← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Franco
Thread ID: 10069 | Posts: 19 | Started: 2003-09-27
2003-09-27 04:26 | User Profile
Oh, those darn Protestants! :ohmy:
9-26-03
Libertarianism Is Jewish? Gadzooks
Zounds! All the big heroes of the who-cares-leave-me-alone ideology of Libertarianism -- e.g. Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises, Milton Friedman, are Jewish-by-race. Even a Jewish Lib man admits that Lib leaders are usually Jewish:
"Itââ¬â¢s worth notingââ¬âpartially as evidence against this second explanationââ¬âthat individuals from Jewish backgrounds are also very disproportionately represented among libertarian theorists who do not come to these views through Rand." [url]http://www.fullcontext.org/people/mack.htm[/url]
Of course, Lib is Good For Jews: it makes Whites NOT think as a group. There ain't no power in single units, and Uncle Hymie Goldbergwitz knows it. Jews still think as a group, but now Whites don't. Clever, ya greasy nickel-biters.
Uncle Hymie has got ALL the bases covered, goy-boy.
2003-09-27 05:16 | User Profile
I don't see why at least a qualified form of libertarianism can't be compatible with racial consciousness and loyalty. I'm a libertarian myself, yet I would like very much to see the US (or at least some part of it) one day become a White nation; I just don't believe in initiating violence to attain that goal. It's not contradictory to believe in the superiority of the White race while still holding that certain human rights are universal. Besides, I would not want to model my behavior after that of the primary enemies of my race, those being the Zionist Jews.
A White nation could conceivably be formed by buying up all the land in a given region. At the very least, the nucleus of a White homeland could be brought about in such a way, then progressively expanded by further land purchases. Any minorities in the vicinity who refused to sell out could be ostracized: e.g., the White majority in the area could refuse to do any business with them in any form or even to allow the offending minorities onto White-owned property.
This may seem highly unrealistic, but the only thing standing in the way of such a plan is government. We have a government that egregiously violates peoples' natural freedom to associate with whomever they choose, and that is utterly contrary to libertarian principles. In a libertarian society no one would be forced to allow Negroids or Jews into his restaurant, place of business, etc. The institution of a libertarian government in the US would mean the abolition of all forced-integration and anti-discrimination laws, and that would give Whites much greater power to act in concert for their own interests. Of course, much work remains to be done in the present time before a sufficient number of Whites decide to work together towards this common goal. But the point is that the attainment of such a goal is possible (at least in theory).
Once a White nation is established, its libertarian character could and should remain. The dignity of all men -- and Whites in particular -- demands that they be allowed to do whatever they want to the extent that the personal and property rights of others are not violated. The only divergence of the White nation's government from a purely libertarian model would be severe immigration restrictions, not to mention citizenship being available only to Whites.
2003-09-27 06:23 | User Profile
Interesting. Even the author of the article you linked admits to being from a Jewish background. Yet, you seem to believe he has something productive to offer. Why not the same courtesy to Libertarians who may share many f your opinions? At some point, whites need to stop arguing about terms, conspiracies, and theory, and unite to achieve and maintain selected goals. I realize organizing is more difficult than sniping at each other, but I believe it bares productive fruit.
I have some questions more related to Christianity and Jews that I'll post on that forum.
2003-09-27 17:32 | User Profile
Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises are all dead.
Milton Friedman is not a libertarian.
The fact is, today real libertarian thought is controlled by... Catholics. Lew Rockwell, Hans Hoppe, Guido Hulsman, and a host of other Mises types are either Catholics or are raising their kids to be such.
But yes, there are a some libertarian Jews, particularly in economics. But they are doing good work. They are not subverting right-wing though, but contibuting to it. A miracle, you say? Perhaps. Of course, libertarian economics is very much about how different groups and individuals can co-operate to achieve private goals. The Jewish libertarian can work with gentile libertarian who want Judenrein privately-held areas, because he believes such areas wont be a threat to him. He can move to NY, Israel, etc.
