|
|
|
Libertarian Government Finance: Economic Rent Citizens’ Dividend Milton Friedman, favorite economist of many libertarian ideologues, has somewhat grudgingly admitted that a land value tax is the “least distorting” of the market place of any tax system yet proposed. What “least distorting” means is that economic decisions are more similar to the state of anarcho capitalism than they are under alternate proposed systems of income. On the expenditure side, Charles Murray, darling of many of the same libertarian ideologues, has stated that a citizens’ dividend—evenly dividing government revenue among all citizens—is the least distorting of “public choice”. What he means is that a society that evenly disperses government revenue to all citizens results in social decisions closer to anarcho capitalism than they are under alternate proposed systems of government appropriation. Both of these attempts to minimize “distortion” in the presence of government redistribution have in common a fundamental concept: “economic rent”. I won’t go into the history of land value taxation theory and “economic rent” except to say that, contrary to Jewish economist David Ricardo’s land-based definition, “economic rent” is well summed up by the phrase “benefits to fitness” within this quote from W. D. Hamilton’s paper, “Innate Social Aptitudes of Man”:
What Hamilton is really describing is the way civilization exterminates inventive genes in its gene pool by failing to return to the inventor the fruits of his invention—instead—feeding the reproduction of competing genes. Various attempts to remedy this situation such as “intellectual property” tend to be hijacked by Jews with their verbal IQs focused on property acquisition. For example, men of my cohort who contributed substantially to the technical base of the Internet, the fruits of which are now being reaped by Jews and Dravidians as well as the rest of society, from the 1970s through the 1990s has reproduction less than half of the already suppressed white population. Of my top 10 male associates who were important contributors, there are only 2 sons born of Euro females that stand any chance of reproducing. They are now in their 50s, most broke if not bankrupted by the H-1b invasion, and will not have any more children. Every piece of wealth, be it gold, land or a corner grocery store, in society is, to degrees varying with their “monopoly” status as property rights, made more valuable by such systemic benefits of easily reproducible innovation. Land only seems special to economic theorists because it is the classic case of a fixed asset that everyone needs but which “they’re not making any more of”—hence containing a large degree of monopolistic value. Of course, invention comes in many guises—not just putting together a better mechanical contraption—and those inventions, be they ways of doing business or ways of organizing communities or some scientific discovery that clarifies our relationship with nature, also increase the value of properties with which they are distantly related. Usually attempts to account for these benefits, again, accrues to Jews via monopoly on historic records and story telling such that their social capital is maximized and the value—mainly of their males—in the reproductive marketplace increases to the point that they rape-by-fraud vast numbers of the prime women that should be bearing children of the real heroes. One solution is to treat civilization itself as a public health hazard: Destroy civilization before it destroys the gene pool and keep destroying, as it arises, all infrastructure that may represent the creation of civilization, before it can in effect parasitically castrate the men who built it subsequent to its take over by parasites. Another solution, and one that sometimes seems near to being realized in various places around the world at various times in history, is to collect the portion of value that rains down upon all properties within civilization from innovators—value which I call “economic rent”—and instead of allocating it according to sophistry of politicians, lawyers, academics and storytellers, simply divide it up evenly amongst all people. This solution does not, of course, completely eliminate W. D. Hamilton’s concern, but it does at least prevent the horrendous genocide of creation seen during the last decades where a small number of third-rate inventors are grotesquely rewarded with monopoly profits and held up as an example of how well-compensated innovators are, so that the rest, including first-rate inventors, can have their wealth, hence potential children, confiscated by parasites. The quantification of economic rent is pretty simple—it is the “no brainer” profit stream expected from an asset. Banks routinely estimate this when giving out loans when they assess the collateral value of the borrower’s assets. This is generally done by taking what is called the “liquidation value” (more precisely, the “orderly liquidation value in place”) of an asset and applying the “risk free interest rate” to that value. Liquidation value of an asset is the value that virtually anyone could get from it if they were handed title to the asset and told to go sell it in a reasonable period of time. The “risk free interest rate” is usually the rate of return