← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · jay
Thread ID: 13866 | Posts: 84 | Started: 2004-05-24
2004-05-24 22:46 | User Profile
I think I read somewhere that Buchanan has no children. I find that hard to believe. but if so, it sure makes his "Death of the West" hollow to me.
And what of Linder, Francis? did William Pierce? Revilo Oliver? Do (did) they have kids? If not, what good did they do? Population is key, and i'd like to know what (if anything) these guys have done to contribute.
-Jay
2004-05-24 22:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]I think I read somewhere that Buchanan has no children. I find that hard to believe. but if so, it sure makes his "Death of the West" hollow to me.
And what of Linder, Francis? did William Pierce? Revilo Oliver? Do (did) they have kids? If not, what good did they do? Population is key, and i'd like to know what (if anything) these guys have done to contribute.
-Jay[/QUOTE]
Isn't this a bit personal?
(There's a myriad of reasons why someone doesn't have children -- I can't speak for all of them but I believe that in the case of the Buchanans' they can't have children. I heard him say that they thought of adopting but they decided to forego that option because of his recurring heart problems.)
Their respective circumstances are irrelevant to their message.
2004-05-24 23:00 | User Profile
I don't think those four guys having kids would be enough to turn things around.
Besides, the premise of your question is questionable.
Do you think White couples have a duty to the race to have kids?
[personal anecdote deleted]
2004-05-24 23:07 | User Profile
VF-- With all due respect, I think we do have a duty to have children and to bring them up right. I can understand your fears about the kind of world that they will inherit, but would it not be much worse if there were no white Christians left to inherit any kind of world at all? If upstanding, white Christians give up on having children, then we are giving up on our race, our culture, and our civilization. I mean these words as encouragement, not as abuse, so I hope you take them in the spirit in which they are offered.
"As you go into battle, remember your ancestors and remember you descendants." -- Tacitus
2004-05-25 00:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE]There are any number of reasons why a person may not have children. In some cases the person in question may want children but cannot have them for medical reasons. [/QUOTE] Sure. That happens occassionally. My question referred to the 5 guys I named above. Surely they don't ALL have medical problems?
[QUOTE]Others don't have children because they never marry (due to never finding a compatible mate) and believe (rightly) that children should not be had out of wedlock.[/QUOTE] Can't agree. There are millions of women in the USA, plenty of good ones, and no one's perfect anyway. This is a cop-out.
[QUOTE]I remember there was a loathsome neocon at FR (TKEMan or something like that) who a few years ago got together with some of his ADL buddies and taunted Pat Buchanan with big signs in front of his house "Why no children, Pat?" [/QUOTE] For a second there, I thought you referred to me as loathsome, also.
[QUOTE]Personally, I think somebody who would do that is the lowest form of life. Why are you mimicking TKEMan's tactics?[/QUOTE] I guess I am loathesome. Dunno that I mocked anyone. I just asked a question.
[QUOTE]I also agree with Friedrich Braun that it's message rather than the messenger that matters.[/QUOTE] So you'd listen to the Sunday sermon of a molesting priest - so long as his "message" agreed with your beliefs? Not me.
[QUOTE] I have absolutely no interest in the personal lives of either my allies or my foes, indeed I find that line of questioning sleazy and symptomatic of the Hollywood gossip culture that we've unfortunately become so saturated in[/QUOTE]
Sleazy? I think it's a very good question. And when you couple my point with Buchanan's borderline attacks on white materialistic women AND Linder's "get with child yesterday, white woman", you can see that they need to be held to their own standards. Eh?
Jay
2004-05-25 00:57 | User Profile
I think both AY and Jay make some good points. As AY says, there may be factors of which we are not aware that keeps these men and others from having children, and it would be unfair for us to jump to conclusions. As a general rule, however, I tend to agree with Jay, insofar as I cannot think of anything we can do that is more important than to have as many healthy white children in wedlock as we can support, and then to educate them in the ways of Western Civilization.
2004-05-25 01:41 | User Profile
I believe it was that most righteous Texas Jew Kinky Friedman who wrote a song entitled "Get Your Biscuits in the Oven and Your Buns in Bed".
The Weisbrot Family heartily endorses baking more bread.
2004-05-25 02:20 | User Profile
Overall it was a good book, but I thought [U]Death of the West's[/U] biggest shortcoming was its conclusion.
Page after page detailed the demographic mess we're in... this was pretty alarming stuff to those weaned on the "conservative" book-of-the-month-club.
In the end, I believe Pat refrained from instructing his flock to go forth and multiply, strictly for want of not having to answer charges of "hypocrite".
2004-05-25 03:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]I think I read somewhere that Buchanan has no children. I find that hard to believe. but if so, it sure makes his "Death of the West" hollow to me.
And what of Linder, Francis? did William Pierce? Revilo Oliver? Do (did) they have kids? If not, what good did they do? Population is key, and i'd like to know what (if anything) these guys have done to contribute.
-Jay[/QUOTE]What I want to know is if Franco's mother had any kids :lol:
(Just picking on you unc ;) )
2004-05-25 03:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]I don't think those four guys having kids would be enough to turn things around.
Besides, the premise of your question is questionable.
Do you think White couples have a duty to the race to have kids?
My wife and I don't have kids, though we're thinking about it, and frankly I'm the one holding us back, because I'm not sure that bringing new White life into this world is the right moral choice at this point.[/QUOTE]
I'd say you're a hypocrite, if I had any kids of my own.
But we haven't even touched the biggest issue. Com'mon admit it. You don't have any kids because of the pathetric example set by der fuehrer.
2004-05-25 03:18 | User Profile
All right. I see now I never should have mentioned that.
Let's get back to the point of this thread -- whether Whites have a duty to have kids -- and away from my personal business.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I'd say you're a hypocrite, if I had any kids of my own.
But we haven't even touched the biggest issue. Com'mon admit it. You don't have any kids because of the pathetric example set by der fuehrer.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-25 03:35 | User Profile
VF,
if you have no hope for the future, why post here?
One thing to remember: you don't know whether you would like to raise children until you try.
2004-05-25 03:44 | User Profile
I know, MR. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You too Quantrill.
Now, to come back to what I take to be the point of this thread, I still think it's problematic from an ethical standpoint to say "White people have a duty to have kids for the sake of our race."
It seems to me that White people should only have kids if they want kids and are willing to accept the responsibilties that go along with parenthood.
It doesn't seem plausible to me that people who have kids only out of a sense of duty and nothing else would be good parents.
[QUOTE=madrussian]VF,
if you have no hope for the future, why post here?
One thing to remember: you don't know whether you would like to raise children until you try.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-25 04:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE] [color=purple]Isn't this a bit personal?[/color] [/QUOTE] Public figures are just that - public. And since they've chosen to be public, what they do, say, think, and feel is fair game for public scrutiny - including such questions about their sexual orientation, where they live, their political affiliations, and yes, if they're married and if they have children.
Of the individuals mentioned, Dr. William Pierce had two sons, Kelvin and Erik. Both are professionals, one in engineering, one in computer programming. Neither were close to their father.
Alex Linder is not married, and has no children. Samuel Francis may be married, but if so, I've never seen any hint that he was.
2004-05-25 04:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]It seems to me that White people should only have kids if they want kids and are willing to accept the responsibilties that go along with parenthood.
It doesn't seem plausible to me that people who have kids only out of a sense of duty and nothing else would be good parents.[/QUOTE]
Someone with a sense of duty to have children is halfway there to being a good parent. The white trash who produce children they don't care for aren't producing children out of a sense of duty.
All whites should have a sense of duty to have children and to be good parents. And, if you don't want to have children, you're most likely a victim of modern culture.
Every white couple out to have at least three children.
2004-05-25 04:26 | User Profile
Wish I'd started at twenty instead of thirty-four, and had twelve instead of two. Duty completely aside.
2004-05-25 04:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]Wish I'd started at twenty instead of thirty-four, and had twelve instead of two.[/QUOTE]
That's the sentiment shared by many, I am sure. That's why my remark about trying first. VF, you should listen.
The culture that conditions white people to delay having children makes sure they are dying out and getting replaced by subhumans.
2004-05-25 04:47 | User Profile
I love babies.
But I have to say that most people have them only to make themselves feel better. Having children brings Pride. It makes a man feel like a man, and deeply makes a woman feel like a woman.
These are natural instincts. Ones which are oour Birthright, our Pride, and Should Be our Happiness in Increasing the Children of God. God, whoever u think. But the reasons for having a child have changed. It used to be, we would have ch9ildren to HELP us WORK on the farm, let us live, bring temerity to OUR NAME. ( your surname ). No longer is that true. Now, any nameless hydra can get a " job " ( slave to the machine ) as much as you, and if she has bigger breasts and blows the boss, YOU ARE OUT.
