|
|
|
In the Name of Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell’s Rick Fisk Invites the World Lew Rockwell’s Rick Fisk writes of Ron Paul’s immigration policy:
Here’s what Ron Paul actually says about border enforcement:
Lew Rockwell, withdraw Rick Fisk’s story now or face legitimate accusations of libel against Ron Paul on the most significant issue facing the public. Comments:2
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:04 | # Yes he’ll get the marijuana legalizers and other kinds of libertardians but won’t have a prayer of pulling off the nomination. 4
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 02 Sep 2007 01:02 | # The problem isn’t Ron Paul so much as it is the people around him. 5
Posted by calvin on Sun, 02 Sep 2007 02:41 | # “It (Ellis Island) was a detainment camp that violated the rights of everyone who entered even if they gladly accepted it. Many people died there unnecessarily” In a sense this is a true statement; in an entirely free society people would have perfect liberty to travel wherever they wanted to travel ……………..and in a perfectly free society, people would be perfectly free to exterminate people who invaded their territory. Liberalism is about according absolute rights to people who seek to travel to the Anglosphere, whilst hypocritically forcing Europeans to abide by contrived rules and regulations in their reactions to these peregrinations. Ellis Island was a stockade that prevented my tribe from exterminating an invading tribe. 6
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:11 | #
Excellent point. It reminds me of the way the corporations in the U.S. privatize the profits they get from Third World immigration but socialize the costs (meaning they pocket the profits they make off of imported illegal slave labor but send the bills for the upkeep of said illegals and the damage they cause from systems overload and all sorts of other catastrophes to the government, that is, the tax payer): in a similar way, the libertardians claim completely unlimited “freedom of movement everywhere for everyone from the Third World” but the most draconian totalitarian limitations on the “freedom to protect their property” of those in the First World being invaded, whose property, communities, and nations are being trashed and whose race changed beyond recognition: they can’t defend themselves against any of that, noooooooooooooooooo, but the absolute freedom to inflict all of it is enjoyed by the white race-replacers and their Third-World pawns. 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:18 | # In an entirely free society both border crossers and armed vigilantes committed to keeping border crossers the hell out would have unfettered scope of activity and immunity from punishment. Let’s see how many illegals cross the border in “an entirely free society</i>. 8
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:26 | # Of course the so-called “libertarians” are not libertarians at all when they claim that national territory is not a property right of the citizens. They’re international socialists aka communists when it comes to national sovereignty. 9
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:52 | # I dont quite understand how libertarianism (the band sold at samizdata for example) and democracy can be compatible. It seems, paradoxically, to be an ideaology that would have to enforced at gun point by a totalitarian state! 11
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:57 | # Its late Im tired! the brand sold Of course there may be a band called Samizdata. 12
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 02 Sep 2007 04:07 | #
They haven’t thought things through that far, Lurker. Half are still at the “You mean I’ll be able to smoke all the marijuana I want???” stage. 13
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 02 Sep 2007 08:55 | # Lurker, there are two laws: The laws of nature and the laws of man. The laws of man must, of course, comply with the laws of nature since they operate within them. In order to be laws the laws of man must not only comply with but be enforced via the laws of nature for that is their…. NATURE. Now, having said that, we have great latitude in what we may define as a specific set of laws of man and there we come to the question of statecraft. Here, however, is where real libertarians and pseudo libertarians part ways. Pseudo libertarians act as though there is either no necessary dependence on the laws of nature by the laws of man—or as though there is no law of man per se—only the law of nature which magically encompasses the laws they claim are “natural laws” such as “property rights”. Real libertarians are basically all about one thing: Supporting property rights of all kinds, starting with individual self-defense, hence, subsistence property and tools for support of a household. But libertarianism doesn’t stop there. It goes beyond that to community support of property rights beyond subsistence, including territory held in trust for families, aka “nations” of “peoples”—as well as paying for the upholding of those property rights beyond subsistence via a use fee for those rights: the primordial contract between citizen and government. Now, you may think such laws to be misguided but do not confuse such laws with the confused rhetoric of pseudo libertarians such as those you will find in the vast majority of “Libertarian Party” functions. 14
Posted by John on Sun, 02 Sep 2007 13:37 | # Ron Paul’s position on illegal immigration is best encapsulated in this partial quote: “If you want more of something, subsidize it.” To stop educating, feeding, clothing, doctoring and housing illegal aliens would go far toward getting rid of them, not to mention that it’s logistically and politically much easier done than deporting them (wasn’t there a recent vote in the US congress or senate to cut of welfare that “lost” (ahem) by a narrow margin? Cutting off “welfare”, legalizing self-defense and freedom of association and contract and shutting out the parasitic financial class with sound money might be sufficient to halt the decline of Western man. Anything else he needs to do he can do for himself privately and voluntarily. 15
