# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  What has the alt-right accomplished?

## Tywysog Cymru

The alt-right attacks libertarians as "losertarians" and asks "what has the liberty movement accomplished?"  The liberty movement has elected officials and has raised awareness for many governmental abuses.

What has the alt-right accomplished?

----------


## erowe1

Getting Donald Trump nominated, and possibly elected president.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Getting Donald Trump nominated, and possibly elected president.


Isn't that much like getting Adolph Hitler elected president?

----------


## erowe1

> Isn't that much like getting Adolph Hitler elected president?


Yes.

And good catch. That's another thing the alt-right accomplished.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Getting Donald Trump nominated, and possibly elected president.


Not all of his supporters are alt-right, most of them I bet have never heard of the alt-right.

----------


## juleswin

> Isn't that much like getting Adolph Hitler elected president?


Adolf Hitler actually made Germany great again which is something Trump cannot do with his juvenile cerebral tool set.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Trump will go down in flames sooner or later, either this November or during his first/only term, as his true nature finally dawns on people.

When this happens, I expect he'll take the alt-right down with him.

The hardcore white nationalists will always be with us, but the more casual members will likely become disillusioned and flee.

----------


## erowe1

> Not all of his supporters are alt-right, most of them I bet have never heard of the alt-right.


But I think they make up the center. His winning was not an inevitability. He needed their support, and actively courted it.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> What has the alt-right accomplished?


Great things. The best things. The best. _YUUUUUGE_ things!

----------


## Danke

Where did you find these Alt-Right folks, did you survey all of them?

Do they all speak in one voice like Ron Paul supporters?

----------


## oyarde

> Where did you find these Alt-Right folks, did you survey all of them?
> 
> Do they all speak in one voice like Ron Paul supporters?


Yeah , that must be it .

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Adolf Hitler actually made Germany great again which is something Trump cannot do with his juvenile cerebral tool set.


Truth^^

----------


## pcosmar

Wasn't Hillary helping the Alt Right in the Ukraine?
Their Coup was successful.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Getting Donald Trump nominated, and possibly elected president.


You left out getting pro Liberty minded people into Congress, and retaking most of the right in only in a few years on a shoe string budget.






> Isn't that much like getting Adolph Hitler elected president?


Hitler was not democratically elected, fun fact.




> Where did you find these Alt-Right folks, did you survey all of them?
> 
> Do they all speak in one voice like Ron Paul supporters?


We support getting rid of the Fed

We support privacy rights

We support state rights

We support gun rights

We support school vouchers/choice

We support restoring freedom of association for all groups

 We have many overlapping agreement on major issues.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> But I think they make up the center. His winning was not an inevitability. He needed their support, and actively courted it.


I think people with similar ideas were necessary for his victory in the primaries, but the basement dwellers are a very vocal minority.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> You left out getting pro Liberty minded people into Congress, and retaking most of the right in only in a few years on a shoe string budget.


When did this happen?

AFAIK you guys have anti-liberty David Duke in Louisiana as the only openly alt-right candidate.  And he isn't going to be elected.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> We support getting rid of the Fed


Trump praised the bank bailouts and the Fed's money printing in '08, and has a Goldman Sachs executive as his campaign finance manager. 




> We support privacy rights


Trump supports the PATRIOT Act and warrantless spying by the NSA, and wants to have Edward Snowden executed. 




> We support gun rights


Trump supported Clinton's 1994 assault weapons ban.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Trump praised the bank bailouts and the Fed's money printing in '08, and has a Goldman Sachs executive as his campaign finance manager. 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supports the PATRIOT Act and warrantless spying by the NSA, and wants to have Edward Snowden executed. 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supported Clinton's 1994 assault weapons ban.



I thought you said Trump was not part of the Alt Right?

And does Clinton support everything you just said as well?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> When did this happen?
> 
> AFAIK you guys have anti-liberty David Duke in Louisiana as the only openly alt-right candidate.  And he isn't going to be elected.


Polls say other wise, the age of identity polices has been here for years, you are seeing Whites starting to stand up, the same as the NAAACP, La Raza, AIPAC, CAIR, etc does for their groups.

We have candidates in other races as well, as more of them win, as more of the great middle see that "cuckservativism" does not work and never was meant to do anything but be a slower version of cultural marxism, as more of them understand mass immigration, free trade are costing them their rights, wealth, and future they will flock to us.

But hey, its not our fault you guys can not win Congressional elections.

Why not join us? We can restore freedom, we can end the fed, secure the border, deport the illegal hordes and bare them from get in legally, restore innovation, sound money, private property and restore the Republic to is full glory....

And if you wont join us all that we only ask one thing in return, dont get in our way. We are the future, Not them, They no longer matter.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I thought you said Trump was not part of the Alt Right?


He isn't, he's a progressive Democrat trolling the GOP for nationalist rubes. 

...such as populate the alt-right, who are supporting him despite his stances on the aforementioned issues. 




> And does Clinton support everything you just said as well?


Yes, Clinton is also a gun-grabbing, pro police-state, Wall Street stooge.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> He isn't, he's a progressive Democrat trolling the GOP for nationalist rubes. 
> 
> ...such as populate the alt-right, who are supporting him despite his stances on the aforementioned issues. 
> 
> Yes, Clinton is also a gun-grabbing, pro police-state, Wall Street stooge.


At least Trump changed his mind on the issue, but hey keep bring up the past.



So....Yeah.

----------


## TheCount

> ...


Well at least you aren't shy about claiming David Duke as your candidate...

----------


## tod evans

> "cuckservativism"


Children and their bastardized English piss me off.

This is one of the quickest ways to chase off sane and semi-intelligent people from any tenants of your message that may actually hold water.

Learn to speak like an educated white man, it'll behoove you.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Children and their bastardized English piss me off.
> 
> This is one of the quickest ways to chase off sane and semi-intelligent people from any tenants of your message that may actually hold water.
> 
> Learn to speak like an educated white man, it'll behoove you.


Best advice I've ever read on this board. And that's a fact. Admittedly, though, my grammar and punctuation skills suck. But I'm working on it.

----------


## silverhandorder

All I hear is cuckservatives crying.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> All I hear is cuckservatives crying.


Now, silverhandorder, that wasn't a very nice thing to say. 

silverhandorder, it says right there in the Community Guidelines that all viewpoints are welcomed _except_ those based on negativity in collectivist mindsets that view humans as members of groups rather than as individuals. It also says that we value a focus on debating issues while being civil, on-topic and avoiding personal commentary on other members. Additionally it states that we value an understanding that name-calling of any person or group proves nothing and has no worthy intellectual foundation and that we value the development of wisdom though a high level of community discourse.

See, it says so right here in the Community Guidelines....http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989

Now, I'm not going to report the shortcoming, silverhandorder. Not this time. It happens. We understand. We're only human after all. It can be our little secret.

----------


## CPUd

He was just "calling people out"

----------


## tod evans

> Best advice I've ever read on this board. And that's a fact. Admittedly, though, my grammar and punctuation skills suck. But I'm working on it.


I live in the $#@!ing Ozarks for heavens sake!

These children ought to be ashamed of themselves what with their highfalutin Nawthern upbringings, citified environments and vastly superior educations and IQ's.

You'd think composing coherent sentences in an articulate manner would simply roll off their keyboards....

It's pretty bad when a backwoods hillbilly can express himself more clearly and succinctly....

----------


## silverhandorder

It's not negative it is the truth. You don't see anyone in here but people who been bitching and gnashing their teeth for the last year.

You will be scolding the person next to you for speaking up as you are being marched straight into hell.

Edit: the sea change in conservative circles is a beauty to behold. I am noticing a lot of Trumpiness in people who been watching Trump for the past year. 

These young and old people who don't give a f@ck and just speak their mind are moving the overtones window.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> AFAIK you guys have anti-liberty David Duke in Louisiana as the only openly alt-right candidate.  And he isn't going to be elected.


Why do you think David Duke is anti-liberty?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I live in the $#@!ing Ozarks for heavens sake!
> 
> These children ought to be ashamed of themselves what with their highfalutin Nawthern upbringings, citified environments and vastly superior educations and IQ's.
> 
> You'd think composing coherent sentences in an articulate manner would simply roll off their keyboards....
> 
> It's pretty bad when a backwoods hillbilly can express himself more clearly and succinctly....


I don't know, tod, most fellers and ladies from up the holler are well written and spoken in my experience. They're very respectful, too. I'll tell you something, and this is the gosh honest truth, I grew up in the Blue Ridge Mountains. Deep in the mountains, to be clear. I've never seen a bunch of more mean spirited people in my entire life until I moved up north on the east coast. I mean people here are freaking mad. About everything.  They're so miserable. Even walking down a city block in the morning with a cup of coffee, you say good morning to a feller and he's like hey, $#@! you, what are you looking at! Seriously. It's freaking carazay.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Isn't that much like getting Adolph Hitler elected president?


How so? I hardly think Adolf Hitler would allow his daughter to marry a Jewish guy and support the state of Israel as fervently as Donald Trump does.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> How so? I hardly think Adolf Hitler would allow his daughter to marry a Jewish guy and support the state of Israel as fervently as Donald Trump does.


If you read up, the rabbi that converted her was disavowed  for it, so it may not be on par with their rules.. And he really does not care about Israel, just kissing the brass ring, thank God.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Children and their bastardized English piss me off.
> 
> This is one of the quickest ways to chase off sane and semi-intelligent people from any tenants of your message that may actually hold water.
> 
> Learn to speak like an educated white man, it'll behoove you.


The New Right does not care about non issues.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> If you read up, the rabbi that converted her was disavowed  for it, so it may not be on par with their rules.. And he really does not care about Israel, just kissing the brass ring, thank God.


I am pretty sure Ivankas husband is racially Jewish too. That would be forbidden by Hitler. 

I doubt that Donald Trump would be elected nominee of the Republican Party if he didn't care about Israel. Its too important of an issue to Republicans.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> All I hear is cuckservatives crying.


Its a good sound...They are failures, their message is nothing more then Liberalism from 20 years ago...

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Well at least you aren't shy about claiming David Duke as your candidate...


What is David Duke doing that is so wrong?

Standing up for his in group, the same thing all other groups have the right to do so an have so for years?

So when did you reject self preservation?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I am pretty sure Ivankas husband is racially Jewish too. That would be forbidden by Hitler. 
> 
> I doubt that Donald Trump would be elected nominee of the Republican Party if he didn't care about Israel. Its too important of an issue to Republicans.


The old Establishment is done, Thank God. More over as the Evangelicals "age out" this living though Israel because having the same policies they have for America would be "racist" nonsense will be finished.

Moronic fools along with the Neo cons have costed us 50 years and countless losses against the left.

----------


## silverhandorder

David Duke the ex KKK guy? Yeah I wouldn't be defending him here... Or anywhere. Even if the guy reformed which I don't know cuss I don't follow.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> The old Establishment is done, Thank God. More over as the Evangelicals "age out" this living though Israel because having the same policies they have for America would be "racist" nonsense will be finished.


Yes, I hate the establishment because they are very politically correct.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> David Duke the ex KKK guy? Yeah I wouldn't be defending him here... Or anywhere. Even if the guy reformed which I don't know cuss I don't follow.


But lets not talk about members of La Raza that are members of Congress, right? Or members of CAIR, right?

----------


## silverhandorder

> But lets not talk about members of La Raza that are members of Congress, right? Or members of CAIR, right?


No let's talk about them.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> David Duke the ex KKK guy? Yeah I wouldn't be defending him here... Or anywhere. Even if the guy reformed which I don't know cuss I don't follow.


I know that what I am about to say isn't politically correct among libertarians, but racists like David Duke and Don Black are somewhat libertarian to my knowledge. They want a limited government and states rights. The only way they differ from libertarians is that they are nationalists and therefore support controlling the borders. Of course, if you have anything to add or want to enlighten me I am all ears. I love to learn.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Yes, I hate the establishment because they are very politically correct.


