(Click here for the audio reading of this story.)

Now Is the Time

From 1982 (when “videotext network” was used to describe the mass-availability of computer networking):

“...the prophecies of a despotic, “cashless-society” are quite likely to become a reality.  My opinion is that this nightmare will eventually be realized but not before the American pioneers have had a chance to reach each other and organize.  I base this hope on the fact that the first people to participate in the videotex network will represent some of the most pioneering of Americans, since videotex is a new “territory”.”

Now is the time.

If my ability in 1982, to predict the Internet-based Ron Paul phenomenon, counts for anything today, then let it count for this:

READ MORE...

Should there be European populations in Africa, living alongside Africans?

To Ian Smith, the former Prime Minister of Rhodesia who died yesterday, and the man who unilaterally declared independence from Britain on 11th November 1965, the question did not even arise.  The 300,000 white Rhodesians whose cause he championed were almost all of British descent, and almost all enjoyed a pretty good life in their southern fastness of the continent of the negro.  That had to be made to continue.  The shining commercial success, the gentle settler culture, the ties of family, the imaginings of belonging ...  it was inconceivable that these things could be allowed to be lost, simply be given up.

But where are they now?

Smith, of course, was a remarkable man in many ways, and his obituaries will dwell upon that.  Those in the conservative and nationalist spheres will laud him as a man of his people and, in the light of the Mugabe experience, someone not without wisdom and foresight.  How his words, from the Declaration of Unilateral Independence, resound now:-

... African nationalists believe that, provided they stirred up sufficient trouble, they will be able to blackmail the British Government into bringing about a miracle on their behalf by handing the country over to irresponsible rule.

A little further on in the Declaration, Smith held out the possibility that the African would, one day, be ready for self-rule:-

Those who seek to damage us do not have any great concern for the principles to which they endlessly pay lip service; for if they really believed in these principles, which they ceaselessly proclaim, then they could not possibly deny, the many disasters which have been brought about by the premature withdrawal of European influence from countries in Africa and Asia who where nowhere near ready for it.

He said it, no doubt, out of political pragmatism.  But he could not have believed it.  Indeed, elsewhere he is quoted as saying:-

“I would say colonialism is a wonderful thing.  It spread civilization to Africa.  Before it they had no written language, no wheel as we know it, no schools, no hospitals, not even normal clothing.”

Really ... rightly, Smith was, first and last, a believer in the white tribe of Rhodesia.  He trusted to their independence of mind, their industry and determination, and their self-reliance.  In an age when self-doubt and self-hatred scarred the European mind, Smith trusted wholly to these settler qualities.

Now, it’s easy for us today to support what Smith and his tribe attempted to do.  It was magnificent to stand against the moralising, liberalistic nonsense spouted by the global great and good.  And there’s no sane reason to invite an African “nationalist” to tea.

But that’s not enough.  Even if the impossible had happened, and Rhodesia had survived the odds (of 22 Africans to every white Rhodesian), it’s just not enough.

The question arises whether the shallow cultural roots and economic goods that white Rhodesians thought they were protecting were, in fact, worthwhile.  But life is more than these things, no matter that history is littered with similar collective errors of judgement.

There are secondary interests and there is a primary interest.  Smith and his Rhodesians were fighting for secondary interests, and a truly wise leader might have ventured to look ahead and divine their destruction anyway.  After all, others did: white South Africa considered the game lost across the Limpopo, and used its army at the end to keep the border crossings open for escaping whites.

Looking at Smith and UDI from our blighted vantage point today, it is odd to think that a black or Indian or Pakistani Smith might arise one day in an England rent by ethnic conflict and, in due course, certain to see a reclamation of sovereignty by its native people.  How will we view someone who refuses to repatriate, and steadfastly holds that seventy or eighty years of family history here ... weddings, births and funerals ... homes made ... taxes paid ... qualifies him and his kind to stay?  As a tragic figure, perhaps, at war with the spirit of the times.  But mostly, we will think him mistaken.  We would think the more of him if he could divine the lowly value of his interests here, and choose the higher interests of a true homeland and a secure future far away.

Ian Smith was not such a visionary.  He was a good man living, like his and every minority immigrant tribe, in the wrong place.

Alex Jones devoted almost an hour of his radio show to discussing the Zogby blind poll, which Jones Productions commissioned, that showed evidence Ron Paul is the most viable candidate the Republicans have.  (The soap infomercial is obnoxious—just slider-bar passed it.)

by Welf Herfurth

(This article contains one sick photo. I included it in the article to show how perverted society has become, at least in my opinion - Welf Herfurth)

1. Introduction

This is an article divided up, roughly, into two halves. The first concerns liberalism, or what liberalism has become. It details a transition in liberalism – from a cult of elections and parliaments, to a cult of doing your own thing (even if that involves sexual and other debauchery). The second half outlines what I consider to be the New Right antidote to the poison of modern liberalism, and explores some of the ideas of a liberal democratic anti-intellectual, Karl Löwenstein, who, in 1937, wrote a paper describing some of the political techniques used by the fascist political movements of the time. Some of those techniques are still being used by nationalists around the world (Hungary, Sweden, Russia, Britain, etc.), and, in my opinion, we in Australia can apply them equally as successfully here.

