|
|
|
If I Could Ask Ron Paul Only One Question, It Would Be… If I could ask Ron Paul only one question, and require an answer, it would be:
Comments:2
Posted by anon on Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:33 | # OT: “Evidence Of Very Recent Human Adaptation: Up To 10 Percent Of Human Genome May Have Changed” 3
Posted by Scimitar on Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:34 | # I would ask him: do you believe in racial equality in the biological, civic, and social sense? His answer would be “yes.” I would then return to Majority Rights and post: “told you so.” 4
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:36 | # The “starting point” is the state of nature, in which gene flow has a natural rate controlled largely by male territoriality. In that sense, the state of nature has an inherent property of group evolutionary fitness. When in a state of nature a male migrates to distant territories, he encounters hostility from the local males and most likely does not survive. Government doesn’t provide this. Male territoriality—the thing that I posit as preceding governments—does. Of course, when governments intercede on behalf of the foreign males and prohibit citizens from self-defense against the invasion of foreign males, it is a violation of this inherent property of the state of nature and hence a violation of the first principle of government: that government should improve the lot of men. 5
Posted by Wild Bill on Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:55 | # Of course you would ask him such a question at this time especially when the borders are being over run, fundamental property laws are being overturned, and normal citizens are being classified and treated as terrorists. And then you would act smugley when he did not provide the answer you wanted to hear. So yes James, its people just like you who are responsible for the catastophe that is engulfing us. Why do you not run for office and base your platform on such appeals to the proletariat? Oh thats too much trouble you say… easier to nick pick Ron Paul on an imaginary question… But really its like the other posters observe: its impossible to do anything with the slaves because they enjoy being slaves. Enjoy your slavery, you deserve it. 6
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:56 | # Scimitar, the reason such a question isn’t that interesting to ask Ron Paul is that one needn’t posit a belief in the relevance of man’s biodiversity in order to posit a belief in the relevance of individual choice in one’s associations, and it is the latter that is all we need to have others posit with us. Then we win. You must pick your battles in order to win the war. I pick this battle over property rights for two reasons: 1) Self-determination starts with recognition of the natural right of men to subsistence territory—so that they can then allocate their territory to the state of their choice. 2) I had asked myself the same question around 15 years ago when I wrote the white paper “A Net Asset Tax Based On The Net Present Value Calculation and Market Democracy” and I found the answer was that Jews most intensely benefit by the offloading of the costs of non-subsistence property right protections of government—so naturally all political economy options presented to us by Jews ignore the obvious use fee. 7
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:03 | # Wild Bill, Ron Paul has already stated his support for national sovereignty, which is the property right of the citizens over national territory, just as stock holders have property rights over the corporations they own. There is no more conflict over immigration restriction and respect of property rights than there is a conflict over restricting the issuance of free stock to new stockholders and a respect for property rights. 8
Posted by PF on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:05 | # If someone asked me this question, my reaction would be: “What did you just say?”.
Yes, yes, but what’s the “state of nature”, besides a term. Is it a particular environment which we lived in for a time? Did it not change during that time? When did it begin, and when did it end? What rate of gene flow is “natural”? It seems to me like “natural” is one of those adjectives which is used to mean, “What I deem proper.”
Throughout history, governments have traditionally provided this same resistance to male migration which you are indicating does not flow from government. It is visible during the Roman period when they were trying to control tribal movements, it was visible during the resistance of baltic tribes to the Eastern colonization by Germans.