Posted by Matra on Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:06 | # Rockwell’s been publishing open borders tripe for years. That even paleolibs sneer at whites for opposing race replacement is indicative of where individualism leads to. Libertarianism is just another ideology that prevents whites from organising collectively to enhance our interests. Libertarianism could be useful if whites become a minority as any ideology that emphasises individualism will weaken the majority. But a future non-white majority would never be dumb enough to embrace libertarianism. Only Jews and state-obsessed Americans are interested in it. Most Europeans have never even heard of libertarianism. There may well be a ‘real’ libertarians out there but there’s little evidence to suggest they are anything other than an obscure minority within libertarianism. If Steve Edwards libertarianism were dominant that would be great, but I strongly suspect that most libertarians would be appalled by his opposition to race replacement. John, RP may be better on immigration than most Republicans but I can’t forget him getting applause at one of the debates for saying the illegals were been scapegoated in the whole immigration debate. Voluntarily expressing sympathy for foreign invaders is not very reassuring. 16
Posted by John on Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:45 | # Matra: I can’t forget him getting applause at one of the debates for saying the illegals were been scapegoated in the whole immigration debate. Voluntarily expressing sympathy for foreign invaders is not very reassuring. Which debate was that? I don’t remember him getting applause for anything other than anti-war statements at any of the debates. And perhaps he said that to pre-empt being smeared as a racist. The unfortunate politics that prevail in the US make it impossible for candidate in a nationwide election to survive such a label sticking to him. I would think this is a matter of him being astute enough to realize this. He has hit a nerve with many of his criticisms of the status quo, especially on the war and the police/panopticon/surveillance state. I am impressed with his overall honesty and not surprized that he would feel the need to use such rhetoric and would distingish between his sincerity when uttering that statement you cited vs. when he says he want to abolish the IRS, or get out of the empire-building business, for example. 17
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:00 | # That even paleolibs sneer at whites for opposing race replacement is indicative of where individualism leads to. Libertarianism is just another ideology that prevents whites from organising collectively to enhance our interests. Sneering at and preventing are two different things. I would rather have someone sneer at me and let me and those of like mind “do our own thing” than have them “compassionately” force upon me a human ecology that they “know” in their Holocaust-given “wisdom” is “good”. Now, of course, I recognize that Lew Rockwell and company are _not_ letting me and those of like mind “do our own thing” because they have broken the CONTRACT bequeathed to what the framers of that CONTRACT called “our posterity”. They are communist thieves who defend the invaders of our land—and they should be so treated. They wage an undeclared war on us so we can respond with anything necessary to neutralize them. 18
Posted by John on Sun, 02 Sep 2007 22:52 | # From the Lew Rockwell article “Nationalism and the Immigration Question”: Nationalism and the Immigration Question ...Today, our economy is disabled, victimology is rampant, welfare is abundant, and English is demeaned. In the New York City public schools, classes are held in 82 languages. This tax-funded multi-lingualism is an attack on English and therefore the American nation. Bitter social conflict is inevitable when the dominant culture and language are displaced by immigrants – as Americans in border towns know. Mises, who favored the free immigration ideal, said fears of majority displacement in a mixed economy were “justified.” “As long as the state is granted the vast powers which it has today,” he wrote in 1919, “the thought of having to live in a state whose government is in the hands of members of a foreign nationality is positively terrifying.” Leftists claim that group antagonisms can be cured with togetherness, but that’s utopian nonsense. Under present circumstances, as Chronicles editor Thomas Fleming points out, open borders would only subvert American liberty. Anyone could arrive, have his children educated in the public schools in an alien language, be hired and promoted through affirmative action or go on welfare, lobby for more “civil rights,” and be feted by the national media as superior to the plain taxpayers – just for showing up. Is there a case, in 1992, for a slow rate of immigration and preference for those from compatible cultures? Certainly businessmen should be able to hire foreign contract workers, as they could before the trade unions had their way, and we need to reexamine the idea of citizenship. Citizenship is a civil convention, not a right, yet we grant it automatically to anyone born here. Former Congressman Ron Paul, an obstetrician, tells about the legions of pregnant women who arrive illegally from Mexico at his Texas hospital, receive free medical care (which the doctor and hospital must provide), and then leave with their newborn American citizens. As my daughter’s favorite magazine says, What’s Wrong With This Picture? Shouldn’t naturalization at the least require a long residency, good behavior, and proficiency in English? Aristotle praises Pericles for denying the franchise to those not of “citizen birth by both parents.” That was classical democracy; today it’s a hate crime. Mises argued that private property would help solve the immigration question. Certainly we should seek to make our commercial districts private and therefore as safe and bum-free as malls, and private residential areas could be closed to anyone not invited or hired by the owners. Immigration policy is no easy matter in the age of the new nationalism, but as in other areas, if we put the liberties of the American people first, we cannot go far wrong. http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/2-92.html I don’t think he’s changed his views since he wrote that article (1992), nor does he endorse the views of everyone who writes articles for him and he has some solidly-in-our-camp (not explicitly, of course) commentators like Thomas Sowell http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo37.html who wrote Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. If I judged this blog by Ray Jay or whatever his name is or Konstintine Hoffmeister, the opinion wouldn’t be great. At least some leftists doesn’t like him more than you don’t (they call him a “neo-confederate”. Wait a minute, that’s a compliment.) 19