More over they are just emotionalist morons. Why take the side of Israel or any other nation to begin with? 

More over I hate how they talk so lively about the walls, or the immigration systems, or the cultural unity, and purity of Israel but
the movement you try and recreate it here, they are the first to attack. The deepest circle of hell is reserved for betrayers and mutineers for a reason.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

Perhaps the two movements could function well together if libertarians were to ditch the cucked Beltway types and the alt-right could ditch the hardcore white nationalists.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I know that what I am about to say isn't politically correct among libertarians, but racists like David Duke and Don Black are somewhat libertarian to my knowledge. They want a limited government and states rights. The only way they differ from libertarians is that they are nationalists and therefore support controlling the borders. Of course, if you have anything to add or want to enlighten me I am all ears. I love to learn.


They also do not believe in the blank slate view of humanity nor the lie of "magic dirt".

----------


## pcosmar

> The New Right does not care about non issues.





> *
> "cuckservativism"*


When I first heard this "cuck" stuff being posted I had to go searching for the meaning. Having never heard the word before.
seems it is a porn flavor

You kids watch too much porn.

And you mistake fantasy for reality.

----------


## silverhandorder

> Perhaps the two movements could function well together if libertarians were to ditch the cucked Beltway types and the alt-right could ditch the hardcore white nationalists.


+1

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Perhaps the two movements could function well together if libertarians were to ditch the cucked Beltway types and the alt-right could ditch the hardcore white nationalists.


What is a hardcore white nationalist?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> When I first heard this "cuck" stuff being posted I had to go searching for the meaning. Having never heard the word before.
> seems it is a porn flavor
> 
> You kids watch too much porn.
> 
> And you mistake fantasy for reality.



A cuckservative is a self-styled "conservative" who will cravenly sell out and undermine his home country's people, culture, and national interest in order to win approval with parties hostile or indifferent to them.

A right-wing politician or pundit who makes a big show of defending traditional values, yet when push comes to shove, rolls over for the left on every issue out of fear of being called "racist," "sexist" or "homophobic."

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> What is a hardcore white nationalist?


Someone who goes beyond having racist attitudes and wants to actively inflict violence and domination onto another race. That simply cannot be justified from a libertarian point of view.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Someone who goes beyond having racist attitudes and wants to actively inflict violence and domination onto another race. That simply cannot be justified from a libertarian point of view.


Yes, but white nationalism is basically racial separation.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> No let's talk about them.


Great, why do you not waste time calling them out?

Why attack a man who will lead the fight to secure the border, restore immigration sanity while like the leftist turning a blind eye or in the case of the left openly supporting the invasion of America by the hordes of the 3rd world?




> Perhaps the two movements could function well together if libertarians were to ditch the cucked Beltway types and the alt-right could ditch the hardcore white nationalists.


We are the Alt Right, we have a motto that is "No enemies on the Right" if you hate the left, hate mass immigration, hate forced inclusion, association, unfair housing laws, fiat currency, all manners of gun control, multiculturalism or cultural relativism, etc and you want it ended, then you are not going to be pushed away.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> When I first heard this "cuck" stuff being posted I had to go searching for the meaning. Having never heard the word before.
> seems it is a porn flavor
> 
> You kids watch too much porn.
> 
> And you mistake fantasy for reality.


Ha. Me too. Crap of it when I searched for the word, though, was that I had Google Image search open because I was trying to find a better album cover for an mp3 album. So I ended up accidentally doing an image search for the word. It's probably all in my government file now. Sigh.

----------


## tod evans

> I don't know, tod, most fellers and ladies from up the holler are well written and spoken in my experience. They're very respectful, too. I'll tell you something, and this is the gosh honest truth, I grew up in the Blue Ridge Mountains. Deep in the mountains, to be clear. I've never seen a bunch of more mean spirited people in my entire life until I moved up north on the east coast. I mean people here are freaking mad. About everything.  They're so miserable. Even walking down a city block in the morning with a cup of coffee, you say good morning to a feller and he's like hey, $#@! you, what are you looking at! Seriously. It's freaking carazay.


Respect can be both earned and taught....

I've no doubt that several of these youngsters could benefit greatly from exposure to our generations women, they'd only beat their asses.....

The men would just as soon kill them as try to teach 'em...

----------


## silverhandorder

> Great, why do you not waste time calling them out?
> 
> Why attack a man who will lead the fight to secure the border, restore immigration sanity while like the leftist turning a blind eye or in the case of the left openly supporting the invasion of America by the hordes of the 3rd world?
> 
> 
> 
> We are the Alt Right, we have a motto that is "No enemies on the Right" if you hate the left, hate mass immigration, hate forced inclusion, association, unfair housing laws, fiat currency, all manners of gun control, multiculturalism or cultural relativism, etc and you want it ended, then you are not going to be pushed away.


I don't attack him. I just would not defend someone associated with KKK. Pick your battles... Ex murderer turned priest is not going to find an audience either.

Plus he is outside my orbit of interest. I hear ex KKK and move on to something interesting. He could be mother Teresa right now and I would not know.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> We are the Alt Right, we have a motto that is "No enemies on the Right" if you hate the left, hate mass immigration, hate forced inclusion, association, unfair housing laws, fiat currency, all manners of gun control, multiculturalism or cultural relativism, etc and you want it ended, then you are not going to be pushed away.


Sadly, many libertarians would rather play footsie with statists on the left because of irrelevant or overblown social issues rather than get down and dirty in the populist right. It frustrates me to no end. I guess those types really are just degenerates who really only want their drug use or deviant behavior legitimized by the state.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Sadly, many libertarians would rather play footsie with statists on the left because of irrelevant or overblown social issues rather than get down and dirty in the populist right. It frustrates me to no end. I guess those types really are just degenerates who really only want their drug use or deviant behavior legitimized by the state.


Or even worse support mass immigration and the importation of voters.

----------


## silverhandorder

> Or even worse support mass immigration and the importation of voters.


I would support mass immigration if it made sense. Like for example hey we need a lot of people here for w.e reason. Or hey come here if you wish but you get no hand out and if you can't handle it here bye.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I would support mass immigration if it made sense. Like for example hey we need a lot of people here for w.e reason. Or hey come here if you wish but you get no hand out and if you can't handle it here bye.


Sadly the left will abuse it, so in order to keep the left in the prison they deserve to be in we can not allow mass immigration.

----------


## silverhandorder

> Sadly the left will abuse it, so in order to keep the left in the prison they deserve to be in we can not allow mass immigration.


Nah.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

Making sure that minorities never vote GoP

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Nah.


Its either we do not have mass immigration, or we do not have a nation and any real freedoms.




> Making sure that minorities never vote GoP


They chose to do that themselves, moreover why allow more groups into this nation that will vote against us?

If they are too dumb to vote for more freedom, wealth, and responsibility then they are useless. Then again no one votes for the Democrats because they are smart, honest, care about themselves, wealth, culture, nation, rights, future, etc they vote for them because they want "free stuff" or to rule over others.

----------


## silverhandorder

> Its either we do not have mass immigration, or we do not have a nation and any real freedoms.


Mass immigration is not possible unless govt pushes it or native population welcomes it.

When Europeans were migrating here more than 1/3 went back because they could not handle it here. Those that stayed wanted to be here.

With no welfare and ability to fail only the best would come and stay. That strengthens the nation.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Mass immigration is not possible unless govt pushes it or native population welcomes it.
> 
> When Europeans were migrating here more than 1/3 went back because they could not handle it here. Those that stayed wanted to be here.
> 
> With no welfare and ability to fail only the best would come and stay. That strengthens the nation.


No, not in large numbers it wouldn't.  You need to be able to let them assimilate before bringing in more.  Else, it will be us who will be assimilating to be more like their beliefs and culture.

----------


## silverhandorder

> No, not in large numbers it wouldn't.  You need to be able to let them assimilate before bringing in more.  Else, it will be us who will be assimilating to be more like their beliefs and culture.


I wouldn't mind being changed by people with IQ 120+. Those bellow wouldn't be able to handle it and leave. I dont think mass migration is possible unless it is warranted.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I wouldn't mind being changed by people with IQ 120+. Those bellow wouldn't be able to handle it and leave. I dont think mass migration is possible unless it is warranted.


Really?  Then feel free to move.  Tell me, do you think world government was planned by dumbasses?  Or by very intelligent people who wanted even more power and figured out how to accomplish it and get us to go along with it; even help them?

----------


## silverhandorder

> Really?  Then feel free to move.  Tell me, do you think world government was planned by dumbasses?  Or by very intelligent people who wanted even more power and figured out how to accomplish it and get us to go along with it; even help them?


What does this have anything to do with moving? Why are we talking about world government? I am talking about mass migration.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What does this have anything to do with moving? Why are we talking about world government? I am talking about mass migration.


You seemed to indicate that you wanted mass migration.  That is being pushed by the globalists for a reason.

----------


## silverhandorder

No. Let me clarify.

I don't accept any migration where government attracts people with welfare or despite native concerns.

I only want people coming over who can add to the fabric of the nation. You can't add to the fabric unless you assimilate. You can't come over if no one will rent to you or sell to you. So you never run into danger of having too many people come over unless government is undermining natural controlling factors.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

Making Internet losers love fascism and hate liberty

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> At least Trump changed his mind on the issue, but hey keep bring up the past.


Just so I understand the rules, how far back am I allowed to look?

Yesterday is the past too.

And last hour.

And 1 second ago.

In fact, as a matter of logic, any comment Trump makes is necessarily in the past by the time anyone has a chance to comment on it.

So, essentially, all criticism of Trump is unfair....

...got it. 



> So....Yeah.


Pssh, yea, don't waste your vote on that Ron Paul feller, he'll never win.

Be smart and vote Obama/McCain/Romney.

Amiright?

Anyway, no one, including his supporters, expects Gary to win.

There are advantages to be gained even in a loss, so long as there's an historically good showing (which there very likely will be).

...and of course this has all been explained at nauseum; it's almost as if you're being deliberately obtuse.

----------


## Suzanimal

They seem to be taking over the neck beard, fedora wearing, basement dwelling stereotype - that's a plus for libertarians.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Anyway, no one, including his supporters, expects Gary to win.
> 
> There are advantages to be gained even in a loss, so long as there's an historically good showing (which there very likely will be).
> 
> ...and of course this has all been explained at nauseum; it's almost as if you're being deliberately obtuse.


Yeah, after all, JEB and Mitt say they support Gary.  HUGE win there.   Of course, anyone with at least 2 brain cells to rub together realizes that they will be voting for Hillary.  The goal is to get rank-and-file neocon-propagandized Republicans to vote for Johnson, this helps ensure a win for Hillary.  

And the globalist establishment agenda continues on...

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Why do you think David Duke is anti-liberty?


He advocates for bringing back racial segregation.

----------


## erowe1

> Why do you think David Duke is anti-liberty?


You are an insult to this website.

Sadly, I am more likely to get banned for saying that, than you are.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> They seem to be taking over the neck beard, fedora wearing, basement dwelling stereotype - that's a plus for libertarians.


Nah those are mainly Bernie supporters

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Polls say other wise,


Which polls?




> We have candidates in other races as well, as more of them win, as more of the great middle see that "cuckservativism" does not work and never was meant to do anything but be a slower version of cultural marxism, as more of them understand mass immigration, free trade are costing them their rights, wealth, and future they will flock to us.


What other candidates?




> But hey, its not our fault you guys can not win Congressional elections.


Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, and others say otherwise.




> Why not join us?


I won't join because I believe in judging people based on their character rather than their skin color.




