← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust

Thread 6774

Thread ID: 6774 | Posts: 50 | Started: 2003-05-19

Faust [OP]

2003-05-19 02:25 | User Profile

**More Proof Libertarians are our Enemy!!

piersplowman: Some of these Libertarians are so Loony I do not need to add a word!

Jeffrey Schwartz a Libertarians said:

"Please do not portray us as "loony" by giving such inaccurate descriptions of our beliefs. Most libertarians also agree that open borders in a welfare state would create trouble - trouble for the welfare state! Open borders would create so much pressure on the welfare state that the welfare state would quickly collapse, economically and politically. Support for government welfare would quickly evaporate. We would have a free country again! And that is what libertarians want! We want an END to the Welfare State AND open immigration! Open immigration will quickly lead to the end of the welfare state."

This guy makes easy for Brimelow:

Peter Brimelow : "In other words, if you've got rats - welfare - burn down the house. Not just welfare would be ended by open immigration"

I can not belive any one is that stupid! To belive open immigration will end the Welfare State!

Here is the of it from the VDARE PAGE

Livid Libertarians, Welfare and Immigration (contd.)

By Peter Brimelow

A lot of livid libertarians have been e-mailing us lately. They didn't like my recent article [url=http://www.vdare.com/becker.htm]http://www.vdare.com/becker.htm[/url] highlighting Nobel Laureate economist Gary S. Becker's acknowledgement that the welfare state, which did not exist during the last Great Wave of immigration (1890-1920), has fatally altered immigrant incentives, making open borders impractical. Becker's concession is an important step in the slowly-developing realization that the folk-memory of American intellectuals is not applicable to immigration policy today.

Yeah, I know, I know - this libertarian lividness was partly my fault. I referred genially to "libertarian loonies." I thought that, after nearly thirty years of libertarian fellow-traveling in the establishment press - including authoring the only major magazine article ever on Hayek's plan to privatize money (Forbes, May 30 1988; not online, alas, but it's still a good idea) - I was family and could make a JOKE.

I was wrong. Libertarians, like the student Marxists of the 1960s whom they so much resemble, don't generally have much sense of humor (with the exception of Colin Colenso, an affable Australib.)

For the record, I prefer libertarians to student Marxists. And I happen to think the libertarians are basically correct: the welfare state has negative consequences. But the fact is that the welfare state exists. It has real political support. It is not going away soon.Immigration reform cannot wait until it does.

Note, also, that none of my correspondents actually deal with the point I made: the problem with the welfare state is not just "welfare" but transfer payments of all sorts - notably public education and hospital emergency rooms, which are now in effect a free medicalservice for immigrants. If you think cutting welfare is tough, try not educating children or turning away the sick.

My correspondents' failure to deal with this point is very typical of what happens when you try to confront one well-established reflex(Welfare Bad!) with a new argument. Even intelligent people just don't get new arguments very quickly. You have to repeat them several times. This is a big problem in the immigration debate.Immigration simply did not exist as a problem until after the 1965 Act. By that time much of today's punditocracy was already adult - or as adult as it's ever going to be.

Immigration is a government policy, however, and some libertarians are thinking seriously about it - notably the "paleolibertarians" grouped around the Von Mises Institute [url=http://www.mises.org/]http://www.mises.org/[/url] . Ralph Raico edited a fine issue of the Journal of Libertarian Studies(Summer 1998) [url=http://www.libertarianstudies.org/journals/jls/JLS13_2.asp]http://www.libertarianstudies.org/journals...jls/JLS13_2.asp[/url] on the subject. It included an eloquent dissent from the open borders bugaboo from John Hospers, who actually received an Electoral College vote as the Libertarian Party's candidate for President. Recently, there has even been a sighting of intelligent life at Cato - a friendly review of George Borjas' definitive Heavens Gate: Immigration Policy and the American Economy [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691059667/vdare]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/069...691059667/vdare[/url] by Ronald Bird in the current Regulation Magazine [url=http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n3/reg23n3.html]http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23...n3/reg23n3.html[/url] (Cardinal Crane, call your Inquisitor!)

Some letters, with comments: From: Eugene J. Flynn ejflynn@earthlink.net

"...the libertarian loonies' knee-jerk comeback - 'let's just abolish welfare for immigrants!'" No libertarian I know says that! What they say is abolish welfare for everyone.

"America's post-1965 immigration disaster" - do you mean the fact that citizens from independent states of the Western Hemisphere could no longer come to the U.S. when they wanted to (no quotas) or do you mean the Great Society solidified the welfare state and THAT changed the type of individual who wished to come to this country? Pax vobiscum,

PB: And dulce et decorum est pro patria mori to you! In fact, some libertarians were saying precisely that - raising the so-called blue card proposal to deny welfare to immigrants - in the exchange we posted between Milton Friedman and the delegates to the 1999 World Libertarian Congress [url=http://www.vdare.com/friedman.htm]http://www.vdare.com/friedman.htm[/url] . As for the "type of individual" immigrating, that was changed by the 1965 Immigration Act - the selection process is a (perverse) statute-based government policy, which operates independently of whether there is any welfare at all. I do agree that welfare etc. has changed the type of immigrant who stays in the country - failures are no longer winnowed out.

From: Colin Colenso colincolenso@ozemail.com.au [url=http://www.geocities.com/colincolenso/]http://www.geocities.com/colincolenso/[/url]

Australian Libertarian Society

An article you wrote was recently linked to via [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/]http://www.lewrockwell.com/[/url]. [Thanks, Lew!] I noted your comment "...the libertarian loonies' knee-jerk comeback - "let's just abolish welfare for immigrants!" (No-one could be so impractical? These are people who seriously debate whether traffic lights are unacceptable government coercion.)"

Not being so shallow that I would take offense, 'as a libertarian', but such a flippant generalization as an argument against the abolishment of a government welfare system seems out of place in a well-written article.

Maybe I am not aware of an intelligent argument you have presented against this libertarian policy. I would think that relegating such intellectual giants as Hayek, Rothbard and Mises to the "loony" heap indicate a certain lack of awareness. Maybe I am wrong... I'm never afraid of an education. I'm off to picket my local traffic lights. Damn socialist telling me when to cross!!! When will it end?

PB: For my attitude to welfare, see above. Rothbard and, much less well-known, Mises, were against open borders.

From: Jeffrey Schwartz jeffreys1493@worldnet.att.net

As a libertarian, I resent your slandering us with your statement that we see traffic signals as government coercion. That is an absurdity.Libertarians have nothing against orderly traffic and rules of the road.

Although we believe that private corporations would run the roadways much better than the government does, if such private ownership was allowed, we do not support unsafe roads or promotetraffic accidents. Please do not portray us as "loony" by giving such inaccurate descriptions of our beliefs. Most libertarians also agree that open borders in a welfare state would create trouble - trouble for the welfare state! Open borders would create so much pressure on the welfare state that the welfare state would quickly collapse, economically and politically. Support for government welfare would quickly evaporate. We would have a free country again! And that is what libertarians want! We want an END to the Welfare State AND open immigration! Open immigration will quickly lead to the end of the welfare state.

PB: In other words, if you've got rats - welfare - burn down the house. Not just welfare would be ended by open immigration.

Another Nobel Economics Laureate Drops By Peter Brimelow

Mass immigration is always justified to Americans in economic terms, but it is an open secret that the support for current policy in the technical literature is non-existent. Partly this is an empirical issue: lower-skilled immigrants just don't produce that much - a discovery associated with Harvard University economist George Borjas [url=http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.GBorjas.Academic.Ksg/HeavensDoor/HeavensDoor3.html]http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.GBorjas.Acade...avensDoor3.html[/url] . But partly it's a question of thinking throughthe matter more carefully. As Milton Friedman told me in a December 27 1997 Forbes interview: [url=http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/982/friedman3.html]http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publication.../friedman3.html[/url] . "It's just obvious that you can't have free immigration and a welfare state." Click hereto see him breaking the news to a collection of libertarian loonies last year. Now another Nobel laureate economist has recognized the samereality. In his most recent Business Week column (October 23,2000), Gary S. Becker says "under current conditions [i.e., the perverse incentives produced by the welfare state] the U.S. should not allow unlimited immigration from Mexico or anywhere else."

Milton Friedman is a tough guy; Gary Becker is not. When Leslie Spencer and I interviewed him for our February 15, 1993, Forbes cover story estimating the costs of affirmative action - STILL THEONLY ESTIMATE EXTANT, incidentally, thanks to the cowardice of American academe - he actually declined to give his opinion of the policy, although it is condemned by the whole thrust of his work. So we gave him a good boot. [url=http://www.vdare.com/when_quotas.htm]http://www.vdare.com/when_quotas.htm[/url] . Similarly,his Business Week column is full of politically-correct whistling past the graveyard. But still, he's made the point: the existence of the welfare statemakes this Great Wave of immigration a completely different proposition from the previous 1890-1920 Great Wave.