2. What is liberalism really?

Nowadays, one can read, in the Western liberal democratic press, daily denunciations of General Musharaff of Pakistan and the Burmese Junta. The two dictatorships have attracted media attention recently because of their flagrant crackdowns on ‘liberal democratic’ political opponents (or at least, opponents who the Western media assumes are liberal democratic).

Now and then, other dictatorships and/or authoritarian regimes will occupy the spotlight. One recent case is Georgia, which is led by an American-backed liberal democrat, Mikhail Saakashvili, who came to power through an ‘Orange Revolution’-type coup (nicknamed the ‘Rose Revolution’) in 2003, but is now in danger of being overthrown, and now, as a result, has declared a state of emergency and is using state repression – including tear gas and rubber bullets – to subdue the populace.

A perennial target of the Western media is Vladimir Putin. Despite his massive support among the Russian people, and massive election results in his favor, the Western media still considers him to be ‘undemocratic’ and ‘illiberal’, and upholds his critics – small groups of ‘liberal democratic’ dissidents, who have no popular support, and no agenda beyond being anti-Putin – as being more ‘democratic’, and certainly more morally worthy.

So we have a collection of countries – Burma, Pakistan, Fiji, Russia and others – which are manifestly illiberal and democratic in the eyes of Western liberal democrats. But what is it, exactly, that makes our liberal democracies so good? Why are they preferable to these dictatorships and authoritarian regimes? The answer is, simply, that people in liberal democracies are ‘more free’ – in fact, they are ‘free to do their own thing’.

READ MORE...

As I discussed in my prior article “The Real Reason Ron Paul Supporters Hate the Old Media So Much”, it is high time that the Old Media report more about candidates that match the opinions of the citizenry.  It is not only good market research to do such opinion matching as a basis for who they cover, but it is good public service in a republic.  Well now Zogby has conducted a “blind poll” letting citizens pick candidates based, not on name recognition, but on description of the candidate and his positions.

Here are the results:

Caveat:  This blind poll appears to have been commissioned by Alex Jones, and there doesn’t appear to have been much work put into making it unbiased.  Nevertheless, the bias of this poll must be compared to the bias of essentially asking “Who have the media been talking about the most?” built into name recognition polls. 

If more reputable sources wish to commission their own blind polls, see my prior article linked to above for the methodology to use in designing them with minimum bias.

In the mean time Mr. Jones has at least done the public service of exposing the idea of blind polling. 

So, there’s your market research tool, Old Media.  Until you commission your own, less biased, blind polls, if not for the ratings, then for the republic:  Give Ron Paul at least equal face time.

UPDATE 11:50AM PST: Zogby now reports that they conducted this blind poll on both a general voter population and on the “likely Republican voters”.  Consistent with Ron Paul’s leading position in electability odds, it was in the general voter population that Ron Paul won a resounding victory while in the “likely Republican voters” population he came in third of the three candidates presented.  One explanation for this disparity is the fact, known to Zogby, that the most important issue to Republican voters is not the war, but immigration and the Zogby blind poll did not describe the candidates’ positions on immigration.  It is hard to imagine this is an innocent omission but my earlier article’s methodology for constructing an unbiased blind poll would have, if followed, clearly dealt with this weakness.

Paraphrasing this digg comment:

Holy cow!!! 72 individual donations totalling $4,650!!! Oh my heck, this is incredible. Phenomenal! They broke the Ron Paul Internet fundraising code! The mainstream media can no longer continue their blackout of this Barack fellow! He has truly proven that he deserves to be on the stage!

I’ve decided to accept an invitation to do a “Ron Paul Minute” for the heathens at VNN this evening’s audio broadcast—perhaps doing so regularly in the future.  I consider it an opportunity to clarify some of the more important issues about Cornucopian liberty vs Malthusian supremacy.  As most will recognize from my writings, I am heavily biased toward Cornucopian liberty while painfully aware of the fact that Jews will not allow others—particularly Euroman—to express Cornucopian potential too far out of control of Jewish influence.  Most tragically, this obsession for control expressed in the 1960s “revolution” replacing the progress into space with a “counter culture” human ecology more akin to the veritable cornucopia of ecological foment that is the body of an AIDS patient.  In the aftermath of said “revolution” the posterity of the founders of the US were prevented from escaping to a real new frontier and instead forced into sexually predatory cities where they could not afford children, only then to find the resulting population reduction being filled by every population of the Earth in a Malthusian nightmare that extended beyond the United States and infected the European homelands.  Now that Jews are securely in control of the West and other nationalities have usurped its technical infrastructure, Jews may finally allow some further progress but do we have enough time to avoid a Malthusian disaster given the kinds of people controlling capital?

That’s the central question facing the biosphere and Euromen who may be divided between Cornucopian liberty and Malthusian supremacy.

Having said all that, here is my audio homage to my heathen listening audience at Vanguard News Network.

The gamblers of the world are putting their money where their mouths are, and their money is saying that Ron Paul is the most electable of the Republican field.

Dividing the Intrade odds of being elected President by the odds of getting the nomination for the Republican Party, Randall Burns at VDARE blogs that the most electable Republican candidate is Ron Paul.

The rank order of electability is as follows:

For those who don’t understand how this “conditional probability” calculation of “electability” works, just think of it like this:

Imagine we can run elections with a set of candidates the way we roll dice.  Electability is the number of times a candidate gets elected to be President per the number of times the candidate is nominated by his party to run for President.