“The inherent property of the state of nature”. I dont mean to be contradictory, but are you Adam Smith and is this the 18th century? This language is too imprecise to properly delineate the world as we are coming to know it through science, rather it brings to mind Kantian thing-in-itself metaphysics. Is the next blog entry going to be called “A Treatife on the Principlef of Alchemiftrie and the Movementf of Heavenly Bodief”? “Moors awaite to gange raipe youer Familie on this St. Crispin’s Daye”? James, you are giving me English Renaissance flashbacks—and that isn’t a good thing! The first principle of government would be this: to ensure the enforcement of the will of those who control it. Amongst 18th cent. Americans the power was shared equally enough to make it seem to spring from some kind of natural principles but in principle its the same thing as African dictatorships, to my thinking at least, only shared and under some moral control. Similar principles should be demonstrated to underlie all forms of power and government, thats my belief. Or lets put it his way, the laws of power should hold true everywhere, like the laws of physics, in every human situation. Otherwise we obviously havent formulated them clearly enough. 9
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:11 | # I might put the question to you differently, PF, but you aren’t a particular threat to the existing political order whereas Ron Paul is. Ron Paul is a “Constitutionalist” steeped in “the Vienna School of Economics” with all the semantic baggage that implies. If I start talking like I’m in the 18th century, its because the propositions tested by men like Ron Paul are 18th century propositions regarding “state craft”. But really, it isn’t that hard to understand what I’m saying in more up-to-date terms and you aren’t really that obtuse. 10
Posted by Robert ap Richard on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:29 | # I would ask him: do you believe in racial equality in the biological, civic, and social sense? His answer would be “yes.” I would then return to Majority Rights and post: “told you so.” Scimitar, his belief in racial equality is known here and I do not believe anyone here doubts it. However, he does not believe in government coersion to enforce his (erroneous) racial beliefs. What he DOES believe in, and actively works toward,—whether he agrees with their racially-naive intentions or not—is a dismantling of all of the government and government-supported laws and institutions that discriminate against Whites today. If Whites could have a champion like Ron Paul help remove all the discrimination laws and quotas, Whites could assemble once again in peace. The minorities would no longer be able to use the government to rape and pillage our society any longer. 11
Posted by danielj on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 03:35 | # I worry about Mr. Paul…. He is sort of a Myspace rockstar and very popular among the net savvy and that type of Howard Deanism is 1)not really a threat due to the ability of the media to easily marginalize people with such a presence 2) Dean’s implosion lead to Kerry who of course was Skull and Bones and no real alternative to Bush (although I don’t expect there to ever be an “alternative” in a “two” party system) and an election with no significance whatsoever except as another mile maker on the highway of deracination and disenfranchisement. However, James, I just realized as much as I have visited Lew Rockwell and the Mises website I didn’t really think they believed in any government. I thought they were complete anarchists and didn’t believe the government should have any revenue at all! Am I wrong? 12
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 03:48 | # danielj, the usual criticisms of the Ron Paul phenomenon rely on the idea that his Internet base cannot translate into feet on the ground. The problem with that theory is not only that he raised $2.4M without any real PAC support, but that he mounted the largest rally at this stage in the history of Iowa Presidential nomination campaigns, and he did it while all the rest of the field was next door drawing fewer people. That is feet on the ground power. All over the country people are reporting virtually zero activism for other candidates while there is a surge of activism for Ron Paul. Howard Dean did not show this kind of “feet on the ground” so early. There are two explanations for this: 1) Howard Dean’s support was shallower. 2) The “social networking” sites were not really very active then. As for the anarcho-capitalists—that may be correct but really Ron Paul needs to figure out how to run government so it closely models and possibly leads to the anarcho-capitalist model. That means the payment for protection of property rights needs to take on more of the flavor of a property reinsurance network which, of course, leads directly to “premiums” being tied to the value of the properties being protected. 13
Posted by NoMoreH1b on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 04:20 | # “If Whites could have a champion like Ron Paul help remove all the discrimination laws and quotas, Whites could assemble once again in peace. The minorities would no longer be able to use the government to rape and pillage our society any longer.” No, it will just mean that the minorities with property will rape and pillage the society. Most US property is in the hands of small minority that are atypical of the US. They are mostly Jewish, Episcopalian or Asian-and if paul was president, their property would be a great deal more valuable than it is now-unless he adjusts his platform. 14
Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 04:32 | #
Ron Paul is on record endorsing the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? If so, that would certainly be news to me. 15
Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 04:40 | #
It is absolutely not all we need. As I have pointed out elsewhere, we have been down this road before with Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election. That’s exactly how racialists were duped into supporting “conservatism” the first time around. This sort of thinking (“freedom of association is all we need”) leads to deracialization.