> We can restore freedom,


If y'all get into power you won't restore freedom, you'll use the power of the state to force segregation on people.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Nah those are mainly Bernie supporters


Oh damn, you're right! I thought the Bernie Bros were the male feminists.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> Oh damn, you're right! I thought the Bernie Bros were the male feminists.


A lot of Bernie supporters are.

And there are neckbeard basement-dwelling Trump supporters too, but they don't wear fedoras.  They are mainly the obnoxious video gamers, who call everyone they don't like "SJWs" and "beta cucks".  It's almost as if retardation has become a part of video game culture.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You are an insult to this website.
> 
> Sadly, I am more likely to get banned for saying that, than you are.


Because you said that, I went and looked him up.  Found this video.  Didn't sound at all nuts.  In fact, it made a lot of sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6dvqf9eCRM

----------


## erowe1

> Because you said that, I went and looked him up.  Found this video.  Didn't sound at all nuts.  In fact, it made a lot of sense.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6dvqf9eCRM


Did you seriously not know who David Duke was?

I'm not surprised that you'd like him though.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Did you seriously not know who David Duke was?
> 
> I'm not surprised that you'd like him though.


I knew who he was, but I don't judge someone based off of what race-baiters say.  You see, I don't hate white people.  For some reason, that seems to be the politically-correct position these days.  Frankly, I'm sick to death of political correctness and what seems to be dogma direct from the Southern Poverty Law Center.  

Years ago, Duke used to have some solid positions on states' rights, constitutionally-limited government, individual liberty, national defense (not offense), personal privacy, etc.   Don't know if he still has the same stances on those issues.  But, one has to ask why you attempt to pigeon-hole him based on belonging to the KKK many years ago.  Does that negate everything else he believes?  If so, why?  And do you take the same position on anyone who has ever belonged to any race-based group?  You know, like La Raza, NAACP, ADL, CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood, NABA, NABS, etc?  If not, why not?

----------


## CPUd

> I knew who he was, but I don't judge someone based off of what race-baiters say.  You see, I don't hate white people.  For some reason, that seems to be the politically-correct position these days.  Frankly, I'm sick to death of political correctness and what seems to be dogma direct from the Southern Poverty Law Center.  
> 
> Years ago, Duke used to have some solid positions on states' rights, constitutionally-limited government, individual liberty, national defense (not offense), personal privacy, etc.   Don't know if he still has the same stances on those issues.  But, one has to ask why you attempt to pigeon-hole him based on belonging to the KKK many years ago.  Does that negate everything else he believes?  If so, why?  And do you take the same position on anyone who has ever belonged to any race-based group?  You know, like La Raza, NAACP, ADL, CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood, NABA, NABS, etc?  If not, why not?


Do you believe anti-racist is the same thing as anti-white?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Do you believe anti-racist is the same thing as anti-white?


Never thought about it.  And am not interested in your juvenile gotcha questions.

----------


## CPUd

> Never thought about it.  And am not interested in your juvenile gotcha questions.


It's a simple question.

----------


## silverhandorder

> Do you believe anti-racist is the same thing as anti-white?


I will bite.

The way it is structured yes.

I never run into one that was not racist as hell vs whites.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> He advocates for bringing back racial segregation.


No. Racial segregation within a country doesn't work. Voluntary racial separation does however. 




> You are an insult to this website.
> 
> Sadly, I am more likely to get banned for saying that, than you are.


Because I asked for you to back up your opinion? lol.

----------


## TheCount

> Voluntary racial separation does however.


If it's voluntary then why is it part of alt-right voters and candidates' advocated views and political positions?

----------


## erowe1

> I knew who he was, but I don't judge someone based off of what race-baiters say.  You see, I don't hate white people.


Right. That's a good litmus test for who hates white people. If they don't like David Duke, then they must hate white people.

----------


## erowe1

> Because I asked for you to back up your opinion? lol.


No, that wasn't I.

If you honestly didn't know who David Duke was, then I apologize. My comment was based on the assumption that you did. And if you did, then your question was stupid, and I stand by my comment.

----------


## erowe1

> Never thought about it.  And am not interested in your juvenile gotcha questions.


But that was the whole point you were driving at in post 83, that being anti-racist equals being anti-white.

And it's odd that you can't answer CPUd's question, as if it requires a lot of thinking in order to have an opinion about whether or not being anti-racist equals being anti-white.

It's funny how you stayed in the closet all these years until finally Donald Trump inspired you to come out.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Mass immigration is not possible unless govt pushes it or native population welcomes it.
> 
> When Europeans were migrating here more than 1/3 went back because they could not handle it here. Those that stayed wanted to be here.
> 
> With no welfare and ability to fail only the best would come and stay. That strengthens the nation.


Well guess what, we do not welcome it and want it stopped.

Why is that? Maybe because we had no welfare system.

Times and have changed and mass immigration has be ended.




> No, not in large numbers it wouldn't.  You need to be able to let them assimilate before bringing in more.  Else, it will be us who will be assimilating to be more like their beliefs and culture.


I wonder if he thinks all cultures are compatible with Liberty.




> I wouldn't mind being changed by people with IQ 120+. Those bellow wouldn't be able to handle it and leave. I dont think mass migration is possible unless it is warranted.


When and how would it ever be warranted? Sadly we are not getting 120 IQ people, at best we are getting 90 or below and we all know those people will never be to handle it, so we have to deny future entry and encourage them to leave.

More over if they is any changes we and we alone will make them.


William Vaile [R-CO]:
Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the Nordic race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer  that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has  a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.
What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But  [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.
We are determined that they shall not  It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.
[_Congressional Record_, April 8, 1924, p. 5922]





> Really?  Then feel free to move.  Tell me, do you think world government was planned by dumbasses?  Or by very intelligent people who wanted even more power and figured out how to accomplish it and get us to go along with it; even help them?





> What does this have anything to do with moving? Why are we talking about world government? I am talking about mass migration.





> You seemed to indicate that you wanted mass migration.  That is being pushed by the globalists for a reason.





> No. Let me clarify.
> 
> I don't accept any migration where government attracts people with welfare or despite native concerns.
> 
> I only want people coming over who can add to the fabric of the nation. You can't add to the fabric unless you assimilate. You can't come over if no one will rent to you or sell to you. So you never run into danger of having too many people come over unless government is undermining natural controlling factors.


Its not enough to reject it, we have to fight back and end it. 

More over just coming to a nation does not "add to the fabric".




> Making Internet losers love fascism and hate liberty


Spoken like a true Neo con. We get it, you are upset that we are winning and the right is fighting to win, rather then fight for "respectability".




> Just so I understand the rules, how far back am I allowed to look?
> 
> Yesterday is the past too.
> 
> And last hour.
> 
> And 1 second ago.
> 
> In fact, as a matter of logic, any comment Trump makes is necessarily in the past by the time anyone has a chance to comment on it.
> ...


So grasping at straws is your only tactic. 

Clinton wants to ban semi autos, Trump does not as of today. Those are the facts.




> Pssh, yea, don't waste your vote on that Ron Paul feller, he'll never win.
> 
> Be smart and vote Obama/McCain/Romney.
> 
> Amiright?
> 
> Anyway, no one, including his supporters, expects Gary to win.
> 
> There are advantages to be gained even in a loss, so long as there's an historically good showing (which there very likely will be).
> ...



So you admit the 3rd party can not win, but moan people picking an opinion that in theory is not as bad as leftism...Odd.




> Yeah, after all, JEB and Mitt say they support Gary.  HUGE win there.   Of course, anyone with at least 2 brain cells to rub together realizes that they will be voting for Hillary.  The goal is to get rank-and-file neocon-propagandized Republicans to vote for Johnson, this helps ensure a win for Hillary.  
> 
> And the globalist establishment agenda continues on...


Yeah I think them supporting him does she them and him as the globalists they are. 

The Neo cons think if Trump loses things will go back to the way they were, not going to happen as the mask has come off, they have been seen as what they are, traitors. 




> He advocates for bringing back racial segregation.


Well if you listen to BLM or La Raza if white people are as "racist" as they claim why not live  apart?

Freedom of Association is coming back and with a fury, its going to be awesome





> You are an insult to this website.
> 
> Sadly, I am more likely to get banned for saying that, than you are.


What happened to your support of freedom of speech? 

What happened to your support of freedom for everyone? Including those who do not believe as you do?

What happened to your "tolerance"?

[QUOTE=Tywysog Cymru;6275397]Which polls?

Dude, google.

What other candidates?

The candidates that make up the Libertarian party.




> Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, and others say otherwise.


Funny are they all not members of the GOP and understood you need to party of a a major party to get elected?


I won't join because I believe in judging people based on their character rather than their skin color.

And that is what we do, some groups have different characters, values, cultures, and politics.




> If y'all get into power you won't restore freedom, you'll use the power of the state to force segregation on people.


No we will restore freedoms long lost, including freedom of association.




> Because you said that, I went and looked him up.  Found this video.  Didn't sound at all nuts.  In fact, it made a lot of sense.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6dvqf9eCRM



Always learn for your self, at worse you learn what you know is already true.




> Did you seriously not know who David Duke was?
> 
> I'm not surprised that you'd like him though.


Should we not like a person who wants to end the Fed, secure the border, restore immigration sanity, put America first in matters of trade and treaty, restoring our rights and freedoms?






> I knew who he was, but I don't judge someone based off of what race-baiters say.  You see, I don't hate white people.  For some reason, that seems to be the politically-correct position these days.  Frankly, I'm sick to death of political correctness and what seems to be dogma direct from the Southern Poverty Law Center.  
> 
> Years ago, Duke used to have some solid positions on states' rights, constitutionally-limited government, individual liberty, national defense (not offense), personal privacy, etc.   Don't know if he still has the same stances on those issues.  But, one has to ask why you attempt to pigeon-hole him based on belonging to the KKK many years ago.  Does that negate everything else he believes?  If so, why?  And do you take the same position on anyone who has ever belonged to any race-based group?  You know, like La Raza, NAACP, ADL, CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood, NABA, NABS, etc?  If not, why not?


This...



> Do you believe anti-racist is the same thing as anti-white?


Seeing how they only talk about the so called "racism" caused by whites, it is very clear they are anti white.




> No. Racial segregation within a country doesn't work. Voluntary racial separation does however. 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I asked for you to back up your opinion? lol.


It very does and I have notice when people who can not back up their opinion are asked for it they get very upset.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> But that was the whole point you were driving at in post 83, that being anti-racist equals being anti-white.
> 
> And it's odd that you can't answer CPUd's question, as if it requires a lot of thinking in order to have an opinion about whether or not being anti-racist equals being anti-white.
> 
> It's funny how you stayed in the closet all these years until finally Donald Trump inspired you to come out.


P.C culture is dying, we are just coming out to reclaim what is ours. We are no longer worried about being called names for fighting for what is ours.

----------


## erowe1

> What happened to your support of freedom of speech? 
> 
> What happened to your support of freedom for everyone? Including those who do not believe as you do?
> 
> What happened to your "tolerance"?


I still support freedom of speech. I still support freedom for everyone, including those who don't believe as I do. And I'm still very tolerant.

I also will prove that now by exercising my freedom of speech in calling you a fool, and asking that the site moderators tolerate it.

----------


## erowe1

> P.C culture is dying, we are just coming out to reclaim what is ours. We are no longer worried about being called names for fighting for what is ours.


And what is yours?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I still support freedom of speech. I still support freedom for everyone, including those who don't believe as I do. And I'm still very tolerant.
> 
> I also will prove that now by exercising my freedom of speech in calling you a fool, and asking that the site moderators tolerate it.


 How are we fools? You have not laid out the case we are wrong our our plans will not work, all you have done is just go "Wow, just wow".




> And what is yours?


This nation, culture, full and uninfringed rights, a secure border and limited immigration and the demographic stability it produces, a non fiat currency, a limited government, self determination. 