guaranteed by the government when you loan it money for short periods of time. These mechanisms operate in the “civil” environment—an environment characterized by governments—an environment capable of supporting high value assets we typically associate with “cities” (which shares its linguistic root with “civil”). However, if we are to be rational about the interests of the individuals entering into an agreement to establish and maintain “civilization” it must be admitted that they would not wish to turn over to it that which they, themselves, possess by virtue of existing as human animals—the ability to defend their homes, families, tools and small-holding of land, fishing rights or other natural resource with which they can support their reproduction. If they were to turn over such individual sovereignty they would become in essence slaves to civilization. Hence in a free society, it makes sense to leave in the hands of individuals that portion of economic rent accruing to them by virtue of their subsistence properties—again, for emphasis (since this seems to be the point where I lose the most people’s reading comprehension) we are talking about some amount of assets sufficient to be equivalent to the ownership of a small family farm and all of its equipment. 15 years ago I wrote a white paper on this general topic to which a leading economist at a leading economic think tank in Washington D.C. responded: “Jim, you’re doing a great public service by researching this but there is no way we can continue to receive funding if we study proposals like this.” At that time, using figures from a 1983 Joint Economic Committee of Congress and a relatively low “subsistence exemption”, it appeared possible to completely replace all government taxation with such a use fee on property rights other than subsistence property rights (what one might think of as “natural property rights” within a Lockean philosophy of libertarianism). At present, using a much higher “subsistence exemption” of about $500,000 (mid2007 USD) per household, the most recent study of wealth distribution in the United States conducted by the Federal Reserve based on 2004 data can reasonably be extrapolated to 2007 conditions and provide $2 trillion in revenue. This doesn’t get rid of the deficit but with a much stronger Yeoman class supported by a $500,000 per household exemption (which means US Treasury instruments yielding the risk free interest rate rapidly shift to the portfolio of the rapidly expanding Yeoman class), it is reasonable to move to a Swiss style military defense—proven effective for 500 years during which the Swiss have held strong to their territory. Moreover, as public choice rent-seeking is reduced to 0 by moving government revenue to an evenly distributed citizens’ dividend (approximately $10,000 per adult citizen or $20,000 per married household), the efficiency of domestic social functions will increase, as extensively described by Charles Murray in his recent book on such a citizens’ dividend: In Our Hands. Something Murray doesn’t mention is the fact that a citizens’ dividend clarifies the dilution of social capital represented by immigration—just as does the reckless issuance of stock in any corporate entity dilute the share value for all current share holders. Ultimately, the libertarian principle of freedom of association can work together with a use fee for property rights to support assortative migration of populations into deeply libertarian human ecologies by making territorial boundaries themselves more liquid. Comments:2
Posted by Nomoreh1b on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:17 | # Putting this into perspective, the Swiss spend about 1% of their GNP on defense. The United States spends about 4% of its GDP on its military. Now, some of this expense is devoted towards protecting sea lanes—and might not go away. 3
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:49 | # Good observation, Nomoreh1b. I think it quite likely however that the sort of economic rent citizens’ dividend I discuss would rapidly expand the Yeoman class to populate the high seas—with their culture of self-defense very much intact. Imagine, if you will, the independent pioneer types from New Zealand who won the Americas Cup against O’Conner’s well funded technocrats at SAIC and Scripps Institute of Oceanography, turning their skills toward self-defended maritime settlements. 4
Posted by Jim on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 05:28 | # “What “least distorting” means is that economic decisions are more similar to the state of anarcho capitalism than they are under alternate proposed systems of income.” What ‘least distorting’ ACTUALLY means here is that, because unimproved land has a perfectly inelastic supply, taxation generates no deadweight loss. See, e.g., any intro macro textbook. 5
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 06:36 | # Both statements are pretty much consistent but the subject is libertarian philosophy within which “anarcho capitalism” entails the absence of taxation. In any case, the notion that “land” is “perfectly inelastic” runs rather afoul of my Groningen patriline. Seriously, this is part of the reason a more general notion of “economic rent” needs to be developed within which the non-distorting nature of “taxation” can be quantified despite the presence of varying degrees of elasticity. Note my prior comment about maritime settlement. 6