And Becker, like Friedman in the discussion linked above, also deals with the libertarian loonies' knee-jerk comeback - "let's just abolish welfare for immigrants!" (No-one could be so impractical? These are people who seriously debate whether traffic lights are unacceptable government coercion.) Both economists rightly doubt that Congress would have the backbone to maintain such adistinction. Friedman gently questions whether the resulting two-tier society is really compatible with liberal ideals.

Actually, there are other obvious reasons why immigrants can't be cut off from the welfare state:

U.S.-born children of immigrants are automatically U.S. citizens - absurdly, even the children of illegal immigrants, under the currentmisinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. These children are entitled to the panoply of programs designed for American children.Their parents get to spend themoney.
The welfare state means not just cash handouts, but other massive transfer programs, above all free public education. This amounts to a subsidy that averages $7,000-$8,000 per pupil per year. Immigration enthusiasts get all romantic about illegals coming here to get an education. But in fact the illegals are stealing an education. Are thelibertarian loonies prepared to deny education to the children of illegal (and legal) immigrants? What would be the consequences if they did?
Similarly, are the immigration enthusiasts prepared to keep legal and illegal immigrants out of hospital emergency rooms, which now function as their free health service? America's post-1965 immigration disaster cannot be retrieved by half-measures - nor by waiting three centuries for Mexico todevelop, as Becker wimpishly wonders. There is no answer but an immigration moratorium. That can upset only those to whom immigration is, mysteriously, an end in itself.

FranzJoseph:

I can save you the trouble of proving Libertarians are traitors because in my wayward youth I was a card-carrying, dues paying LP'r myself. The follies of youth!

I ran out pretty quick too. The Libertarians are: One Worlders, Multi-culturalists, against American workers, generally atheist, usually anti-rural, very hostile to tradition of any kind, and often quite sexually immoral (which they believe is a "natural right.")

In my experience they are much worse than the young Marxists were. At least the Marxists believed in a Common Good, however warped their view of that may have been. The libertarians believe the world was put here for their appetites and not much else, and that the only connection between all of us is the almighty buck.

piersplowman:

FranzJoseph: A Great Post!!! You are Right!!!! I was never one of them, but I did read "Reason" Magazine used some respect for them.

"The Libertarians are: One Worlders, Multi-culturalists, against American workers, generally atheist, usually anti-rural, very hostile to tradition of any kind, and often quite sexually immoral (which they believe is a "natural right.") In my experience they are much worse than the young Marxists were. At least the Marxists believed in a Common Good..."-FranzJoseph

craig: I used be a card carry member of the Libertarian Party for about four years about over ten year ago. I was a officer on state LP and local LP. I resigned from the party back in 92 when I smeared and attacked at the local county convention. Why? Because I dare to bring up the issue of race. I guess I was too politicial incorrect for LP. I supported LA police officers involving Rodney King incident. I supported David Duke's run for State rep. I dared to bring the issue of race. I openly did not support open borders. I throught libertarians is for free speech. Boy, I was wroug about that. I am for white people and I not ashamed of my racial pride. Race matters! Race have a lot to do with first world counties and third world counties. It is the white nationalist thing I have which libertarians don't understand.

piersplowman: craig:Great Post. Thanks for telling us this story.

url: [url=http://web.archive.org/web/20010218023655/forum.samfrancis.net/Forum2/HTML/000056.html]http://web.archive.org/web/20010218023655/...TML/000056.html[/url]

**

The Libertarians

Libertarians are not Conservatives.THEY ARE LIBERALS!Libertarians are Globalist.They hate the Nation State.Libertarians love Immigration. And some seen to want a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT,run by and for Capitalists.

Bevin Chu, a Libertarian, calls the Dalai Lama of Tibet a racist.In The Strait Scoop by Bevin Chu: The Dalai Lama's Politics of Race by Bevin Chu [url=http://www.antiwar.com/chu/c102999.html]http://www.antiwar.com/chu/c102999.html[/url]

Why?The Dalai Lama is a Racist, for fighting Genocide. Chu said Tibet is part China. Just as in the USA, Immigration is the Great Tool of Genocide. Chinese now out number the Tibetians in thier own country.He also said China has a right take Taiwan.The Libertarians will say nothing about the ongoing Immigration caused Genocide of the American people.They care about Free Trade, pot , whores ,and sodomites. But I do not think that the Libertarians care about the bill of rights, gunrights, or saving what is left of the USA. Libertarism in some ways is a capitalistic form of marxism. To them the only morality is profit.

See: Libertarians Unmasked by Dennis Wheeler [url=http://www.mindspring.com/~dennisw/articles/libs/index.htm]http://www.mindspring.com/~dennisw/article.../libs/index.htm[/url]

"Capitalism the Enemy" by Samuel Francis: [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=7951]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...t=ST&f=7&t=7951[/url] **

**Look at the kind of people the so-called "Libertarians" keep company with.

Nonexistent White-power Concert Still Draws Protest

Originally Published by the Orange County Register August 20, 2001

Posted August 21, 2001

By Susan Gill Vardon

The Shack restaurant was closed Sunday, but that didn't stop the protesters. About 50 people representing libertarians, socialists and anarchists concverged at the restaurant to oppose a white-power benefit concert that never happend.

They pounded on drums, chanted and carried signs reading "Stop Nazi Violence," "Smash racism" and "Respect Knows No Color."

"I don't believe racists should be allowed to have free speech," said Juan Flores, 19, a Los Angeles resident and Progressive Labor Party member. No one was arrested or injured, police officials said, The only incident occurred about 1 p.m., when a gold sport utility vehicle drove by with a Nazi flag flying out the window.

Police said the restaurant had scheduled a benefit for Blood & Honour, a white-supremacist group with a Costa Mesa mailing address. The restaurant owner said no such event was planned. A sign on the door said the restaurant would be closed Sunday.

Well, Well, look at this! Protesters included members of the Green Party, the International Socialist Workers, the Communist Party and the Orange County chapter of the Libertarian Party. Members of the Jewish Defense League, including Chairman Irv Rubin, left when Communist protesters arrived with red flags and others came with profanity-laced signs, particpants said.

"They (the JDL) shouldn't try to prevent (anyone) from being here," said Michael Novick, a spokesman for the Anti-Racist Action. "We're all opposed to Nazis." **

Ragnar

2003-05-19 11:56 | User Profile

Wow, Faust...

I remember this the first time. We didn't know then that libertarians would become even worse!

BTW -- Were you piersplowman then? I was FranzJoseph and that was right around the time I got my "Cease and Desist" order from the Hapsburg family lawyer.

Right! The name "FranzJoseph" is their proprietory entitlement in much of Europe. I asked my lawyer if it really was actionable and he told me yes, if I were in Europe. If (for instance) I would have went to an Internet cafe in Belgium and posted under "FranzJoseph", I could have gone to jail for it there.

Just a bit of trivia from the old SFOF days. :D

Faust

2003-05-19 15:37 | User Profile

Ragnar,

Were you piersplowman then? I was FranzJoseph and that was right around the time I got my "Cease and Desist" order from the Hapsburg family lawyer. Yes, and they did what? Such Foolishness. To think my Great... Grandfather fought for Franz Joseph in battle. Now the Hapsburg family works for the Culturally marxist so-called "Pan-European Movement." "Pan-European Movement" calls itself Libertarian too! Yuck!! Happy to know you are still around.

**Zionism and Racism

By Ole Kreiberg

In November 1975 a majority of the nations of the world agreed in the UN General Assembly that Zionism, that is Jewish nationalism, is racist. The Jewish national state, Israel, is thus built on a racist foundation.

Many Jews are heavily engaged in anti-racism, but it is usually the racism of other peoples and very seldom their own that seems to take their interest. Count Coudenhove-Kalergi (1894-1972), Austrian Jew and founder and honorary president of the Pan-European Movement, wrote something very characteristically in one of his Books (Praktischer Idealismus, Vienna 1925):

"The man of the future will be of mixed race. For Pan-Europe [that is united Europe] I want a European-Asiatic-Negroid mixed race. The leaders shall come from the Jews because a benevolent providence has with the Jews given Europe a new spiritual and intellectual noble race."