But lets see why you think that is not the case.

----------


## erowe1

> This nation, culture, full and uninfringed rights, a secure border and limited immigration and the demographic stability it produces, a non fiat currency, a limited government, self determination. 
> 
> But lets see why you think that is not the case.


It is not the case because you don't own the nation, the culture, or the border. Those are not yours.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> It is not the case because you don't own the nation, the culture, or the border. Those are not yours.


Well sorry but your opinion is wrong.

So you really think a person from India, Russia, or any other country has just as much right to this nation, culture, and to decide its future as people who Founded them and intended them to their posterity?

If yes then thank you for proving how little you care about the Founders, their intent, the Constitutions, and the nation as a whole.

 Universalism isn't a belief, it's the absence of them, and egalitarianism is the motto of slaves and slave drivers.

----------


## TheCount

What does it even mean to own a culture?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Well sorry but your opinion is wrong.
> 
> So you really think a person from India, Russia, or any other country has just as much right to this nation, culture, and to decide its future as people who Founded them


The people who founded the country were English.

Are you English?

Do the Germans, Irish, Poles, etc also count?




> and intended them to their posterity?


 @kahless

Post us again that extremely enlightening meme about how 'Murica's fer whites n thur progeny n whatnot...

 


> Universalism isn't a belief, it's the absence of them, and egalitarianism is the motto of slaves and slave drivers.




Slogans draw from therightstuff?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What does it even mean to own a culture?



Good question. Never really thought about it.

----------


## pcosmar

> What does it even mean to own a culture?


I think you need to own the petri dish first.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Clinton wants to ban semi autos, Trump does not as of today. Those are the facts.


LOL




> So you admit the 3rd party can not win, but moan people picking an opinion that in theory is not as bad as leftism...Odd.


A. Trump is just as bad as Hilary. 

B. Moan is an intransitive verb.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> If it's voluntary then why is it part of alt-right voters and candidates' advocated views and political positions?


because people need to be paid to leave or in other words be encouraged. 




> If you honestly didn't know who David Duke was, then I apologize. My comment was based on the assumption that you did. And if you did, then your question was stupid, and I stand by my comment.


I know who Dr. David Duke is. my assumption is that you are being politically correct or naïve so I tried to help you out by spelling out your beliefs about Dr. Duke.

----------


## TheCount

> because people need to be paid to leave or in other words be encouraged.


By whom?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> By whom?


Why not leave it up to themselves.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> What does it even mean to own a culture?


To have the means of self determination and exclude exterior influences or controls that might be harmful.




> The people who founded the country were English.
> 
> Are you English?


My earliest ancestor arrived in the nation around 1766.




> Do the Germans, Irish, Poles, etc also count?


Count in what aspect? Did their lay the foundation of America? No, that is sole the title, property, and hallmark  of Anglo Saxons Protestants .




> @kahless
> 
> Post us again that extremely enlightening meme about how 'Murica's fer whites n thur progeny n whatnot...


Sure, would you like some links and quotes?





> Slogans draw from therightstuff?


It is true and you have no retort..Its ok.





> Good question. Never really thought about it.


Do you believe that people of a culture have the right to define, determine, and defend their values, traditions, history, and future?

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> The people who founded the country were English.
> 
> Are you English?
> 
> Do the Germans, Irish, Poles, etc also count?


Of course. 

And actually most colonists were English but there were many western Europeans too like German, Irish, Dutch etc. 


Also why do you believe Trump is as bad as Hilary? Trump isn't a politically correct clown like she is and wont ruin America with rapefugees.





> By whom?


by the citizens. And this incudes non-white citizens.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Also why do you believe Trump is as bad as Hilary? Trump isn't a politically correct clown like she is and wont ruin America with rapefugees.




Trump Opposition Research Thread

----------


## tod evans

> Do you believe that people of a culture have the right to define, determine, and defend their values, traditions, history, and future?


What makes you think that you're a part of my culture?

My ancestors came here in the 1700's too and I can prove it, can you?

The "values, traditions and history" of my ancestors "Anglo Saxon Protestants" includes such basic tenants as self-sufficiency and the outright refusal to be ruled by an unaccountable government. You on the other hand scream to empower just such a government every time you visit these boards.

Be honest with those reading your drivel and yourself, your posts do not represent white Christian Americans as a group, in fact they don't even represent the faction of white Americans you claim to speak for the "Alt-Right"......If they did you'd have other people with the ability to express themselves clearing up your poorly worded and incoherent posts...There is no real "we" is there? No flesh and blood person with whom you discuss things before you come here posting as though you speak for a group?

If there was even one semi-intelligent person with whom you shared discourse they would help you express yourself clearly.

If there was even one semi-intelligent person with whom you shared discourse they would help you understand your failures in logic and philosophy. 

Your tenacity is admirable but for the love of God learn to be tenacious about issues of substance.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> But that was the whole point you were driving at in post 83, that being anti-racist equals being anti-white.
> 
> And it's odd that you can't answer CPUd's question, as if it requires a lot of thinking in order to have an opinion about whether or not being anti-racist equals being anti-white.
> 
> It's funny how you stayed in the closet all these years until finally Donald Trump inspired you to come out.


Interesting.

I never claimed to hate whites.  In your eyes, is that a prerequisite for being in the liberty movement?  Since when does one need to be in a "closet" to not hate a race?  Is it white guilt or something else?  Why is it that you appear to judge white people differently? That seems to me to be the epitome of racism, yet you fling out accusations of same to others.  Odd.  It seems to stem from a hatred of white people.    Why is that?  I find the dysfunction curious, so please provide detail.

----------


## CPUd

> Interesting.
> 
> I never claimed to hate whites.  In your eyes, is that a prerequisite for being in the liberty movement?  Since when does one need to be in a "closet" to not hate a race?  What is shocking is that you have come out as such a racist and you seem to be proud of it.  How long have you hated white people?  What does it stem from?  I find the dysfunction curious, so please provide detail.


Do you hate racists?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What makes you think that you're a part of my culture?
> 
> My ancestors came here in the 1700's too and I can prove it, can you?
> 
> The "values, traditions and history" of my ancestors "Anglo Saxon Protestants" includes such basic tenants as self-sufficiency and the outright refusal to be ruled by an unaccountable government. You on the other hand scream to empower just such a government every time you visit these boards.
> 
> Be honest with those reading your drivel and yourself, your posts do not represent white Christian Americans as a group, in fact they don't even represent the faction of white Americans you claim to speak for the "Alt-Right"......If they did you'd have other people with the ability to express themselves clearing up your poorly worded and incoherent posts...There is no real "we" is there? No flesh and blood person with whom you discuss things before you come here posting as though you speak for a group?
> 
> If there was even one semi-intelligent person with whom you shared discourse they would help you express yourself clearly.
> ...


Seriously, you are a smart man.  You know damn well what he is talking about.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Do you hate racists?


No, I do not hate Erowe; however, I do find him somewhat irritating at times.

----------


## tod evans

> Do you hate racists?


I don't.

Most racists are honest whereas most people who claim they're not are being dishonest.

Personally I'm ambiguous about the issue and just "hate" people who disagree with me...

----------


## tod evans

> Seriously, you are a smart man.  *You know damn well what he is talking about.*


I'm going to stay on his semi-literate ass until the lad quits lumping other people into his ideas of 'Alt-Right' or 'Anglo Saxon Protestants'.

Every one of us who posts here posts our opinions in the first person unless we're trying to rally others by employing inclusive vernacular, a tactic I wholeheartedly disagree with.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm going to stay on his semi-literate ass until the lad quits lumping other people into his ideas of 'Alt-Right' or 'Anglo Saxon Protestants'.
> 
> Every one of us who posts here posts our opinions in the first person unless we're trying to rally others by employing inclusive vernacular, a tactic I wholeheartedly disagree with.


Yet, you don't seem to hold the cultural Marxist, hate America crowd to the same strict set of requirements.

----------


## tod evans

> Yet, you don't seem to hold the cultural Marxist, hate America crowd to the same strict set of requirements.


They don't claim to speak for me.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> They don't claim to speak for me.


Where is he speaking for you?

Unless you are desiring the dissolution of our country, we do live in a nation here.  A nation with western culture and once upon a time, a set of principles upon which we were founded.  Not perfect, but one hell of a lot better than anything man had created anywhere.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> What makes you think that you're a part of my culture?
> 
> My ancestors came here in the 1700's too and I can prove it, can you?


Yes I can.





> The "values, traditions and history" of my ancestors "Anglo Saxon Protestants" includes such basic tenants as self-sufficiency and the outright refusal to be ruled by an unaccountable government. You on the other hand scream to empower just such a government every time you visit these boards.


I only ask the government to do its job. Is protecting the nation and its borders from outside threats and invasions no part of few tasks it is meant to do?

Standing back and allowing yourself to be dispossessed in your own nation is not a value nor a part of Anglo Saxon Protestant culture.





> Be honest with those reading your drivel and yourself, your posts do not represent white Christian Americans as a group, in fact they don't even represent the faction of white Americans you claim to speak for the "Alt-Right"......If they did you'd have other people with the ability to express themselves clearing up your poorly worded and incoherent posts...There is no real "we" is there? No flesh and blood person with whom you discuss things before you come here posting as though you speak for a group?


Mean while we retake the GOP and trust Trump into the White House.

Once we have Congress things will be very interesting.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> The "values, traditions and history" of my ancestors "Anglo Saxon Protestants" includes such basic tenants as self-sufficiency and the outright refusal to be ruled by an unaccountable government. You on the other hand scream to empower just such a government every time you visit these boards.


How is he advocating that?

----------


## tod evans

> Where is he speaking for you?


In the post I originally quoted;





> Did their lay the foundation of America? No, that is sole the title, property, and hallmark  of Anglo Saxons Protestants .
> Do you believe that people of a culture have the right to define, determine, and defend their values, traditions, history, and future?



Combine that verbiage with the lads incessant use of "we" and "our" in lieu of "I" or "my" and it's quite easy to understand my outrage.

Any moderately intelligent person can flesh out their opinions and post them as their own.

As an Anglo Saxon Protestant I will not stand by while this upstart claims to speak for me or my family.

----------


## tod evans

> How is he advocating that?


Good grief!

Shall I go cut-n-pate X number of cries for government to do more on his behalf?

Examples abound, search his post history.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Right. That's a good litmus test for who hates white people. If they don't like David Duke, then they must hate white people.


Answer the questions, erowe.  Stop dodging.




> I knew who he was, but I don't judge someone based off of what race-baiters say.  You see, I don't hate white people.  For some reason, that seems to be the politically-correct position these days.  Frankly, I'm sick to death of political correctness and what seems to be dogma direct from the Southern Poverty Law Center.  
> 
> Years ago, Duke used to have some solid positions on states' rights, constitutionally-limited government, individual liberty, national defense (not offense), personal privacy, etc.   Don't know if he still has the same stances on those issues.  But, one has to ask why you attempt to pigeon-hole him based on belonging to the KKK many years ago.  Does that negate everything else he believes?  If so, why?  And do you take the same position on anyone who has ever belonged to any race-based group?  You know, like La Raza, NAACP, ADL, CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood, NABA, NABS, etc?  If not, why not?

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Good grief!
> 
> Shall I go cut-n-pate X number of cries for government to do more on his behalf?


What is wrong with him wanting the government to represent him?

You said this:




> The "values, traditions and history" of my ancestors "Anglo Saxon Protestants" includes such basic tenants as self-sufficiency and the outright refusal to be ruled by an unaccountable government. You on the other hand scream to empower just such a government every time you visit these boards.


The multicultural government is unaccountable now and not representing the majority of citizens who'd like immigration reduced and our borders secured. I probably can back this up with evidence but I have to find it. 
Its the same thing with the federal reserve. Most people want an accountable government and not a government of a tiny powerful minority.