THe fundementals of life, SO MUCH IN OUR CONSCIOUSNESS HERE AT Original Dissent, are totally alien to real life now. We all just have to sit back and hide, let the evil envelop the land, and hope that our daughters don't have the orgies they are instructed to perform in public schools.
That's a FACT OF LIFE.
Listen to Me !! The Holy Spirit is not absorbed in a bucket of beauty. ZZ TOP said " Jesus Just Left Chicago " .. well maybe he's in the Holy Land where innocent people are being SLAUGHTERED RIGHT NOW and THEIR HOMES ARE BEING BOMBED BY YOUR TAX DOLLARS while the childreen's heads are being SPLIT OFF in front of their Mother's Eyes and we ROLL TANKS over their homes and DROP URANIUM FIRE on God Fearing People who PRAY as fervently as YOU and I do to THE SAME GOD !!!!!!!!!! GOD DAMN AMERICA THE ROOT OF DESTRUCTION AND BLAST ISRAEL TO HELL LET ALL THE WARMONGERS GET PAID IN FULL I SAID FULL YOU IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!
2004-05-25 06:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]I know, MR. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You too Quantrill.
Now, to come back to what I take to be the point of this thread, I still think it's problematic from an ethical standpoint to say "White people have a duty to have kids for the sake of our race."
It seems to me that White people should only have kids if they want kids and are willing to accept the responsibilties that go along with parenthood.
It doesn't seem plausible to me that people who have kids only out of a sense of duty and nothing else would be good parents.[/QUOTE]
That's not a winning attitude.
It seems to me that our big problem is that we focus on the individual to the exclusion of the collective. We're so ingrained with this notion that only the individual exists and that there is no such thing as "society" in any organismic sense that we can't even imagine living our individual lives for some calling higher than ourselves.
Of course there's a duty to have children. The first commandment God gave the world was to "be fruitful and multiply." He repeated that after the flood in the convenant with Noah. And note well that Christ's first miracle was at a wedding, the same Christ who said in the context of marriage "let the little children come unto Me."
And frankly speaking, I find guys who reach middle age enjoying intercourse but contracepting out all the children more than a little annoying. They're internalizing benefits for themselves and externalizing costs on to others to the destruction of us all. They should shoulder their share of getting barfed on in a car and staying up all night before a big deal minding a kid with a bad earache. They should spend their retirement savings on college. And only then they can tell me all about their committment to the cause of our people.
While I can't speak to PJB or SF not having children (it could indeed be a problem beyond their control, such as a medical condition), I think it fair to say that the "message" we communicate to the world is a lot more than what we speak and write. In a very real sense our very lives ARE THE MESSAGE. You can't separate the man from the message, at least not completely.
The role models we hold up should be, as Weisbrot indicates, the ones who have the most sex and most children. There will always be exceptions (even some very important exceptions), but for the great majority of cases if you don't have kids, you're just a tourist.
Ditto Ruffin's statement about starting earlier and having more kids.
Walter
2004-05-25 07:38 | User Profile
As a side note, in the final analysis, it doesn't matter if many white men don't have children. The race could get on just fine with polygamy.
Nature thinks so as well, which is why homosexuality is much more prevelant in males.
Also--Buchanan has probably increased the long-term survival of his genes through his politically activity to a degree that having a few children could not begin to match. Of course, it is more a symbolic issue.
Finally--just because the 'Buchanan's' don't have kids, doesn't mean that PB hasn't had some out of wedlock. Same might go for Linder or Francis. This was, after all, the prefered method of British aristocrats--small number of kids in wedlock, oddles out of wedlock. Marriage was (and is) often a fiction among the powerful, who in turn of provide intellectuals and artistes with models for their own lives. Having to look after a lot of in-wedlock children drain energy from other pursuits, and, in the case of aristocrats and the wealth, may split the inheritance in ways that are not desired.
2004-05-25 07:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]As a side note, in the final analysis, it doesn't matter if many white men don't have children. The race could get on just fine with polygamy.[/QUOTE]
Good point in theory, but polygamy isn't an option because we're Christians (Christianity forbids polygamy, as you know).
Walter
2004-05-25 08:04 | User Profile
Some questions.
Do you personally know anyone who has - forget [I]utopian [/I] - even an upbeat and hopeful sense of the future? That, absent a deus ex machina, tomorrow's world will be better than today's?
How about affordability? What is the relative cost of raising, feeding, clothing, insuring and educating, say, three or four kids, in terms of total percentage of earned income - as compared to 50 years ago?
I remember having an argument with Lew Rockwell's Karen de Coster about this - [I]Ms Trust-the-Free-Market-and-everything-will-be-just-fine[/I] insisted that the two-income household was decadent, and the working wife was merely working out of vanity and a misguided sense of competitiveness. (And if the husband is a CEO or a corporate lawyer or an NFL quarterback - sure. But when have there ever been more chiefs than Indians?) But, Karen, just living is expensive - it's hard keeping up a household on one income these days, let alone raising kids, isn't it? [I]Nonsense[/I], she snapped in the time-honored do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do manner. [I]You cut expenses by homeschooling, staying home more and going out less, making your own clothes...you'll be much happier in the long run.[/I] (You left out [U]churn your own butter[/U] and [U]save electricity by reading by flashlight[/U], dear. As if married couples were keeping titty-bars and nightclubs in business; as if they weren't [I]already [/I] wiggling through tight expense-budgets!) When I asked her then why [I]she [/I] was decadently pursuing a career as an accountant and a would-be columnist, and why she was herself unmarried and childless, the e-mails stopped cold. Her bio (at [url]http://www.karendecoster.com/bio.html[/url]) reads no differently than any other career woman's - puffed up with onanistic self-importance and the sound of one's own trumpet being blown. No hubby and kids, though. No recipes for home-churned butter. Like all the other experts too busy standing on their chairs and shouting advice to ever follow their own counsel. [I]Everybody wants to be a messiah - but nobody wants their palms nailed flat.[/I]
My own opinion here is that somewhere on the 20th-century time-track, the train derailed. Where once people naturally believed that the future would be brighter than the present - the whole reason you [I]have [/I] kids - a defeated and dystopic view of the future quickly became the default mindset of the Western man. Where once white people clung with assurance to certain bedrock truths and realities that endured, they became indoctrinated over the years into a gestalt of "the only constant is constant change" - that permanence=stasis=death. This is a new wrinkle even for those Christians who have always drawn succor in proclaiming the skies are falling, these are the last days, it's all going to get much much worse lest you repent, etc....but who weren't expecting the rest of the world to join in the gloomy 'fun'.
The question really isn't 'why doesn't Joe Blow have any kids' but why aren't [I]500 million [/I] Joe Blows having kids - or stopping cold at one child. It's because the psychology of an entire people has changed - has [I]been [/I] changed for them. And would that it were all in their minds, but look at the reality that surrounds you and see that the customs, the mores and the laws have changed to reflect this new reality of a world where white people are not wanted and are to be discouraged from continuing any further.
There is no caucasian-population crisis in the West that cannot be solved by:
1/ deporting the Third World refuse flooding our shores - because you wouldn't believe what an incentive to having four kids things like jobs, domestic tranquility, a sense of nationhood and peoplehood and permanence really are. In fact, I'm going a coin a correlative right now: the more locks you have on your front door, the fewer children live [I]behind [/I] that door.
2/ deporting, expelling or eradicating Jews...who mass-taught us all to think this way via their stranglehold over the media and the schools, the Mommy and Daddy of us all nowadays. It is no coincidence that the [I]specific [/I] America that Jews have endlessly demonized and militated against is the American 50s which they never tire of depicting as a soulless, sterile, oppressive state championing 'boring' white fecundity and complacency. Most [I]gentiles [/I] now consider the 50s to be a totalitarian nightmare we must never return to; never mind that [B]no one [/B] in their right mind back then believed that a dip in the birth-rates was best cured by importing a few million jabbering, unassimilable aliens to copulate us back over the top.
Get rid of the bongonians and get rid of their Jewish agents and reps and within a decade the demographic projections will begin righting themselves. But no one can breed at net-growth levels when everything they see and hear and read and know - in their own homelands! -tells them they're soft and corrupt and evil and quickly-dying. Because they'll start [I]believing [/I] that shit, sooner or later.
Give whites back their nations, their heritage and their way of life and they will build their [I]own [/I] destiny. But if you keep telling them they [I]need [/I] Pinchas to do their thinking for them, and Poncho to do the shitwork, while they work on their apologies to the world for the crime of being white - you'll get what we [I]got[/I].
2004-05-25 08:16 | User Profile
I think the most basic slogan to remember here is: If race doesn't matter, than neither do families. Why should whites have kids if we are all part of an evil, despicable bloodline?
But Karen had some good points. The free market would make kids a lot more affordable.