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 03 Sep 2007 01:03 | #
Matra cuts to the core of the issue here. We don’t need highminded “men of principle” in Congress with their weary liberal abstractions. We need people who will unabashedly stand up for our interests. An interesting story about Edmund Burke. In his own time, he was known as the “dinner bell” - his rising to speak being the signal for other members of parliament to depart the chamber. 20
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 03 Sep 2007 08:14 | # Sorry John, but Lew Rockwell can’t get off the libel hook without withdrawal of the libel. Fisk has demonstrated a reckless and highly damaging disregard for the truth of Paul’s position. Moreover, the position of von Mises you quote leaves no room for guarding the border as a function of the government. I can think of little that the government is good for outside of guarding the border and I can see why guarding the border would be a desirable function to grant to the state under the terms of the contractual arrangement among the citizenry. 21
Posted by John on Mon, 03 Sep 2007 08:20 | # No ideology can prevent anyone from doing anything or make anybody do anything. It’s just information. While some people who call themselves libs are rabid anti-collectivists, libertarian philosophy primarily is one of restraining government, such that there would be no forced collectivism. The huge advantage libertarianism holds for white people is that the philosophy, if implemented, it would free us from the current slave system where the government usurps the role of father and does so overwhelmingly at our expense. Additionally, it deprives criminals and gangsters of a major source of their funds and police of a major temptation to take bribes. 22
Posted by Steve Edwards on Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:21 | # “There may well be a ‘real’ libertarians out there but there’s little evidence to suggest they are anything other than an obscure minority within libertarianism.” This is doubtless true. Outside of Hans Hoppe and one or two others, the rest comprise mostly of sexual deviants, lunatics, substance-abusers and bums who believe in nothing more than open borders and heavy drug use. The US Founding Fathers would never have had any time for such adolescent rubbish, and they were, outside of their tolerance or support for slavery, definitely classical liberals. You only had to look at Cato’s behavior during the immigration debate to realise that the majority of libertarians are actually supporters of international communism (this is undeniable as open borders both implicitly and consequentially means the abolition of private property). Personally, I don’t use the label “libertarian” very often, because I don’t like to be associated with the “movement” in the slightest. Indeed, I don’t like any label. Maybe “anti-government” or “anti-whatever-the-elites-are-up-to” is probably the best description of what I generally argue for. 23
Posted by Steve Edwards on Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:24 | # Another dissident “libertarian” of note, who is pretty solid across the important issues, is radio host Alex Jones. I’m a subscriber to infowars, and he is the best antidote to BOTH the liberal media AND false alternatives such as Sean Hannity. 24
Posted by Maguire on Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:29 | # “The problem isn’t Ron Paul so much as it is the people around him.” I remember when this used to be said of Reagan, too. I think if there’s a problem with the staff the fault belongs to the boss. “Maybe “anti-government” or “anti-whatever-the-elites-are-up-to” is probably the best description of what I generally argue for.” Every revolution has its anarchist wing. This one is no exception. 25
Posted by Mark on Mon, 03 Sep 2007 18:43 | # The government is the primary enforcer of anti-white policies. I ignore the government whenever possible, and suggest you do the same. Power is not in numbers, but in wealth. I don’t care about race replacement; most whites are pro-government, pro-Hillary, pro-taxation. To hell with them. They can pay taxes like serfs with the immigrants for all I care. 26
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:07 | #
And things are going to be better once the Jewish dream of a majority-Negro/Mexican/Oriental/Arab/Subcon polity is realized? Or might they be worse, do you think? Open your eyes, man! 27
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:07 | # John, I’m not a big proponent of “freedom of speech” except in reaction to restrictions on, and in support of, freedom of association, from which any notion of “freedom of speech” may be constructed by mutual consent. So while I agree that in the present circumstances a general acceptance of “freedom of speech” can be valuable, the reality is that it is being defined in ways directly inimical to the whole point of upholding it: to support freedom of association. The most obvious point in fact is restriction on “hate speech” which increasingly applies in Western nations. This notion of “hate speech” is designed to prevent writing corresponding to the section in The Declaration of Independence referred to by:
To speak of such “causes” in the context of demanding territory for ourselves is deemed “incitement to ethnic violence”—or some variant thereof—thus “justifying” the preemptive imprisonment of any group that so declares its “causes” for ethnic separation. Given this tyrannical context, I cannot abide Rockwell’s publication of LIBEL of Ron Paul’s position on immigration—libel which, given the context, is not mere “ideology” but an assault on freedom of association. 28
Posted by John on Mon, 03 Sep 2007 23:53 | # It looks like Fisk is so extreme in his libertarianism that he cannot see that that his libertarian sensibilities and inclinations are in large part racial and that the people he wants to allow to participate in US politics would tend to have their views reflected in something Marxist and tyrannical. He reminds of Lena Hjelm-Wallén (Swedsih feminist ex-deputy prime minister) who might don a towel for a photo-op with her Muslims friends in Göteborg and the next day hop over to Stockholm to speak at a lesbian rights convention, never once appreciating the irony of it. That said, it looks to me that the worst Fisk did is to misrepresent Dr. Paul’s views and use his policy positions (correctly reiterated) to support his no borders argument. Not exactly the worst crime in the world and probably not actionable in a US court. The typical reader of Rockwell’s site would certainly be aware of Ron Paul’s campaign and would be interested enough to research his opinion on immigration for himself. This guy’s column, even if it is libelous, is not likely to do much harm. In fact, if he can get some of his Samizdata friends to support Dr. Paul, it might even be a good thing. 29