----------


## tod evans

> Yes I can.
> 
> I only ask the government to do its job. Is protecting the nation and its borders from outside threats and invasions no part of few tasks it is meant to do?


This is an outright lie!

You repeatedly call for more government spending, more government authority and more government employees.

If you were serious about doing something about "outside threats and invasions" *which really means illegal immigrants*, you'd be screaming to curtail government.





> Standing back and allowing yourself to be dispossessed in your own nation is not a value nor a part of Anglo Saxon Protestant culture.


And what makes you think I'm "standing back"? 

Do you claim to know what I do or how I behave?

Do you think your approach is the correct way to secure liberty for yourself and your children?







> Mean while *we* retake the GOP and trust Trump into the White House.
> 
> Once *we* have Congress things will be very interesting.


^^^^^^ Case in point ^^^^^^^

Are you speaking as a white man? An "Alt-Right-er"? A Protestant? Or some other group you claim authority to speak for?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> In the post I originally quoted;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Combine that verbiage with the lads incessant use of "we" and "our" in lieu of "I" or "my" and it's quite easy to understand my outrage.
> 
> Any moderately intelligent person can flesh out their opinions and post them as their own.
> ...


Like a real WASP, I act in your defense even if you hate me for it.

If we WASPs have a flaw its we are too nice and too forgiving, then again when we grow to hate we do rattle the planet.

----------


## tod evans

> What is wrong with him wanting the government to represent him?


Absolutely nothing.






> The multicultural government is unaccountable now and not representing the majority of citizens who'd like immigration reduced and our borders secured. I probably can back this up with evidence but I have to find it. 
> Its the same thing with the federal reserve. Most people want an accountable government and not a government of a tiny powerful minority.


I struck "multicultural" from your assertion so that I could agree with it...

Government is not representative of me, my family and very few people I know.

But the fact remains that it represents somebody, lots of somebodies..

I want to shrink government, shrink federal authority and spending, and create small localized governments that do not answer to DC, governments that DC must court in order to act in any capacity.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> I want to shrink government, shrink federal authority and spending, and create small localized governments that do not answer to DC, governments that DC must court in order to act in any capacity.


I am right by your side for that.

----------


## tod evans

> Like a real WASP, I act in your defense even if you hate me for it.
> 
> If we WASPs have a flaw its we are too nice and too forgiving, then again when we grow to hate we do rattle the planet.


*I* am not nice or forgiving.

And *I* will not be driven, guided or cajoled.

*I* speak for myself and members of my family unable or unwilling to enter into discourse on these matters, no one else.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> How is he advocating that?


All I advocate is the government doing its job.




> Good grief!
> 
> Shall I go cut-n-pate X number of cries for government to do more on his behalf?
> 
> Examples abound, search his post history.







> Answer the questions, erowe.  Stop dodging.


That is his only tactic.




> What is wrong with him wanting the government to represent him?


All 3 of those above, more over which if any group does not want to have more political power?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Absolutely nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I struck "multicultural" from your assertion so that I could agree with it...
> 
> Government is not representative of me, my family and very few people I know.
> ...


And do you think that will happen when we are importing millions of people that want the opposite and are totally dependent on the state to live?

Yes or No?





> I am right by your side for that.





> *I* am not nice or forgiving.
> 
> And *I* will not be driven, guided or cajoled.
> 
> *I* speak for myself and members of my family unable or unwilling to enter into discourse on these matters, no one else.


Good to know, Saxons are awaking in large numbers.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> They don't claim to speak for me.


No, they just want to flood the nation with tens of millions of low IQ people who will out vote. Which would seem like something that would seem like a threat that you work to neutralize.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Do you hate racists?


No, why would we? If a person is "hateful" for loving his people, culture, nation why should we hate him for that?

Why is that a "bad" thing?

----------


## tod evans

> And do you think that will happen when we are importing millions of people that want the opposite and are totally dependent on the state to live?


"We" are not "importing millions of people" That would be the government that *I* want to strip the power to do so from. 




> Yes or No?


Trying to craft statements as questions and then demanding "yes/no" answers might work for those with limited intellect... 




> Good to know, Saxons are awaking in large numbers.


Young man *I* have been aware of, and fighting against, this government we all suffer under since before you were a gleam in your fathers eye.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Like a real WASP, I act in your defense even if you hate me for it.
> 
> If we WASPs have a flaw its we are too nice and too forgiving, then again when we grow to hate we do rattle the planet.


LOL. As long as you keep pissing and moaning about how much you need the FedGov to save you from whatever it is you think you need saving from, then the only things you are going to "rattle" are the bars of your cage.

----------


## tod evans

> No, they just want to flood the nation with tens of millions of low IQ people who will out vote. Which would seem like something that would seem like a threat that you work to neutralize.


And your suggestion is to work within their government and hold them accountable in their courts......

Scary thing is you seem to think this makes sense.

----------


## tod evans

> LOL. As long as you keep pissing and moaning about how much you need the FedGov to save you from whatever it is you think you need saving from, then the only things you are going to "rattle" are the bars of your cage.


_



			
				You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again.
			
		

_

----------


## tod evans

> ??????


Parse and proofread this post in order to get a response. 

Incoherent gibberish isn't worthy of the time it takes to try and decipher.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> And your suggestion is to work within their government and hold them accountable in their courts......
> 
> Scary thing is you seem to think this makes sense.


How can we when they are activist judges? Remember the moron judge that Carter appointed that struck down Prop 187?

----------


## tod evans

> How can we when they are activist judges? Remember the moron judge that Carter appointed that struck down Prop 187?


Careful now..............

You might get a view of the big picture.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> "We" are not "importing millions of people" That would be the government that *I* want to strip the power to do so from. 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to craft statements as questions and then demanding "yes/no" answers might work for those with limited intellect... 
> 
> 
> 
> Young man *I* have been aware of, and fighting against, this government we all suffer under since before you were a gleam in your fathers eye.


So you think adding tens of millions of poor, low IQed people will make it easier to reduce the government? If that is the case why has the size of the government in CA and other areas that have a high population of immigrants both legal and illegal?

So what gains have you made?

Do you think those gains if any would be greater if tens of millions of largely 3rd world people were not coming in and voting for more marxism?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Careful now..............
> 
> You might get a view of the big picture.


So in short you want to play by a set of rules written by the opposition to insure you lose.

----------


## tod evans

I'm done with you tonight.

Failure to complete coherent sentences or understand simple English has proven exhausting for me and quite frankly I haven't seen any sign that you've been able to glean the smallest morsel from my efforts.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> This is one of their entrusted duties and they are failing it, not sure why you are not understand this.


By your own admission, they have failed. And you are right - they have failed.

Not only have they failed, but they have failed miserably and repeatedly.

Therefore, by their amply demonstrated incompetence, they should NOT be "entrusted" with any more "duties" - and whatever "duties" have already been so foolishly and stupidly "entrusted" to them should be stripped from them entirely and restored to those to whom such "duties" rightly belonged in the first place (e.g., sovereign states and localities).

But yet, you tell us with a straight face that "entrusting" them with still more "duties" (in addition to the ones they have already failed at) will somehow magically fix things this time.

All I can say is that if taking such an approach is an example of what your lot means by having a "high IQ," then maybe it would be better if we just turn things over to the 'tards and have done with it ...

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> By your own admission, they have failed. And you are right - they have failed.
> 
> Not only have they failed, but they have failed miserably and repeatedly.
> 
> Therefore, by their amply demonstrated incompetence, they should NOT be "entrusted" with any more "duties" - and whatever "duties" have already been so foolishly and stupidly "entrusted" to them should be stripped from them entirely and restored to those to whom such "duties" rightly belonged in the first place (e.g., sovereign states and localities).
> 
> But yet, you tell us with a straight face that "entrusting" them with still more "duties" (in addition to the ones they have already failed at) will somehow magically fix things this time.
> 
> All I can say is that if taking such an approach is an example of what your lot means by having a "high IQ," then maybe it would be better if we just turn things over to the 'tards and have done with it ...


Its a failure of leadership, nothing more.

I wonder if what ever Blackwater is calling itself now would like to a contract to deport some illegals.

----------


## tod evans

> Its a failure of leadership, nothing more.


Government by it's very nature is "leadership" and it has been failing longer than I've been alive so changing leadership and expecting different results is a fools game.

The portion of government that must be shed like a snakes skin isn't elected, they're entrenched.




> I wonder if what ever Blackwater is calling itself now would like to a contract to deport some illegals.


Hiring mercenaries to fight your battles or enforce your laws is fine-n-dandy. All of us are living with the current crop of mercenaries enforcing the will of the majority.

What makes you think a different batch of mercenaries isn't going to sell out to the high bidder?

Your Uncle Sam is the current high bidder and electing some clown or a dried out old $#@! isn't going to change anything when the entrenched remain...

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Its a failure of leadership, nothing more.


Bull$#@!.

The only "failure of leadership" here is the failure of states and localities to lead the way in telling the FedGov to go to hell.

----------


## CCTelander

"What has the alt-right accomplished?"

Well, they've certainly managed to help accelerate the decline of this forum to a blinding rate, by spewing their particularly vile and pernicious form of collectivism/socialism.

----------


## erowe1

> "What has the alt-right accomplished?"
> 
> Well, they've certainly managed to help accelerate the decline of this forum to a blinding rate, by spewing their particularly vile and pernicious form of collectivism/socialism.


This seems pretty obvious to me. And it's ironic, because   @Bryan specifically said that the reason he revised the site guidelines in order to make it more welcoming to white nationalists 
Admin note: This is completely false. I have never made a single reference to white nationalists and I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to support anything they do.



was because he thought that would improve the level of discourse. I recall being dumbstruck at the time and asking him how he thought that was working out, and he never answered me, just gave me a temp ban.

Admin note: Implying more false information, your ban was for repeatedly violating the guidelines not for asking a question.

----------


## TheCount

> To have the means of self determination and *exclude exterior influences or controls* that might be harmful.


And so it is not about your own culture at all, which is entirely my point  It's about being able to ban other cultures.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> And so it is not about your own culture at all, which is entirely my point  It's about being able to ban other cultures.


Your thought process for claiming such?

Nothing wrong about banning other cultures if they are disruptive, subversives, burdensome, or a threat to us.

Self Preservation is the first and highest of nature and nature`s God, not sure why some people have a problem with it.

----------


## RandallFan

Brexit is clearly an alt right thing. Until everyone else started plagiarizing Farage & Trump.

You can't oppose Rubio's amnesty bill or the EU or NATO or TPP because you don't like 2 paragraphs out of 200 paragraphs of it.

The respect for Putin, whatever its motives, makes the world less war-some & divides the power of the world more instead of just NATO elites.

The hate for Merkel & EU elites is basically all alt right.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Government by it's very nature is "leadership" and it has been failing longer than I've been alive so changing leadership and expecting different results is a fools game.
> 
> The portion of government that must be shed like a snakes skin isn't elected, they're entrenched.
> 
> 
> 
> Hiring mercenaries to fight your battles or enforce your laws is fine-n-dandy. All of us are living with the current crop of mercenaries enforcing the will of the majority.
> 
> What makes you think a different batch of mercenaries isn't going to sell out to the high bidder?
> ...


And how do you plan on getting rid of that faction? Voting? The courts?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Bull$#@!.
> 
> The only "failure of leadership" here is the failure of states and localities to lead the way in telling the FedGov to go to hell.


If they did you would find a reason not to support them.




> "What has the alt-right accomplished?"
> 
> Well, they've certainly managed to help accelerate the decline of this forum to a blinding rate, by spewing their particularly vile and pernicious form of collectivism/socialism.