2003-09-27 19:48 | User Profile
Friedman is a hero to Libs.
2003-09-27 23:50 | User Profile
I was a Libertarian for many years, and finally gave up on it a few months ago. One of the first events that started my awakening was reading what the Protocols had to say about freedom as bait for gentiles. Gradually I started to see how it was applied. We have less freedom now than the colonists had under England. If we were free of Jews and had twice as much authoritarianism as we have now, I don't see how we could be worse off. Jewish Libertarians have convinced many of us that government is what we want to be free from. I doubt a government without Jews running it would be that hard to deal with.
2003-09-28 00:19 | User Profile
travis,
how many libertarians are there in Israel? How many Jewish subversives are there in Israel? Compare that to what they do in the West.
2003-09-28 02:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]...Once a White nation is established, its libertarian character could and should remain... The only divergence of the White nation's government from a purely libertarian model would be severe immigration restrictions, not to mention citizenship being available only to Whites.[/QUOTE]
Interesting, but be very careful where you say this.
Without exception, every old German I've ever known insists that they had far more freedom under Hitler than they had before or since. Keeping Germany a "White nation" is what got them destroyed by the Allies. Even leftists like John Kaminski have admitted that World War II was arranged. "Establishing a White nation" is the one thing no Western government is allowed to even think about these days.
As a career non-fan of Hitler, I grant the point the old Germans have made to me more than once: Nazi Germany was libertarian -- for Nordic Germans.
2003-09-28 04:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=travis]I was a Libertarian for many years, and finally gave up on it a few months ago. One of the first events that started my awakening was reading what the Protocols had to say about freedom as bait for gentiles. Gradually I started to see how it was applied. We have less freedom now than the colonists had under England. If we were free of Jews and had twice as much authoritarianism as we have now, I don't see how we could be worse off. Jewish Libertarians have convinced many of us that government is what we want to be free from. I doubt a government without Jews running it would be that hard to deal with.[/QUOTE]
"Freedom as bait for gentiles"...I haven't read enough of the Protocols of Zion to be familiar with that concept. However, if the Jews who are running the USA are attempting to bait us with freedom, they sure are doing an awful job at it. As you point out, the USA is less free now than it has been in a long time, and the problem is getting worse.
Rather than establishing genuine freedom in order to manipulate gentiles, I see the Jews as taking a two-pronged approach to governing the US:
(1) Inventing "rights" that really aren't rights at all. These include the "right" not to be offended by someone else's negative opinions of your race; the "right" to take legal action against anyone who refuses to hire or do business with you on account of your race; etc.
(2) Infringing on genuine rights that all people have, especially in a White society. That's why so many Jews are involved in anti-gun legislation and lobbying. Just look at the names of the leading anti-gun Congressmen: Schumer, Waxman, Boxer, Feinstein... They sure as hell aren't libertarians. Same with the ADL and Abe Foxman, who would only be too happy to see laws instituted that make anti-Semitism a crime. Again, this is the antithesis of libertarianism.
It's true that many of the more prominent figures who were behind the development of the modern libertarian movement were Jewish; however, the reason I'm a libertarian is not because of anything any Jew wrote or said. I have read only one book by Ayn Rand (Anthem), and I was a libertarian long before I'd ever heard of her. Of course my views have been shaped to some extent by what I've read, but most prominent among those influences are Jefferson, Madison, and other major founders of this nation. Those men were all gentiles, and they were libertarian to the core.
Legitimate government authority really extends no further than the authority of individuals; it's just a larger and more organized means of putting that authority into practice. The president of the USA has no more right to tell you or me what to do than the average guy on the street. Just because a large group of our fellow mortals decided to put someone in charge does not magically give that person legitimate authority over anyone. If I'm going around stealing, raping, and murdering, then of course anyone on the street has a right to use force to stop me; government, however, has a full-time duty to stop me. On the other hand, if I want to run a private business that caters only to Whites, collect assault rifles, or even snort coke, then a government has no more right to stop me than your average joe on the street; I'm not hurting anyone else's rights by doing those things.
