← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · All Old Right
Thread ID: 13981 | Posts: 16 | Started: 2004-05-31
2004-05-31 00:17 | User Profile
How can mass immigration from the third world countries be constitutional and in the spirit of the founding fathers? And, this anchor baby business is absurd. Even if the welfare is cut off, the country can't stand that population surge. We don't have jobs as it is now. How can the Libertarians defend that? If they corrected their stance on immigration I think their influence would increase dramatically. To say they're going to open the gates even wider, must be nuts.
As it is, they might as well stop bothering people with their blabbering.
2004-05-31 01:11 | User Profile
Frankly, AOR, it's unclear to me why YOU reject immigration. You're not a racialist. If America gets submerged by Third Worlders, what's it to you?
2004-05-31 03:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]How can mass immigration from the third world countries be constitutional and in the spirit of the founding fathers? And, this anchor baby business is absurd. Even if the welfare is cut off, the country can't stand that population surge. We don't have jobs as it is now. How can the Libertarians defend that? If they corrected their stance on immigration I think their influence would increase dramatically. To say they're going to open the gates even wider, must be nuts.
As it is, they might as well stop bothering people with their blabbering.[/QUOTE]Well you have some general feelings about libertarians, some that some of us share. And I disagree with Valley Forge, you don't have to be a racialist at all to dislike immigration, although you will be accussed of being such for sure. The practical/cultural reasons are quite sufficient.
Without going too much into the libertarian/neocon open border stance on immigration, which you can get at Liberty Forum or even more Free Republic, let me summarize what I think our hard paleo position is. Kevin MacDonald noted (Culture of Critique, Chapter 6 on the Frankfurt School) that "a strategy of radical individualism for the outgroup is an excellent ingroup (re jewish) strategy" (paraphrased). This is why neocons like Julian Simon have so supported open immigration. Since neoconism and business libertarianism are so closely tied (re: Cato Institute and WSJ) this seems to have become the dominant libertarian viewpoint.
You really need to understand MacDonald I think to know why Paleo's like us are so opposed to neocons and maybe have a soft spot for some of their enemies, even though these neocon enemies may be no more conservative than the neocons themselves.
2004-05-31 03:25 | User Profile
All Old Right,
You are most Right! These third worlders are marxist for the most part. It makes the Libertarians look even more stupid than the GOPers!
2004-05-31 03:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]How can mass immigration from the third world countries be constitutional and in the spirit of the founding fathers? And, this anchor baby business is absurd. Even if the welfare is cut off, the country can't stand that population surge. We don't have jobs as it is now. How can the Libertarians defend that? If they corrected their stance on immigration I think their influence would increase dramatically. To say they're going to open the gates even wider, must be nuts.[/QUOTE]
In the ideal libertarian world, there would be no government services to attract immigrants. The locals wouldn't be forced to give up their own culture and language to make the immigrants feel more welcome. And, if you felt immigration were a problem, you'd be free to discriminate against immigrants to discourage immigration.
The natural human instinct (which has been exterminated in whites) is to be with your own kind. In America, the problem isn't that the government won't keep immigrants out, it's that the US governents [I]invite[/I] immigration.
Imagine how few hispanics would be in the US if the government refused to print anything in spanish, if non-citizens were barred from all social services, and if you were not subject to discrimination charges.
The Libertarian Party leans to the Left, so they support open borders now. But, until we get rid of the social services and other attractions, it is not libertarian to support open borders.
2004-05-31 12:16 | User Profile
Okie, do you think the culture of the USA can be sustained in the absence of a substantially White/European majority?
And please don't answer:
a) That I'm "interrrogating" you. b) That this question shows there's no difference between me and Trisk c) That I'm just like the NS purists d) Anything other than yes or no before explaining your answer (for the sake of clarity)
This is a debate forum, and this a simple question on an important issue (immigration).