However, even compared with 50 years ago, there is at least close to sufficient resources available to the average couple to have a large family -- if they were to cut out all the luxuries that weren't there 50 years ago. Ok, so no private school or all the toys the Jones's kids have -- but, at present, it is better to have a bunch of (initially-) poor, public-schooled white kids than one or no white kids at all. --No, the major issue is a lack of will, which is something that will have to change with time, as the crest of dumb-white- feelings-of-racial-invulnerability-mixed-with-anti-white-cultural-Marxism passes. Whites will wake up slowly, but perhaps not before we are a minority in the US, and at around 70-80% in Europe. From there, perhaps we will rise back up to more historic levels--the main thing, though, is that a sizeable majority of whites then explicitly plan a race-based future.
2004-05-25 09:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE][darkstar]The free market would make kids a lot more affordable. [/QUOTE]
I would change that slightly. The reinstitution of private property would make kids a lot more affordable. That means inter alia that the corporate organizational form must be mostly banned, and the vast assets now controlled by a handful of (very disproportionately) Jewish corporate managers (think Eisner and Bronfman) should be dispersed as broadly as possible among our people.
The modern capitalist landscape with its enormous concentrations of wealth managed by a tiny clique of insiders while most everybody else is reduced to the status of cubicle serf like in a Dilbert cartoon isn't what I'd call the "free market."
Ban the corporation (at least mostly). And of course end usury. Usury is the other great evil of our day. Lending at interest should not be allowed (with a few exceptions, maybe) and financing should be based on sharing in risks and profits.
[QUOTE]However, even compared with 50 years ago, there is at least close to sufficient resources available to the average couple to have a large family -- if they were to cut out all the luxuries that weren't there 50 years ago. Ok, so no private school or all the toys the Jones's kids have -- but, at present, it is better to have a bunch of (initially-) poor, public-schooled white kids than one or no white kids at all. No, the major issue is a lack of will, which is something that will have to change with time, as the crest of dumb-white- feelings-of-racial-invulnerability-mixed-with-anti-white-cultural-Marxism passes. Whites will wake up slowly, but perhaps not before we are a minority in the US, and at around 70-80% in Europe. From there, perhaps we will rise back up to more historic levels--the main thing, though, is that a sizeable majority of whites then explicitly plan a race-based future.[/QUOTE]
I agree that there's plenty of wealth all around, but the problem is that it's controlled by a vanishingly small group of corporate geeks. Production isn't the problem, monopoly is. Distributism is all about adopting policies that encourage our people to own the means of their own livlihoods and ending the concentration of wealth (and by extension power) in too few hands.
Your statement is correct, but it begs the chicken-and-egg question of which came first: the corporate system with its wage/cubicle slavery, or the consumerist attitudes that are part and parcel of the corporate work/tax/consume/debt treadmill.
I think that the questions are intricately interwined. In a sense we can only shed the corporate system with its managerial elites running the world through all-pervasive usury by changing our own attitudes and seizing control of our own economic fates, just as we can only change our attitudes by killing the pervasive brainwashing upon which the power of our corporate masters is based.
At some point we need to cut the gordian knot and break out of the thing.
The actions we need to take are clear enough in their general outline. Carol had a thing extolling the Mormons, who did the yoeman peasant thing quietly and without anybody telling them how to do it. We need to be like them (something I'm working on).
Capitalism must die, no doubt about that.
Regards,
Walter
2004-05-25 09:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Do you personally know anyone who has - forget [I]utopian [/I] - even an upbeat and hopeful sense of the future? That, absent a deus ex machina, tomorrow's world will be better than today's? [/QUOTE]
Another great post, Ragman.
I think that the future will be pretty much what we make it. I don't see any great loss in the passing of the capitalist system, and collapse to a simpler level will be a welcome thing. Our task is to prepare ourselves such that the collapse won't affect us much.
Joseph Tainter in his "Collapse of Complex Societies" states that from the point of view of the victims of complex civilizations, collapse can be a good thing, because it lowers taxes and other state obligations.
I see no reason that we can't have plenty to eat, nice clothes to wear, warm houses to live in, interesting work to perform, and family and friends to enjoy them with after the Crunch. Provided of course that we circle the wagons now.
I'm actually rather optimistic about the future. I think that I may live to see the capitalist Whore of Babylon that is Amerika be brought down. Even though there will be some stormy seas ahead, if we sail through it intact we should live to see a far sunnier shore.
Walter
2004-05-25 12:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge] It seems to me that White people should only have kids if they want kids and are willing to accept the responsibilties that go along with parenthood.[/QUOTE] VF-- A great deal of the problem, as Ragno mentioned, is that whites no longer naturally want kids and the responsibilities that go along with parenthood, though they used to. We need to recognize being fecund as a virtue and cultivate it. G. K. Chesterton said that the modern era worships sex, but hates fertility. He was, as was usually the case, correct. Ragno's description of the single career woman as "onanistic" was apt. Our people have been conditioned to obsess over sex while fearing and despising its very purpose -- procreation. This, of course, is heresy, which always consists in taking something that is true (in this case, that sex is good) and taking it out of proportion or context, leading to serious error (in this case that it is the ultimate good.) If you allow the current, corrupt culture to brainwash you into remaining childless, then in a very real way, they will have succeeded in emasculating you. And if you dont feel capable or ready to raise children, take heart. When I was younger, I thought that people grew up and had children. Now I realize that, in many ways, having children is what makes you grow up.
2004-05-25 12:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] I'm actually rather optimistic about the future. I think that I may live to see the capitalist Whore of Babylon that is Amerika be brought down. Even though there will be some stormy seas ahead, if we sail through it intact we should live to see a far sunnier shore.[/QUOTE] I'm actually with Walter on this one. I'm "cautiously optimistic," as every coach says in every pre-game interview. When one is as totally convinced of the thorough rottenness of the current system as I am, then its collapse can only be considered a good thing, though many other hardships may follow. Take heart, friends. The current system is clearly decaying, not expanding, which means that its eventual death is assured. What comes thereafter is up to us and to our children.
2004-05-25 12:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]What comes thereafter is up to us and to our children.[/QUOTE]
Right, and if we don't have children we don't have a future.
So, let's all get in there and reproduce.
Have you given any more thought to how we can pull the Distributism view of things into an easily readable expose?
Walter
2004-05-25 13:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Right, and if we don't have children we don't have a future. So, let's all get in there and reproduce.[/QUOTE] I think it should be pointed out that the traditional Christian doctrine is that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Within marriage, however, you are basically supposed to boink your brains out. People who claim that Christianity is "anti-sex" just dont understand this.
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Have you given any more thought to how we can pull the Distributism view of things into an easily readable expose?[/QUOTE] Yes, a little. At this point, I am torn between feeling that I am hopelessly inadequate to the task and thinking, on the other hand, if not me (or us), then who?
2004-05-25 13:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Within marriage, however, you are basically supposed to boink your brains out. [/QUOTE]
:punk:
[QUOTE]Yes, a little. At this point, I am torn between feeling that I am hopelessly inadequate to the task and thinking, on the other hand, if not me (or us), then who?[/QUOTE]
Beats me. We need smart converts.
As it is, we're stuck with corporate types like Michael Novak passing themselves off as Catholic theologians.
Maybe we could try a couple of little things, like a pamphlet on why corporations destroy property. Or on why usury is wrong.
Walter
2004-05-25 14:26 | User Profile
To my knowledge, Sam Francis is a life long bachelor, though I do believe he has a mature lady friend in D.C.
The Buchanans married late, well into their thirties. His wife is older than he. I think Buchanan also had a limited life expectancy at the time of his marrriage. I don't know if that played a part in any of their decisions.
Linder I believe is still a young guy and probably needs to establish himself before assuming such obligations.
2004-05-25 15:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Good point in theory, but polygamy isn't an option because we're Christians (Christianity forbids polygamy, as you know).[/QUOTE]
Polygamy was a common practice when the women greatly outnumber the men. But, in modern times, the sexes are well balanced thus polygamy has become taboo and illegal.
I doubt polygamy would help. There's no lack of male-female relationships. The lack of white babies is a result of women being encouraged and bribed to have "careers" rather than children, whites have been taught to hate the white race, and the cost of living a modern lifestyle.
I'm not sure that Christianity forbids polygamy. The strongest anti-polygamous statement (that I know of) in the Bible is Jesus talking about a man and a woman, "two shall become one flesh." But, this is in regards to divorce, not polygamy. The statement does not necessarily exclude "three shall become one flesh." The point is that married people are one flesh and should not be separated. Jesus also often uses hyperbole.
The Bible also says a bishop (overseer) should be the husband of one wife. This is a rule for overseers, not Christians in general. And, it could be understood that a man with several wives is not a good choice for overseer because he'll be too busy with his wives to do a good job as overseer. Consider, I don't know anyone who insists that a a bishop must have one wife rather than be unmarried (the Catholic Church even forbids marriage of overseers). So, the rule is not absolute.