This tendency to think in terms of liberal abstractions is precisely the problem. The solution is to always vote your racial interests. If I really had to vote for someone, it would be for either Tancredo or Hunter who have a much better record on immigration. 16
Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 04:43 | # in 2006, Tancredo also voted against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act. To his credit, Ron Paul voted against it as well. 17
Posted by GNXP Watch on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:23 | # Not directly relevant, but… Over at “Gene Expression”, a post by David B, suggesting over-diagnosis is contributing to the autism explosion, followed by another “Finn-baiting” post by Razib, in which a Finnish male is pictured and called a “loser.” An interesting juxtaposition of posts. 18
Posted by Maguire on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:09 | # James, “That is feet on the ground power. All over the country people are reporting virtually zero activism for other candidates while there is a surge of activism for Ron Paul.” This has been the case for a long time for most so-called ‘major party’ candidates. They have no roots in the communities they ostensibly represent, apart from their immediate families and business connections. They exist on ‘free’ media access and cash campaign donations. The money is used to hire political mercenaries and day laborers. For most candidates the bulk of this money typically comes from outside their nominal districts. The disaffection of the population has become so pronounced the Jews are now trying to redefine political success entirely around the criteria of access to their centralized media and the amounts of Federal Reserve paper ‘raised’. As you imply, there are methods for overcoming the apparent media access and money advantages of Judeo-stream candidates. Local activists can more than replace the mercenaries hired with massive campaign $. The practical questions are how to organize these activists locally and then keep them organized between elections. We in fact need a true ‘political party’. The ugly truth is we can’t get one by following ZOG’s rules since these are designed to prevent real political parties from emerging. This is why GT & I contend that ‘local economics’ must assume primary place. Now Ron Paul himself is far from an ideal candidate. But he is bringing out people who are intrinsically opposed to the existing system. I think this is providing good practical opportunities for local networking with other real dissidents. Maguire. 19
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:16 | # Scimitar, I already described how property rights are about as “liberal” as two males butting heads over a piece of turf in the wild. If that’s what you denounce as “liberal” then call me a “liberal”. I get “racist” from the left I may as well get “liberal” from the right. 20
Posted by h on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:19 | # If Ron Paul wants to axe the Fed and 1960s “Civils Rights” legislation then he smells the Jew and instead of selling out is aiming at their financial heart. 21
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:31 | # The practical questions are how to organize these activists locally and then keep them organized between elections. We in fact need a true ‘political party’. The ugly truth is we can’t get one by following ZOG’s rules since these are designed to prevent real political parties from emerging. This is why GT & I contend that ‘local economics’ must assume primary place. Now Ron Paul himself is far from an ideal candidate. But he is bringing out people who are intrinsically opposed to the existing system. I think this is providing good practical opportunities for local networking with other real dissidents. I agree except that I don’t think that a “real political party” is a practical goal. The local economics is, and Ron Paul does two things for this: 1) He, as you point out, and as I pointd out in a prior version of an article that I removed due to complaints about its clarity, brings together the type of people amenable to localizing sovereignty thereby providing a nascent army, “party”, meta-state, federation, republic or what have you. 2) He, as I have pointed out previously, is the candidate offering the best chance of having a reductio ad absurdum of the current civilization take place so that localization becomes a necessity before our people are wiped out by the cities. Essentially, the assumption of the current civilization is that it isn’t utterly infested with parasites when, of course, it is. It is not salvageable by a return to principles. It, in fact, will fall sooner if sooner held to its stated principles. (But I admit the remote possibility that Ron Paul might have what it takes to actually impose freedom of association prior—which is the only thing that can save civilization so far as I can see. I haven’t seen signs that he has what it takes since he hasn’t shown signs of being able to think about the critical issues of self-determination which start with answering my question in the original post.) 22
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:27 | # GNXP Watch, yes, Razib is most probably just doing an in-your-face “What ya gonna do about it, kill guys like Sailer?” biological assault. Its a biological assault because he is pushing primitive neural buttons with this behavior while he is ultimately protected by a state and culture that defends invading foreign males using every tool at the disposal of technological civilization. This is the sort of infestation by parasites I refer to when I say that civilization will fall if real freedom of association starts to emerge. These guys will self-sacrifice on behalf of kindred parasites to destroy any assets that we might recapture. 23