Thanks.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Well you have some general feelings about libertarians, some that some of us share. And I disagree with Valley Forge, you don't have to be a racialist at all to dislike immigration, although you will be accussed of being such for sure. The practical/cultural reasons are quite sufficient.
Without going too much into the libertarian/neocon open border stance on immigration, which you can get at Liberty Forum or even more Free Republic, let me summarize what I think our hard paleo position is. Kevin MacDonald noted (Culture of Critique, Chapter 6 on the Frankfurt School) that "a strategy of radical individualism for the outgroup is an excellent ingroup (re jewish) strategy" (paraphrased). This is why neocons like Julian Simon have so supported open immigration. Since neoconism and business libertarianism are so closely tied (re: Cato Institute and WSJ) this seems to have become the dominant libertarian viewpoint.
You really need to understand MacDonald I think to know why Paleo's like us are so opposed to neocons and maybe have a soft spot for some of their enemies, even though these neocon enemies may be no more conservative than the neocons themselves.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-31 12:50 | User Profile
I believe very strongly in certain tenets of libertarianism, but I agree that their stance on immigration is ridiculous. Allowing the mass influx of immigrants who generally don't even believe in freedom is hardly the best way to ensure that your free country stays free.
The original US Declaration of Independence and Constitution are essentially libertarian documents, but they're flawed, and it's taken too long for Americans to realize that. (The vast majority still don't see it.)
If it were up to me, Whites would carve a large niche for themselves out of US territory, declare independence from the old regime, and model their new government after the original US Constitution. Certain changes would be made, however, and they would be ironclad:
(1) Only Whites (exact definition to be determined) could be full citizens, and the borders would be sealed off from non-White immigration. There would be a substantial border patrol.
(2) Upon being recognized as officially in the running for public office (e.g., once a requisite number of supporting signatures have been obtained), each candidate would receive a fixed amount of taxpayer funds with which to mount a campaign. All other campaign donations would be illegal. Libertarians might not like this, but it's the only way to keep a representative government honest.
(3) No taxpayer-funded aid to any foreign power.
(4) No dual citizenships.
(5) No restrictions on any direct-fire weapons in civilian hands. If you're old enough and are physically and mentally competent, then you can buy whatever you can afford. If you use your weapons to rob someone or commit some other serious crime, however, then you get locked up and the key is thrown away.
(6) There would be strict punishments for politicians who attempted to circumvent the Constitution or otherwise abuse the public trust. They would be treated as the oath-breakers they are and sent to prison.
2004-05-31 14:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Okie, do you think the culture of the USA can be sustained in the absence of a substantially White/European majority?
And please don't answer:
a) That I'm "interrrogating" you. b) That this question shows there's no difference between me and Trisk c) That I'm just like the NS purists d) Anything other than yes or no before explaining your answer (for the sake of clarity)
This is a debate forum, and this a simple question on an important issue (immigration).
Thanks.[/QUOTE] Actually, these are discussion forums, which may or may not involve opposing views. Some of you guys are always to the contrary of this or that, and never get down to sustainable solutions for anything. Which leads me to asks, how much the ADL or .gov might pay you and yours to work so hard to slap inaccurate "racist, dangeous bigot" labels on those of white euro ancestry?
2004-05-31 14:56 | User Profile
Angler quotes, me in bold:
The original US Declaration of Independence and Constitution are essentially libertarian documents, but they're flawed, and it's taken too long for Americans to realize that. (The vast majority still don't see it.) ** Here we go again. We're going to preserve euro hertiage by monkeying with their masterpiece and create new problems. If the damn thing was just followed, it'd work as well as anything can**
Certain changes would be made, however, and they would be ironclad: Oh, but of course. Since we all know the gift of adaptation is the mother of bastards.(sarcasm)
(1) Only Whites (exact definition to be determined) could be full citizens, and the borders would be sealed off from non-White immigration. There would be a substantial border patrol. Yeah, that's realistic in the current climate, sure it is. What's to be done with the non-citizens, forced deportations so the freaking borders are lined with united and pissed off dissidents? You guys just get smarter and smarter. How about working a deal that we all can live with, and leaving out the career politicians, them we can deport.
