attaches to those parties, those nation-owners, who made the decision to admit jews. That is not a theoretical problem in the least, it is a problem with the specific people who made the bad decision. They should have seen themselves as stewards of the country they owned but temporarily, as one link in the chain of antecedents and posterity, to use the usual figure. But instead they either yielded to personal interest, to bribes, or simply didn't have the foresight to see what kind of problems would result. There's no guarantee an owner will use his property responsibly. There is no system you can devise, short of executing every jew on earth, that could guarantee that political owners might not made bad, even genocidal decisions.

Quote:
You advocate driving entire races of private citizens out of our borders and would use the government to expel them. There is nothing libertarian at all about that.
Nope, there isn't. That's because I'm not a libertarian. Treating non-whites and jews as individuals with sacrosanct rights is a recipe for White genocide. Therefore I reject it. But within an all-White society, I think libertarianism has a lot to offer, a lot of detailed thoughtful analysis of how we can achieve the ends most of us seek in a way that maximizes freedom and order.

Quote:
The private citizens behind the Business Roundtable and U.S. Chamber of Commerce have spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying the government for open borders.
Sure they have - now. They weren't doing this before the jews crowbarred the country open in 1965. Once the process is underway, business has to adapt to it or die, they don't have the luxury of living philosophically. It's not business' job to solve political problems. It's political leaders' job to make the correct decisions. Somebody let the jews in. Now all that matters is taking control away from them.

Quote:
The same is true of the private citizens behind the SPLC and ADL.
Plenty of private people, even non-jews, are going to want to do lots of nasty things. If the government isn't there to help them, they're going to have a lot harder time doing it.

Quote:
If it weren't for government, countless species of North American animals wouldn't be around today. Private citizens would have been allowed to massacre them in pursuit of private profit.
Private people are the ones with best land, the most love and labor in the land, the best places to hunt and fish, the most effort put into maintaining animal, bird and fish stocks. They do it all without taxing anybody, indeed they are taxed themselves multiple times over.

Last edited by Alex Linder; September 21st, 2009 at 08:00 PM.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #91
richyrichard
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 933
Default

The principle of "animal" is everywhere, now.

The particular specific specie of animals are many. Some come and go. In the passing of time, they fade in and fade out, as it were.

But, subjectively speaking, the principle of "animal" is always here.

Cease fretting over the loss of this specie or that specie.

Now, enjoy a nice roasted Cornish hen. While they are still here.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #92
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
In our first newspaper we had the story from a White Zimbabwean whose brother owned a 15,000-acre animal reserve/commercial farm in Rhodesia. Guess who took it away and destroyed it? The government.
....Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously, I never expected to read such garbage on VNN but I have and the worst part of it is that it's the owner of it. Let me ask you the same question and see if you can figure it out, twit.

"Guess who took it away and destroyed it?"
HINT: Niggers you moron.

I thought you had reached the lunatic limit when you said "Hitler was a dictator", even most pinkos know that's a completely asinine statement. Dictatorships don't exist, meritocracies with elected leaders do. You quite obviously need to go back to selling vacuums or whatever it is you did for a living , building a government isn't your thing , you approach it in too much the same slimy manner . Actually after reading some of your little "Linderisms" and monologues I usually want to take a shower, thank you dear Mister Linder for keeping me squeaky clean. Actually now that I am done writing this I am going to go step in for a quick rinse.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #93
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,434
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychologicalshock View Post
....Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously, I never expected to read such garbage on VNN but I have and the worst part of it is that it's the owner of it. Let me ask you the same question and see if you can figure it out, twit.

"Guess who took it away and destroyed it?"
HINT: Niggers you moron.

I thought you had reached the lunatic limit when you said "Hitler was a dictator", even most pinkos know that's a completely asinine statement. Dictatorships don't exist, meritocracies with elected leaders do. You quite obviously need to go back to selling vacuums or whatever it is you did for a living , building a government isn't your thing , you approach it in too much the same slimy manner . Actually after reading some of your little "Linderisms" and monologues I usually want to take a shower, thank you dear Mister Linder for keeping me squeaky clean. Actually now that I am done writing this I am going to go step in for a quick rinse.
I don't think the quick will quite do the job. You need to go back to Russia and immerse yourself in a pool vodka.

I was going to respond to you but...there's nothing to respond to, just stupid insults. Read the War on the West if you want stories about whites using the government to steal property from whites in the name of land management or animal preservation.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #94
Karl Von Clausewitz!
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
No, you are overconfident that people who claim they're working for the good of the race actually are.
Not really, I don't believe you when you say that.

Quote:
What you'll find in a nazi state is forced compliance with cronyism.
Nonsense, you're probably driven by some false placed notion that Milch was there for nothing other than being Goering's friend.

What you're describing there, isn't National Socialism, Linder...its your Anarchy based Oligarchy.

Quote:
If you resist, you'll be called an enemy of the race. The controlled media will not report your point of view.
There's no such thing as a completely unbiased media...just as much as there is no such thing as a completely unbiased education system. It is the interest of every state or lack there of in your case, to maintain the status quo, and in doing so that means educating and reporting from their perspective.