Posted by Robert ap Richard on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:40 | # ” I worry about Mr. Paul…. .. Am I wrong? DanielJ, Scimitar, You do not seem to be taking into consideration that, as a Constitutionalist, RP is much more likely to For example, were the Constitution and Federal laws regarding education followed, the death-grip on all public and private education would be loosened considerably. The teachers colleges—the initial injection point for the anti-White/commie poison in the schools today—would lose considerable power. Money for most multiculti/anti-White PhD projects in all universities would practically dissappear, as might the ridiculous teachers colleges themselves. Were the Constitution and Federal laws regarding education followed and the Dept of Ed abolished and the NEA neutered, a small group of Jews/commies/anti-Whites would not be able to control 95% of American education funding as they currently do. Currently, because American governmental power is so centralized, they hold power relatively easily. If power over academia were decentralized, they would not have enough gate-keepers and we could regain power over our own local and state governments and the minds of our children. Voting our racial interests today means voting for someone who is committed to breaking up that centralized power, regardless of his intentions with regard to race. It is clear by his voting record and his writing that Ron Paul comes closest to this. Tom Tecredo is my second choice. He is great on immigration and borders and sovereignty, and I appreciate his personal knowledge of and feelings for Western civilization. But TC’s voting record and rhetoric do not indicate as great a dedication of limiting the governmental power of our current masters. 24
Posted by Anon on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:31 | # Mr. Bowery, “This is the sort of infestation by parasites I refer to when I say that civilization will fall if real freedom of association starts to emerge. These guys will self-sacrifice on behalf of kindred parasites to destroy any assets that we might recapture.” 25
Posted by danielj on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:35 | # James, I never really thought about it before and I’m not sure that it is an original idea. I have said it before on OCD that when a community loses the ability to police itself by enforcing social mores, customs and racial/genetico continuity through it’s traditions it ceases to become self-governing. It is in this context that I can understand the desire to abolish “government”. “Government” with a big ‘G’ should be an organic entity rising up from the soil through the people themselves and when we have the rights to do that we should have no need for anything other than a type of anarcho-capitalist model that you describe where revenues for “government” are collected from anything over subsistence. As much as most strains of libertarianism are at odds with the concept of racial collectivism and “government coercion” (which I take to mean they are opposed to any sort of restraint upon individual expression and the unfettered will) I understand the importance of their theories on freedom of association and property rights. I think the freedom to associate leaves open the possibility that once we have marginalized other ethnicities in the states there is still the ability for distinction within the white community and perhaps the ability to form entirely distinct populations but this tension will be balanced by property rights. What I don’t understand is how people can argue against voting for the man since he is certainly the candidate moving in a direction we can agree with mostly. It seems that the other Republican candidates would garnish the party blessing where Ron Paul, as you point out, is a complete outsider. Anyone that draws the ire of the party should be an ally, rather than insiders like Thompson. Although I don’t vote (holdover from my youthful ‘anarchist’ days) I might have to this time ‘round. 26
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:43 | # 3/30/07: Rep. Ron Paul on Real Time states the Civil War should never have been fought. 27
Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 02:16 | # James, Richard, GW, all concerned, I invite you to discuss Ron Paul and racialism with some libertarian true believers: http://lilarajiva.wordpress.com/2007/07/13/more-fanmail-from-my-friends/ 28
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 06:00 | # As though I haven’t stated similar things almost everytime the issue is raised—here is my response to Scimitar’s “challenge”: Many “racists” support Ron Paul because they believe him to be sincere when he says “Government can’t create moral society”. They actually believe he might oppose the de facto theocracy of political correctness. It’s that simple. Many so-called “libertarians” lose their principles when it comes to the “moral abomination” of “racism” exercised by other adult citizens in their private preferences. They see the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition of considering race in the making of private contracts to be a legitimate use of government force and would denounce as “collectivist” anyone who would oppose that so-called “law”. They are not libertarians. They are the “good sheep” of the theocracy currently dominating the governments of the West. 29
Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:52 | # By all means, go tell them that. They seem to have confused me with you. As you know, I don’t intend to vote for Ron Paul in 2008. The thread at that website was initiated by a reader who wrote in to complain about “all the racists” supporting Ron Paul and cited my blog as an example of this. I’m having a debate with the Ron Paul supporters about the evils of “collectivism” at the moment. JW should find this entertaining. 30
Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:55 | # Robert ap Richard, Follow the link above. Here’s your shot to directly engage fellow supporters of the Ron Paul Revolution. 31
Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:57 | #
Umm . . . Ron Paul is a libertarian who has denounced us as “racists” and “collectivists.” 32
Posted by anonmentor on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 09:43 | # Scimitar, half your comments have some value and the others do absolute nothing except clog up the board. 33
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:41 | # Scimitar, it really appears, after repeated attempts to reason with you, that you are incapable of understanding the distinction between disagreeing with others and passing a law to impose opinion on others. I really don’t know whether Ron Paul is a libertarian or not. I do know that if he supports the Civil Rights Act he is a Libertarian In Name Only. 34
Posted by pustule on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:55 | # From the thread that Scimitar cites, from someone named “Howard”: “Saving poor Scimitar will require teaching him first that races do not exist other than as arbitrary mental collections. We can as easily say that tall people are one race, short people another, and medium people are half-breeds.” Right…I guess that’s why the Jorde lab found ZERO genetic overlap between individuals from the major racial groups, when using 1000+ DNA markers. And why, using clustering, guys like Risch can associate genetic race with the major popular conceptions of race with ~ 100% accuracy - the tiny number of “errors” being clearly identified examples of almost-white mulattoes. Meanwhile, the latter “errors” could be easily identified by “ancestral admixture testing.” A curious thing this “race” is. It is clearly, and undeniably, observed with a variety of genetic analyses, yet some insist on stating it is illusory. By the way, “Howard”, “tall” and “short” people from the same ethnic/racial group are NOT going to show zero genetic overlap in assays; they will differ genetically in aleles controlling height and any others that may be linked. As genetic and consequent phenotypic variation exists in all human groups, including mono-ethnic families, that’s not a rationale for postulating straw man “races.” Well, gee, John is 6’ and his brother Jim is 5’ 9”, so they are different “races?” Moron. 35
Posted by pustule on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:32 | # James, check out “Gene Expression” for yet another “Finn-baiting” (and anti-North Germanic) “joking, we’re not serious” post, this time from “agnostic.” And I encourage “googling” “Jan Michael Vincent Finns” for Razib’s “classic” attack on selected genotypes/phenotypes from more northernly areas than, say, Razib’s own beloved Bengali homeland. 36
Posted by danielj on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:10 | #
I’m not sure that they would deny this facts my friend. I think they just consider them meaningless. I also think there are more valid critiques of their philosophy, and if you read the debate Scimitar is currently having you will see some of them in action in a humorous way. 37
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:05 | # Danielj, “they” first deny the existence, and then when confronted with the existence, the significance, and then when confronted with the significance, the morality of thinking about race. This is exactly the sequence taken by the premiere men of “science” that have grabbed control of the teaching of our children’s teachers. They _might_ relent if the destruction of Jews were to be demonstrable from the promotion of such idiocy but reality is that this seems to be part of a mindless genetic program that has evolved such virulence it is driving them to drive civilization to burn the biosophere to a pulp. 38
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:18 | # Please expand on this if you can. Thank you. “This is the sort of infestation by parasites I refer to when I say that civilization will fall if real freedom of association starts to emerge. These guys will self-sacrifice on behalf of kindred parasites to destroy any assets that we might recapture.” Basically, Jews have evolved meta-virulence—meaning that they not only are virulent, but they promote changes promoting virulence—and as a result select for the most virulent immigrants via their policies like the Immigration Act of 1965. It’s not a mystery how Jews evolved virulence—its just horizontal transmission resulting from being multinational—but this meta-virulence is more interesting. Anyway, as a consequence of the 1965 immigration act there are virulent parasites occupying critical niches within the US. “Godless Capitalist” for example, says that any attempt by the people who built the US to reclaim the goods stolen from them by the 1965 act will result in nuclear counter-strike. Now, I don’t believe for a second they would do it that way. It most likely wouldn’t even be consciously designed to be a scorched earth policy. It would simply be a virulent “exit strategy” that comes so naturally to such parasites. Most likely the first signs would be the acceleration of the trashing of the Fortune 1000 within which they have grabbed control of the information systems—probably consequent to them mining the value of those companies. There may be a few of them trying to consciously play games with genetic warfare but most likely they’ll just cut and run leaving the Fortune 1000 in ruins, and as a consequence the rest of the civilization—so dependent on centralized structures due to Jewish virulence—will fall. Self-sacrifice comes in the form of more public faces like Razib, GC, etc. drawing fire away from the more virulent during the exit. PS: I say “accelerate” because it is obviously the case that these parasites have already set the US on a path toward destruction. The next generation will have virtually no male authorities descended from the builders of the US due to the fact that academia has become so toxic for the young men who are the legitimate posterity of the founders that most academic institutions consist of females, and males who are either Jewish or Asian. 39