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:56 | # Christ, not more bullshit from that dumbass longhair? 7
Posted by Maguire on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:09 | # “Putting this into perspective, the Swiss spend about 1% of their GNP on defense. The United States spends about 4% of its GDP on its military.” These two numbers can’t be compared directly because the structure of the forces are so different. USA spending on the direct personnel costs of a large standing expeditionary force of voluntary mercenaries (i.e. ‘regulars’) is about 55% of the USA military dollar. The Swiss have far fewer full time professionals. Those few are dedicated to training, equipment procurement and war planning for the citizen militia. Operations and Maintenance accounts for war consumables like fuel, repair parts, munitions and contracted logistics support are another large percentage slice for the USA which the Swiss militia system doesn’t have. Imperial power projection is a very expensive proposition. Once Personnel and OMA are removed, you’ll find the Swiss per capita expenditure “Now, some of this expense is devoted towards protecting sea lanes—and might not go away.” Plus this deduction. 8
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:15 | # Imperial power projection is a very expensive proposition. Correct. And you won’t find such expenses assumed within genuine libertarian philosophy. Indeed, it is a litmus test of sorts for sorting out the current crop of pseudo-libertarians—most of whom oppose Ron Paul’s “isolationism”—from the much more genuine libertarians. 9
Posted by Maguire on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:05 | # “For example, men of my cohort who contributed substantially to the technical base of the Internet, the fruits of which are now being reaped by Jews and Dravidians” “Usually attempts to account for these benefits, again, accrues to Jews via monopoly on historic records and story telling such that their social capital is maximized” These differing results are codified in the radically different laws covering Patent. The terms of USA patents are 20 years or less. They are not renewable. Obtaining a patent typically requires a substantial investment in patent attorney legal fees. In many countries an annual fee must be paid to keep a patent in force. Copyright. In the USA copyrights now last for the life of the author plus 70 years, or for 120 years in the case of ‘corporate’ creations. Copyright exists automatically from the moment of creation and no ‘temple tax’ need be paid to the Jewdicial system to enjoy full benefit. Before the Jewish coup of the 1960s US copyrights had to be registered and only lasted for 28 years, with one 28 year renewal available. I think any effort at “leveling the playing field” must address this or be doomed to pre-programmed failure. The best solution would be to reduce all copyright duration to an ‘equal’ flat 20 years, and also impose the same bureaucratic costs on copyright registration as now exist for the patent process. “Jews and Dravidians” are now facing off in combat over this copyright issue. The battlespace is the internet and the Dravidians’ weaponry is the Digital Library of India. They’re implementing an interesting strategy to destroy the value of the Jews’ copyrights in scientific, technical and much other literature. Phase 1 is to scan in, upload and distribute free of charge all public domain books. This means all works published before 1923, and any works that passed into public domain between 1923 and 1964 by reason of non-registration or non-renewal. Phase 2 is to use the existence of Phase 1 to devalue works copyrighted in 1924, and so on moving forward in time. The goal is to create a ‘buyers market’ for older but still copyrighted works and continually crowd later works with slightly older works of similar content. The failure of the Library of Congress to have begun such an online library 15 years ago is further evidence of Who Rules America. 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:25 | # Vdare.com’s Randall Burns, an economics post-grad at Carnegie-Mellon University who worked on position papers for the Dennis Kucinich campaign three years ago, should translate some of the ideas in this log entry into a few practical applications, for consideration by the ones at the Ron Paul campaign responsible for position papers on economics policy. 11
Posted by Maguire on Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:34 | # Fred, I think Randall Burns remains more interested in dabbling in Democratic ward politics and a legendary ‘American Progressivism’ than in achieving anything real. It’s a mirror image on the Democratic side of the powerless and ageing paleocon faction in the GOP. The GOP is ‘Judeo’ and dominated at the top by Jewish money and directly controlled Jewish puppets. The Democrats otoh are simply Jewish, period. Randall Burns will eventually either submit to the reality of Jewish ownership of the Democratic Party, or he’ll have to honestly confront it the way ex-1960s leftist Kevin MacDonald eventually did. There is one outcome that won’t happen. The ‘Democrats’ are not going to adopt these mythical Progressive policies that are inimical to real Jewish interests without the Jews destroying the Democratic Party in process of exiting it. That standing threat, to both parties, is what Michael Bloomberg’s shadow ‘billion dollar Presidential Campaign’ is all about. Bloomberg’s ‘decision’ will conditioned solely on whether both parties’ Nomination Heirs Apparent are fully subservient to Jewish-Zionist diktat. If the slightest doubt exists about either nominee, then Bloomberg runs as an independent and at worst throws the election to the shabbas goy. Maguire 12