Quote:
Pure 19th-century communism. The business, offering people work, is exploiting them; the state, taking 50% of their pay, is protecting them.
No, just a reality...I've seen far too many young kids being underpaid and treated like the modern Kaffer, and if they complain about it old men like you tell them "there are many other people who would die to have your job".

Or "it's better than nothing", "You should be thankful you have a roof over your head". Or "you could easily survive on 2000 rand a month" when he complains that his 50 K a month doesn't suffice for himself. That you're one of these old senile fools is evident in the fact that you state quite arrogantly that "providing them with a job is suddenly exploiting them", but Government taking 50% of your pay is just "helping them".

I.e. If you're underpaid be pissed at the Government for stealing 50% of the peanuts I give you, not me. And if we suddenly follow your route, then the inevitable "We have to ensure the maintenance of the roads, education systems, and general infrastructure" excuses, as to why you're paying people mediocre salaries.

Your "system" is based entirely on catering for the wealthy, and not the mean, it is inevitable that it would come under pressure to succumb, that is when your Utopia Oligarchy-come-Anarchy will turn into Tyranny to keep the status quo.

Quote:
But the racial state wouldn't? You think people like Don Black, Erich Gliebe, Shawn Walker are going to stick to merit in hiring or firing?
You know, for one who "blows our minds away" you don't particularly appear to be a clever feller, that or you're deliberately picking the worst examples to get your point across. One of the two. Don Black will never in his pathetic existence (or what is left of it) be a leader of a Nation.

He's just a fat old wash out exploiting the emotions and desires of the Racially conscious to live a life of luxury. He's the businessman you want running the country.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #95
Steve B
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cali
Posts: 6,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychologicalshock View Post
.
I thought you had reached the lunatic limit when you said "Hitler was a dictator", even most pinkos know that's a completely asinine statement. Dictatorships don't exist, meritocracies with elected leaders do.
Anybody who doesn't believe that Hitler exerted omnipotent control over the entire country of Germany from about 1934 to near the end of WW2 must be living in an alternate universe.

They didn't call him Der Führer for nuttin', dummy.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #96
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I don't think the quick will quite do the job. You need to go back to Russia and immerse yourself in a pool vodka.
Oh great, more jew shit.

Quote:
I was going to respond to you but...there's nothing to respond to, just stupid insults.
Actually , it's better than anything you have thought up especially towards me. I would have thought you were joking the first time you said something nasty if I hadn't observed you make the same weak attempts towards others.

Quote:
Read the War on the West if you want stories about whites using the government to steal property from whites in the name of land management or animal preservation.
How does this relate to the African man? But okay I will say I will look at it if it ever crosses my path.

Oh yeah, and Steve B (I don't want to bother quoting you ), "The Leader" and "The Dictator" are two different things. I know that learning new languages isn't popular around your parts (Or even learning proper English) but at least try a little before attempting to impress me , mkay?
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #97
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Von Clausewitz! View Post

You know, for one who "blows our minds away" you don't particularly appear to be a clever feller, that or you're deliberately picking the worst examples to get your point across. One of the two. Don Black will never in his pathetic existence (or what is left of it) be a leader of a Nation.

He's just a fat old wash out exploiting the emotions and desires of the Racially conscious to live a life of luxury. He's the businessman you want running the country.
It's pretty funny seeing all of these so called "leaders" discussing "the future" or "government", the only being perverse enough to give it to such incompetents would be the jew himself.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #98
Karl Von Clausewitz!
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve B View Post
Anybody who doesn't believe that Hitler exerted omnipotent control over the entire country of Germany from about 1934 to near the end of WW2 must be living in an alternate universe.

They didn't call him Der Führer for nuttin', dummy.
How does that imply that he exerted omnipotent control over the entire German Nation? Fuehrer does not imply anything of that nature, it simply means that he is/was the Leader of the German Folk and of the German Reich.

Should Linder's ideal come to fruition even he would have to enforce certain regulations in order to remove potential threats to his relatively young "stateless State". Shall we call him a dictator then?

I don't really care much about the fact that National Socialist Germany put a muzzle on the Commies, nor do I care much about the fact that they ostracized what was a mainly Jewish Business sector that actively worked and funded toward the subversion of the German State and the German Folk.

Anybody else here would do precisely the same. Including in Alex' la la land, the removal of Business owners that actively fund toward the establishment of a Government.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #99
Karl Von Clausewitz!
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychologicalshock View Post
It's pretty funny seeing all of these so called "leaders" discussing "the future" or "government", the only being perverse enough to give it to such incompetents would be the jew himself.
Yeah, no kidding...there's absolutely no way that Don Black, or David Duke would ever be "leadership material", perhaps if the Jew is tired of fucking us up they'll give the reigns over to one of the clowns as a final coup de grace.
 
Old September 21st, 2009 #100
Steve B
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cali
Posts: 6,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Von Clausewitz! View Post
How does that imply that he exerted omnipotent control over the entire German Nation? Fuehrer does not imply anything of that nature, it simply means that he is/was the Leader of the German Folk and of the German Reich.
So you're saying he didn't? Forget about the meaning of "Fuehrer" for a moment and concentrate on convincing me Hitler didn't have unlimited authority over the German people?
 
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 02:42 PM.
Page generated in 0.28747 seconds.