(2) Upon being recognized as officially in the running for public office (e.g., once a requisite number of supporting signatures have been obtained), each candidate would receive a fixed amount of taxpayer funds with which to mount a campaign. All other campaign donations would be illegal. Libertarians might not like this, but it's the only way to keep a representative government honest. Honest, by a central governing body. LOL, we've heard that before.
(3) No taxpayer-funded aid to any foreign power. I notice we don't see a hint of states' rights in any of these ideas
(4) No dual citizenships. Do you even know what that is? Oh, I forgot, that strong dedication to your kinder and gentler, and massive, central government that will run all of this. "Total committment or we'll kill your ass". LOL
(5) No restrictions on any direct-fire weapons in civilian hands. If you're old enough and are physically and mentally competent, then you can buy whatever you can afford. If you use your weapons to rob someone or commit some other serious crime, however, then you get locked up and the key is thrown away. ** Who decides competent, your benevolent central government again? Besides, we can't even conceal carry without permits, and this guy is talking full auto already. This is a state issue. The only thing keeping it tied down is federalism, which you seem to support**
(6) There would be strict punishments for politicians who attempted to circumvent the Constitution or otherwise abuse the public trust. They would be treated as the oath-breakers they are and sent to prison. How about public hangings, you haven't gotten to that one, yet. Seems your whole plan is dependent on a powerful central government(federalism), which is what got us in this mess. A restoration of states' rights will solve almost all of the current ills, along with, perhaps, term limits of 18 years for federal service of any kind.
2004-06-01 00:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Okie, do you think the culture of the USA can be sustained in the absence of a substantially White/European majority?
And please don't answer:
a) That I'm "interrrogating" you. b) That this question shows there's no difference between me and Trisk c) That I'm just like the NS purists
Even though all the above are true? :lol:
d) Anything other than yes or no before explaining your answer (for the sake of clarity This is a debate forum, and this a simple question on an important issue (immigration).
Thanks.[/QUOTE]
This is a discussion forum, and you want nothing more than a yes/no answer?
You're right - the Trisk comparison is unfair. Sometimes you make him look positively liberal and enlightened. :lol:
What do I do to deserve this :(
2004-06-01 01:08 | User Profile
You're the one who never answers questions, Okie -- this just being the latest example.
[B][SIZE=4]do you think the culture of the USA can be sustained in the absence of a substantially White/European majority?[/SIZE][/B]
No direct answer from Okiereddust, as usual.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Even though all the above are true? :lol:
This is a discussion forum, and you want nothing more than a yes/no answer?
You're right - the Trisk comparison is unfair. Sometimes you make him look positively liberal and enlightened. :lol:
What do I do to deserve this :([/QUOTE]
2004-06-01 01:16 | User Profile
I would like Okie to answer those questions. And other questions that I have asked him over the past months.
2004-06-01 02:50 | User Profile
What any of us believe in. We have no power. We can't do anything. We are so separated from life, trying to chase the dollar, and confused by the social dalliances of the last 30 years that it it literally imposible for America to be a country again. There is nothing left. The only thing remaining is basic human kindness. And the Elite want to destroy that so bad, so very bad... Why do we put up with this ? Because we cannot join together and FEAR. WHen FDR said, " We only have one thing to fear, fear itself " he wan't talking about you, I, your parents, or mine, he was talking about his cabal. President Bush is not the one to aim after.. no .. if he ever died, They would Love It. We are all just peas in a pod now, waiting for the next catastrophe or control mechanism to surface which we cannot control, and to tell you the truth it's ok with me. In so many ways, mankind has run its course on Earth. I don't know how anyone can feel any real vigor anymore.. something basic has been stripped of us.. something human.