Polygamy is never called a sin. In the OT, many godly men practiced polygamy.
Jesus met a woman at a well who claimed to have no husband, Jesus said she had five, and the man she was now with was not her husband. It looks like he considered any divorces to be null-and-void, but didn't object to her polygamy.
How about monogamy being a sin? If we lived in an anciet society with strong cultural differences between men and women, where men worked the fields and women raised children -- where women greatly outnumbered men for whatever reason -- it seems to me to be evil to forbid polygamy and condemn many women to lives as maids.
2004-05-25 15:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]I'm not sure that Christianity forbids polygamy. The strongest anti-polygamous statement (that I know of) in the Bible is Jesus talking about a man and a woman, "two shall become one flesh." But, this is in regards to divorce, not polygamy. The statement does not necessarily exclude "three shall become one flesh." The point is that married people are one flesh and should not be separated. Jesus also often uses hyperbole. [/QUOTE]
I agree that the ban on polygamy is not clearly expressed in the Bible, but it's definitely been handed down to us from the earliest times by Holy Tradition and the Magisterium, which are also sources of authority.
So, for Catholics at least there is no question about the impermissibility of polygamy.
Regards,
Walter
2004-05-25 15:27 | User Profile
If polygamy ever really did become necessary, then the Magisterium could indicate that it was now permitted for Catholics. The Orthodox could call another Ecumenical Council and if "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us" then it could be permitted for the Orthodox. The Protestants would have the easiest time of all, since they could just decide that, with new "textual analysis" and "historical understanding," it is now clear that the Bible doesn't forbid polygamy at all. Problem solved. :wink:
2004-05-25 15:40 | User Profile
If memory serves, the Magesterium did allow polygamy for temporary periods at certain times, such as in the aftermath of war or pestilence when the supply of men diminished. Someone correct me if that's not true.
2004-05-25 17:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]If polygamy ever really did become necessary, then the Magisterium could indicate that it was now permitted for Catholics. The Orthodox could call another Ecumenical Council and if "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us" then it could be permitted for the Orthodox. The Protestants would have the easiest time of all, since they could just decide that, with new "textual analysis" and "historical understanding," it is now clear that the Bible doesn't forbid polygamy at all. Problem solved. :wink:[/QUOTE]
Indeed. The Holy Spirit did not stop His work when the Bible was written. He keeps on inspiring believers to see and discern God's ways.
2004-05-25 18:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Quote: Originally Posted by Quantrill [I]If polygamy ever really did become necessary, then the Magisterium could indicate that it was now permitted for Catholics. The Orthodox could call another Ecumenical Council and if "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us" then it could be permitted for the Orthodox. The Protestants would have the easiest time of all, since they could just decide that, with new "textual analysis" and "historical understanding," it is now clear that the Bible doesn't forbid polygamy at all. Problem solved. [/I]
[QUOTE]Indeed. The Holy Spirit did not stop his work when the Bible was written. He keeps on inspiring believers to see and discern God's ways.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
And you guys have the brass onions to object when a [I]Supreme Court justice [/I] refers to a 'living Constitution'!
2004-05-25 18:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]And you guys have the brass onions to object when a [I]Supreme Court justice [/I] refers to a 'living Constitution'![/QUOTE]
Not to mention the wrath poured on "dictatorships" and "centralizers" and "Hitlerian dictates".
2004-05-25 18:51 | User Profile
I am not suggesting that you endorse polygamy. I mostly just suggesting that it has always happened, and in any case is a basic possibility in human sexual behavior, such that it is matters more if white women go childless than if white men do.
Likewise, it matters more if white women mate with non-whites than if men do (this is also true for reasons having nothing to do with the polygamy possibility).
Try to consider how many married men had children out of wedlock over the centuries--especially given the lack of fertility clinics and the like, and the tendency to blame fertility problems on the wife. Polygamy is part of society they way that coveting one's neighbors goods is.
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I agree that the ban on polygamy is not clearly expressed in the Bible, but it's definitely been handed down to us from the earliest times by Holy Tradition and the Magisterium, which are also sources of authority.
So, for Catholics at least there is no question about the impermissibility of polygamy.
Regards,
Walter[/QUOTE]
2004-05-25 18:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]And you guys have the brass onions to object when a Supreme Court justice * refers to a 'living Constitution'![/QUOTE] I was being a little bit facetious in my post, especially to poke a little gentle* fun at my Protestant brothers at OD. As far as the Catholic and Orthodox are concerned, however, they have never claimed that The Church and Her Dogma are hermetically sealed and incapable of change. Both have held from their very founding that God can and does reveal new things to his Church, when necessary. The Orthodox have been much more reticent to change than the Catholics, but both agree in principle that the Holy Spirit can inspire new doctrine. Your comparison of the Church to the Constitution is not apt. The Church is the Living Bride of Christ, whereas the Constitution was an outline for a system of government that was good enough to last for about 75 years.
2004-05-25 18:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]Not to mention the wrath poured on "dictatorships" and "centralizers" and "Hitlerian dictates".[/QUOTE] An Ecumenical Council hardly qualifies as any of the above.
2004-05-25 19:02 | User Profile
I agree that the free market would create a widening gap between rich and relative-poor. I am not, sure, however, that mostly just 'a few' plutocrats would benefit disproportionately benefity. It seems to me that, at present, the 'few plutocrats' are the ones best able to manipulate the government to get goodies and avoid taxes.
What would happen under a free market is a massive, disproportionate increase in wealth among the individuals currently making, say, over $100,000, but less than than truly amazing amount required to really shape Federal policy. I suppose there are some downside to this, but they are far outweighed by the overall increase in wealth that would occur.
Why would this overall increase matter? Because it would not just benefit the very rich. Quite aside from the incredible charity from the very rich that we would see, there would be an abundance of new jobs as scientific and entrepreneurial activity exploded, and prices for most goods would head downhill as the cost of production decreased dramatically.
Of course, we can move toward this scenario in baby steps, which is the right way to proceed. In conjunction, to limit the power of the 'plutocrats' to negatively affect the direction of still-bloated government spending, the slowly-shrinking tax burden should be shifted upward to them.
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]How, exactly?
Sure, families would pay lower taxes, but under an unrestrained "free market" wealth would be even more disproportionately concentrated in the hands of a few plutocrats, with the rest of America working as de facto indentured servants in corporate cubicles or worse. In the absence of anti-trust laws and other regulatory machinery, the small business (in particular the family farm) would be a thing of the past.
What is more, it was the bottom-line oriented "free market" created the low wages that FORCED wives into the workplace to begin with, and the "free trade" so idolized by Wall Street libertarians brought wages further down still by forcing American workers to compete with Third Worlders for manufacturing jobs.
The costs of these tendencies far outweighs the benefits of lower taxation, and you can rest assured that as the standard of living drops in the name of the bottom line, people used to a middle class life will be even more disinclined to reproduce.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-25 19:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]An Ecumenical Council hardly qualifies as any of the above.[/QUOTE]
Obviously I know little about the difference between Catholicism and Judaism.
If memory serves, the Magesterium did allow polygamy for temporary periods at certain times, such as in the aftermath of war or pestilence when the supply of men diminished.
2004-05-25 19:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]Obviously I know little about the difference between Catholicism and Judaism.[/QUOTE] Whoa! Stop the presses! Hold everything! I am referring to Orthodox Christianity, the oldest kind of Christianity. I am most emphatically NOT referring to orthodox Judaism. Good heavens!
The Jews' beliefs are of little interest to me.
2004-05-25 19:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill] As far as the Catholic and Orthodox are concerned, however, they have never claimed that The Church and Her Dogma are hermetically sealed and incapable of change. Both have held from their very founding that God can and does reveal new things to his Church, when necessary. The Orthodox have been much more reticent to change than the Catholics, but both agree in principle that the Holy Spirit can inspire new doctrine. [/QUOTE]
That's not my understanding at all. Revelation concluded with the death of the last apostle. Any further doctrinal teaching is an explanation or elaboration of existing belief, or application of that belief to new or changing circumstances. The Holy Ghost guides the Church in that endeavour. Revelation is not an ongoing process.
2004-05-25 20:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]That's not my understanding at all. Revelation concluded with the death of the last apostle. Any further doctrinal teaching is an explanation or elaboration of existing belief, or application of that belief to new or changing circumstances. The Holy Ghost guides the Church in that endeavour. Revelation is not an ongoing process.[/QUOTE] Application of belief to changing circumstances, as you put it, is what I meant by "new doctrine." I regret my imprecision.
