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.

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”:

“Often, however, the cost in fitness of such altruism and sublimated pugnacity to the individuals concerned is by no means metaphorical, and the benefits to fitness, such as they are, go to a mass of individuals whose genetic correlation with the innovator must be slight indeed. Thus civilization probably slowly reduces its altruism of all kinds, including the kinds needed for cultural creativity.”

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.

The New York Times reports that:

If his campaign had taken place in the pre-Internet era, it might have gone the way of his 1988 Libertarian campaign for president, as a footnote to history. But because of the Internet’s low-cost ability to connect grass-roots supporters with one another — in this case, largely iconoclastic white men — Mr. Paul’s once-solo quest has taken on a life of its own. It is evolving from a figment of cyberspace into a traditional campaign, with yard signs, direct mail and old-fashioned rallies, like one here on Saturday attended by a few thousand people under cold, gray skies. Mr. Paul said it was his biggest rally so far. He said it proved his campaign was more than “a few spammers” and called it a “gigantic opportunity” to establish credibility.