Sure, its our fault you play by a set of rules that ensure you lose.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Brexit is clearly an alt right thing. Until everyone else started plagiarizing Farage & Trump.
> 
> You can't oppose Rubio's amnesty bill or the EU or NATO or TPP because you don't like 2 paragraphs out of 200 paragraphs of it.
> 
> The respect for Putin, whatever its motives, makes the world less war-some & divides the power of the world more instead of just NATO elites.
> 
> The hate for Merkel & EU elites is basically all alt right.


What if we hate everything about Rubio's amnesty bill or the EU or NATO or TPP?

Also I love him dumping those emails, I hope more is on the way

----------


## tod evans

> And how do you plan on getting rid of that faction? Voting? The courts?


That avenue seems to be what you advocate for, over and over and over.......

----------


## erowe1

> Brexit is clearly an alt right thing.


No it isn't.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> That avenue seems to be what you advocate for, over and over and over.......


If you are calling for violence have the balls to just come out and say it if that is what you are calling.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> No it isn't.


So

 tell us how it is not when the Alt Right is all about secession, secure borders, reducing immigration, restoring demographic stability , self determination?

----------


## tod evans

> If you are calling for violence have the balls to just come out and say it if that is what you are calling.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content...s-and-Policies

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content...s-and-Policies


So your point?

----------


## RandallFan

Farage, Le Pen & that Dutch guy wilders with the giant head are not libertarians. They are like Trump. They say people who paid taxes and played by the rules get security.

----------


## tod evans

> So
> 
>  tell us how it is not when the Alt Right is all about secession, secure borders, reducing immigration, restoring demographic stability , self determination?


If you represent the 'Alt-Right' as you claim to maybe you could explain how you intend to use their government to achieve your goals?

Or does "all about" only include lip service?

Government is the antithesis of liberty.

The sooner you realize this simple fact the better off you'll be.

----------


## tod evans

> So your point?


I know you have trouble reading and comprehending...........Give it another try, the answer to your query is spelled out in plain English.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> If you represent the 'Alt-Right' as you claim to maybe you could explain how you intend to use their government to achieve your goals?
> 
> Or does "all about" only include lip service?
> 
> Government is the antithesis of liberty.
> 
> The sooner you realize this simple fact the better off you'll be.


Maybe they can not make things worse for us?

No, you sound like an anarchist.

----------


## erowe1

> So
> 
>  tell us how it is not when the Alt Right is all about secession, secure borders, reducing immigration, restoring demographic stability , self determination?


Because, with the exception of the first and last items, which have nothing to do with the alt-right, Brexit wasn't about those things.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Because, with the exception of the first and last items, which have nothing to do with the alt-right, Brexit wasn't about those things.


The Alt Right is founded on those ideals and the Brexit was totally about those issues.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> The Alt Right is founded on those ideals and the Brexit was totally about those issues.


Agreed. The most popular reason people said that voted to go out of the EU was due to too many immigrants.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Agreed. The most popular reason people said that voted to go out of the EU was due to too many immigrants.


And who could blame them? English is for the English, and the Middle east for its peoples. Its not our fault they can not build nations and cities as well as we can.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> And who could blame them? English is for the English, and the Middle east for its peoples. Its not our fault they can not build nations and cities as well as we can.


I know. 

A few fellow libertarians here are totally for the invasion of our country by Muslims even though these people are a threat to our rights and freedoms. :/

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by Occam's Banana
> 
> 
> The only "failure of leadership" here is the failure of states and localities to lead the way in telling the FedGov to go to hell.
> 
> 
> If they did you would find a reason not to support them.


Not to put too fine a point on it, but $#@! you.

(I only rarely resort to it, but "$#@! you" is exactly the level of rhetorical rejoinder your vacuously presumptuous and cowardly "rebuttal" deserves.)

If any states and localities told the FedGov to go to hell - for whatever reason - I would fully and enthusiastically support them.

Not only would I support them, but I've been telling you over and over (and over and over ...) that that is exactly what they ought to do.

In fact, I've been telling you over and over (and over and over ...) that that is the only thing that stands any real chance of actually "fixing" any of the messes the FedGov has created.

Regale us with as much braggadocio as you like - in reality, you are just another helpless, sniveling bootlicker who wants the Feds to come and "save" you. In this, you are not one bit different from any of the low-IQ, welfare-mooching immigrant voters you like to piss and moan so much about ...

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> in reality, you are just another helpless, sniveling bootlicker who wants the Feds to come and "save" you.


I think he wants the fed to represent him and do their job as the constitution says. 

I mean, what is he supposed to do? Just go around and start rounding up illegal immigrants himself?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Not to put too fine a point on it, but $#@! you.
> 
> (I only rarely resort to it, but "$#@! you" is exactly the level of rhetorical rejoinder your vacuously presumptuous and cowardly "rebuttal" deserves.)
> 
> If any states and localities told the FedGov to go to hell - for whatever reason - I would fully and enthusiastically support them.
> 
> Not only would I support them, but I've been telling you over and over (and over and over ...) that that is exactly what they ought to do.
> 
> In fact, I've been telling you over and over (and over and over ...) that that is the only thing that stands any real chance of actually "fixing" any of the messes the FedGov has created.
> ...


So you claim, if they supported a border fence and limited immigration into say the states of Texas which just told the Feds to sit and spin would you support them?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I think he wants the fed to represent him and do their job as the constitution says. 
> 
> I mean, what is he supposed to do? Just go around and start rounding up illegal immigrants himself?


That is why I pay them, if they are not going to protect me then I do not have to pay taxes, its the social contract and they have largely broken their end of it.

I would if I could, but sadly the leftist fools in D.C think "they have a right to be here" and I would be committing a crime placing them under arrest, but when one of them kills an America they then try and disarm us.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I think he wants the fed to represent him and do their job as the constitution says.


As has been repeatedly pointed out - in this thread and elsewhere - there is no sane reason to expect that to ever actually happen (otherwise we wouldn't be in all these messes in the first place). To repeat myself (yet again ...):




> Originally Posted by RestorationOfLiberty
> 
> 
> This is one of their entrusted duties and they are failing it, not sure why you are not understand this.
> 
> 
> By your own admission, they have failed. And you are right - they have failed.
> 
> Not only have they failed, but they have failed miserably and repeatedly.
> ...






> I mean, what is he supposed to do? Just go around and start rounding up illegal immigrants himself?


He can do whatever he pleases. But he's nothing but deluded if he imagines that "all it will take is a law passed by Congress to straighten this mess out" (an exact quote by him in another thread).

In a nation with a third of a billion people, the idea that Congress or the courts or any other element of the US federal government is ever going to be representative of (or do anything in the interests of) anyone except themselves is sheer lunacy - especially after well over a century of lying, corrupt, and unconstitutional (hell, outright _anti_-constitutional) subversion and destruction of whatever principles of state and local sovereignty remained after Abraham Lincoln and the so-called "Republicans" got done with them.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> So you claim, if they supported a border fence and limited immigration into say the states of Texas which just told the Feds to sit and spin would you support them?


Are your really this obtuse, or do you just pretend to be on the Internet?

What part of the following did you not understand?




> If any states and localities told the FedGov to go to hell - *for whatever reason* - I would fully and enthusiastically support them.



So if Texans wanted "a border fence and limited immigration" and the Feds tried to tell them otherwise, then yes, I absolutely would support Texas telling the Feds to "sit and spin."

And if Texans wanted "no border fence and 'open' immigration" and the Feds tried to tell them otherwise, then I would just as strongly support Texas telling the Feds to go pound sand.

I am not a Texan and it's none of my goddam business, one way or the other.

And if you are not a Texan, then it's none of your goddam business, either.

The so-called "United States" has no more business telling Texas what its immigration policies should or should not be than the so-called "European Union" has telling Britain what its immigration policies should or should not be. This latter fact seems to have gotten through your skull. Why hasn't the former?

*#Texit*

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> As has been repeatedly pointed out - in this thread and elsewhere - there is no sane reason to expect that to ever actually happen (otherwise we wouldn't be in all these messes in the first place). To repeat myself (yet again ...):
> 
> 
> 
> He can do whatever he pleases. But he's nothing but deluded if he imagines that "all it will take is a law passed by Congress to straighten this mess out" (an exact quote by him in another thread).
> 
> In a nation with a third of a billion people, the idea that Congress or the courts or any other element of the US federal government is ever going to be representative of (or do anything in the interests of) anyone except themselves is sheer lunacy - especially after well over a century of lying, corrupt, and unconstitutional (hell, outright _anti_-constitutional) subversion and destruction of whatever principles of state and local sovereignty remained after Abraham Lincoln and the so-called "Republicans" got done with them.


So nothing but throw up your hands and say "screw you guys, I`m going home"...Cool.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> In a nation with a third of a billion people, the idea that Congress or the courts or any other element of the US federal government is ever going to be representative of (or do anything in the interests of) anyone except themselves is sheer lunacy - especially after well over a century of lying, corrupt, and unconstitutional (hell, outright _anti_-constitutional) subversion and destruction of whatever principles of state and local sovereignty remained after Abraham Lincoln and the so-called "Republicans" got done with them.


Yes. But if that is the case why are you even here and why do you even vote? Also, historically Congress passed the 1924 immigration act which worked wonderfully for over 40 years. I do believe they respond to political pressure if enough people force them to do what needs to be done. There are many examples of this.  Brexit is another example.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> [ROL's verbal equivalent of fart noises - because he couldn't come up with a substantive rebuttal]


What's wrong with saying "screw you guys?"

That's exactly what Britain said to the EU.

Why shouldn't they have? Why are you sneering at the idea?

_Why are you such a FedGov-loving globalist progressive, ROL?_

Seriously. Why?




> Soon to Be Posted by *RestorationOfLiberty* 
> 
> [more of ROL's verbal equivalent of fart noises ...]

----------


## tod evans

> Yes. But if that is the case why are you even here and why do you even vote? Also, historically Congress passed the 1924 immigration act which worked wonderfully for over 40 years. I do believe they respond to political pressure if enough people force them to do what needs to be done. There are many examples of this.  Brexit is another example.


Immigration is but one very small slice in a big ol' pie.

Focusing on it to the point one can't see what else government is doing to it's citizens and the rest of the world isn't wise.

Since this thread is about what the 'Alt-Right' has accomplished I'll keep harping on the simple fact that the 'Alt-Right' has been trying to accomplish empowering and growing the fed-gov...

As to your question about "why you're here"......... Dr.Ron Paul managed to get a great many people to believe it was possible to reign in the federal government, shrink it even. Many of us are "still here" because we're either too stubborn or too stupid to give up on that idea.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Yes. But if that is the case why are you even here [...]


I am here because I greatly admire Ron Paul and I enjoy discussing and debating issues involving libertarianism and how the cause of human liberty can be promoted and advanced.

And the implication that one shouldn't be here unless he can justify his presence to another's satisfaction is silly and pointless.

So I won't insult you by asking, "why are you even here?" 




> [...] and why do you even vote?


I don't.




> Also, historically Congress passed the 1924 immigration act which worked wonderfully for over 40 years. I do believe they respond to political pressure if enough people force them to do what needs to be done. *There are many examples of this*.


No there aren't. And for any example you might cite - even if I granted for the sake of argument that it had "worked wonderfully" and was the result of "[the] people forc[ing Congress] to do what needs to be done" - I could cite dozens of other examples of exactly the opposite. The net result of all this has been the steady, significant erosion and destruction of liberty in America - and it is going to continue as long as "enough people" persist in the delusion that the feds can be made into biddable servants.




> Brexit is another example.


Brexit is not another example of what you are talking about.

Brexit is an example of what I am talking about.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Well, while we have a fed gov, why is it a bad thing to want our immigration laws enforced, the TPP not signed, other lousy trade agreements that we have right now, renegotiated or gotten out of, and our military not used to police the world?