Here we have Jewish racism in a nutshell. All Non-Jewish peoples shall become equal while "God's chosen Jewish people" shall be the master race the way it is in Israel/Palestine. All criticism of Jewish racism shall be made a "criminal offence" through anti-racism laws. One of the most keen to push for so-called anti-racism legislation in the EU is the chairman of the Management Board of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in Vienna, Jean Kahn, who also happens to be the president of the European Jewish Congress. All racism must be made a "criminal offence", except the Jewish, which will be "criminal Anti-Semitism" to criticise.

url: [url=http://www.patriot.dk/zion1.html]http://www.patriot.dk/zion1.html[/url]

The European Union - a totalitarian monstrosity from www.patriot.dk [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=7041]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...t=ST&f=7&t=7041[/url]

related thread: Why I am Not a Libertarian [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=7435]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...t=ST&f=7&t=7435[/url]

Ragnar

2003-05-19 15:47 | User Profile

Originally posted by Faust@May 19 2003, 15:37 ** Yes, and they did what? Such Foolishness. To think my Great... Grandfather fought for Franz Joseph in battle. **

My great-grandfather also.

It seems that the name "Franz Joseph" is "TM" in parts of Europe just like Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse. They sent me & my ISP harrassing emails and otherwise were pests. It struck me as being childish of them but maybe they have nothing better to do.

Yes, the Hapsburgs have joined the Rothshilds, it seems. They were once the Hope of Europe, now they're just more rich trash.

Kurt

2003-05-19 19:50 | User Profile

I agree with this 100% I have been saying libertarians are the enemy of White Nationalism for quite some time. I was planning to post an anti-Libertarian article of my own, but I guess don't have to. Libertarians are basically motivated by greed; "capitalism without a conscience." They don't care anything about race or culture, or the USA, for the matter. Their goal is to make enough money and move to some tax haven, like Costa Rica or someplace like that.

And I may get flamed for this, but I don't have a big problem with welfare and other social programs, provided there are limits and restrictions. Like how about limiting it to legal American citizens? I mean, I think we can all agree that there's a huge difference between some Mexican invader who just hopped over the border, and has been in this country for less than 5 minutes, receiving welfare, and some poor, white 70 year old Korean War vet trying to get by on SSI and food stamps. Libertarians don't care about the welfare issue, really. They want immigrants for the cheap labor they provide for their businesses. Libertarians don't believe in fair wages or health insurance. They just want profit. The welfare issue is a false one because they know deep down it will never be ended, so in the meantime the invaders keep on coming, and they can keep on blaming the invasion on "welfare."

Ragnar

2003-05-19 20:05 | User Profile

Originally posted by Kurt@May 19 2003, 19:50 ** And I may get flamed for this, but I don't have a big problem with welfare and other social programs, provided there are limits and restrictions. **

I doubt you'll get flamed. I think most of us have enough real-life experience to know that the 70-year-old vet probably will have a hell of a time proving he "qualifies" while the illegal will go to the head of the line. That argument is over, except for some mopping up.

You are also right on the money saying that the libertarian game-plan is to make the Big Score and split. The ones I knew were keen on the south of France. More recently they are buying up property in Argentina now that the economic collapse has lowered the prices.

British libertarians actively plan their moves to Cypress now that they think Spain and Portugal have gotten too crowded with ex-pats. Not one libertarian I ever knew had even a hint of a relationship with the land anywhere.

Walter Yannis

2003-05-21 09:54 | User Profile

Originally posted by Kurt@May 19 2003, 19:50 ** I agree with this 100% I have been saying libertarians are the enemy of White Nationalism for quite some time. I was planning to post an anti-Libertarian article of my own, but I guess don't have to. Libertarians are basically motivated by greed; "capitalism without a conscience." They don't care anything about race or culture, or the USA, for the matter. Their goal is to make enough money and move to some tax haven, like Costa Rica or someplace like that.

I agree basically with this.

As a libertarian I couldn't fathom why the Danes, for example, would want a massive welfare state.

And then I realized that I wanted to abolish welfare only because it resulted in "wealth transfers" from my tribe to out-tribes. If the welfare recipients were all white, I doubt that my objections would have gone much beyond improvements to the welfare system, such as putting in place mechanisms that encouraged people to find work and seek training. The gut-level emotion underlying my libertarianism was the fact that my taxes weren't going to my people, but to blacks and browns.

Once I got that point, and accepted that this was a completely normal and health feeling, it was easy to see why the homogeneous Danes were all for buying themselves cradle-to-grave benefits, as it was literally for them "all in the family."

It's also easy to see why third world immigration to Denmark leads to a re-examination of the welfare state.

In short, I believe that a generous state-sponsored safety net is a good thing, but it can only work in a homogeneous nation state. In conditions of multicultural empire, the mechanism will fall victim to the various ethnicities vying to effect net wealth transfers to their own group. It's just human nature.

It's so obvious now that I see it. It amazes me that it took so long for me to "get" this point. It just shows how thoroughly brainwashed I was to reject any consideration of ethnic self-interest as "racist."

Walter

Valley Forge

2003-05-21 23:03 | User Profile

Originally posted by Kurt@May 19 2003, 19:50 ** I agree with this 100% I have been saying libertarians are the enemy of White Nationalism for quite some time. I was planning to post an anti-Libertarian article of my own, but I guess don't have to. Libertarians are basically motivated by greed; "capitalism without a conscience." They don't care anything about race or culture, or the USA, for the matter. Their goal is to make enough money and move to some tax haven, like Costa Rica or someplace like that.

So, we Rightists should embrace the economics of the Marxist left. Is that your point?

Valley Forge

2003-05-21 23:05 | User Profile

On the other hand, paleoconservatives obsess over free market purism, condemning as manifestations of a "socialists welfare state" common-sense things that most Americans want, such as public education for their children, some sort of social safety net, etc.

Do you disagree that public education and the welfare state are founded on Socialist economic ideas?

Edit: Let's throw in this question too -- which traditional European societies prior to the 19th century provided a public education and a welfare state?.

Edana

2003-05-21 23:36 | User Profile

A case could be made about the welfare state being a factor in declining birth rates.

Ragnar

2003-05-22 00:07 | User Profile

Originally posted by Valley Forge@May 21 2003, 23:05 ** Edit: Let's throw in this question too -- which traditional European societies prior to the 19th century provided a public education and a welfare state?. **

Before the 19th Century neither would have made any sense. Industrialization was the motor that drove both public education and the welfare state.

A good case can be made that pre-19th Century communities did both of these things. Being part of traditional communities requires both bringing up children to community norms and caring for the aged and infirm in some way (usually informal and familial).

With the arrival of the steam pump in Britain, all this changed.

Industrialization required both national norms of education, which means nationalizing schools one way or another, and a welfare state because industrialized societies make work too unpredicatable and require constant change of location.

Traditional communities and industrial society might be mutually incompatable which annoys those of us who enjoy most aspects of both.

Kurt

2003-05-22 03:53 | User Profile

A case could be made about the welfare state being a factor in declining birth rates.

True. White people have to have less babies because they have to pay for black and brown babies. In a White Nationalist state this wouldn't be a problem.

Kurt

2003-05-22 04:00 | User Profile

So, we Rightists should embrace the economics of the Marxist left.ÃÂ Is that your point?

And should I embrace the philosophy of the Jewess Alissa Rosenbaum (Ayn Rand)? Is that your point. What is your point, anyway?

You sound like a freeper. Marxism?!?!? Socialism?!?!? Oh no!!! "Rightists?" As a White Nationalist, that term means nothing to me. "Rightists" can be of any race. I'm only concerned with Whites. I suggest you re-read the posts of Faust, Anti-Yuppie, Ragnar and Walter Y. They explain it all much better than I can.

In a White Nationalist state, I believe a form of socialism gasp! could actually work.

Edana

2003-05-22 04:42 | User Profile

Originally posted by Kurt@May 21 2003, 21:53 ** > A case could be made about the welfare state being a factor in declining birth rates.

True. White people have to have less babies because they have to pay for black and brown babies. In a White Nationalist state this wouldn't be a problem. **

The Japanese don't have to pay for black and brown babies either, and they have declining birth rates.

Walter Yannis

2003-05-22 05:23 | User Profile

As many of you will know from other threads, I accept the Catholic teaching on matters economic.

The key principles are:

Nationalism;
Solidarity;
Subsidiarity;
Private Property.

Chesterton & Belloc popularized these teachings.

The main policy objective is to prevent large concentrations of wealth and power (overlapping concepts), either with the state or in corporations (again, overlapping concepts). On the "state" side, the Church teaches that the world should be divided into nation states, each with their distinct bloodlines, cultures (languages), and sovereign territory (Catechism Articles 56-58). Empires that erase these natural limits on human ambition are the very sin of Babel. Since men are programmed by Evolution to love their own more than strangers, the "better angels of our natures" are more easily manifested in homogeneous nation states. Likewise on the state side, subsidiarity teaches us that decisions should be made on the lowest level possible, leaving most decisions at the family-community level, and strongly supporting a devolved state organizational structure. Solidaraity teaches us that society - families and tribes, fraternal organizations of all sorts - must take precedence over the state. Finally, respect for private property is the foundation for all individual rights - dispersed private property guarantees that individuals will not find themselves at the mercy of the state.