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 04 Sep 2007 00:06 | # There is no one at Samizdata who questions the forced race-replacement régime. They all think it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 04 Sep 2007 00:08 | # (That was directed to John — see last sentence of his last comment.) 31
Posted by John on Tue, 04 Sep 2007 01:23 | # Nothing wrong with them voting for the right guy for the wrong reason. 32
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 04 Sep 2007 02:25 | # Good point — which is the only way those double-digiters will ever vote for the right guy, by the way: for the wrong reason. 33
Posted by Scipio Americanus on Tue, 04 Sep 2007 07:45 | # Is Rick Fisk being sarcastic or is he suffering from a very bad case of bats in the belfry? At first I thought this was some kind of a joke. Alas, it is no joke, but yet another example of the diseased mentality that is found everywhere today. That such outrageous remarks can be brazenly pronounced and published by a “respectable” outfit such as LewRockwell.com does speak to the depths of insanity that this nation’s intelligentsia have fallen, regardless of party affiliation or professed ideology . It’s madness, shear utter madness! It’s as if we are living out a sequence of events from an ancient Greek tragedy in which the Gods are driving not a single protagonist on stage insane, but the “intellectuals” of an entire nation. Regarding Ron Paul on the issue of immigration: No amnesty, but border fence isn’t so important. (Jun 2007) http://ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm Ron Paul on Lou Dobbs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieNPCUHegvQ The issue of immigration must be traced back to its genesis and that is the issue of RACE. Scimitar has already disclosed Ron Paul’s holier-than-thou moralizing regarding the evils of “racism” as “an ugly form of collectivism”. No doubt, Dr. Paul was re-reading Alysia Rosenbaum’s [Ayn Rand] collected works when he spewed forth the following: “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.” Well, there you have it folks. It’s the same poisonous moonshine we’ve been force fed to drink by politicians on the so called “right” countless times before and why I have completely given up on the election process. With these statements, Ron Paul has clearly demonstrated that he is suffering from a terminal case of racial Alzheimers. Does he not understand that the non-white population of this country essentially block-votes for the communists [Democrats] and have no interest in “freedom” except one: the freedom to loot and plunder the white majority? No doubt, those who agree with me will still make the claim that Ron Paul remains a better choice than any of the establishment politicians. With the exception of Tom Tancredo, I would agree. But do you actually think Ron Paul, if elected, will be able to reduce the size and scope of Leviathan? I seem to recall another “conservative” candidate who won a landslide victory in 1980 making the same pronouncements. His name was Ronald Reagan. Despite the political mandate he was given, his actual record was abysmal. [For a detailed account off this failure, I refer all readers to David Stockman’s The Triumph of Politics] http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Politics-Reagan-Revolution-Failed/dp/0060155604 Aside from failing to stem the growth of government, he aided and abetted our enemies by granting a noted white-hating subversive by the name of Martin Luther King a national holiday, further institutionalized “white guilt” by signing into law reparations to Japanese-“Americans” who were interned during WW II, and then legalized millions of illegal aliens by rewarding such law breakers with amnesty! Given that record, I can just imagine what delightful wonders a “libertarian” would bring us. [Sigh] I don’t mean to pick on Ron Paul because despite his feverish delusions regarding race, I believe he is fundamentally a decent man who honestly would like to reduce both the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy as well as attempt to restore the values and freedom of the way of life our forefathers envisioned. However, the issue of restoring the American Republic or even reducing the size and scale of the federal government is a dangerously antiquarian illusion today given the demographic catastrophe that has befallen our nation. If Ronald Reagan could not achieve it given the landslide victories of 1980 and 1984 at a time when the demographics was still quite favorable, what chance does Ron Paul have running essentially as a constitutionalist given the current political climate? Keep in mind, the vast mass of parasites who now batten on us are growing in numbers while their unappeasable hatred of us increasingly manifests itself on a daily basis. The non-white population is now over one hundred million strong, not including the twenty million illegal aliens, and they are not interested in seeing a reduction in the size and scope of government. “More, more more, more, more” is their motto. The overwhelming number of non-whites want more government, not less, to be directed at redistributing wealth and power from “Whitey” to themselves. In that sense, they are normal. The white man is abnormal. Thus, the only fundamental question before us is whether the white population of the United States still has the will-to-survive or will prefer to be consumed either by mindlessly mongrelizing themselves out of existence or slowly perish under the increasingly heavy tax burdens and eventually collapse into a Third World nightmare. PS: James Bowery, I would not worry to much about damage to Ron Paul’s campaign stemming from this diseased columnist. Indeed, given the pronouncements contained in that op-ed piece, nobody with an ounce of common sense would take such drivel seriously. In other words, it reflects on the writer and on LewRockwell.com, not on Ron Paul and his campaign. Scipio Americanus 34