Sure, some things are best decided by the rule of the majority (traffic laws, how much funding to allocate for medical research, etc.). Government comes in handy as a moderator of those decision processes. But once government begins to expand beyond strict limits -- protecting human rights and moderating the use of public property and funds -- it becomes tyranny. That's what we have now, and we can thank Zionist Jews and their sycophants for it.
That's why I maintain that Jews would have far less power over the goyim in a libertarian society. There would be no tax money to Israel or other Jewish interests, Whites could associate with Whites exclusively, choose better schools for their children, and so on. We would not be forced to take part in our own demise. Unfortunately, the way things stand, it only remains for the Jews to complete the process of disarming the US population except for their police and military attack dogs, and to put a stranglehold on the Internet. Once that happens, their takeover will be complete.
2003-09-28 05:03 | User Profile
The state is the main reason we cannot fight back properly against anti-white cultures. You'all have to start learning that. Oddly, about the only person who seems to explain this properly is a Jew--Paul Gottfried. Check out his books and articles.
For example, why do Americans accept the crap coming out of Hollyvood? Because effective cultural criticism tends to come out of the university, and the university is dominated by leftsist, philosemitic values. Why do Americans accept the crap coming out of the university? Because mounting any kind of opposition is difficult with affirmative action and sexual harrasment laws hampering the white male rather severly, and with the public education system feeding into the university being a case of people being coerced into paying for mind-nulling debasment of culture.
Movement toward the libertarian ideal would give conservative professors and students more leverage in mounting a counter-assault on the left, which would tie in with effective intellectual attacks on the Hollywood. It would also allow for a complete re-working of primary and secondary education, as parents has more money available to send their kids to schools that actually reflected their values.
Finally, keeping the government focused on what any remaining government ought to be focused on--control of the borders--would help greatly with immigration.
2003-09-28 05:06 | User Profile
Don't forget that libertarianism emphasize individualism, defined (by libertarians) as dropping any group identity.
To fight the oppressive state, you don't need to become a libertarian, naturally. Moreover, going the libertarian way is fatal due to the buggage attached.
2003-09-28 05:08 | User Profile
Angler,
Obviously you are talking about the same phenomenon: fake freedoms dangled by the Jew.
2003-09-28 11:12 | User Profile
Angler, By and large, the definition of libertarianism in common usage today is that given it by Rand and other Jews. In the literal sense, "libertarian" could mean something entirely different.
Rand is the alter-ego of Marx. The Jews initiated a movement designed to herd the intellectual element who is opposed to Marxist doctrines.
If gentiles, in recent years had started such a movement on their own, it would revolve around 2 things which are absent in Jewertarianism. One would be an extreme emphasis on vigilance and the other would be a clear focus on the causes of the losses of our freedom and who is behind it, which explains why they had to take the initiative in this movement. Also, it would probably be devoid of all the emphasis on international trade.
Jews on the other hand have shaped it as a rigid ideology without need for vigilance. They have found many big solutions to small problems, like road privatization, to foster division and make sure the movement never gets off the ground. Jews active in libertarianism are the ones defending their right to give us enough rope to hang ourselves with, by portraying smoking as an expression of rebellion, by defending our right to shoot heroin, by promoting pornography, homosexuality, abolition of speed limits etc.. They never mention freedom from the fraud and psychological warfare of Hollywood and mass media, and are happy to pretend we are smart enough not to be injured by it.
Jewitarians are always obscuring the distinction between national and international free trade, the latter of which they dominate and promote and use as a tool to undermine sovereignty.