These principles are manifested quite successfully in the [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=16&t=7454]Mondragon enterprises of Spain[/url], which were started by a Basque priest in a very successful attempt to bring Catholic teaching to life. See also Mandragon's webpage [url=http://www.mondragon.mcc.es/ingles/mcc.html]English version.[/url].

In my opinion, the main problem with modern capitalism is the large corporation, and its separation of ownership from control, resulting in vast concentrations of power and wealth in far too few hands. The fact that most of the nation's power is in fact disposed of by a few thousand CEO's and top bureaucrats is danger enough in itself.

But, as Sam Francis recently pointed out, the concentration of so much of the nation's wealth into a thousand or so corporations left the entire thing vulnerable to alien infiltration, a process that was begun in earnest in the 1980's by Millken and Boesky and consummated in the 1990's by Eisner et. al. As aliens they are not limited by feelings of love and kinship for those they rule, but rather they see their subjects as hateful and dangerous enemies who must be destroyed. This alien power is symbolized and reinforced by these infiltrated corporations' lavish support of Holocaust museums in utterly unrelated places like Houston, and is manifest in their coordinated corporate policy to destroy the morals of our historically Christian nation, for the surest way to destroy a nation is to attack its culture.

Billy Graham was right when he told Nixon circa 1970 that we couldn't withstand another 20 years of anti-Christian propaganda.

A man like Eisner can decide to use the vast wealth of Disney (including ABC news) to advance, for example, homosexuality as an acceptable life style. There is no broad social debate on the subject. No democratic vote. No nothing. Eisner decrees as CEO of Disney (he made $600 million in one year), and the next thing you know the nation's premier source of children's (!) entertainment is holding gay kiddie parades at its theme parks. He recently closed all the churches in the theme parks. And since he and his ethnic kin control nearly all of the news media, signal events like this go nearly unremarked.

Here is the enemy, my brothers.

The large corporation is our deadly enemy, just as is the large state. Our Freeper bretheren seem to have a hard time with this concept. When you start talking about the dangers of corporations their "kill socialism" mental subroutine turns on and there's no talking to them after that - they brand you as some sort of Commie, even though you're the one who's defending the institution private property. I like to point out that Adam Smith himself foresaw these same dangers inherent in corporations, as did Justice Brandeis, which sometimes helps get over their doublethink mental blindness.

What the Freepers don't get is that defense of the sanctity of property implies resistance to the very separation of title to, and control of, assets that is the sine qua non of the modern corporation.

Death to monopoly in all its forms.

Walter

Kurt

2003-05-22 05:25 | User Profile

The Japanese don't have to pay for black and brown babies either, and they have declining birth rates.

Well, I believe in quality, not quantity. I also have a lot of respect for the Japanese. They are very White-like in some ways. Like Whites, they respect the world around them. Unlike those muds--I mean blacks and browns--who keep breeding like vermin, and are then unable to care for themselves, and then cry to the West for help. Blacks and browns have no concept of the dangers of over-population. If it wasn't for Western countries providing them aid, or [url=http://www.amren.com/camp.htm]allowing them into their own countries[/url], disease and famine would keep their numbers in check. Anyway, I don't care what muds do, as long as they stay in their own world. Just leave my people alone.

Anyway, what would be your ideal form of government? Is it some kind of multiracial, multicultural, free-market, Randian, libertarian style of government? Not being sarcastic. I'd like to know. This topic is kind of deep for a working class guy like me. :unsure:

Walter Yannis

2003-05-22 09:06 | User Profile

Originally posted by Kurt@May 22 2003, 05:25 ** > The Japanese don't have to pay for black and brown babies either, and they have declining birth rates.

Read Garret Hardin's classic "[url=http://www.constitution.org/cmt/tragcomm.htm]The Tragedy of the Commons[/url]."

In a welfare state, how shall we deal with the family, the religion, the race, or the class (or indeed any distinguishable and cohesive group) that adopts over breeding as a policy to secure its own aggrandizement? [13] To couple the concept of freedom to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons is to lock the world into a tragic course of action.

I don't agree with all of his conclusions, but it is clear that white failure to reproduce has caused our corporate masters to open our borders thus making the white world a "commons" that is be exploited by the fecund brown races of the south.

The iron laws of Evolution dictate that the result of birth control will NOT be a reduced population, but rather that the groups who use birth control (or otherwise limit their population for even the best of reasons) will simply BE REPLACED by groups who don't.

It's just that simple, man. This "quality versus quantity" argument is bogus. You either have sufficient quantity, or you get absorbed into or replaced by other groups who do have the numbers.

WE NEED TO GET THIS POINT.

It does no good to moan about the high third world birthrate over that of the developed white north. It's clear to all what happens when whites buy into this nonsense about having small (or no) families: economic gravity sucks in the fecund third world to replace the whites. The vacuum created by the white baby dearth is the very thing that pulls meztizos to America, Africans to Europe, and Chinese to Russia.

So, here's the deal. All of us need RIGHT NOW to admit that Paul VI was right in 1968 when he denounced birth control, and that all of us whites have no right to complain about third world immigration because we as a group utterly failed in our most basic duty: to have white children and raise them to responsible adulthood.

This "quality not quantity" thing is a dangerous delusion - it provides a very convenient cover for individuals to indulge in all sorts of selfish lifestyles (double income no kids, lesbian & gay couples, one child familes) to the detriment of our people. We need more responsible white parents with children, and we need them now. And we need to bring social pressure to bear on those of our own tribe who seek to externalize the costs of rearing children - and ultimately of their own retirements - on those who responsibly shoulder their tribal duties.

Walter

Edana

2003-05-22 14:54 | User Profile

Originally posted by Kurt@May 21 2003, 23:25 > The Japanese don't have to pay for black and brown babies either, and they have declining birth rates.**

Definately not. Traditional, homogenous, and free market but non-corporatist.

The problem I see with a welfare state is that people get addicted to it. If there is a baby boom followed by a reduction in population, the welfare state panics because not enough people are around to bring money into it for the aging boomers. People forget how to live without it - which is being thrifty and saving your money instead of buying a lot of useless trinkets/luxuries and having a big family so that the family can take care of you when you're older.

I live in Canada, with a big welfare state. The taxes are huge. We can barely save a thing, since most of the income is sucked up right off the bat. Naturally, this will bias me against welfare states.

Happy Hacker

2003-05-22 21:33 | User Profile

Anyone who supports open borders cannot be a libertarian!

America is a welfare state and thus every poor immigrant increases the burdon of government on Americans. Also, these 3rd-world immigrants will also vote anti-libertarian.

A true libertarian cannot even consider an open border until the welfare state is first eliminated.

Edana

2003-05-22 22:42 | User Profile

Originally posted by Happy Hacker@May 22 2003, 15:33 ** Anyone who supports open borders cannot be a libertarian!

America is a welfare state and thus every poor immigrant increases the burdon of government on Americans. Also, these 3rd-world immigrants will also vote anti-libertarian.

A true libertarian cannot even consider an open border until the welfare state is first eliminated. **

Agreed. Most Libertarians, in true head-in-arse fashion, think that we should keep the borders open while somehow magically making the welfare system disappear.

Poof! It should disappear, just like that!

Poof!

Valley Forge

2003-05-23 01:44 | User Profile

Originally posted by Kurt@May 22 2003, 04:00 > So, we Rightists should embrace the economics of the Marxist left. Is that your point?**

And should I embrace the philosophy of the Jewess Alissa Rosenbaum (Ayn Rand)? Is that your point. What is your point, anyway?

In a White Nationalist state, I believe a form of socialism gasp! could actually work.**

Kurt:

I am merely pointing out that you, Faust, AY, and the others are being inconsistent when you claim to be opposed to Marxist ideas while at the same time championing the Welfare State. All I'm asking for here is a little truth in advertsing -- by supporting the welfare state, you and others are taking a Leftist/ Marxist position -- why not just admit it and be done with it?

Similarly, if it's valid to make sweeping generalizations about libertarians being the "enemy" of White Nationalists on the grounds of cultural "Marxism," why is it not just as valid to categorize pro-Welfare Nationalists as the enemy on the grounds of their economic Marxism?

The difference between us is not that you are a White Nationalist and I am not. I am as much a White Nationalist as you are. The difference between us is that I have a much higher regard for White people than you do.

I believe they can survive without welfare. You, apparently, do not.

Valley Forge

2003-05-23 02:08 | User Profile

Originally posted by AntiYuppie@May 22 2003, 21:08 ** > So, we Rightists should embrace the economics of the Marxist left. Is that your point?