2004-06-01 08:30 | User Profile
AOR,
I'm not quite sure why you're so hostile to what I said, but I'll respond anyway to each of your criticisms:
[QUOTE=All Old Right]The original US Declaration of Independence and Constitution are essentially libertarian documents, but they're flawed, and it's taken too long for Americans to realize that. (The vast majority still don't see it.) ** Here we go again. We're going to preserve euro hertiage by monkeying with their masterpiece and create new problems. If the damn thing was just followed, it'd work as well as anything can** And why do you suppose it isn't followed? Because there's no penalty for federal politicians who overstep its bounds, that's why. What you're failing to understand is that the proposed changes I mentioned are actually very minimal (apart from the institution of racial homogeneity, which wasn't really an issue when the nation was founded). Nowhere did I claim that the Constitution should be rewritten from scratch -- I happen to think it's a fine document based on solid principles. It's just overly vague and easily circumvented. It contains holes that ought to be plugged. Otherwise, it allows the federal government to gain too much power over the states, and it allows state governments to gain too much power over individuals.
Certain changes would be made, however, and they would be ironclad: Oh, but of course. Since we all know the gift of adaptation is the mother of bastards.(sarcasm)
I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.
(1) Only Whites (exact definition to be determined) could be full citizens, and the borders would be sealed off from non-White immigration. There would be a substantial border patrol. Yeah, that's realistic in the current climate, sure it is. What's to be done with the non-citizens, forced deportations so the freaking borders are lined with united and pissed off dissidents? You guys just get smarter and smarter. How about working a deal that we all can live with, and leaving out the career politicians, them we can deport.
Uh, did I say it was realistic? Didn't I preface my comments with "If I had my way..."? That should've tipped you off that idealistic remarks were to follow.
(2) Upon being recognized as officially in the running for public office (e.g., once a requisite number of supporting signatures have been obtained), each candidate would receive a fixed amount of taxpayer funds with which to mount a campaign. All other campaign donations would be illegal. Libertarians might not like this, but it's the only way to keep a representative government honest. Honest, by a central governing body. LOL, we've heard that before.
Do you have any better ideas about how to keep Presidents and Congressmen honest? If so, then why not share them? It's easy to sneer at other peoples' ideas, but it's not so easy to come up with your own and contribute something to a discussion.
(3) No taxpayer-funded aid to any foreign power. I notice we don't see a hint of states' rights in any of these ideas
I'm all for states' rights as long as all states observe the individual rights recognized by the federal constitution, such as freedom of speech, religion, the right to bear arms, etc. Nevertheless, I fail to see what states' rights have to do with a law forbidding the use of taxpayer funds for foreign aid. The stipulation that no taxpayer funds be used to fund foreign powers is a limitation on government at all levels, especially federal.
(4) No dual citizenships. Do you even know what that is? Oh, I forgot, that strong dedication to your kinder and gentler, and massive, central government that will run all of this. "Total committment or we'll kill your ass". LOL What in blazes are you talking about? Who ever said a word about a "massive central government"?! My ideology is primarily libertarian. You haven't figured that out yet? Didn't you bother to read the first sentence of my last post before responding?
You can either be loyal to the US or loyal to Israel (or another foreign state). You can't be loyal to both. Why does a central government have to be massive to recognize that?
(5) No restrictions on any direct-fire weapons in civilian hands. If you're old enough and are physically and mentally competent, then you can buy whatever you can afford. If you use your weapons to rob someone or commit some other serious crime, however, then you get locked up and the key is thrown away. ** Who decides competent, your benevolent central government again? Besides, we can't even conceal carry without permits, and this guy is talking full auto already. This is a state issue. The only thing keeping it tied down is federalism, which you seem to support Where did I mention anything about a "central government"? Where did I say I support federalism? I only support strong federal government to the extent that it prevents states from infringing on individual rights, including the right to bear arms. If the Bill of Rights had been intended to be optional for each state, then what would be the point of having a federal Bill of Rights in the first place?