Posted by John on Tue, 04 Sep 2007 10:15 | # Scipio: Well, there you have it folks. It’s the same poisonous moonshine we’ve been force fed to drink by politicians on the so called “right” countless times before and why I have completely given up on the election process….With these statements, Ron Paul has clearly demonstrated that he is suffering from a terminal case of racial Alzheimers. Does he not understand that the non-white population of this country essentially block-votes for the communists [Democrats] and have no interest in “freedom” except one: the freedom to loot and plunder the white majority? I am sure Ron Paul understands that non-whites will vote for the “gov’t teat” candidate every time. But there is no way to win a national election in the US and tell the truth about racial differences. It would be like running in 1948 saying the US should have fought with Germany against the Soviets in WWII. It would torpedo his campaign. Educating people on race reality is not the job of politicans. Their job is to win elections (and hopefully do what the promised and to judge on that basis alone Dr. Paul is a skyscraper’s length above any of the other empty suits). To do that, a politican must, to quote Milton Erickson, “meet [the majority of the people] at their model of the world” and let the rest of us read between the lines. 35
Posted by Rusty Mason on Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:53 | # Ron Paul’s racial views do not matter here; he is not interested in using the government to advance his personal views on race. By far, his biggest reason for being in government is to drastically downsize the government and keep it within Constitutional limits. His voting record and his many articles over the years prove this. A victory for RP would be a victory for Whites, too. 36
Posted by Scipio Americanus on Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:56 | # “Educating people on race reality is not the job of politicans. Their job is to win elections (and hopefully do what the promised and to judge on that basis alone Dr. Paul is a skyscraper’s length above any of the other empty suits).” ( - John) Scipio Americanus 37
Posted by Scipio Americanus on Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:34 | # “Ron Paul’s racial views do not matter here; he is not interested in using the government to advance his personal views on race. By far, his biggest reason for being in government is to drastically downsize the government and keep it within Constitutional limits. His voting record and his many articles over the years prove this. A victory for RP would be a victory for Whites, too.” ( - Rusty Mason) As I pointed out, ALL past efforts to restore the Republic have been futile because the United States, long ago, reached a stage of irreversible moral and intellectual decay. Again, to understand the workings of the system in the District of Corruption, I refer you to David Stockman’s book: The Triumph of Politics. Further, we shall need the utmost powers of government in the future to crush our enemies if our race is to survive the eventual conclusion of the race war that has been gaining momentum for well over 100 years. Do you not understand this point? We are on the verge of becoming a hated minority in our own country! WAKE UP! Either our side must eventually capture the power of the highly centralized government already in place in Washington and ruthlessly use it to the advantage of Americans by crushing the subversive alien forces which are destroying us or be destroyed ourselves. The primary condition that cannot be compromised is racial homogeneity. To achieve this, we would need to suppress the non-white infestation of our nation and effectively neutralize, via political disenfranchisement, the hordes in our midst who audaciously batten down on us while displaying an ever growing antipathy towards our race. Given that this subject is “taboo” in today’s world of politics and intellectual circles alike, how do you propose to achieve it? To be sure, Ron Paul is a better candidate than the boot-licking, shabbas goy front men arrayed against him and I would most certainly cast a vote for the man over the others. Unfortunately, I highly doubt the Judeo-Plutocracy will allow him to capture the Republican Party nomination. So, I will ask my little question once again: Which way goest thou, Western man? Scipio Americanus 38
Posted by Red Baron on Wed, 05 Sep 2007 03:44 | # Every 4 years the system sends out a “maverick” candidate to keep marginal types - of many stripes - bought into the system: Ross Perot, Buchanan, John Anderson, ... Wallace…. Don’t invest your energy in Ron Paul. The political process in the USA is rigged. 39
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 05 Sep 2007 05:09 | # To speak of limited government and restoring the original constitutional framework envisioned by our Founding Fathers at a time when our enemies have captured and now possess Leviathan’s power and are using it to emasculate, enslave and eventually destroy our race is a logical absurdity. I think you have it exactly backwards. Precisely because the “government” is controlled by our enemies, an attack on the power of “government” is a direct attack on our enemies. 40
Posted by Scipio Americanus on Wed, 05 Sep 2007 09:02 | # “I think you have it exactly backwards. Precisely because the “government” is controlled by our enemies, an attack on the power of “government” is a direct attack on our enemies.” ( - ben tillman) Your statement presupposes that such an endeavor aimed at reducing the size and scope of the federal government can be successfully accomplished. I entirely reject such a notion given the political realities of our governing system. Indeed, such ideas are completely foolish and anyone who seriously entertains such fantasies is living in a state of blissful ignorance. Granted, it is much more pleasant than facing the cold, hard facts of reality but I am attempting to be objective and dispassionate while thinking exclusively in terms of demonstrable facts and reason. Can you provide me one example to the contrary in our nation’s history? In my earlier posts, I provided the example of Ronald Reagan who won two elections by landslide margins and was given a mandate to attack the size and scope of “BIG GOVERNMENT” and failed. Obviously, you have not read David Stockman’s book, The Triumph of Politics, which details the failures in dramatic detail. David Stockman was Ronald Reagan’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget, a position of critical influence in the Reagan Administration, and was one of the key architects of the proposed “Reagan Revolution” in addition to being the most ardent proponent of DRASTIC reductions in the scope and cost of government. Despite