By this standard, Germany during both the Second (Bismarck) and Third Reich was "Marxist," since libertarians consider any devation from Free Market and Free Trade dogma as "Marxist." Some Randite types have even labelled Adam Smith a "proto-Marxist" for his mercantilism. For that matter, I suppose they would consider George Washington and Alexander Hamilton "proto-Marxist" because they favored extensive state expenditures on infra-structure and the establishment of state and federal institutions of higher learning.

Let's throw in this question too -- which traditional European societies prior to the 19th century provided a public education and a welfare state?

Prior to the 19th century, most of Europe was pre-industrial and agricultural, which kept many of the social and economic relations of Medieval society largely intact. An agricultural society is less organizationally complex than an industrial society and therefore needs fewer administrative controls to run and stabilize. That is why the proto-agrarian Jefferson was a decentralist while those who wanted to make the US an industrial power (Hamilton, Washington, etc) supported "implied [Federal] powers."

Along with the greater need for regulation comes the breakdown of traditional rural communities, so to compensate a social safety net had to be put into place. Furthermore, an industrial society requires more special skills (this is even more true for a postindustrial society), so a greater social premium was put on education, making compulsory public education a necessary part of the program.

Pointing out that none of these things existed prior to the 18th or 19th century makes about as meaningful as the true but irrelevant fact that they didn't exist in hunter-gatherer societies either. It's a simple fact that organizationally more complex societies require more central regulation than simple societies. This is true of organizations of any kind, be they corporations, private clubs, political parties as compared to their smaller, local counterparts. **

AY:

Your argument reduces to the following: complex societies require econmic Socialism to function.

Is that a valid summary?

Ragnar

2003-05-23 02:41 | User Profile

Originally posted by Valley Forge@May 23 2003, 02:08 ** Your argument reduces to the following: complex societies require econmic Socialism to function.

His argument might do that; go back to mine. A few points have to be borne in mind:

Industrialism itself is a form of socialism.

Quite a few people in Western societies did not want industrialization and had to be bought or fought off.

Industrialization = Specialization.

Specialize production and you must specialize everything. (Hence such historically idiotic job categories as Grief Specialist, Day Care Manager, etc and so on.)

Specialization causes disruption and once we industrialize going back to the plow is not an option.

Every industrial society subsidized the industrializers.

To make up for the disruption the Welfare State was put together piecemeal by many interests including industrializers because they knew the havoc they were causing.

The welfare state is not socialism.

The welfare state is worse than socialism.

Because:

Making up for the disruptions of industrialization gulled people to sleep; pure levelling socialism would have woke them up.

And there is no road back. There is no such thing as a nation successfully deindustrializing. Never happened.

Kurt

2003-05-23 05:15 | User Profile

Well, I guess I'm a little sensitive to attacks on welfare because my mother was once on (cue evil music)...Public Assistance (please don't hate me). I know, I guess that makes her a commie-marxist-socialist slut, huh? Well first a little background. My Dad walked out on my mother and their 2 kids (I know boo hoo). Anyway she had to get a job to support us. Being a housewife, and not having any real skills, she was able to find work at a supermarket (she also got some help her and there from friends and relatives). However, it eventually closed down, and she was forced (oh I know, she wasn't really forced, was she?) to apply for (cue evil music))...Public Assistance. Oh, if only she read the collected works of Ayn Rand. Why, she could've become an entrepreneur! Then she could've opened a small business, like say a sweatshop, or a landscaping service, and hired illegals. But no, she didn't think of that. She decided to go to nursing school (which was partially subsidized by the gasp! gubbiment) and became a licensed RN. Too bad for dear old mom that [url=http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/nurses.htm]nursing[/url] is yet another profession that the libertarians seem intent on destroying ("Hey, I have a great idea! Let's import some gooks that barely know how to speak English, make a bed, or change a bed pan, and call them nurses! Think of all the shekels we'll save!"). Oh well, don't worry mom. If nursing doesn't work out, you can always go back to school and become a neurosurgeon or something. Gotta keep dancing to the free market's tune! (which I have a feeling sounds a lot like klezmer music)

Sorry to get so personal, but I felt I had to, to make a point. Anyway thanks for all your comments. You've certainly given me a lot to chew on.

Kurt

2003-05-23 16:26 | User Profile

Libertarianism...bad for Whites:

Libertarians are race destroyers Libertarians do not believe in race (it's bad for business, ya see), though this doesn't stop [url=http://www.reason.com]them[/url] from calling anyone who disagrees with their open borders policies an [url=http://www.vdare.com/fulford/reasons.htm]evil racist[/url]. They don't care what kind of scum they import into the country, as long as they'll work for their slave wages. And the more people that come, the lower wages will drop (along with the standard of living and just about everything else). As long as libertarians prosper, who cares if the country turns into a turd-world, Blade Runner-esque cesspool, right? And another thing, since libertartians measure a person by how successful they are, according to them, Michael Jordan, Will Smith, Russell Simmons, and Jennifer Lopez are better than you! Think about that, working-class White man.

Libertarians are culture destoyers Bach, Beethoven, 50 Cent. 50 Cent?!?!? Yep, you heard right. You see, to a libertarian, it's all good, dawg, know what I'm sayin'? Libertarians will promote rap, race-mixing, homosexuality, and all kinds of anti-White entertainment, anything just to make a buck. (sound like any tribe we know?) I remember a libertarian acquaintance of mine. Big, fat, smelly, jew-looking jackass (though he wasn't a jew, he felt honored to be mistaken for one). He once said to me, "Hey Kurt, you know what I'd like to do if I had the money? I'd like to buy the Mona Lisa, and hang it up in my rec room. Then, I'd paint circles on it, you know, like a dartboard, and play darts with it! Hey why not? I own it! It's mine! Hahaha!" Wrong, Randian swine! Classic White art belongs to the White race! Not everything is a commodity to be bought and sold, though a libertarian will never understand that.

Libertarians don't give a damn about anyone... But themselves! Yep. Libertarians pretty much don't believe in any rules of any kind. A libertarian believes it is his God-given right to blast Ice T's Cop Killer (they also hate cops, who for the most part, aren't really jack-booted thugs, just regular working class joes who are trying their best to keep criminal negroids off the streets, though their hands are tied by the NAACP, ACLU, ADL, and yes, the libertarians) at full volume at 3:00 am. Well, I believe it is my God given right to kick the aforementioned libertarian's ass (which I have had to do, on occasion).

Libertarians are Jews! According to a recent study, 99.9% of libertarians are Jews--or wish they were. And one of their 'Gods' is the Jewess Ayn Rand (aka Alissa Rosenbaum).

So, there you have it. Libertarianism...bad for Whites (and everyone else, for that matter)

note: I guess should add that when libertarians do these things, they'll claim it's because they believe in some high falutin' ideas about freedom and liberty. Don't believe them. It's really all about the shekels.

Valley Forge

2003-05-24 00:46 | User Profile

Octopod:

**The only problem with this is that your "point" is completely false. The Welfare State is not an inherently Marxist phenomenon. **

Ridiculous. The Welfare State is a direct outgrowth or socialist/ Marxist economic doctrine. As I've already pointed out, the concept didn't exist in the West prior to the Industrial Revolution.

**Why not just admit that you've swallowed Jewish Objectivist dogma hook, line, and sinker? Support for welfare and other public services is not inherently Marxist or even Leftist. **

Non-sense. As you well know, nature does not distribute intelligence or ability equally -- this means that disparties in wealth are inevitable. The question is, what do we do about them? The Leftist takes the position that wealth disparities should be "corrected" or "equalized" -- that is why the Left is associated with egalitarianism. The authentic Rightist, in contrast, accepts wealth disparites part of the natural order of things.

But go ahead, prove me wrong. Cite an example of an individual associated with the traditional Old Right, perhaps an early European monarch or an aristocrat, who advocated anything resembling wealth redistribution through the creation of "public" services.

The fact is there is a long tradition in the West of providing legal protections for private property going back at least as far as the Magna Carta. You shouldn't be so foolish as to suggest that the Jewess Alisa Rosenbaum originated the concept of protecting private property. She didn't.

What's next, are you going to claim that support for any kind of "collectivism" is a Marxist/Leftist position?

The fact is libertarians do not oppose all forms of collectivism. They only oppose collectivism wedded to the power of the State. If you actually understood libertarian ideas, you'd realize that.

Under a libertarian system, men are free to choose their own associations, which implies a derivative right to form and participate in all sorts of collectives. Examples would be private clubs, churches, communities, and nations.

Ragnar

2003-05-24 00:55 | User Profile

Originally posted by Valley Forge@May 24 2003, 00:46 ** Cite an example of an individual associated with the traditional Old Right, perhaps an early European monarch or an aristocrat, who advocated anything resembling wealth redistribution through the creation of "public" services.