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:21 | # Randy and I have maintained a running dialog ever since I posted my, previously linked, Net Asset Tax white paper to Usenet over 15 years ago. He’s a student of Henry George’s “Progress and Poverty”. (His college text of that book now resides in the library of a nephew-in-law of mine, student of Lester Thurow, that has been involved in economic development of Eastern Europe, while he was employed by the Federal Reserve in D.C. with direct reports given to Greenspan.) During that long dialog he’s come around to recognizing net asset taxation as necessary, although the way he would measure the economic rent portion is based more on econometrics that attempt to estimate the “monopoly on capital” represented by very high concentrations of wealth. As an old-line, landed, Missouri family that was opposed to the nomination of Wilson in 1912 (and may have forced the bankers to offer Missouri 2 Fed banks to get Wilson nominated), he’s certainly in a position to understand the critical relationship between territory and monetary policy, the American Clearances and the subsequent open borders extremism of the current elites. While we have our disagreements, it is really tragic that his professional situation, like mine, has left him hamstrung and unable to contribute more to the salvation of the American Yeoman. 14
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 00:14 | # I’m serious. You’re discussing very original stuff. “If you build it, they will come.” That’s the simple truth. Found a think tank and financial contributions will start coming in. GW built this web-site, and bloggers came (not to mention a highly talented commentariat). Look at it now: it’s done damn well and likely exerts influence beyond what any of us imagines. No question it’s changing minds. Found a think tank devoted to these economic ideas. We have more than enough Jewish-founded-and-controlled think tanks influencing this country’s governments. We could stand a few Euro ones, for a change. 15
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 00:51 | # In reply to Maguire’s comment about Randall Burns’ viewing himself as a “progressive,” that’s exactly how we here should all view ourselves: as “progressives.” Why concede the good names to the other side? I concede the other side <i>nothing<>. I’m also no “conservative.” 16
Posted by zusammen on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:26 | # The trouble with the meaning of progressive is its strong association, by definition, with striving for more liberalism. Now, White nationalism is sometimes ignorantly associated with reactionary, that is, opposing political or social change. That may have been true up until the 1950s at latest, but clearly no more. It is more realistic to begin addressing the non-communist, capitalist soft totalitarian mainstream progressives, secular or religious, who work to reinforce the existing arrangement, as the reactionaries today. 17
Posted by GT on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:09 | # “’If you build it, they will come.’ That’s the simple truth. Found a think tank and financial contributions will start coming in.” There’s the question of tax-deductible contributions, Fred. Would a think tank founded by two ‘vile, racist, anti-Semites’ obtain 501(c)3 status? I kinda sorta doubt it. “…that’s exactly how we here should all view ourselves: as ‘progressives.’ I concede the other side nothing. I’m also no ‘conservative.’” Well, bless your heart! Can I get an ‘Amen’ on that, brothers? 18
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:18 | # For a second there, GT, I thought you said, “Can I get an ‘Amren’ on that, bothers?” 19
Posted by GT on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:45 | # For a second there, GT, I thought you said, “Can I get an ‘Amren’ on that, bothers?” I almost thought I had too, after noticing the missing r in what should have been brothers. The think tank suggestion is good, but I’m concerned about its tax status and subsequent viability. I’d add GW to the list because the moral basis for our people’s survival requires work and I think he’s well on the way in that area: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/thought_experiment/#c51759 And I’d add Bo Sears as well, to render GW’s moral philosophy into simple, bullet-like memes for the benefit of our great, befuddled Middle who think in terms of what they hear on TalmudVision. 20