Posted by JB on Sun, 15 Jul 2007 01:03 | # Scimitar
Tancredo isn’t racial either. Both men are against birthright citizenship and public funds for illegals. Both men are all for homeschooling, for the 2nd amendment, against speech laws, against internet regulation, against international organizations and the North American Union. Paul is against wars in the Middle East for no reason, Tancredo doesn’t seem to have a problem with fighting wars for Israel or he knows it’s not in the interests of the country but panders to the Freepettes for some reason. Paul is for a massive decentralization of the government, transferring powers to states and giving states the power to legislate over abortion and tons of other things. And he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and the IRS. Do I need to repeat that ? I mean, how better than that can you get ?? Tancredo doesn’t seem to care all that much about the feds’ power. Paul > Tancredo although I prefer Tancredo’s style and personality. 3/4 of americans are against staying in Iraq forever and are fed up with illegals so Paul has a better chance of attracting Democrats than Tancredo. (Assuming Diebold doesn’t fix the results and that the election is ‘fair’)
40
Posted by The Hypocrite on Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:48 | # Of course, when governments intercede on behalf of the foreign males and prohibit citizens from self-defense against the invasion of foreign males, it is a violation of this inherent property of the state of nature and hence a violation of the first principle of government: that government should improve the lot of men. Just a question, James Bowery, that you probably have already elucidated on a previous article: why do you use “foreing males” instead of just “foreigners”? If all the immigrants were women would that be OK? The next generation will have virtually no male authorities descended from the builders of the US due to the fact that academia has become so toxic for the young men who are the legitimate posterity of the founders that most academic institutions consist of females, and males who are either Jewish or Asian. And also you seem to think that only a male authority descended from the builders of the US is legitimate. I don’t question the “descended from the builders of the US” part, but why the first adjective? Why a female leader with enough sense in her mind wouldn’t do? 41
Posted by JB on Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:05 | # (msg to GW: the smileys should be desactivated by default. I didn’t voluntarily post that one) 42
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:02 | # “The Hypocrite” writes: why do you use “foreing males” instead of just “foreigners”? If all the immigrants were women would that be OK? Gene flows more characteristic of the paleolithic are basically what I refer to by “the state of nature”, and it is clear from the data on mtDNA vs Y chromosomes, that migration of females was more tolerated than migration of males—and this is a bias that persists today. Clearly the total rate of gene flow was much lower in the environment of evolutionary adaptation but I would venture to guess that virtually all of the gene flow that occurred as peaceful migration was female, so, yes, it would probably be OK with me if all immigrants (3 or 4 per generation from neighboring demes) were females. Now—if we are going to talk about present day, 747 and government-corruption enhanced gene-flows, I’d say that of course all gene flows should be cut back drastically and immediately—both human and non human invasive species. I think that would happen if women weren’t pumped up into positions of power since women simply don’t have the interest that men do in territorial maintenance. Female instincts are basically, “lets you and him fight”—despite the fact that the fights nowadays are hardly fair fights rationally comparing two individual men when governments intercede on behalf of foreign males. Moreover, when we’re worried about the worst impacts of immigration, I think it is a mistake to place equal emphasis on immigration of females for reasons I attempted to somewhat formalize in First Model of Euroman’s Ethnosexual Dynamics. 43
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:07 | # Gnxp watch wrote: “..... “Finn-baiting” post by Razib, in which a Finnish male is pictured and called a “loser.”” - The headline in the post “Suomalaiset are losers” means “The Finns are losers”. Some background: The man in the picture is Aki Kaurismäki, who is a alcoholic filmmaker and often wallows in his own degenerate condition indirectly in his films. I have watched maybe 10 minutes of one of his films in TV and quit. Finns in general don’t watch his films either. As far as I know, none of them have been successes here. He have had some modest successes abroad, in France in particular. Like alcoholics all around the world, Finnish alcoholics are losers. There is nothing surprising in that. To say that Finns are losers because of alcoholic Kaurismäki is an error. Another point from Gnxp post’s comments. Swedes have been historically richer than Finns, because they organized their society sooner than