the powerful mandate given to the President by the American people, the revolutionary agenda ran into political realities that simply could not be overcome given that even those in Congress who favored budgetary cuts in principle quickly fled the political battlefield to mollify their own constituents. Stockman details these facts and openly admits his profound misjudgment of the American political system. I highly recommend this inside account on the cold, hard facts of American political reality. It truly is a work without parallel. Given the structure of our political system, Ron Paul, even if he was somehow elected, wouldn’t even be able to put a dent in Leviathan. Talking about it and actually achieving it are clearly two different things. In short, it’s not going to happen and wishing it were so will not change the political realities one damn bit. Given this painfully unpleasant truth coupled with Ron Paul’s embrace of the notion that “racism” is evil and can be solved with more doses of “liberty”, I really can’t get all that excited about the man. He’s better than the other candidates but that sure as hell doesn’t improve our long term prospects. Scipio Americanus 41
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:38 | # Good pair of posts by Scipio, his last two. He argues his case well. I’m not as pessimistic as he, but most of what he says is indisputable, and his comments are well worth reading. Who wrote the following, by the way, Scipio? I didn’t see where you gave a citation.
42
Posted by schaum's on Wed, 05 Sep 2007 13:25 | # I would have guessed Wintermute but the actual author is the late Professor of Classics Relivo P. Oliver. 43
Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:48 | # Scipio, You have realized that our government is hopelessly corrupt and a monster which is eating us alive. But you want to keep the existing monster in place, and, I guess, you propose taking control of it with people who are racially aware and non-hostile to Whites? And you think this is more realistic than supporting the only candidate we’ve ever had who truly wants to fight that monster? Now, really, who’s the one living in a fantasy world here? 44
Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:24 | # Reagan was a traditional liberal Democrat. Anyone paying attention saw that he was telling the truth (for once) when he said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.” He grew government and government debt because that’s what he had always done and believed. Stockton is a liar. RP, in all likelihood, would continue doing what he has always done, fighting against big, unconstitutional government. He truly is an anamoly, a bona fide Constitutionalist/Libertarian. 45
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:18 | # I agree that the danger of Ron Paul is that people will come to believe that they can work within the system for change when the system has already committed genocide against the posterity of the Founders. It is _long_ past time for the invocation of the passage of the Declaration of Independence:
No. The only reason Ron Paul is important is precisely the reason his supporters are reviled by the powers that be as “extremists”: They are prepared—most of them—to fight and if necessary die for freedom from the race replacement tyranny destroying the posterity of the Founders. The only question is how that militia will become “well regulated”. 46
Posted by Rick Fisk on Wed, 05 Sep 2007 21:58 | # You’re misrepresenting what I said. There was no libel there. 47
Posted by Rnl on Wed, 05 Sep 2007 23:26 | # There was no libel there. Perhaps it wasn’t a libel. But yours was a bizarre idea in any case. There is no such thing as a person whose very nature makes him illegal. Nobody is born into a state of illegality…. Mexicans cross the border in violation of American immigration law. They are not citizens of the country they are entering; they are “aliens” the moment they illegally set foot in it. They are therefore “illegal aliens.” They are not called “criminal aliens,” though some of them do become criminals; they are citizens of one nation who have illegally entered another. Open-border proponents hate clarity. That’s why they get upset at “illegal alien.” It states the matter too clearly. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are quite conscious that their entry is illegal. They sneak across the border; they don’t walk in and present evidence of their right to enter the US. That’s because they are fully aware that their entry is illegal. 48
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 06 Sep 2007 00:31 | # Rick, if Third Worlders have the right to cross the border, do armed white U.S. vigilantes have the right to keep them from crossing? I mean, if both groups enjoy those rights respectively, let’s see how many of the first group cross. You claim the Constitution grants to no one the authority to “harrass” Mexican border crossers (which can be disputed, btw), but does it expressly forbid such “harrassment” on the part of American vigilantes? Don’t forget, whatever powers the Constitution doesn’t specifically delegate to the feds are reserved to the States and the people ... and therefore, if need be, the people’s vigilantes. Or do the rightful inhabitants of a place have no rights and the invaders all the rights, according to you and your brand of libertarianism? 49
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 06 Sep 2007 02:32 | # I use “libel” here in the sense that Rick Fisk has demonstrated a reckless disregard for the truth and has damaged Ron Paul, who, though he may be a “public figure” nevertheless can be expected to enjoy some freedom from misrepresentation. No reasonable man can reconcile the quotes of Rick Fisk and the quote of Ron Paul—nor is it reasonable to claim that immigration is anything but a primary determinant of political viability, particularly given John McCain’s disastrous support of amnesty. 50
Posted by Byron the Bulb on Thu, 06 Sep 2007 04:26 | # It appears that completely unrestrained immigration is an issue near and dear to Sr. Fisk’s heart. There is another recent post on his blog about the matter. See here: http://demidog.blogspot.com/2007/08/first-lets-kill-all-lawyers.html
“The scapegoating of “illegal immigrants” is petty jealousy. They don’t chose to travel in ways that make them targets of government and so all of the other sheep who willingly hand over their papers if asked by some authority would like to remove from their sight, people who jealously guard their freedoms.”