Posted by zusammen on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:19 | # The Occidental Quarterly and The National Policy Institute are tax deductible to donators. There is at least one other scholarly think tank out there, speaking up for the majority, with 501(3)c exemption, but the names escape me. http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/index.php They are only getting as much momentum as whites choose to invest in them. It wouldn’t hurt to find out how they got started, or if joining and contributing is possible. 21
Posted by GT on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:59 | # Zusaman, Now, White nationalism is sometimes ignorantly associated with reactionary, that is, opposing political or social change. That may have been true up until the 1950s at latest, but clearly no more. White nationalists have typically fallen into one of two categories: 1. Persuaders who wish to peacefully restore Euroman’s influence from within the Judeo-system. In both cases the failed system - the very system that let us down - is conserved. That’s right: conserved, as in conservation or conservative. Maguire and I (and perhaps, Bowery) represent a third position: Establish viable alternate systems, take whatever is necessary from 1 and 2, above, to drain and weaken the Judeo system, and secede altogether. Thus our “third position” is progressive. Once we are on the way toward establishing viable alternate systems for Euromen our progressivism can no longer be rationally equated with the old system’s faux liberalism. 22
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:53 | # The Claremont Institute was started by four students in 1979. It’s widely cited today. What name? 23
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:01 | # That “start your own” link I gave was supposed to go to a more narrowly-focused page. Try googling “start your own think tank” with the quote marks included. A more narrow selection of articles will come up, fewer than three hundred. 24
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:13 | # And yes, I agree with GT that GW and Bo Sears would both make indispensable contributions as members of our side’s think tank. 25
Posted by Maguire on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:00 | # Zusammen, I’d be the last to deny better leadership is needed than is presently offered by the Netzi-Nutzi wing. “The Occidental Quarterly and The National Policy Institute are tax deductible to donators…They are only getting as much momentum as whites choose to invest in them.” Or as much as they choose to generate. I’ve had a passive observational interest in OQ and NPI for years. My major ‘problem’ with them is I haven’t seen the slightest indication they have any interest in or capacity for providing leadership for lower middle and working class whites. Or even that they have any collective awareness of what life is like down there in the ‘trenches’ and what issues have most traction. I’ll take one micro-economic instance. This is the brazen financial looting of young whites and their families now carried out under cover of providing a ‘college education’. Where is NPI’s Ph.d masthead advisory committee on this? Is their goal to radically increase accessibility for working whites by reducing costs and improving delivery efficiency? Or is it merely to esconce themselves in $1 million/year university presidents’ offices and mansions in preference to current pro-Jewish and anti-white personnel and otherwise conduct business as usual? The latter ‘conservative’ goal has not generated significant support in the past. And it will attract less support in the future as the economic screws tighten down My view is OQ and NPI aim to represent a group that is presently well along towards being liquidated economically; this is the White Middle/Upper Middle income family. “White nationalists have typically fallen into one of two categories:” The ‘Persuaders’ entire strategy is based on a false history of how the Jew rose to supremacy. It was not by peaceful means. This fairy tale version of history has been generated by the same agencies that have fabricated the mythical heroic history of the Zionist Enterprise in Palestine. The Jewish Decade in America (1960s) entailed a great deal of retail violence and threatened violence, accompanied by much hidden blackmail and bribery. Attempts to mimic this mythical strategy are failing for the same reason attempts to build phasers after watching some Star Trek episodes fail to produce usable weaponry. So-called or self-called revolutionaries. So far none of them have displayed any sign they even know the difference between ‘Revolution’ and ‘Insurgency’. The “American Revolution” and the “War of Independence” are not synonyms. They describe separate and sequential events. The original revolutionaries did understand this, which is the biggest single reason they succeeded. Their own writings show they considered the ‘Revolution’ was completed with the Declaration of Independence. And they also knew they’d have to immediately fight a war in defense of that Revolution. During a real revolution the Ancient Regime’s executive branch first removes itself. This usually occurs through the combined means of economic bankruptcy and military defeat, although incompetence or profound internal division can also produce Executive collapse. An opportunity to ‘create power’ then presents itself. The American, French, Russian and German revolutions all shared this sequence. Another common element is successful contenders in the struggle for successor power will concurrently legitimate themselves by obtaining ‘consent’ of a fraction of the civil population they claim to rule. This consent is often only a concentrated plurality of a tiny portion of the overall population. It is during the period when new embryonic regimes are trying to consolidate themselves that opportunities occur for coups (“seizures of power”) by small well organized rival groups. Maguire 26