Ferdinand and Isabella and Henry VIII and King Philip of Spain and anyone else who subsidized the building of merchant fleets via public spending, which is just about all of them.

Government contracts are the oldest and biggest free lunch in history.

Hear of H-1B? It's still happening. Milton Freedman (to my amazement and his great credit) called it "subsidy." So was the Hudson Bay Company, the Roads of Rome and much, much more.

All libertarians are saying is that Fat Cats can be subsidized. On the other hand anything at all that benefits people who make such subsidies possible is "socialism."

Which is why I'm an ex-libertarian.

Texas Dissident

2003-05-24 01:35 | User Profile

Originally posted by AntiYuppie@May 23 2003, 16:28 **The nation and culture is a greater entity than any individual **

Well, not so fast. I think it depends on what you're talking about. Walter would probably jump in here and say the 'cult of the individual' grew out of the Reformation and I really would not argue against that. The 'priesthood of the believer' and individual accountability before God are bedrock principles of Protestantism and I would venture to guess are the seed of the hyper-individualism you decry.

Now myself being fairly sympathetic to paleo-libertarianism, I don't think individualism is inherently negative. In fact, I think it is the heart of the American ideal we look back to with fondness. The problem is that individualism has been divorced from the moral compass of Christianity.

I once did a sociology term paper comparing the sport of baseball to Americanism, both being an interplay between the individual and the group or team. In my opinion it was no accident that baseball became the national pastime, because the sport perfectly captured the spirit of civic life. It's a romantic notion I know, but poltically speaking constitutional republicanism is my ideal form of government.

If there's one thing I hate it is having the 'State' tell me what I have to do or can't do, right down to even getting a driver's license. At the same time, I see the need for government and the danger of monopolies. Basically, I think libertarianism should be the ideal, but it is hopeless without 1) a strong, moral and devout populace, 2) firm borders, and 3) extreme localization of government. Local communities ought to have every right to set-up any type of community standards and rules for their own locality.

Of course based on our own American experience, the long-term viability of such a system is certainly questionable. But to me that doesn't mean it should not be our ideal.

Edana

2003-05-24 02:00 | User Profile

Basically, I think libertarianism should be the ideal, but it is hopeless without 1) a strong, moral and devout populace, 2) firm borders, and 3) extreme localization of government. Local communities ought to have every right to set-up any type of community standards and rules for their own locality.

This is my view, as well.

This conversation is doomed to misunderstanding until we differentiate between paleo-libertarianism and modern libertarianism and objectivism.

Paleo-libertarians usually believe in race and realize that liberty cannot thrive without a society, people, culture, and traditions which support it. They accept that people naturally prefer being with their own kind and realize that pointless "diversity" (especially of the cultural kind) is inherently unstable - which leads to increasing State control. They do not believe in open borders. Their views aren't really radically different from early Americans.

Modern libertarians and Objectivists... head-in-arse ideologues.

Valley Forge

2003-05-24 02:37 | User Profile

All libertarians are saying is that Fat Cats can be subsidized. On the other hand anything at all that benefits people who make such subsidies possible is "socialism."

Ragnar,

Out of curiosity, can you cite a libertarian thinker that favors subsidizing Fat Cats or anyone else?

Valley Forge

2003-05-24 03:04 | User Profile

Edana:

This conversation is doomed to misunderstanding until we differentiate between paleo-libertarianism and modern libertarianism and objectivism.

I don't know about that, Edana. AntiYuppie and others on this forum have been pretty explicit in their rejection of all forms of Libertarianism in favor of authoritarian statism.

On AY's view, if I am understanding the gist of his position correctly, if you support economic liberty, you don't belong on the Right. Period.

An authentic right-wing Nationalist should welcome an intrusive government and everything that goes with it, including high taxation, regulation of private property, social security and a welfare/police state.

NeoNietzsche

2003-05-24 03:53 | User Profile

Originally posted by Valley Forge@May 23 2003, 21:04 An authentic right-wing Nationalist should welcome an intrusive government and everything that goes with it, including high taxation, regulation of private property, social security and a welfare/police state.

...that is in the service of his own race rather than of another - since the government will be of this character in either case (as AY is patiently and expertly attempting to make apparent).

Ragnar

2003-05-24 05:44 | User Profile

Originally posted by Valley Forge@May 24 2003, 02:37 ** Ragnar,

Out of curiosity, can you cite a libertarian thinker that favors subsidizing Fat Cats or anyone else? **

Every single one of them.

Whenever they promote "Free Trade" without mentioning the Import-Export Bank which is how the government rakes the taxpayers into paying for corporate welfare...uh, "free trade".

If George ever gets situated, I'll get him to re-post his documents on that topic.

Not entirely on-point, but if you ever flip through a copy of the book Fast Food Nation it covers the government/junk food industry partnership pretty well. McDonalds and Pizza Hut on government dole? You betcha! Is Lew Rockwell complaining about this outrageous example of government/private industry incest? Not a word.

And which US industry, on average, donates the most to keep Third World immigrants converging on America? Yup, fast food. The low-paid and docile workers are music to corporate ears. Does Reason Magazine note this public/private collusion of interest? Never.

Every libertarian "thinker" knows these things as well as I do.

Walter Yannis

2003-05-24 10:46 | User Profile

Originally posted by Edana@May 24 2003, 02:00 ** > Basically, I think libertarianism should be the ideal, but it is hopeless without 1) a strong, moral and devout populace, 2) firm borders, and 3) extreme localization of government. Local communities ought to have every right to set-up any type of community standards and rules for their own locality.

This is my view, as well.

This conversation is doomed to misunderstanding until we differentiate between paleo-libertarianism and modern libertarianism and objectivism.

Modern libertarians and Objectivists... head-in-arse ideologues. **

Ditto.

Paleos accept Nature and Nature's God, as did our Founding Fathers.

Nature dictates that individuals are hardwired in their brains to love those like them in appearance and culture, and to tend toward fear and hatred of those unlike them.

Society works best when people live as they evolved: in small groups of related persons, with families extending to clans extending to nations. When people are surrounded by relatives their natural instincts for society, love of neighbor, charity - the better angels of our natures - come to the fore. We live in Sir Arthur Keith's "ethic of amity."

Conversely, when we're artificially forced together our evolved instincts of group defense are manifest, and we get the fear and alienation of, say, Detroit- Sir Arthur Kieth's "ethic of enmity." Mainstream sociologists recognize this - I read a thing recently in Business Week about howthe "bowling alone" and "loss of social capital" phenomena (fancy words for society going to hell in a handbasket) are a direct result of increasing "diversity", which the authors nevertheless felt compelled to "celebrate."

It was Business Week, after all. Gotta keep the boss happy.

This was always understood to be so. I read recently a quote from Maimonides about how important the idea of Jews being decended from Abraham is to their own in-group charity. Our Founders clearly understood that - the much quoted passage from John Jay about Providence blessing America with a unified culture and common bloodlines proves the point. But you don't have to be a great wise man to understand such very simple truths - our folklore is filled with this simple recognition of these principles: "good fences make good neighbors", "birds of a feather flock together", "blood is thicker than water" (I always like Sly Stone's refinement on that: "blood is thicker than mud - it's a family affair!" Amen to that.).

But these simple truths run up against the ambitions of the empire builders - our own latter-day builders of the Tower of Babel - and they are condemned publicly at every opportunity, as are their proponents.

As far as individual freedom is concerned, I think that the great discovery of the Enlightenment (and of course the Reformaion by extension) is that, paradoxically, the group functions best when broad freedom is allowed individuals, which is necessary to allow Jefferson's "natural aristocracy" of intelligence and virtue to arise. Our ancestors of the Middle Ages, despite their many achievements, didn't understand that the health of the tribe/nation required that society shed the straightjacket of inherited privilege, and to allow broad vertical mobility up for the talented and virtuous, but also down for those born into wealh and status but who as individuals did not warrant their inherited station. Again, this is just a fact of Nature called "regression to the mean." The children of great men and women are seldom themselves great as their parents, but the Medieval Church and Society (the same thing to a large extent) had a hard time seeing this much less accepting it. Mortmain and simony were very bad things, because they allowed the "regressed to the mean" children of great adventurers keep their natural betters submerged in the laboring classes. The tribe and nation therefore suffered.

A measure of democracy in politics is thus a good thing, at least where the franchise is limited to literate, responsible and contributing members of society.