However, the Orthodox, at least, believe that current bishops hold the equivalent office of the original apostles, so I think (although I admit that I am not certain) that they do not believe all revelation has stopped.
2004-05-25 20:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]And you guys have the brass onions to object when a [I]Supreme Court justice [/I] refers to a 'living Constitution'![/QUOTE]
Bottom line, the Bible never calls polygamy a sin. And, I don't see why it necessarily would be a sin. I don't believe in a "living" Constition or a "living" Bible.
Many "conservative" Christians call things sins that the Bible doesn't call a sin, such as drinking or slavery. They prefer to outright prohibit things that may be easily abused. Then they conflate what they have prohibited with sin.
2004-05-25 20:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Many "conservative" Christians call things sins that the Bible doesn't call a sin, such as drinking or slavery. They prefer to outright prohibit things that may be easily abused. Then they conflate what they have prohibited with sin.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=12751]The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney[/url]
2004-05-25 22:24 | User Profile
Hate to bring up Linder again (esp. since I don't follow him), but there are 2 facts associated with him:
I'd be interested in having a human being explain this conundrum. It's hypocritical to me. If I'm wrong, please teach me my error.
Jay
ps: I'm having kids. I don't care WHAT happens in this world after I'm done. I'm not a coward.
2004-05-25 22:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]The free market would make kids a lot more affordable. .[/QUOTE]
Is that a joke?
2004-05-25 22:37 | User Profile
It's clearly hypocritical.
No question.
[QUOTE=jay]Hate to bring up Linder again (esp. since I don't follow him), but there are 2 facts associated with him:
I'd be interested in having a human being explain this conundrum. It's hypocritical to me. If I'm wrong, please teach me my error.
Jay
ps: I'm having kids. I don't care WHAT happens in this world after I'm done. I'm not a coward.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-26 01:02 | User Profile
If you find Linder a deplorable hypocrite then you must find Francis & Buchanan equally deplorable. Linder is a good 25 years younger than either of the other two - who clearly blew it, pissed away their prime daddying years and let down their race. And Linder neither wrote a friggin' book on the topic nor is a founding member of VDARE which is practically obsessed with the topic. Buchanan didn't adopt because of a heart problem? How is any health problem congenital in adopted offspring? And Francis isn't kidding anybody with that beard girlfriend of his.
If, on the other hand, you find the private lives of writers addressing [I]broad social & demographic trends[/I] immaterial, as I do, you refrain from pointing a finger at any or all three. (Yes, that first paragraph was baiting, for emphasis.)
2004-05-26 01:49 | User Profile
Personal lives are irrelevant.
What's not irrelevant is when a person -- anyone -- says there is a moral duty for people to do so such and such, but does not do such and such himself.
That's the textbook definition of hypocrisy.
[QUOTE=il ragno]If you find Linder a deplorable hypocrite then you must find Francis & Buchanan equally deplorable. Linder is a good 25 years younger than either of the other two - who clearly blew it, pissed away their prime daddying years and let down their race. And Linder neither wrote a friggin' book on the topic nor is a founding member of VDARE which is practically obsessed with the topic. Buchanan didn't adopt because of a heart problem? How is any health problem congenital in adopted offspring? And Francis isn't kidding anybody with that beard girlfriend of his.
If, on the other hand, you find the private lives of writers addressing [I]broad social & demographic trends[/I] immaterial, as I do, you refrain from pointing a finger at any or all three. (Yes, that first paragraph was baiting, for emphasis.)[/QUOTE]
2004-05-26 03:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]That's not my understanding at all. Revelation concluded with the death of the last apostle. Any further doctrinal teaching is an explanation or elaboration of existing belief, or application of that belief to new or changing circumstances. The Holy Ghost guides the Church in that endeavour. Revelation is not an ongoing process.[/QUOTE]
To be truly Christian ( including Catholics and Orthodox ) means acknowledging the Present Spirit of The Holy Ghost/ Spirit, meaning that Christ is HERE, in Us, and also independent as God.
Therefore, changes in the Church ( meaning all Christians ) must of course be backed by The Word. One thing about God, he doesn't change his mind. Any changes in dogma are only a result of our increased understanding of his Holy Presence. Matthew 18:18 - " I assure you, whatever you declare bound on Earth shall be held bound in Heaven, and whatever you declare loosed on Earth, shall be held loosed in Heaven " This was spoken by Our Saviour in reference to his Presence, knowing he physically would leave them, but the Word and the Holy Spirit continues in Time to the End. Reflect upon this [url]http://www.fathercorapi.com/articledet.asp?articleID=1982556093[/url]
2004-05-26 03:39 | User Profile
Men have different destinies depending upon their abilities.
Some men are called to arms, words, or action and cannot enjoy the luxury of children.
Not everybody's function is to "breed" for the White race. Buchanan, Linder, and Francis are men of politics...frequently, this is incompatible with political life, especially for dissenters such as these.
2004-05-26 03:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Johnathan]Not everybody's function is to "breed" for the White race. Buchanan, Linder, and Francis are men of politics...frequently, this is incompatible with political life, especially for dissenters such as these.[/QUOTE]
Jonathon: Your argument simply collapses when you pull out Linder's solitary quote: "get with child yesterday, white woman."
Nothing you can say will ever be able to defend this quote. I think it's a harsh quote, but do agree with Linder. However, his failure to "practice what he preaches" renders his whole message worthless.
As for not caring about the actions of a person: what is this, the James Carville school of avoiding personal responsibility? If you make a demand of someone, you damn well better live it yourself.
Jay
2004-05-26 04:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE]If you find Linder a deplorable hypocrite then you must find Francis & Buchanan equally deplorable. [/QUOTE] I just went and re-read my original post: yep, mentioned them too.
[QUOTE]Linder is a good 25 years younger than either of the other two - who clearly blew it, pissed away their prime daddying years and let down their race[/QUOTE].
Agreed. Linder still has time. Perhaps he should soften his comments to, 'Please consider having children. I'm considering it myself."
[QUOTE]And Linder neither wrote a friggin' book on the topic nor is a founding member of VDARE[/QUOTE]
Irrelevant. He made the comment to produce white children. Matters not what forum he chose to do so.
2004-05-26 04:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]Jonathon: Your argument simply collapses when you pull out Linder's solitary quote: "get with child yesterday, white woman."
Nothing you can say will ever be able to defend this quote. I think it's a harsh quote, but do agree with Linder. However, his failure to "practice what he preaches" renders his whole message worthless.
As for not caring about the actions of a person: what is this, the James Carville school of avoiding personal responsibility? If you make a demand of someone, you damn well better live it yourself.
Jay[/QUOTE] I don't care for Linder, or find him terribly relevant...so I'm not familiar with some of the nuances of his message. I see your point, but something that you need to consider is this:
Should Whites secure their existance by attempting to "out breed" a bunch of Negroes, Mestizos, and other Third World riff raff? Or should we do it tactically by reclaiming the corridors of power that rightfully must be ruled by us?
I don't think that Adolf Hitler was deficient because he did not have children. I don't think that it is the function of a soldier, a statesman, or a radical to devote his energies to producing as many children as possible...it is his function to wage war, lead nations, awaken the body politic, etc. Do you understand the reasoning?
We need to cultivate elitism and hardness within the youth...not merely produce as many offspring as possible. You are reducing the struggle to the vulgar terms of animal husbandry.
2004-05-26 04:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Johnathan]Should Whites secure their existance by attempting to "out breed" a bunch of Negroes, Mestizos, and other Third World riff raff? Or should we do it tactically by reclaiming the corridors of power that rightfully must be ruled by us? [/QUOTE]
I believe this question is tantamount to asking: should a company grow its revenues, or cut its costs?
Should you go after a pretty girl, or a smart girl?
You get the idea. We'll need both to survive.
Jay
2004-05-26 05:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]How, exactly?
Sure, families would pay lower taxes, but under an unrestrained "free market" wealth would be even more disproportionately concentrated in the hands of a few plutocrats, with the rest of America working as de facto indentured servants in corporate cubicles or worse. In the absence of anti-trust laws and other regulatory machinery, the small business (in particular the family farm) would be a thing of the past.
What is more, it was the bottom-line oriented "free market" created the low wages that FORCED wives into the workplace to begin with, and the "free trade" so idolized by Wall Street libertarians brought wages further down still by forcing American workers to compete with Third Worlders for manufacturing jobs.
The costs of these tendencies far outweighs the benefits of lower taxation, and you can rest assured that as the standard of living drops in the name of the bottom line, people used to a middle class life will be even more disinclined to reproduce.[/QUOTE]
I agree.
The problem is the tendency to concentrate wealth in too few hands. The corporation allows that in spades. AY is absolutely right that one of the main functions of corporations is to squeeze value from the bottom of the pyramid for the benefit of management - although this is never really discussed openly. And they do a great job of that. Cheap labor is the name of the game, because it allows management to pocket the difference.