Posted by GT on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 03:06 | # Fred, What name? We must agree on the foundation’s objectives. A quick look at Zusamman’s links indicates an adversion to addressing the jewish problem on the part of NPI. Occidental Quarterly, on the other hand, is willing to address the jewish problem in a rational manner judging by the presence of Dr. MacDonald. Both groups are ‘persuaders’ looking for a ‘peaceful restoration of Euroman’s influence within the judeosystem.’ Although such groups have their uses, non-Occidentals and sycophants are fully cognizant of where a genuine restoration of Euroman’s influence will lead. The tactic will fail and more precious time will be lost. Short of a handful of us waging a brief revolutionary war of ‘terror’ without logistical support, one that is bound to fail miserably, the alternative is to syphon the enormous knowledge capital of Western Man and build an alternate, collaborating network of technical, cultural, educational, and yes, political systems. This will be opposed, but short of martial law and in-house monitoring of every living White man with one remaining testicle 24/7/365, and perhaps not even then, the judeosystem will fail. What we need, then, is a foundation which studies the problems associated with the implementation of alternate systems, develops solutions, and sells the great, befuddled, White ‘Middle American’ public on the ideas free of charge. Extremely important, too, is the development of a convincing moral case for Occidental survival that is comprehensible to the man on the street. The first three names on your list may require permission from Salter and the heirs of Enoch Powell and Sam Francis. Furthermore, Enoch Powell and Sam Francis are associated with conservatism. More suggestions: Progressive Occidental Studies Institute Of course, we can also add “for the New Millenium” or “for the 21st Century” to the name. 27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 03:43 | # My favorite from that list: Progressive European-American Policy Group — or, change “Group” there to “Institute” and I think you’ve got your think tank’s name ready to go, right there. Now, “build it ... and they will come.” 28
Posted by GT on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:48 | # Now, “build it ... and they will come.” I’m considering it, Fred. I assume you are supportive of my general statement concerning the foundation’s objectives and are willing to participate in some administrative capacity? What we need, then, is a foundation which studies the problems associated with the implementation of alternate systems, develops solutions, and sells the great, befuddled, White ‘Middle American’ public on the ideas free of charge. Extremely important, too, is the development of a convincing moral case for Occidental survival that is comprehensible to the man on the street. The above is quite rough and tentative, of course. —- I welcome the participation of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers, even if your contributions are silent. Please indicate your interest to GW. I needn’t have your names, at present. All I require is some idea as to numbers and profession. 29
Posted by Maguire on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:17 | # Fred, I don’t see a near term TT serving any role in #1, alternate employment office. Number 2, ideas influence, has more possibility provided the appeal is to whites directly. The vast bulk of these ideas should be capable of immediate implementation, with subsequent leverage of influence to ‘local’ and even ‘state’ levels of society, politics and ‘government’. FYI, I personally tune out whenever an appeal starts with ‘Take back your…’ and concludes with the establishment of a veto proof majority in the US Congress. Ain’t gonna happen. I think we’ll find better partial core models for our ‘Think Tank’ in the RAND Corporation, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the old Bell Labs than in the Heritage Foundation and AEI. Maguire ps I think NPI does a great job at representing the Liberal Arts side of the house. Unfortunately 80% of all employment, 95% of true wealth creation and 100% of the resources needed by the next generation of white babies is generated in the College of Science, Engineering and Agriculture. NPI is nowhere to be found here. 30