----------


## tod evans

> Well, while we have a fed gov, why is it a bad thing to want our immigration laws enforced, the TPP not signed, other lousy trade agreements that we have right now, renegotiated or gotten out of, and our military not used to police the world?


Who is arguing against any of those?

I've read arguments relevant to methods used in regards to 'enforcing immigration laws' and whether or not the current law is ethical or sustainable, heck I've even read some people try to argue that immigrants are an 'invading army' to try and justify federal action. 

Every sane argument I've read regarding immigration places the onus of enforcement on the individual states and not fed-gov.

Nobody has mentioned fed-gov's border patrol's actions and authority prior to Nixon's war on drugs or the simple fact that the ICE wasn't even founded until 2003...

Tinkering with the spokes on the wheels while barreling downhill without breaks is really kind of ignorant, dontchathink?

----------


## Suzanimal

> Yes. But if that is the case why are you even here and why do you even vote? Also, historically Congress passed the 1924 immigration act which worked wonderfully for over 40 years. *I do believe they respond to political pressure if enough people force them to do what needs to be done.* There are many examples of this.  Brexit is another example.



Possibly a few but I wouldn't say many.




> Study: Congress literally doesnt care what you think
> 
> Have you ever felt like the government doesn't really care what you think?
> 
> Professors Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin I. Page (Northwestern University) looked at more than 20 years worth of data to answer a simple question: Does the government represent the people?
> 
> Their study took data from nearly 2000 public opinion surveys and compared it to the policies that ended up becoming law. In other words, they compared what the public wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of 90% of Americans have essentially no impact at all.
> 
> Princeton University study: Public opinion has near-zero impact on U.S. law.
> ...


https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Who is arguing against any of those?
> 
> I've read arguments relevant to methods used in regards to 'enforcing immigration laws' and whether or not the current law is ethical or sustainable, heck I've even read some people try to argue that immigrants are an 'invading army' to try and justify federal action. 
> 
> Every sane argument I've read regarding immigration places the onus of enforcement on the individual states and not fed-gov.
> 
> Nobody has mentioned fed-gov's border patrol's actions and authority prior to Nixon's war on drugs or the simple fact that the ICE wasn't even founded until 2003...
> 
> Tinkering with the spokes on the wheels while barreling downhill without breaks is really kind of ignorant, dontchathink?


To me, it's you wanting to do the tinkering.  Aren't you the one suggesting to get rid of ICE and leave it up to the states?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Possibly a few but I wouldn't say many.


Yeah, many only seem to care if they are close to reelection and only then if it looks like there is a possibility of losing their seat.

----------


## tod evans

> To me, it's you wanting to do the tinkering.  Aren't you the one suggesting to get rid of ICE and leave it up to the states?


Nope I'm not suggesting tinkering at all.

I want to run this wayward car into the ditch and crumple it so badly it'll make more sense to build another than to keep polishing this turd.

Fedgov is so large and entrenched I can't see any amount of 'tinkering' that could reign it in at this point.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Well, while we have a fed gov, why is it a bad thing to want our immigration laws enforced, the TPP not signed, other lousy trade agreements that we have right now, renegotiated or gotten out of, and our military not used to police the world?


Those might not be bad things to want - but why are they things the fed gov has to give us if they're wanted?

Why should any jackholes in Congress or the courts or the White House who are not from Texas (which means pretty much all of them) get to tell Texans what to do about any of those things - despite whatever Texans themselves want?

IOW: Why should the fed gov continue to be allowed to have any say in the matter?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> IOW: Why should the fed gov continue to be allowed to have any say in the matter?


States providing them consent? Heh.

Well. Actually, the TPP is secret so I suppose that one isn't relative to consent.

----------


## tod evans

> States providing them consent? Heh.


Coerced 'consent' isn't consent...

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Coerced 'consent' isn't consent...


Yeah, I know. I was just talking sht. I mean, if you do away with the fed, then, you kind of have to do away with the state, too. Even though I think you'd technically still end up with a state anyway in the form of a different cartel.

----------


## tod evans

> Yeah, I know. I was just talking sht. I mean, if you do away with the fed, then, you kind of have to do away with the state, too. Even though I think you'd technically still end up with a state anyway in the form of a different cartel.


There's a lot to be said about having access to the people who would lord over you......

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Yeah, I know. I was just talking sht. I mean, *if you do away with the fed, then, you kind of have to do away with the state, too*. Even though I think you'd technically still end up with a state anyway in the form of a different cartel.


I am an anarchist who has no problem with the idea of doing away with the state as well as the "fed" - but even so, it is a _non sequitur_ to say that if you get rid of a federal government then you must also get rid of the smaller polities (e.g., states) of which it is composed.

By that logic, if you have any federal governments, then you also have to have a super-federal one-world government, too - because if you don't have a super-federal one-world government, then you can't have any of the smaller polities (e.g., federal governments) of which the super-federation would be composed. And that just doesn't make any sense ... (not even if you're an anarchist ...)

If it is proper or necessary to have such governments at all, then they should never be permitted to exceed the "human scale" ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCNd7h0fsdE





*The US federal government is an overweening monstrosity. Break it up and break it down!*

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I am an anarchist who has no problem with the idea of doing away with the state as well as the "fed" - but even so, it is a _non sequitur_ to say that if you get rid of a federal government then you must also get rid of the smaller polities (e.g., states) of which it is composed.
> 
> By that logic, if you have any federal governments, then you also have to have a super-federal one-world government, too - because if you don't have a super-federal one-world government, then you can't have any of the smaller polities (e.g., federal governments) of which the super-federation would be composed. And that just doesn't make any sense ... (not even if you're an anarchist ...)
> 
> If it is proper or necessary to have such governments at all, then they should never be permitted to exceed the "human scale" ..



Yeah, that's not how I meant it, though. Although, admittedly, it read that way. I wasn't speaking in terms of entities, per se. I was talking about a proper Government-to-Man relationship as a product of a proper Man-to-Man relationship and in relation to a fundamental moral foundation which makes them both proper. 

But I agree with the example that you've shown in terms of physical entities themselves.

Interesting video. We pretty much know all of that stuff already. It is interesting that people like Madison wanted such a small number of reprsentatives.

----------


## Natural Citizen

I do wonder if there are any good anarchy threads around here that are of any depth, though. Surely there must be. It'd be an interesting read.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Those might not be bad things to want - but why are they things the fed gov has to give us if they're wanted?
> 
> Why should any jackholes in Congress or the courts or the White House who are not from Texas (which means pretty much all of them) get to tell Texans what to do about any of those things - despite whatever Texans themselves want?
> 
> IOW: Why should the fed gov continue to be allowed to have any say in the matter?


Oh heck, Occam, you and I both know that the people occupying our federal government went off the rails long ago.  They are totally outside of the their Constitutional enumerated powers.  I would estimate that over 95% of what the federal government has their hands in now, is totally unconstitutional.  If we are to have a federal government at all, I want them back in their corral, but like with anything, if that miracle would come to pass, it would be up to the People to keep them in there.

I don't want the federal government to be telling the Texan people, or anyone, much of anything.  I think you know that.  But, x, we are here.  And while we are, one of the valid uses of the federal government is to defend our borders.  Hell, they are the reason why they are being overrun at the rate they are, after all.   You seem to be saying that it is fine in your eyes if Texas was to defend her borders.  Well, the fed won't allow them.  In addition, I don't think it's altogether feasible as long as the fed is pushing policies and making secretive deals with other governments that cause them to pour in like some kind of forced propulsion.  Do I want it to change?  Hell yes, I do, and I haven't given up on that.

We've pretty much been sitting on the sidelines hoping for something to change.  Meanwhile, illegal immigration has gone through the frickin' roof.  Now, the fed is apparently wanting to ante up a few and do their best to turn us into a France or Germany, by increasing the number of inadequately vetted migrants brought into our country.  That's not ok with me.  So, while we don't totally agree on the endpoint for how we'd like to see things, I don't think we are miles away.  But, I'm not willing to just wait for a miracle to happen with the fed; because it is getting worse, not better and soon, in my opinion, we will be past the point of no return.  Then neither of us will get what we want; a vastly reduced federal government; in size and scope.  You, maybe a non-existent one.

----------


## tod evans

> I do wonder if there are any good anarchy threads around here of any depth, though. Surely there must be. It'd be an interesting read.


Several years ago the subject was ripe, discussed in depth by lots of fart-smellers, er......

Actually I really enjoyed reading lots of the discussions.

Most of the folks who contributed to them have moved on unfortunately...

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I do wonder if there are any good anarchy threads around here that are of any depth, though. Surely there must be. It'd be an interesting read.


That's what the Philosophy section is for.  Once upon a time, there used to be good debate and discussion in there.  But, a lot of those people are gone.  I would highly recommend Occam's Banana.  He is one of the good ones, in my opinion, who is still here.  I have much respect for him.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> They are totally outside of the their Constitutional enumerated powers.  I would estimate that over 95% of what the federal government has their hands in now, is totally unconstitutional.  If we are to have a federal government at all, I want them back in their corral, but like with anything, if that miracle would come to pass, it would be up to the People to keep them in there.


Yep. Just Powers. Consent. These are proper Government-to-Man relations.

----------


## tod evans

> That's what the Philosophy section is for.  Once upon a time, there used to be good debate and discussion in there.  But, a lot of those people are gone. * I would highly recommend Occam's Banana.  He is one of the good ones, in my opinion, who is still here.  I have much respect for him*.


I'll second this!

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Several years ago the subject was ripe, discussed in depth by lots of fart-smellers, er......
> 
> Actually I really enjoyed reading lots of the discussions.
> 
> Most of the folks who contributed to them have moved on unfortunately...


Fart smellers? You lost me there, tod. Oddly, though, I'm interested in what you mean. Heh.

I didn't know Occams Banana was an anarchist, though.

----------


## tod evans

> Fart smellers? You lost me there, tod. Oddly, though, I'm interested in what you mean. Heh.
> 
> I didn't know Occams Banana was an anarchist, though.


Smart fellers/fart smellers

I'm used to interacting with my 11 y/o and wouldn't have it any other way!

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Smart fellers/fart smellers
> 
> I'm used to interacting with my 11 y/o and wouldn't have it any other way!


Heh. I see now. Thanks.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> That's what the Philosophy section is for.  Once upon a time, there used to be good debate and discussion in there.  But, a lot of those people are gone.  I would highly recommend Occam's Banana.  He is one of the good ones, in my opinion, who is still here.  I have much respect for him.


I don't really subscribe to anarchy. I'm more of a limited government person. But I do like to read discussion on in. 

But, yeah. I like Occam's Banana posts, too.

----------


## tod evans

> I don't really subscribe to anarchy. I'm more of a limited government person. But I do like to read discussion on in. 
> 
> But, yeah. I like Occam's Banana posts, too.


Anarchy carries 100's if not 1000's of different connotations, I certainly learned a lot reading all the varying opinions and heated discussions..

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I do wonder if there are any good anarchy threads around here that are of any depth, though. Surely there must be. It'd be an interesting read.


Eh. I guess it depends on what exactly you mean by "good" ...

Some of the longer ones can be gleaned for lots of interesting and thought-provoking material on both sides (the short ones being forgettable because ... well, because they're short). But the long ones also tend to involve (or devolve into) tedious repetitions of all the same old points and statements on both sides - not to mention the flame wars and mutual accusations on the theme of "you're an intellectual defective" or "you're a moral defective" (or both). Just off-hand, I don't recall any specific ones that I would especially recommend.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> What's wrong with saying "screw you guys?"
> 
> That's exactly what Britain said to the EU.
> 
> Why shouldn't they have? Why are you sneering at the idea?
> 
> _Why are you such a FedGov-loving globalist progressive, ROL?_
> 
> Seriously. Why?