Finns, were in closer contact to markets in Europe and because of that developed lots of old capital and wealth. Despite that Finns have gone past Swedes in gross national product / person beginning in the early present millennium. To combine that wealth to spouse selection in Finland is difficult. First, three fourth of Swedish-Finns are in reality Finns, who have just changed their names. The most of the rest have intermarried with Finns. Swedish males, especially those who have not adopted Finnish culture, have historically been considered quite feminine (To possible Swedish readers, insult not intended, this has been the reality here), so even with great wealth Swedish males have not been so attractive as spouse choices than wealth would indicate. Another Gnxp point. About where Finns use their intelligence. This is a small country, so we have to concentrate the most of our abilities to certain important fields. This means using intelligence mostly in applied science, not in theoretical science. Our successes are thus mostly in applied sciences, like Nokia, shipbuilding, paper industry, medical industry etc. 44
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:31 | #
Don’t worry: it’s been the reality here too. It’s been the reality everywhere: since letting their country get taken over lock, stock, and barrel by the Moslems, not to mention repeatedly knuckling under to some of the worst, most mannish, aggressive, abrasive, abusive women’s-lib witches in the world, Swedish men haven’t exactly garnered for themselves what one would call a “macho” image ... (We figure the Vikings took all the macho genes with them to foreign lands a thousand years ago, leaving none for the guys who stayed at home ...). 45
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:33 | # Imported Nokia automobile tires, incidentally, are quite popular where I am in the States. I’ve used them: good product. 46
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:41 | # Fred: “Imported Nokia automobile tires, incidentally, are quite popular where I am in the States. I’ve used them: good product.” - Yes, from the same original parent company. Used to manufacture paper machines and other machines, and their parts, cables, rubber boots, electronics, tires, toilet paper etc. Has since then separated to several companies, including the mobile phone giant. By the way, Nokia is short version of nokinäätä, which means soot weasel. Black weasel that was hunted for it’s fur. 47
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:13 | # They call the tires “Nokia/Hakkapeliita.” They’re exceptionally good in snow, the reason they’re popular where I live in northern New England (snow-and-ice country up here). 48
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 17 Jul 2007 01:29 | # Snow and ice, my natural habitat. Hakkapeliitta tires are popular here too. The name comes from Finnish warriors, Hakkapeliitat (plural form), in Thirty years war in Europe who shouted: “Hakkaa päälle!”, when attacking enemies. That means roughly: “Cut them down!”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakkapeliitta Fjordman tells about the sickness in Sweden: 49
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 17 Jul 2007 01:51 | # Thanks for supplying that cultural background from your country, Finn (and for the interesting Fjordman link). 50
Posted by lothar on Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:08 | # James Bowery wrote: this is a “when are you going to stop beating your wife question”: since when will an Austrian economist - per se - grant that government adds any value to society whatever? 51
Posted by lothar on Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:10 | # James Bowery wrote: “national sovereignty” is not a property right: a property right is transferrable, no citizen can sell or transfer his citizenship. 52
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:27 | # What do you call the relationship between a trust and a beneficiary of a trust? The beneficiary of a trust cannot transfer his beneficiary status to others. Such is the national territory held in trust for the citizens by the government as executor, except that the citizens can select a new executor. The beneficiaries were stated by the phrase “our posterity” in the preamble to the Constitution. If an executor embezzles a trusts’ assets, as was done by execution of the Immigration Act of 1965, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the run-up of debt, etc. it does have serious consequences for all involved in the embezzlement, and it is called a “breach of fiduciary responsibility” which can result in liability, possibly criminal liability, for all who benefit from that breach. Post a comment:
Next entry: Enoch Powell and Keith Best, and the life or death of race.
|
|
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— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:18 | #
I’ve no idea what Ron Paul could possibly say in reply to your question.
For myself, I am not sure that the question is properly put. “Government” is, one must presume and strange though it may seem to some in this modern dystopia, a maximising strategy of group evolutionary fitness. As such, its value must precede your starting point of (individually-held?) subsistence property in a state of nature, since the secure holding of such property would be maximised and additional value would follow as a consequence (ie, the behaviour would not cease because basic security was obtained). Thus empire. Thus welfarism.
Perhaps your question is better viewed in terms of additional values mis-accrueing to the governing class, in which case it is a question less of the values themselves and rather of elite treachery. That, at least, is something a libertarian could address.