But the problem is that the pendulum swung too far the other way away from the established order of the Middle Ages. We began to see individual freedom as an end in itself, instead of what it really is: a MEANS of GROUP HEALTH by facilitating the rule of the talented and virtuous. But Nature hasn't changed. The tribe, not the individual, is Evolution's unit of selection, and thus the tribe's interests must always take precedence over that of the individual. Again, paradoxically, tribes function best when individual rights to property, family, speech, and so forth enjoy broad protection, but the main thing is to keep in mind that individual freedom is of the tribe, by the tribe, and for the tribe. It is NOT an end in itself, anymore than we individuals - all of us condemned to die after the merest strut and fret upon this earthly stage - are ends in ourselves.

This is the great error of Objectivism, IMHO. The individual is arbitrarily torn from society and made the ceter of the Universe. But as we've discussed on other threads, Objectivism bears all the indicia of Kevin MacDonald's offensive Jewish ideologies, aimed at dissolving white gentile group identity.

Walter

Edana

2003-05-24 16:09 | User Profile

Woman have a hard time staying home to raise children because of lower wages for the male breadwinner, due to women and migrants in the workforce, outsourcing, and high taxes, due to welfare state.

White women in Europe (Sweden, etc) and Canada, get plenty of welfare and their birth rates are still declining. Plus, they keep needing more taxpayers to prop it up.

If your prescription is even more welfare, plus women staying home (thus not contributing a second income tax), you'll have to raise taxes on the male breadwinner pretty high to keep this going. What is the woman's incentive to hook up with a man at all, when the State can pay for everything?

Sorry, I'm just not seeing this as a sustainable system. I guess that is why I'm not a National Socalist.

Valley Forge

2003-05-24 18:05 | User Profile

**Taxes, levied by clerics and nobles alike, were ubiquitous in the Middle Ages. **

So? You'll note that I didn't ask for examples of taxation or "public" works. I asked for example of an arisotcrat, noble, or monarch who advocated systematic wealth redistribution from the upper classes to the lower classes. If this practice was so ubiquitous, I'm sure you won't have any trouble dispensing with the broad generalizations and showing us a concrete example.

Indeed, one can go further and point out that the whole feudal system of the Middle Ages was dramatically antithetical to your "libertarian" vision. There was no separation of church and state.

So? There was no welfare or social services in the modern sense either.

**VF: The fact is there is a long tradition in the West of providing legal protections for private property going back at least as far as the Magna Carta.

Octopod: Much further back, actually. Why are you implying that I ever suggested otherwise?**

Because that is what you suggested with your reference to "Jewish Objectivist dogma." If you knew about the history of private property in the West, why would you assume that anyone who opposes wealth redistribution must be an Objectivist?

Try arguing with what I actually wrote rather than some threadbare strawman of your construction.

LOL. You mean threadbare strawmen like equating oppostion to the Welfare State with Jewish Objectivism?

Valley Forge

2003-05-24 18:10 | User Profile

**A strong state (and all implements thereof) is not evil, but merely a tool. The nationalist will use this tool to promote White and Western interests, and to defeat subversives in both the private and public sectors. **

The problem is that a strong state can also be used to do the opposite, whereas if a strong state does not exist, the chance that it will ever be used to oppose the interests of the White race is zero.

That is why I am a Paleo-Libertarian/ Racial Nationalist hybrid.

Valley Forge

2003-05-24 18:24 | User Profile

**VF: Out of curiosity, can you cite a libertarian thinker that favors subsidizing Fat Cats or anyone else?

Ragner: Every single one of them.

Whenever they promote "Free Trade" without mentioning the Import-Export Bank which is how the government rakes the taxpayers into paying for corporate welfare...uh, "free trade". **

Ragnar, I don't follow. Corporate welfare is a form of welfare. This is something that all principled libertarians oppose.

Perhaps you could make your point a little clearer by providing a quote from a libertarian -- any libertarian -- to the effect of "it is proper role of the State is to subsidize corporations through wealth redistribution."

I am fairly familair with the major libertarian writers, and I know of no one who takes that position.

Valley Forge

2003-05-25 02:00 | User Profile

The same can be said about any private sector institution. Corporations (in particularly mass media organs) can do a great deal to promote our interests, but they can also do a great deal to subvert and destroy traditional institutions. In fact, corporations are probably doing more to subvert traditional culture and work against the interests of whites than the government.

FEDGOV-ZOG has done tremendous damage too, especially through the forcible desegration of the Old South and though its implementation of an immigration policy favoring non-Whites over Whites. In fact, the Immigration Act of 1965 alone has probably done more damage to White interests in this country than the entire private sector combined.

And while I would certainly acknowledge the destructive impact of Murray Rothstein's MTV and other elements of the Jewish controlled media, no private corporation one can force anyone to watch MTV. The same cannot be said about the State, however. It is the State alone that has the power to coerce, and it's not as if this fact doesn't have consequences for Nationalists in the real world. If, for example, you consider the recent arrests of Matt Hale, David Duke, and Chester Doles on trumped up charges, it quickly becomes clear that it's not the Dow Jones Inc. private security detail making these arrests -- it's FEDGOV-ZOG. Accordingly, at any time the Feds could step in and shut down this site and arrest all of its participants. No private corporation has the power to do that.

**Eliminate the state, and the plutocracy assumes powers identical to the state, **

This is an unproven assumption. If it were true, one would expect to see the globalist plutocracy working overtime to dismantle State institutions all over the world. Instead, they are doing the exact opposite. They are using the UN, WTO and similar institutions to erect a trans-national super state the purpose of which will be to subjegate the entire globe.

Moreoever, on a local level, when the globalist plotocrats go into a country, they don't begin working to dismantle the State, so they can "assume power" in the resulting vacuum. On the contrary, they begin wokring within the State structure by hiring lawyers and lobbyists, so they can more effectively influence the legal process in their favor.

In fact, the state is probably the one traditional institution the plutocrats have no interest in subverting -- that ought to tell you something right there. What it tells me is that without the benefit of state power on their side, the globalist plutocrats wouldn't get very far in subverting the traditions of local populations.

NeoNietzsche

2003-05-25 13:35 | User Profile

Originally posted by Valley Forge@May 24 2003, 20:00 > Eliminate the state, and the plutocracy assumes powers identical to the state, **

AY is qualifiedly correct, in that the intrusive functions of the State must be performed in any event. In the event that the State is insufficient or incapacitated in this regard, however, the requisite functions will be performed by Plutocratic agents informally and manipulatively (z.b., by those of the vile Wilson/Roosevelt tyrannies), rather than straightforwardly and so relatively quickly and efficiently. Plutocrats will naturally choose to preserve or enhance the State to the extent politically permissible for the sake of the most expeditious and economical realization of their goals.

You will say, then, better to slow 'em down. But we say the Plutocracy must be subject to, rather than master of, the administration of State functions, in order that Nationalist goals be realized expeditiously and efficiently.

Faust

2003-05-25 21:30 | User Profile

Valley Forge,

Faust, AY, and the others are being inconsistent when you claim to be opposed to Marxist ideas while at the same time championing the Welfare State.

I do not champion the Welfare State. It is the anti-morality and "open borders"(free trade and immigrantion) statements of the "Libertarians" I have attacked. On the suject of trade and role of government I am pragmatic. The Welfare State is main reason why the Birthrates are so low in Europe. We should hate big Corporation as much as we hate big govenment. I fail to see what this has to with attacking the "Libertarians." "Libertarians" what more government anyway; they want one world government-so borders will not cause problems for Corporations.

Kurt

2003-05-25 22:31 | User Profile

A case could be made about the welfare state being a factor in declining birth rates.

This might be slightly off-topic, but the posts referring to the declining birthrates of Whites in the US got me thinking. Whites are the majority in this country, right? They certainly were the majority 40 years ago. And where has it gotten us: Anti-white "civil-rights" legislation, affirmative-action; racial preferences; unbridled non-White immigration; negroids & mestizos who rob, rape, and murder Whites with virtual impunity; massive aid to Israel (and countless other non-White nations) and on and on. Yep, I'm sure glad Whites are the majority. I don't see how it could be much worse if we were the minority. :(

Ragnar

2003-05-26 01:38 | User Profile

Originally posted by Valley Forge@May 24 2003, 18:24 ** Ragnar, I don't follow. Corporate welfare is a form of welfare. This is something that all principled libertarians oppose.

VF,

Ignore my frustration on this topic. :)

My whole difficulty with what is called international free trade is with how much of it is government-driven. Eg, a large number of "consumer rights" groups from the mid-70s on were funded from Tokyo, yet when Tom Fleming at Chronicles came out and said it, the Rockford Institute lost tons of advertisers.

Yes, Libertarian writers say they oppose corporate welfare, but they don't define the term the way I do. For instance, most everyone in industry is aware how heavily into industrial affairs the Chinese government is, to the point that some commentators have accused American investors of funding a future enemy.