Thank god that libertarians are as marginalized as they are. 51
Posted by Red Baron on Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:19 | # Paul really is something to watch, from last night’s debate: 52
Posted by Scimitar on Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:50 | # Byron, Speaking of libertarians, have you read Walter Block’s Defending the Undefendable: The pimp, prostitute, scab, slumlord, libeler, moneylender and other scapegoats in the rogue’s gallery of American society? http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Undefendable-prostitute-moneylender-scapegoats/dp/0930073053 This defense of illegal aliens sounds very much in the libertarian spirit, as all libertarians are really for is lawlessness, license, and anarchy. We also hear of the heroic counterfeiter, the honorable pimp, the virtuous ticket scalper, etc. http://www.mises.org/store/Defending-the-Undefendable-P136C1.aspx Here is a breakdown of the book. Libertarianism is a sub-section of the Jewish Question.
53
Posted by Jean West on Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:03 | # http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5826496924521855030 Ron Paul answers from last night’s debate. JW 54
Posted by Scipio Americanus on Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:34 | # “You have realized that our government is hopelessly corrupt and a monster which is eating us alive. But you want to keep the existing monster in place, and, I guess, you propose taking control of it with people who are racially aware and non-hostile to Whites? And you think this is more realistic than supporting the only candidate we’ve ever had who truly wants to fight that monster? Now, really, who’s the one living in a fantasy world here?” (Rusty Mason) Rusty, of course I would like to see Leviathan dismantled and the Constitutional Republic restored as envisioned by our Founding Fathers including the original requirements for citizenship, but that is not going to happen for reasons I have already stated. Clearly, you are purposely contorting my words. The notion that a savior such as Ron Paul can rearrange political realities regarding the size and scope of government to suit your tastes is patently absurd. No doubt, if our Founders had the power of divination to foresee what these United States were to degenerate into in less than 200 years after the nation’s founding, I’m sure they would have scrapped the entire war effort, burned the Declaration of Independence and quickly issued an urgent SOS to King George III begging and pleading for his forgiveness! While we should make every attempt to hamstring the occupation government’s power whenever possible and favor candidates who wish to place restrictions on it’s hegemony, the idea that elections can restore Republican principles is preposterous. You have not attempted to refute anything I have said but continue to rely on the emotional notion that Ron Paul, a deracinated libertarian operating as a political outsider, can capture the White House and systematically begin dismantling Leviathan from within despite the forces arrayed against him. As the great English poet Rudyard Kipling once wrote of such mentalities: “If they desire a thing, they declare it is true. If they desire it not, though that were death itself, they cry aloud, ‘It has never been.’” To persist with the notion that restoring the Republic is possible short of an armed revolution when you are unable to cite ONE example of ANY candidate in the past 100 years successfully achieving even a tiny reduction in the size of the federal government is tantamount to intellectual masturbation. Sure, it feels good but what does it actually accomplish? Politics is defined as the art of what is possible and reducing the size and scope of the federal government as originally outlined by our Constitution isn’t in the cards, I’m afraid. I agree completely with Garet Garrett’s assessment made in his book, Burden of Empire, when he wrote in the early 1950’s shortly before his death: “We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire…The forms of republican government survive; the character of the state has changed…Between government in the republican meaning, that is Constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one must forbid the other or one will destroy the other. That we know. Yet never has the choice been put to a vote of the people.” Rusty, please read the last sentence once again. The United States eclipsed from Republic to Empire without the vote of the people. Why do you still persist on thinking that things can change via a democratic election process when it is clearly irrelevant in terms of providing what the population demands? There is one point that I forgot to mention in my earlier posts regarding Republicanism and that is a Constitutional Republic cannot survive without some restriction of the franchise. Keep in mind, the greatest damage to this nation occurred under full-fledged conditions of “democracy”—one biped, one vote. Obviously, you must be aware that our Founders did place qualifications on who could vote, thus restricting the franchise. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution contain the word “democracy”. Indeed, Benjamin Franklin stated: “A republic, if you can keep it.” When instituted, democracies always degenerate into rule by organized crime syndicates. In the United States, these are known as the Republican and Democrat Parties. The ruling plutocracy, which controls both parties and the entire political system, is populated by power lusting mattoids whose long term goal is a totalitarian world government under their control. This shouldn’t come as a surprise given that the members of this ruling clique holds true to a Judaic/Talmudic value system and world view which can best be described as satanic in nature. They instinctively perceive the white population of the West as the only remaining force that can derail their efforts and thus actively conspires to suppress any revival of racial awareness and nationalism while simultaneously promoting it in the non-white populations anchored in the West. In other words, they are waging a genocidal dirty war via proxy to keep the white serfs in their place. If they succeed, they will destroy what remains of the West and quite possibly eradicate the genetic material that made it possible. Our PRIMARY concern at this time is not reducing the size and scope of federal government which short of a revolutionary conflagration is not possible but changing it’s policies. In order to chart a new direction, a candidate must be racially aware at some level and take steps to promote policies which will benefit OUR race, not our racial antagonists. The question before us is who will dominate whom. Are we to dominate our enemies and secure a future for our posterity or are we to be reduced to a herd of mindless, mongrelized zombies working in brutish servitude on behalf of our masters on a global plantation? Scipio Americanus