The response to that tendency was the attempt to create monopolistic unions, but that had mixed results, and played out differently in America than in Europe. While I understand the desire for mass unionization, the problem is that it is a reaction to the corporation (at least to a large degree), and consequently it doesn't attack the root of the problem which to my mind is the corporate organizational form itself.
This is a most interesting discussion, and I think it's the area we've neglected. We need to hammer out an economic program that attacks the problem at its root.
If and when a crisis in capitalism comes (hereinafter, the "Crunch") then our people will be looking for a keen analysis of the problem and a clear program of action to take them out of it. I emphasize that in my opinion, our success is unlikely absent the Crunch, because without the Crunch nobody will listen to us. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
The basic thrust of our efforst should be a move against (1) the abuse of the corporate organizational form and (2) usury.
If discussed the corporate problem here and on other threads (see Buster's helpful link above) and I suggested a few ideas for further consideration.
On the usury question, I suggest that we look to [URL=http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/economics/islamic_banking.html#shprin]Islamic banking[/URL], which (I understand) is a usury-free financing system that was perfected in Iran after their Islamic revolution. It apparently works. I know a lawyer who specializes in it (he's a white guy like us), but I haven't studied it myself. I suggest we all look at this and discuss our findings here.
I'm convinced that developing a simple and clearly explained Distributist program tailored to our own American circumstances is a key ingredient to our success. I repeat that I'm not nearly equal to the task, at least not alone, but maybe we could cooperate on this task and hammer out together a program that will sell.
I hope to hear from you.
Walter
2004-05-26 05:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]I am not suggesting that you endorse polygamy. I mostly just suggesting that it has always happened, and in any case is a basic possibility in human sexual behavior, such that it is matters more if white women go childless than if white men do.
Likewise, it matters more if white women mate with non-whites than if men do (this is also true for reasons having nothing to do with the polygamy possibility).
Try to consider how many married men had children out of wedlock over the centuries--especially given the lack of fertility clinics and the like, and the tendency to blame fertility problems on the wife. Polygamy is part of society they way that coveting one's neighbors goods is.[/QUOTE]
I agree, and would add that clearly there's not much of a difference between polygamy and the serial "marriage" (oxymoron!) that we have now (except perhaps that polygamy is more honest and fairer to all involved).
Christian marriage is the life long union of one man and one woman in a sexual relationship that is open to the procreation of children. That's what it is. Christ Himself made it so. But our society began to "redefine" it out of existence way back when a certain adulterous English king divorced his lawful wife and then had her killed. That same king went on to marry five (?) more times, killing as he went. He started a church based on these political considerations. The fact that our ancestors in England accepted that finally is the root of our current problem in this area.
We need to return to the Christ's teaching that marriage means "no divorce."
Walter
2004-05-26 06:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]That's not my understanding at all. Revelation concluded with the death of the last apostle. Any further doctrinal teaching is an explanation or elaboration of existing belief, or application of that belief to new or changing circumstances. The Holy Ghost guides the Church in that endeavour. Revelation is not an ongoing process.[/QUOTE]
That's right.
[URL=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm]Revelation is closed[/URL].
[QUOTE]A priori, we should expect that a religious system which was revealed and instituted, not by a prophet or even an angel, but by the personal action of God Himself, and was designed, moreover, to supplant an imperfect and provisional form of religion, would lack nothing of possible perfection in end or means. Christ's own teaching satisfied this expectation, and precludes the notion entertained by some early heretics, and still alive in the minds of men, of a fuller and more perfect revelation to come. First of all, He, its Founder, is God, and therefore had all the knowledge and all the power requisite to establish a perfect religion. Secondly, He promised His Apostles the abiding presence of the Spirit of Truth, who should teach them all truth. Thirdly, He promised that the body enshrining this deposit should never be vitiated by error ââ¬â "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt., xvi, 18; cf. Ephes., v, 27). Fourthly, the same truth is insinuated by St. Paul's words: "God, who at sundry times . . .last of all . . .hath spoken to us by His Son" (Heb., i, 1), and by the expression, the fulness of time, used in Gal., iv, 4, to indicate the epoch of the Incarnation. Fifthly, by the character of the Christian revelation itself and the Christian ethical ideal which is the imitation of Christ, the Perfect Being. No possible development of mankind can be thought of which should not find all that it needs in Christ.
We are compelled, therefore, to believe that the Christian revelation closed with the death of the last of those originally commissioned to set it forth. We are thus brought counter to a modern view regarding revelation which has lately been condemned as heretical by Pius X (Encyclical, "Pascendi Gregis", Sept., 1907). It is to the effect that revelation is nothing external, but a clearer and closer apprehension of things Divine by the Christian consciousness, which in each particular age is the expression of the experience of the best men of that age. Consequently, revelation grows, like a material organism, by waste and renewed supply, and therefore what is truth for one age maybe quite different from what is truth for another. The error which has these developments is ultimately philosophical, being based on the false assumption that the finite mind can know only the phenomenal and can have no certainty of what is beyond experience. Were that so, any external revelation would be impossible, for its guarantees ââ¬â miracle and prophecy ââ¬â could not be grasped by human intelligence. These errors were long ago exposed and condemned by the Vatican Council. The most casual glance at the history of Christianity shows that there has been development of doctrine; the Creed grew only gradually; but that development is merely logical, produced by analysis of the content of the original deposit. (See DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE.) [/QUOTE]
2004-05-26 07:25 | User Profile
No, it's not a joke. What, you think I am endorsing selling children? I think I very clearly made the case for the move toward a free market, but, heck, if you all want to spend your time figuring out how to ban 'usury' and otherwise send us back to mass poverty -- well, then, I will probably just have to vomit. In fact, I think I will go do that now.
Number one opponent of the free market and the night-watchman state? The Jewish people, i.e., Jews.
(Although it has got to be said that when a Jew breaks from the pack here, he or she often does very well with developing some good, white-friendly classical liberal ideas -- see mises.org for an example in the life of Ludwig von Mises).
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Is that a joke?[/QUOTE]
2004-05-26 07:29 | User Profile
I think we should go for the vulgar breeding approach, in that it we have a much better chance of getting whites to do this than we have of getting them to deport non-whites.
Also, once you get people started on breeding to save the race, etc., they will probably be rather more open to the idea of Lincoln-style deportation (maybe to New York, Southern California, and Florida?) -- and will have the numbers to enforce their will.
[QUOTE=Johnathan]I don't care for Linder, or find him terribly relevant...so I'm not familiar with some of the nuances of his message. I see your point, but something that you need to consider is this:
Should Whites secure their existance by attempting to "out breed" a bunch of Negroes, Mestizos, and other Third World riff raff? Or should we do it tactically by reclaiming the corridors of power that rightfully must be ruled by us?
I don't think that Adolf Hitler was deficient because he did not have children. I don't think that it is the function of a soldier, a statesman, or a radical to devote his energies to producing as many children as possible...it is his function to wage war, lead nations, awaken the body politic, etc. Do you understand the reasoning?
We need to cultivate elitism and hardness within the youth...not merely produce as many offspring as possible. You are reducing the struggle to the vulgar terms of animal husbandry.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-26 07:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]No, it's not a joke. [/QUOTE]
I would be most interested in your thoughts on my proposal to end corporations (at least mostly) and to end usury (at least mostly) described above.
Walter
2004-05-26 08:41 | User Profile
I would suggest that your ideas are proper Judaism. See the end of [url]http://www.mises.org/etexts/Mishnah.pdf[/url] for some reasons why.
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I would be most interested in your thoughts on my proposal to end corporations (at least mostly) and to end usury (at least mostly) described above.
Walter[/QUOTE]
2004-05-26 09:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]I would suggest that your ideas are proper Judaism. See the end of [url]http://www.mises.org/etexts/Mishnah.pdf[/url] for some reasons why.[/QUOTE]
I perused that article, and while it is interesting it doesn't address the question at hand, at least as far as I see it.
You seem to be saying that the use of the corporate organizational form is somehow indispensible to the free market system.
If so, please explain why the corporate organizational form is necessary to a functioning free market.
If not, please explain further your thinking on the place of the corporate organizational form in the free market.
Regards,
Walter
2004-05-26 09:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I think we should go for the vulgar breeding approach, in that it we have a much better chance of getting whites to do this than we have of getting them to deport non-whites. [/QUOTE]
It's only vulgar if you're doing it right, man.
[QUOTE]Also, once you get people started on breeding to save the race, etc., they will probably be rather more open to the idea of Lincoln-style deportation (maybe to New York, Southern California, and Florida?) -- and will have the numbers to enforce their will.[/QUOTE]
I'm totally on board with Lincoln's noble vision of a white and Christian America prospering based on free labor, but as to deportation destinations I was thinking more in terms of Mexico, Liberia, and Israel.