Lew Rockwell is a case of total anquish for me. His writing on NAFTA as a flawed and dishonest treaty are supurb. Then he goes on to praise "heroic Walmart", a company I would not hesitate to bring up on charges of economic treason to the US for reasons far beyond simple dishonesty.

What it comes down to is I don't think libertarians, in their present configuration, are nationalist enough. It's a point where reasonable men might differ.

Walter Yannis

2003-05-26 10:25 | User Profile

Originally posted by Ragnar@May 26 2003, 01:38 ** What it comes down to is I don't think libertarians, in their present configuration, are nationalist enough. It's a point where reasonable men might differ.

That's right, but their lack of nationalism springs directly from profoundly mistaken assumptions about human nature and the human condition.

The bedrock postulate of modern libertarianism is that only individuals exist, and maybe among their more "conservative" wing they'll admit that "families" exist.

But none of them will admit that "society" exists - that tribes and nations have a collective existence; i.e. that human society resembles insect hives and flocks of birds in that they function unconsciously as single entities.

In short, pace Ayn Rand, there is such a thing as a "collective mind."

Since libertarians are blinded to the reality of our corporate existence and recognize only individuals, they naturally care little for nations and their collective rights and interests.

To repeat, libertarians are simply mistaken about their most fundamental assumptions, and this terrible error leads many of them to advance treasonous programs such as the oxymoronic "open borders."

Walter

Valley Forge

2003-05-27 00:03 | User Profile

Originally posted by Ragnar@May 26 2003, 01:38 What it comes down to is I don't think libertarians, in their present configuration, are nationalist enough. It's a point where reasonable men might differ.

Ragnar,

Well, we certainly agree on this point. Not only are most Libertarians insufficiently Nationalist, they tend to be anti-Nationalist. We agree on that, and in this respect Faust and others are certainly correct in describing "libertarians" as the enemy of our people.

Where I disagree with you and everyone else on this thread, however, is that I don't believe that anti-Nationalism is inherent in the Libertarian worldview or in Libertarian ideas themselves. Remember, the core ideas behind Libertarian political theory are private property and individual right to life and liberty. How are those ideas inherently anti-Nationalist? (Remember that "individual rights" entails a large number of derivative rights that many Nationalists hold dear, such as gun rights, and the right to free association).

Now, a reasonable person might ask "how can Libertarianism co-exist with Racial Nationalism when Libertarian theory holds that collectivism is evil and elevates the individual above the group?" Is this not an anti-Nationalist position by definition?

Well, to understand why the answer to that question is NO, you need to consider a couple of factors. For one thing, Libertarian theory does not hold that "collectivism" is evil. It holds that collectivism wedded to the coercive power of the State is evil. That's it. Moreover, Libertarian theory does not elevate the individual above the group in all aspects of life; rather, the individual is held to be important for one purpose and one person only: determining who does and does not have "rights."

Now, this issue might not matter to someone who doesn't believe rights exist, but that certainly doesn't describe most Nationalists or people on the Right. Most people on the right tend to take their rights to free speech, association, and guns very seriously, as I've already pointed out.

Similarly, the other criticism that I see alot -- and one that is always asserted without a supporting quote or evidence I might add-- is that the "individual" posited by Libertarian theory is really nothing more than a variation on the Marxist idea of "economic man."

In actuality, there is nothing in Libertarian theory that says an "individual" must disaggregate himself from the group, because in a Libertarian society, people would be free join any group they wish. This includes not just political organizations like the CCC or the National Alliance, but also broader groups like churches, communities, nations.

Bottom line: I think if we are to make further progress in this discussion we need to draw a distinction between modern Libertarians and paleo-Libertarians and a distinction between Libertarian ideas and how most people apply those ideas today. My contention is that there is nothing in those ideas that is inherently anti-Nationalist. Yes, that's how they're applied for the most part, but there's no necessary reason for that, just as there is no necessary reason for the Welfare State to be linked to the agenda of the far Left, as AY and others have argued.

Valley Forge

2003-06-04 02:00 | User Profile

You know in a way I'm not surprised, because what I am beginning to realize is that you and others have been right all along -- Libertarian ideas, whatever their merits in the ivory tower, seem to be inherently unworkable in the real world in so far as human beings always seem to reject them.

At this point, I am ready to throw in the towel and jettison the whole framework.

Ragnar

2003-06-04 04:08 | User Profile

Originally posted by Valley Forge@Jun 4 2003, 02:00 ** At this point, I am ready to throw in the towel and jettison the whole framework. **

Sounds like me when I tore up my party card but there's a reason for experience. It's never a waste.

Libertarian ideas seem to work well among homogenous groups where rules and standards are simple and roughly enforced. My readings took me to both Elizabethan England and the American Expansion (till roughly 1840 in the original states, later out west.) Among the general population, "anarcho-capitalism" worked pretty well in both places. The need for rules got extensive and out of hand in both countries when aliens and outsiders began imposing rules and obligations.

My guess is that a new version of Elizabethan Sea Dogs are due any day. When governments turn to crime the only rational response is piracy. It's already here for the contracters who are "rebuilding" Iraq.

I'd note that both on Daniel Boone's frontier and in Drake's England, guarding the borders were high priorities. No open borders and no multiculturalism for them. Nationalist Libertarianism is like that. The country is seen as a project we all have a stake in. America flunked that when it went imperial, but I'm not fretting over that.

Like Maggie Thatcher said, empires only fall.

mwdallas

2003-06-05 17:47 | User Profile

**I am arguing that complex societies require a greater centralized regulatory apparatus than simple societies. **

Large societies require organization. The trick is to structure the society's coordinating apparatus in a manner that maintains the health of the society. Bronowski (and later Seeley) have spoken of "stratified stability"; D.S. Wilson has spoken of a "nested hierarchy" of units -- whatever. The crucial thing is to maintain bidirectional control. The ethnographies show that such bidirectional control -- along with muted egalitarianism -- existed in most of the primitive tribal societies studied by European ethnographers. Those at the top exercised social control over those at the bottom, and vice versa. When a society gets larger, the maintenance of such bidirectional control becomes more difficult, of course.

As usual, Walter is on target: "Society works best when people live as they evolved: in small groups of related persons, with families extending to clans extending to nations." The notion of "families extending to clans" etc. is the notion of a nested hierarchy. Ideally, each level of the hierarchy should be subject to control from above and below.

One of the many invaluable insights offered by the paleolibertarians at Lewrockwell.com is this definition of the state: "the state is government by people you don't know" -- i.e., it is government in which bidirectional control is lacking.

And this suggests one way of looking at what the Jewish parasite does -- it continually moves the locus of societal control beyond the reach of the members of society.

Frederick William I

2003-06-06 00:22 | User Profile

Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jun 3 2003, 23:12 **Valley Forge,

You asked for an example of a European "Welfare State" prior to the 19th century. [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0735101779/qid=1054681616/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0842439-2972901?v=glance&s=books]This book[/url] The Prussian Welfare State Before 1740 deals with the subject of welfare policies under the Hohenzollern rulers of Prussia. Note that Spengler and others credit [u]Frederick the Great of Prussia[/u] rather than Marx as the "founder of socialism." In this regard, "socialism" in the broad sense of social duty and social welfare have solidly traditionalist credentials.

JUNIOR? AntiYuppie, I most certainly expect I have the right to an apology (although credit to one's progeny must be accepted as a backhand compliment of sorts)

The difference between the Englishman and the Prussian - the "Prussian" stood for the ideal German - corresponded to the difference between the capitalist and the socialist.ÃÂ With acid irony Spengler dismissed English ethics as the ethics of "fine society" and "ladies and gentlemen".ÃÂ On the other hand, he equated Prussian tradition with socialism, inasmuch as "the German, more specifically the Prussian, instinct was such that the power was in the hands of the whole.ÃÂ The individual serves the whole.ÃÂ The king is the first servant of the state (Frederick the Great) .....> Such has been since the eighteenth centuryauthoritarian socialism, which is essentially illiberal and anti-democratic as against English liberalism and French democracy. (Spengler, Preussentum)* .... Prussia socialism was "instinctive socialism"; Prussia's traditions-notably the army, the civil service, the workers of the type of August Bebel had anticipated the ethical and political pattern of our society. > In this sense, Frederick William I, and not Marx, was the first conscious socialist(Ibid, Italics in the original)*

(Klemens Von Klemperer, Germany's New Conservatism)**

Frederick William I

2003-06-06 23:27 | User Profile

Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jun 6 2003, 21:32 > In this sense, Frederick William I, and not Marx, was the first conscious socialist**

I thought that the reference was to Frederick the Great rather than FWI...it's been a while since I've read Prussianism and Socialism.The "socialism" of which Spengler spoke was certainly more derived and pronounced under "Junior's" rule. **

Lame excuse. If I was your school master I'd rap your fingers for deriliction of your Prussian duty. B)