White Libertarians for the most part are individualists who are intelligent and much in command of their own lives. The problem with this is that they forget the majority of their own people are too weak to resist the subversion of the Jews, and that in order to have freedom, we must have unity. As long as there is disunity (which is almost always instigated by Jews), there will be no stability, thus any libertarian gains would be short lived.
The Jews define libertarianism so they can use it as a tool, not because they have any intention of creating a stable, free society.
Iwannabeanarchy,
The main reason 90% of the people accept the crap spewed by Hollywood is that they don't have the intellect do distinguish crap from art.
I debate on libertarian forums regularly and find that most of them are politically correct and readily denounce racism. When I try to replace Jewitarianism with vigilance I get denounced as not being libertarian because I don't blindly follow the "rigid ideology" type of libertarianism doled out by Jews.
Only gentiles are foolish enough to pledge their loyalty to ideologies. Jews are loyal to each other regardless of which tool they are using to herd us.
2003-09-28 15:31 | User Profile
There is no sense in which all libertarian believe that individualism is defined by dropping all group identities.
You need to read Hoppe (see hanshoppe.com) and Rothbard before making all these claims about libertarianism.
[QUOTE=madrussian]Don't forget that libertarianism emphasize individualism, defined (by libertarians) as dropping any group identity.
To fight the oppressive state, you don't need to become a libertarian, naturally. Moreover, going the libertarian way is fatal due to the buggage attached.[/QUOTE]
2003-09-28 15:35 | User Profile
I agree that most libertarians on Internet forums are PC as hell. However, letting these kinds of people define libertarianism is little different from letting Irving Kristol type neoconservatives define 'American conservatism.'
Libertarianism existed long before Rand, and is certainly not identified with her in the academic community. Nozick is seen as the premier libertarian. It is generally recognized by academics that Rand was not a very good thinker, and wrote more for the proles.
White nationalists ought not worry to much about the 'widely accepted' definition of rather obscure political beliefs.
2003-09-28 17:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=iwannabeanarchy] You need to read Hoppe (see hanshoppe.com) and Rothbard before making all these claims about libertarianism.[/QUOTE]
For every "Hopperian" there is a thousand of Randians. I haven't found one libertarian on their largest forum, LF, who wouldn't profess PC to some degree. Even the most open-minded ones who were responsible for my preserving some respect for libertarianism at one point, eventually dissapointed me.
Just like the definition of "conservatism" has all but become meaningless with the dilution of the old principles, so has the definition of "libertarianism".
Never trust a libertarian.
2003-09-28 22:04 | User Profile
If you aren't even able to figure out what a libertarian is anymore, why distrust them?
LF is a rather small board, and has been taken over by ADL-types. It doesn't represent libertarians.
You claim that Randians are this overwhelming majority, but I haven't seen much evidene for that in the real world.
Also, are you not forced to conclude, by your logic, that one ought never trust a conservative? Is that really a helpful claim?
[QUOTE=madrussian]For every "Hopperian" there is a thousand of Randians. I haven't found one libertarian on their largest forum, LF, who wouldn't profess PC to some degree. Even the most open-minded ones who were responsible for my preserving some respect for libertarianism at one point, eventually dissapointed me.
Just like the definition of "conservatism" has all but become meaningless with the dilution of the old principles, so has the definition of "libertarianism".
Never trust a libertarian.[/QUOTE]
2003-09-28 22:28 | User Profile
iwannabe wrote:
LF is a rather small board
Nope. LF is a big board with nearly 3,000 members. And, thank God, it has not yet been "taken over by ADL-types."
2003-09-28 23:11 | User Profile
There are not 3,000 active posters on LF, and it is rather small relative to other libertarian activity. And, yes, there has been overrrun by ADL-types, who do there best to obscure any decent discussion. The board has gone way down hill. It is a waste of time.
[QUOTE=Franco]Nope. LF is a big board with nearly 3,000 members. And, thank God, it has not yet been "taken over by ADL-types."[/QUOTE]