Posted by Muffin on Mon, 19 Nov 2007 06:31 | # I’d like to address the dichotomy raised regarding how WN’s fall into the 1) win votes 2) start a violent revolution. As a group that is mostly looking to address the concerns of lower and middle class white men there are a few obstacles to address. Any sort of “intellectual” strain in the movement will largely go over their heads as this group is mainly concerned with their everyday circumstances. Focusing too much on everyday circumstances works them up into an overly-emotional state and produces the swill you see over at VNN, et al. So, in summary, rational persuasion produces Variant1 (V1) and emotive stimulation produces Variant2 (V2). One issue that makes a regular appearance on this site is that of feminism. If you look at white female voting patterns it is clear that they are more inclined to consider political alliances with non-whites to advance what they consider their interests. The fact is that white men, especially those outside of the upper classes, have experienced a separation between what they consider their interests and what white women consider their own interests. Hating on individualism won’t “bring white women back”. Hating on feminism won’t “bring white women back”. Even if people forge a secessionist-oriented third path it would attract far more men than women and, in effect, wouldn’t “bring white women back”. At least not in numbers necessary. You’d simply have a group of the “angry, white males” that most national media outlets masturbate about. I had read some John Jay Ray a few years before MR ever debuted and am coming from a somewhat libertarian position, which was how I found JJR in the first place. The siren call of the libertarian position is that if you end all social welfare then women will be forced to choose the “civilized” white man over the “barbaric” black man, and that those who do not will perish in the meat grinder of evolution. As an aside, this is, of course, not how politics work and as long as people consider themselves part of a particular political entity they’ll consider it an affront to allow people to starve in the streets. One thing I’ve found is that many white women’s interactions with black men occur in controlled doses. Either they are taking a college class with a genuinely intelligent black man, they have a genuinely intelligent black colleague, or they interact with a black man who works in some service industry where that individual gets paid enough to adopt the social mores palatable to white people. Such women generalize their experiences into viewing all black men as being roughly represented by the select sample with which she has interacted. But this is only part of the picture. I would say that the significant majority of white men in the US have real genuine relationships with non-whites, especially men, throughout their lives. I have and have had really good relationships with non-whites about whom I care a great deal. To ignore this is to completely misunderstand the social and political realities of how human being’s emotions play a huge role in understanding their world. At 33, as I am, someone with really good relationships with non-whites is not all of a sudden going to about-face and reject people for some rationally-derived political program. Ain’t gonna happen. On top of all this there is a huge social cost for taking any sort of race-realist position and combining it with any sort of racially-separationist sentiment (much less policy suggestion). Look at Charles Murray: he specifically thought that the implications of his work was to show that there needed to be perpetual social programs aimed specifically at some minorities in order to help them navigate a complex, information-based society. And look what happened to him. Any sort of positive action is going to have to include some portion of city-dwellers because that is where most of the power and money resides. But anyone who lives in such an urban area, Seattle in my case, would be socially shunned and have their lives destroyed. As to that last point, it is vital to note that white women, especially in large population centers, tend to be the guardians of political correctness. So, not only does the white man in this setting lose his good name but he forfeits most opportunities to find a mate or have sex. This is just another disincentive to voice any sort of race-realism: if you are perceived as “racist” then you lose access to potential white female mates. What is the answer? I have no clear prescription. What I will say is that the percentage of Americans even capable of acknowledging a white ethnic identity is probably less than fifty percent. A great many white Americans are past child-bearing age, many without children. Others have vested personal and/or economic interests in the “anti-racist” political establishment. A very large number of white women are probably lost to white identity; James’ GOD hypothesis could explain this. Above all, I will say that the latter is probably the most vital to the white identity movement having a real political and social impact. Find a way to bring the women on-board and you might have a shot at affecting some real change, whatever that might be. Without that, I guarantee, you have nothing. Post a comment:
Next entry: Intrade Betting Odds Now Say Ron Paul is Most Electable Republican
|
|
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) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:52 | #
America’s Bureau of Land Management controls 258 million acres of land (about one eighth of the US landmass) and this asset should be de-bureaucratized and divided among the Euro-American citizens whose forebears built the nation.