Hey, I like Florida, you know?
Walter
2004-05-26 10:01 | User Profile
The major problem is that the computer ate my reply.
Anyway, I think the problem is more banning 'usury.' A foolish, supersitious, backwards-Catholic and more-or-less Mishna type ideal. Yes, this would ruin the free market, the economy, and white prosperity.
I am not sure what you mean by banning corporations. What is a corporation to you? It is obviously not the same things a large business. It is a tool for limiting liability. If that's all you want to get rid off--I would ask how this is relevant to white racialism. I see no reason to believe it is. If you want to seize the assests of anti-white scum, that it is a different story.
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I perused that article, and while it is interesting it doesn't address the question at hand, at least as far as I see it.
You seem to be saying that the use of the corporate organizational form is somehow indispensible to the free market system.
If so, please explain why the corporate organizational form is necessary to a functioning free market.
If not, please explain further your thinking on the place of the corporate organizational form in the free market.
Regards,
Walter[/QUOTE]
2004-05-26 10:09 | User Profile
Do you share my view that it is more important to promote higher white fertility rates than mass deportation of non-whites?
As to Florida vs. Israel--this is all just a pipe dream as far as I am concerned, it really doesn't matter to me. But internal 'reservations' for non-whites is a somewhat easier stack of goods to sell. On the other hand, if you are going to tell this story, why not have a big finish of an all-white, totally intact America?
I suppose what I am getting at is that there is a realistic possibility of eventually consigning some states to whites, and others to the multi-racial horde. This would be a good thing in a lot of ways, because having these white haves would be worth losing any 10-12 states you'd care to name. Still, even for this particular bit of decentralization happen, it would be highly useful for whites to start having for more kids.
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]It's only vulgar if you're doing it right, man.
I'm totally on board with Lincoln's noble vision of a white and Christian America prospering based on free labor, but as to deportation destinations I was thinking more in terms of Mexico, Liberia, and Israel.
Hey, I like Florida, you know?
Walter[/QUOTE]
2004-05-26 10:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Do you share my view that it is more important to promote higher white fertility rates than mass deportation of non-whites?[/QUOTE]
Both are necessary. One doesn't exclude the other, that's for sure.
Maybe the fertility thing is more important, because without a critical mass of whites we're done for, but I wouldn't want to obscure the point that we need to both dramatically increase fertility and create a white homeland.
[QUOTE]As to Florida vs. Israel--this is all just a pipe dream as far as I am concerned, it really doesn't matter to me. But internal 'reservations' for non-whites is a somewhat easier stack of goods to sell. On the other hand, if you are going to tell this story, why not have a big finish of an all-white, totally intact America?[/QUOTE]
An all-whhite (at least overwhelmingly white), Christian and English-speaking America, united within its present boundaries, is exactly what I want.
Lincoln's vision, I think it fair to say.
[QUOTE]I suppose what I am getting at is that there is a realistic possibility of eventually consigning some states to whites, and others to the multi-racial horde. This would be a good thing in a lot of ways, because having these white haves would be worth losing any 10-12 states you'd care to name. Still, even for this particular bit of decentralization happen, it would be highly useful for whites to start having for more kids.[/QUOTE]
I disagree.
All American territory is American and not an inch of it will be forfeit.
Warmest regards,
Walter
2004-05-26 10:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The major problem is that the computer ate my reply. [/QUOTE]
That happens to me, the trick is to get into the habit of selecting all text and saving it to the clipboard before you post it. [cntrl A, cntrl c]
[QUOTE]Anyway, I think the problem is more banning 'usury.' A foolish, supersitious, backwards-Catholic and more-or-less Mishna type ideal. Yes, this would ruin the free market, the economy, and white prosperity. [/QUOTE]
Why do you say that?
[QUOTE]I am not sure what you mean by banning corporations. What is a corporation to you? It is obviously not the same things a large business. It is a tool for limiting liability. If that's all you want to get rid off--I would ask how this is relevant to white racialism. I see no reason to believe it is. If you want to seize the assests of anti-white scum, that it is a different story.[/QUOTE]
I mean that the corporate form should be used only in very exceptional circumstances (if at all) and that the vast majority of business should be carried on via sole proprietorships, general partnerships, and worker-owned cooperatives.
As I've written previously, "private property" is a unity of ownership, management & control, and liability for debts, and that all the social benefits of the institution of private property flow from this unity. The corporation destroys this unity - and therefore destroys private property - by destroying this unity throught the seapartion of ownership from management & control and by limiting liability for debts/torts.
Society is weakened as a result.
2004-05-26 11:17 | User Profile
To answer your earlier question, then: yes, the corporation as I think you are understanding it is necessary for a free market by definition. Is it necessary for maximizing economic growth? That as well. Providing simply an acceptable level of growth? Yes. Will attempts to hinder private contracts forming corporations and setting their liability be ineffective and distortive for the economy? Indeed.
The same goes for loans with high rates of interest, although here the task of the state-interventionist is impossible in an advanced economy.
If you want to have people set up businesses more 'organically' or the like, that is a fine thing to advocate. Maybe you are right about the dangers of non-working-stockholder-owned businesses (I don't think so, but no matter). Still, I can't see why one should enforce this vision of the proper business order through the state. Is there any reason to believe that the state will do this in an effective manner? Is there any reason to believe that, having created a state that enforces such a business order, it will not go on to take more damaging action? No on both counts.
2004-05-26 11:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]
An all-whhite (at least overwhelmingly white), Christian and English-speaking America, united within its present boundaries, is exactly what I want.
Lincoln's vision, I think it fair to say.
Walter, could you please provide the Lincoln references that support this contention? I'm talking about actual documented quotations of Lincoln's actual statements, and documented actions that showed development of- or concrete plans for implementing- this vision.
2004-05-26 12:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=weisbrot]Walter, could you please provide the Lincoln references that support this contention? I'm talking about actual documented quotations of Lincoln's actual statements, and documented actions that showed development of- or concrete plans for implementing- this vision.[/QUOTE]
Weisbrot: I just googled this up, and haven't had a chance to review it.
[URL=http://www.dinsdoc.com/wesley-1.htm]Link.[/URL]
Here's another from the [URL=http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html]Institute of Historical Review[/URL].
It looks like it might have what you're looking for.
[QUOTE]"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, "Reply to New York Workingmen's Democratic Republican Association" (March 21, 1864), pp. 259-260. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word many mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, "Address at Sanitary Fair, Baltimore, Maryland" (April 18, 1864), p. 301-302. [/QUOTE]
"[QUOTE]Those who elected Mr. Lincoln expect him . . . to secure to free labor its just right to the Territories of the United States; to protect . . . by wise revenue laws, the labor of our people; to secure the public lands to actual settlers . . . ; to develop the internal resources of the country by opening new means of communication between the Atlantic and Pacific." Senator John Sherman (Ohio, brother of General Sherman, on why the Republican Party nominated Lincoln.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Lyman Trumbull (Illinois Republican leader) summarized his party's position in 1859,
"We ... are the white man's party. We are for free men, and for making white labor respectable and honorable, which it can never be when negro slave labor is brought into competition with it."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Speaking to Congress in December of 1862 Lincoln advocated the removal of slaves to their own coutry,
"Labor is like any other commodity in the market-increase the demand for it, and you increase the price of it. Reduce the supply of black labor, by colonizing the black laborer out of the country, and by precisely so much, you increase the demand for, and wages of, white labor."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]"I cannot make it better known than it already is that I strongly favor colonization." Lincoln's Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862. [/QUOTE]
I'll get back to this as soon as I can. My Penguin Classics collection of Lincoln's writings has a bill that he drafted on re-colonization.
This and other issues were developed in the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
Walter
2004-05-26 12:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]To answer your earlier question, then: yes, the corporation as I think you are understanding it is necessary for a free market by definition. Is it necessary for maximizing economic growth? That as well. Providing simply an acceptable level of growth? Yes. Will attempts to hinder private contracts forming corporations and setting their liability be ineffective and distortive for the economy? Indeed.
The same goes for loans with high rates of interest, although here the task of the state-interventionist is impossible in an advanced economy.
If you want to have people set up businesses more 'organically' or the like, that is a fine thing to advocate. Maybe you are right about the dangers of non-working-stockholder-owned businesses (I don't think so, but no matter). Still, I can't see why one should enforce this vision of the proper business order through the state. Is there any reason to believe that the state will do this in an effective manner? Is there any reason to believe that, having created a state that enforces such a business order, it will not go on to take more damaging action? No on both counts.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for your response.