Competence could be decided by state or local governments with the proviso that the same standards used for citizens be used for the police and military. That would prevent state politicians from saying something like, "Okay, since it's up to me...no one is competent to bear arms -- turn them all in!"
As for the realism of this goal, perhaps the reason no progress is made toward the repeal of unconstitutional gun control laws it's that too many people share your defeatist attitude in that regard. There is nothing unrealistic about the repeal of the NFA or other such abominations. They haven't always existed. Those laws would become unenforceable if a mere five percent or so of all gun owners flatly refused to obey them and were willing to fight rather than give up their freedom.
(By the way: Who says you can't carry concealed without a permit? I do it all the time. You only live once, and I have no intention of living my life as a slave.)
(6) There would be strict punishments for politicians who attempted to circumvent the Constitution or otherwise abuse the public trust. They would be treated as the oath-breakers they are and sent to prison. How about public hangings, you haven't gotten to that one, yet. Seems your whole plan is dependent on a powerful central government(federalism), which is what got us in this mess. A restoration of states' rights will solve almost all of the current ills, along with, perhaps, term limits of 18 years for federal service of any kind.[/QUOTE]You think punishing politicians for overstepping their constitutional boundaries equates to a "powerful central government"? The exact opposite is true!
You imply that I'm being unrealistic for advocating a repeal of unconstitutional gun control when it's "necessary" to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon, then you turn around and tell us that we should "restore states' rights." And how, sir, do you plan to restore states' rights? Persuasion? Begging the federal thugs to abandon their jobs? Which is more unrealistic: getting the federal government to give up some of its power (e.g., with respect to gun control and the collection of taxes for foreign aid), or getting the federal government to give up nearly ALL of its power to the states? The latter task includes the former, does it not?
Even if you could manage to successfully restore states' rights and get the federal government to recognize its limits under the Constitution again, how would you prevent the exact same debacle from occurring all over again? How would you prevent federal politicians from abusing their power, if not by punishing them for willfully deviating from their constitutional limits?
As for term limits for federal service, there is already a limit of 8 years for the Presidency. Has that insulated Presidents from the influence of groups like the AIPAC?
2004-06-01 10:10 | User Profile
Angler, excellent reply you posted, no matter what correction is taken something has to happen beside's patriots acts etc. The Brown vs. board of education, and the 1965 laws changes were direct in your face attacks on whites and Congoid self respect..
In todays Oregon main Marxist newspaper a law professor who should perhaps be deported to Africa. States he is going to fight a Murder Charge against his client based on the After affects of slavery.. Post Trumas Slavery sydrome. Oi! You see the Marxist are not and NEVER Will be satisfied, till we are in a Soviet police think state.
Last week in more Oregon news a man was found out who had raised his daughter living up in a montain side for four years, and took her to church every Sunday, and with just an old Brittanica set of books and no power she at 12 was at a 12th grade to College Freshman level of education, from math to lit.. She never attended fece schools like I or my siblings suffered..
2004-06-01 21:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]You're the one who never answers questions, Okie -- this just being the latest example.
[B][SIZE=4]do you think the culture of the USA can be sustained in the absence of a substantially White/European majority?[/SIZE][/B]
No direct answer from Okiereddust, as usual.[/QUOTE]
Can't say for sure. It would probably be more difficult, but absolutely impossible - you can't really say.
Your line of thinking seems to be along the line of multiculturalism's founder, AJC head Horace Kallen, that culture is determined by race. Somthing that I don't accept. Influenced yes - determined no. Unlike Kallen and maybe people who you would claim influence you and Franco more, like Hitler, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, I reject your simplistic racialism, (as did Spengler and Junger) that with a white majority all would be peachy keen. As does MacDonald, who Franco opportunistically and incompletely cites.