55
Posted by Scipio Americanus on Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:37 | # “Paul really is something to watch, from last night’s debate: http://podblanc.ath.cx/?q=node/6477” (Red Baron)
Scipio Americanus 56
Posted by Scipio Americanus on Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:44 | # “I would have guessed Wintermute but the actual author is the late Professor of Classics Relivo P. Oliver.” (Schaum’s) Schaum’s, you are correct. The quote is taken from Revilo P. Oliver’s “Populism and Elitism.” 57
Posted by Scipio Americanus on Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:41 | # “Good pair of posts by Scipio, his last two. He argues his case well. I’m not as pessimistic as he, but most of what he says is indisputable, and his comments are well worth reading. Who wrote the following, by the way, Scipio? I didn’t see where you gave a citation. ” (Fred Scrooby)
Part I of the treatise analyzes the concept known as ‘populism’, specifically Thomas Jefferson’s political philosophy, and the founding premises of the American Republic including the necessary requirements for such a system of government. Needless to say, none of the prerequisites exist today, which is why I dismiss any talk about restoring the Republic as originally envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Part II examines the concept designated as ‘elitism’, as applied to England during the later years of the British Empire. Specifically, it examines the role of Britain’s intellectual aristocracy by reviewing the work of Carroll Quigley’s The Anglo-American Establishment, which documents how a cabal within English political circles surreptitiously established a large measure of control over the British Empire with the explicit intention of expanding it’s dominion only to have achieved it’s disastrous demise. RPO then proceeds to detail the mechanisms at work that brought this about and concludes: “The Victorians, remember, thought themselves rich and secure in the power their fathers had won for them with blood. They could enjoy their civilization rather than defend and augment it; they could afford to indulge themselves in sprees of idealism. And it is only fair to add that not even in their worst nightmares could they have foreseen the consequences of their sentimental debauchery: their wealth and power lost and their once sceptered isle overrun with anthropoid vermin that swarmed out of the ruins of their empire. Had the Victorians foreseen the England of today, they would have had the prudence and manhood to make that catastrophe impossible, even at the cost of a vigorous reaffirmation of the qualities that had made them great— and of a social surgery that would have been an inspiring precedent for all of our race or, at least, the viable parts of it. As it was, in the cozy relaxation of their ephemeral prosperity and bewilderment of a cultural residue, they permitted themselves to be manipulated and led to disaster by the artful intrigues of the simple-minded crackpots of Milner’s conspiracy. “ Sadly, the cultural residue RPO described is now in its advanced form, exhibiting signs that best resemble latent (stage 3) syphilis, and is eating away at the remaining brain-cells within Western nations. Scipio Americanus 58
Posted by Riley on Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:25 | # “I agree that the danger of Ron Paul is that people will come to believe that they can work within the system for change when the system has already committed genocide against the posterity of the Founders. It is _long_ past time for the invocation of the passage of the Declaration of Independence…” If the Tribe can effectively take control of the government with a plurality of about 3% of the population, why is it impossible for whites to take control with a majority of 78% ? Riley 59
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:52 | # Because that 3% disproportionately influences both media and academia thereby controlling the quasi-religious beliefs of the whites. 60
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:08 | # Riley, the number is about 65%. However, despite the obstacles mentioned by James, we need to be optimistic and keep fighting to make that numerical advantage work for us. Post a comment:
Next entry: Final Warning to the Infidels—no really—this is it…
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) Commentsweremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:54. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:12. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:34. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 06:42. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:01. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:52. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:23. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:07. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:39. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 17:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:20. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:01. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:31. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 12:52. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:21. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 05:25. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:49. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:37. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:24. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 21:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:16. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:19. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 20:43. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:16. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:42. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:38. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'On Spengler and the inevitable' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23. (View) |
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:02 | #
That this alone could sink Paul’s campaign after McCain’s soft-on-illegals stance instantly flat-lined his is so obvious that, 1) this Fisk person can only be out to sink Paul’s campaign, 2) Paul needs to come out with a clear statement on the matter, and 3) somehow pressure needs to be put on Lew Rockwell who has shown himself a complete asshole many times over where the race-replacement crisis is concerned.
If Ron Paul fails to communicate unequivocally to people that he is not soft on race-replacement he hasn’t a snowball in hell’s chance and might as well pack it in right now.