You say:
[QUOTE]Still, I can't see why one should enforce this vision of the proper business order through the state. [/QUOTE]
I don't follow that. The entire body of commercial law is aimed at enforcing proper business order. The corporation is purely a creature of the law. There is no natural right to limit liability at will. Clearly, if there's any "imposing" going on, its being done by those who want to limit their personal liablity by getting the state to grant them charters. I wish to make it clear that I'm all for doing buisness, but without the limitation of liability to the detriment of creditors, at least routinely.
Posner (yes, yes, I know) and others of the Chicago school theorized I think correctly that the commercial law is all about forcing people to internalize their own costs of doing business. But the routine limitation of liability via broad use of the corporate form is a rather recent development, and to my mind stands in direct contradiction to the basic economic function of the law - to internalize business costs.
How can limiting liability serve the function of internalizing costs? Clearly, the whole function of limiting liability is to EXTERNALIZE costs.
It seems clear to me that there's a trade-off going on here. The state is saying "in order to induce a lot of unrelated people to pool resources and to take risks they otherwise might not take, we'll allow you to externalize some of the social costs of doing buisness by limiting your personal liability up to the value of your investment."
Much evil flows from that, IMHO.
I read recently that Wal-Mart offers assistance to its employees on filling out welfare forms. If true, that sorta says it all. Here you have an enormous corporation intneralizing the benefits of living in a free society while externalizing the costs of maintaining that society.
And why should society subsidize the taking of risks through the limitation of liability that otherwise wouldn't be taken in the absence of such limiation? Some risks just shouldn't be taken from a economic point of view, and Enron, Waste Management, and a host of others being good examples of that.
In addition, I also question whether the routine use of the corporation would in fact discourage investment. The world worked just fine without them for billions of years previously. If anything, ending the routine use of the corporate form would improve the economy by discouraging socially costly risks and encouraging the flow of funds into socially beneficial enterprises.
You see (and I hope Buster and Q are reading this) that we're getting into a fertile area of discussion. But I'm not a trained economist - I just had the requisite amount on my way through a business and tax heavy law degree.
Actually, I should say that I started thinking about these things in law school, prompted by a great torts prof. who was totally into Posner, and who asked these same questions. I didn't take it very seriously back then because I just wanted to get my grade and end the agony of law school, but I have to say that those are questions that need to be asked and are simply not on the radar screen.
I should also add that even if we don't agree fully on this, I really think that this position is radical enough to really get the attention of the world. This poses a very direct threat to the power of our enemies, which is based upon their control of corporate board rooms. Even if you disagree that it's good economics, I think we all must agree that it's a promising marketing tactic in the short term fight.
Walter
2004-05-26 15:48 | User Profile
I think that you shift between different concepts of a 'corporation.' Is a corporation a business owned my shareholders who may or may not be liable, or a business owned by shareholders who are limiting their liability? If you only mean the latter, this has little to do with limited 'partners' or having the workers own the business or not, which were also items you also talked about.
Also, I did not say that it was odd to have the state enforce order--just the vision of order you outline.
Additionally, incorporation has done a lot for economic growth, and it is not clear in what way things were 'fine' before it arrived.
Finally, it is not clear why there has to be one set standard for liability, as determined by the state. There can be a network of agreements determing how liability is handled. --This is not an endorsement of our present approach to incorporation, obviously, but it also rules out the approach that you are talking about. The ideal--both economically and morally--would be to allow individuals a maximum of choice in how they contract out protection, and this is something easier to do when it comes to civil damages.
And maximizing choice in arbitration forums in a market/decentralized setting is something that is very important to accomplish when you can have 12 black jurors able to decide that whitey has to sell his business and pay up because one of their relatives got heartily offended by whitey's hiring practises, publications, failure to provide product directions saying 'read the directions,' etc.
2004-05-26 16:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie] I don't believe that zero population growth is problematic per se (though population decline certainly is). If Europe and America were all white nations with a stable population size, then the best tactic would not be to push for population growth but simply maintaining a demographic and economic status quo. [/QUOTE] AY -- Currently, whites are depopulating. Therefore, encouraging whites to have children is a matter of arresting actual population decline, not a matter of trying to outbreed the Third Worlders.
Good points, otherwise.
2004-05-26 17:11 | User Profile
I think this is true only if you count a lot of people as 'whites' who have substanital non-European ancestry.
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]In Europe, declining population sizes are indeed a problem, but I'm not sure this is as much of an issue in the US.
I believe that white Americans are at about zero population growth - your average white middle class household still has on average slightly over 2 children. The new yuppie class of DINKS (double income, no kids) seems to be localized among the urban elite and are still a marginal phenomenon elsewhere.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-26 22:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Weisbrot: I just googled this up, and haven't had a chance to review it.
[URL=http://www.dinsdoc.com/wesley-1.htm]Link.[/URL]
Here's another from the [URL=http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html]Institute of Historical Review[/URL].
It looks like it might have what you're looking for.
Really interesting stuff, thanks.
I was aware of the statements made in the Douglas debates- and the context- but much of what you posted I hadn't seen. Still, before moving Lincoln up from Antenora to a lesser circle, is there anything concrete accomplished by Lincoln AFTER the Emancipation towards implementing his vision? Were there actual plans for this repatriation to take place post-war?
I'm inclined to believe that Lincoln's public statements were more politically motivated than a statement of actual intention. But I'll try to find the draft bill you mentioned and note it's progress.
Perhaps it could be reintroduced...?
2004-05-27 03:40 | User Profile
Mankind is too proud of itself. Prooud for our deeds and so-called science, thinking that we do these things apart from God. Why did we make this world the way it is ? Why can't we just live by The Word and create true Life on Earth ?
2004-05-27 03:52 | User Profile
why do we alloe death and destruction to happen ? Why do we create it and sit idly by ? Why is the 90 $ I send everry month to the IRS from 5 years ago being used to kill innocent people ? Wwhy does our government provide no proof about so-called Al-Quida ? How can our rulers possibly expect any thinking person to accept the government propaganda of 911 ? Why did they do it ? Are they truly evil ? Why are all the top clan going to Bohemian Grove to worship the ancient demon Moloch ? Are we just victims in a control operation ? AM I supposed to believe that some Arab who never flew a plane perfectly drove a 757 into the Twin Towers and Pentagon at 6 G-Force ? I'm sorry.. even today, they gave this warning only to cover political ass, so they can say " I told you so " People, I don;'t think we really understand how serious this is. General Tommy Franks who led the Iraq invasion then retired said in Cigar Afficionado magazine that one more attack and martial law will happen. Where are you going to go when Interstate 95 is blockaded by tanks ? Our Government INSULTS US. We have to take control.. by any means necessary ..
2004-05-27 05:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=weisbrot]Really interesting stuff, thanks.
I was aware of the statements made in the Douglas debates- and the context- but much of what you posted I hadn't seen. Still, before moving Lincoln up from Antenora to a lesser circle, is there anything concrete accomplished by Lincoln AFTER the Emancipation towards implementing his vision? Were there actual plans for this repatriation to take place post-war?
I'm inclined to believe that Lincoln's public statements were more politically motivated than a statement of actual intention. But I'll try to find the draft bill you mentioned and note it's progress.
Perhaps it could be reintroduced...?[/QUOTE]
You're welcome.
My Penguin Classic paperback collection is somewhere at the bottom of a pile of books in my kid's room, and I'm still trying to locate it. That book really influenced my feelings about Lincoln. It contained something that Lincoln said about American being great because (I'm paraphrasing from weak memory) that Patrick and Francios could come here and become Americans, and that we need a lot more them to come here and do just that. His vision was grandiose - he spoke of America having a population exceeding that of all of Europe - a sort of united Europe but without Europe's historical problems. I think that this was his vision - a thoroughly white, Christian, English-speaking American nation united forever in the prosperity free white labor creates, and standing astride the rest of the world. His rhetoric speaks to me, and I'm 100% behind that program.
I don't doubt that, as you say, that Lincoln's public statements were aimed at the various parts of the Republican coalition, but IMHO it's important to keep in mind that part of that coalition were free white laborers in the North who hoped to raise themselves from poverty by striking out for the territories. They didn't want to find themselves competing with blacks there, anymore than working class whites of our age should have to compete with illegal Mexican immigrants.
Here's an interesting [URL=http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=69405]Stormfront thread [/URL] discussing a book by a black author on this general topic.
Here's another [URL=http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082800a.htm?iam=metaresults&terms=illinois+jokes]book review[/URL].
The beauty of books like that calling Lincoln a racist is that our enemies wind up doing the work for us. Of course Lincoln was a racist. And yes, he wanted Africans removed completely from North America. They see that as a bad thing, I see that as a good thing.
Warmest regards,
Walter
2004-05-27 07:29 | User Profile
I don't have time to plough through this thread, and I don't know about Francis (or care about Linder), but according to Buchanan's autobiography, he had intended to have a very large family (like the one he grew up in), but his wife turned out to be medically incapable of having children.