So since you take what I say out of context and are reaching the limits of your brain power I see no reason to waste any time with you, Vox is right about gammas.

----------


## tod evans

> So since you take what I say out of context and are reaching the limits of your brain power I see no reason to waste any time with you, Vox is right about gammas.


Good grief!

The likes of you insulting Occams intellect..............That's rich.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Eh. I guess it depends on what exactly you mean by "good" ...
> 
> Some of the longer ones can be gleaned for interesting and thought-provoking material on both sides (the short ones being forgettable because ... well, because they're short). But the long ones also tend to involve (or devolve into) tedious repetitions of all the same old points and statements on both sides - not to mention the flame wars and mutual accusations on the theme of "you're an intellectual defective" or "you're a moral defective" (or both). Off-hand, I don't recall any that I would especially recommend.


Yeah, that's what I meant by good. I wouldn't spend two minutes on a thread like that. Heh. 

It is interesting, though. I like the topic. And I do question at times whether the framers acted of any true authority. I go back and forth with it. Depends on my mood, I suppose.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> I am here because I greatly admire Ron Paul and I enjoy discussing and debating issues involving libertarianism and how the cause of human liberty can be promoted and advanced.


That's fine. 




> No there aren't. And for any example you might cite - even if I granted for the sake of argument that it had "worked wonderfully" and was the result of "[the] people forc[ing Congress] to do what needs to be done" - I could cite dozens of other examples of exactly the opposite.


Will you? I'll appreciate a few. 




> Brexit is not another example of what you are talking about.
> 
> Brexit is an example of what I am talking about.


How so? The establishment didn't want it to pass.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Good grief!
> 
> The likes of you insulting Occams intellect..............That's rich.


Heh. Not only that but Occams is maybe the best troller, too. 

That's a double whammy.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Immigration is but one very small slice in a big ol' pie.
> 
> Focusing on it to the point one can't see what else government is doing to it's citizens and the rest of the world isn't wise.


ITs focused on because immigration is probably one of the most important issues.




> Since this thread is about what the 'Alt-Right' has accomplished I'll keep harping on the simple fact that the 'Alt-Right' has been trying to accomplish empowering and growing the fed-gov...


How so? Many people of the alt-right are libertarians who want to shrink the gov. Do you have any facts or examples?

----------


## LibertyEagle

This is much more interesting and thought-provoking when we can have a discussion.  No gotchas, no lies; just people discussing and trying to hear the other.  It works better in real life too.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Possibly a few but I wouldn't say many.
> 
> 
> https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem


Thanks for the link, that was interesting and memorable. 

However, I agree with the link because most people don't think or research the past of the people of who they vote for and obviously get screwed over. But if everyone researched the track records and voted for consistent people like Ron Paul we wouldn't have this problem. I personally have never been burned by a politician because I do my homework.

I know its naïve to think that people educate themselves about the issues and vote accordingly though.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> This is much more interesting and thought-provoking when we can have a discussion.  No gotchas, no lies; just people discussing and trying to hear the other.  It works better in real life too.


Yes'm. Tis true.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Several years ago the subject was ripe, discussed in depth by lots of fart-smellers, er......


All of mine are rainbow scented, of course ... 




> I don't really subscribe to anarchy. I'm more of a limited government person. But I do like to read discussion on in.


I've said several times before on RPFs - and I've found no reason to change my mind about this - that if a genuinely free society is ever really achieved, the anarchists and minarchists of that day will then proceed to argue strenuously with one another over whether they are actually living in an anarchy or a minarchy.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I've said several times before on RPFs - and I've found no reason to change my mind about this - that if a genuinely free society is ever really achieved, the anarchists and minarchists of that day will then proceed to argue strenuously with one another over whether they are actually living in an anarchy or a minarchy.


Seems like it would naturally evolve into a minarchy. And then you'd be left with private courts, private police, private everything. Could one imagine competing private courts? Heh. How would one even define legal justice? Much less equality in legal justice (meaning equal rights under equal laws.)

Especially given that there'd surely be a private defense army, too. They'd likely be knocking on my door if I mentioned that I wanted to compete with them. Then I'd have to have my own private defense army.

----------


## tod evans

> ITs focused on because immigration is probably one of the most important issues.


Really?

I tend to think wars(foreign and domestic) and other mundane things like outsourcing, welfare,education,healthcare and pollution rank a bit higher on the list of importance.. 





> How so? Many people of the alt-right are libertarians who want to shrink the gov. Do you have any facts or examples?


Lip service doesn't count when there are constant calls for fed-gov to "do more"...

"Doing more" requires more money, manpower and authority, always, every $#@!ing time, without exception...

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Oh heck, Occam, you and I both know that the people occupying our federal government went off the rails long ago. They are totally outside of the their Constitutional enumerated powers. I would estimate that over 95% of what the federal government has their hands in now, is totally unconstitutional. If we are to have a federal government at all, I want them back in their corral, but like with anything, if that miracle would come to pass, it would be up to the People to keep them in there.
> 
> I don't want the federal government to be telling the Texan people, or anyone, much of anything. I think you know that. But, x, we are here. And while we are, one of the valid uses of the federal government is to defend our borders. Hell, they are the reason why they are being overrun at the rate they are, after all. You seem to be saying that it is fine in your eyes if Texas was to defend her borders. Well, the fed won't allow them. In addition, I don't think it's altogether feasible as long as the fed is pushing policies and making secretive deals with other governments that cause them to pour in like some kind of forced propulsion. Do I want it to change? Hell yes, I do, and I haven't given up on that.
> 
> We've pretty much been sitting on the sidelines hoping for something to change. Meanwhile, illegal immigration has gone through the frickin' roof. Now, the fed is apparently wanting to ante up a few and do their best to turn us into a France or Germany, by increasing the number of inadequately vetted migrants brought into our country. That's not ok with me. So, while we don't totally agree on the endpoint for how we'd like to see things, I don't think we are miles away. But, I'm not willing to just wait for a miracle to happen with the fed; because it is getting worse, not better and soon, in my opinion, we will be past the point of no return. Then neither of us will get what we want; a vastly reduced federal government; in size and scope. You, maybe a non-existent one.


I don't think we're miles away, either. 

And no one should be willing to just wait for a miracle to happen with the Feds. But I don't think trying to get the Feds to do whatever needs to be done is a viable alternative, either.

For just one thing, "what needs to be done" varies with respect to one place or another. There isn't any "one size fits all" solution to these things - but "one size fits all" is the only way the Feds can do things (otherwise, they wouldn't be the Feds). For all that they are "American," Montana and Florida, say, have very different profiles when it comes to things like immigration and economics. Montana, for example, has far more in common with Saskatchewan economically, demographically, environmentally, culturally, etc., etc., etc. than either Montana or Saskatchewan has in common with Florida. It just doesn't make any sense for Montana and Florida to have the same policies enforced upon them both. But that is just what any federal policy will require, by its nature as federal policy.

For another thing, I think we're already past the point of no return. We just haven't hit bottom yet. The only truly viable option is to get off the ride altogether - by breaking from "federal government control" rather than by trying to "control federal government." In a nation of a third of a billion people, there are simply far too many divergent factions and interests - and far too many incompatible and irreconcilable differences - for any federal policy to be workable except as a kludgy, half-assed stop-gap that just kicks the can down the road a little bit further (which will only serve to make the day of reckoning that much worse when it finally comes). We are already starting to see things come apart at the seams, as illustrated by all the ugly, vicious screeching coming from all sides and directions in the present election season - a trend which started many years ago and that has still not come to a head.

Localism, decentralism and (in the limit) secessionism are the only routes that have any chance of taking us to where we need to go. No miracles are required - just the will and the guts to try something like "Brexit" and to actually carry it through (something the Brits have yet to do). We still aren't there quite yet, but as things grow worse, however quickly or slowly, more and more people on all sides are going to start to realize that parting ways is better than sinking together. Our best strategy is to encourage and promote that realization. Then Texas and Montana and Florida and X and Y and Z can start working on what they actually need, instead of what the Feds tell them to bend over and take ...

----------


## Bryan

> @Bryan specifically said that the reason he revised the site guidelines in order to make it more welcoming to white nationalists


This is completely false, and just earned you a 2 month ban for continuing to spread false information about me and the site. I have never made a single reference to white nationalists and I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to support anything they do.





> was because he thought that would improve the level of discourse. I recall being dumbstruck at the time and asking him how he thought that was working out, and he never answered me, just gave me a temp ban.


Implying more false information, your ban was for repeatedly violating the guidelines not for asking a question.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Occam, I don't think the ultimate answer is at the federal level, either.  Especially, at the presidential level.  It is far too controlled and we have 0 chance of getting one of ours in there.  Zero.  In my opinion, our best chance is at the state and local level.  Because when it does come apart, if we haven't cleaned those up the best we can, they will just be more of the same.  They are corrupt as all hell too; you know that.  Yet, few want to mess with that level.  Don't know why?  (removed my snarky comment)

My greatest concern is that I do not think they will allow us to rebuild from the ashes, so to speak.  I think they are deliberately trying to crash us, so that we will willingly accept global government.  I think this is all by design.  Yes, I do.  Think about FDR's New Deal, or even the Patriot Act that people accepted so readily.  When people get scared, they will accept all kinds of crap that they wouldn't have accepted before.  I think people will RUN to world government.  That is why I don't believe just watching for it to all come tumbling down is a good strategic move.  I know that's not what you are suggesting, but some certainly do.  I agree with you about localism.  I wish more had that goal.  But, I'm also going to fight the globalists who I see executing a plan to flood us with people who have no desire to live under the kind of principles that we were founded upon.  Because whether we have a federal government or not, I believe in those principles.

EDIT:  I re-read my post and aaakkk, I want to make sure no one thinks I believe that I think the federal government should be much of the decider on much of anything.  Defending our borders is one of those things though.  I think most of the decisions should be made by individual Americans, next at the local level, then State and the federal government, the enumerated powers.   That is what I ultimately want.  I am not against secession, but I am also mindful, because I know that the world government crowd used to pitch balkanization as a way for them to achieve their goal.  Yes, they have been so bold to write about this crap in their autobiographies and other books/studies.  Bottom line, we are pretty f'ed.

----------


## Bryan

> "What has the alt-right accomplished?"
> 
> Well, they've certainly managed to help accelerate the decline of this forum to a blinding rate, by spewing their particularly vile and pernicious form of collectivism/socialism.


A few points:
- If you see someone breaking the guidelines (which includes promoting agendas counter to our Mission) please flag it.
- If you think the guidelines are too lax, please explain.
- We have received very few complaints on this issue, we'll certainly allow for some discussion on these issues for educational purposes of the members and lurkers. It is healthy to allow some of this since it prevents an echo chamber and shows everyone we are right on the issues. Our goal is to always be correct on the issues.

Thank you.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Occam, I don't think the ultimate answer is at the federal level, either.  Especially, at the presidential level.  It is far too controlled and we have 0 chance of getting one of ours in there.  Zero.  In my opinion, our best chance is at the state and local level.  Because when it does come apart, if we haven't cleaned those up the best we can, they will just be more of the same.  They are corrupt as all hell too; you know that.  Yet, few want to mess with that level.  Don't know why?  (removed my snarky comment)
> 
> My greatest concern is that I do not think they will allow us to rebuild from the ashes, so to speak.  I think they are deliberately trying to crash us, so that we will willingly accept global government.  I think this is all by design.  Yes, I do.  Think about FDR's New Deal, or even the Patriot Act that people accepted so readily.  When people get scared, they will accept all kinds of crap that they wouldn't have accepted before.  I think people will RUN to world government.  That is why I don't believe just watching for it to all come tumbling down is a good strategic move.  I know that's not what you are suggesting, but some certainly do.  I agree with you about localism.  I wish more had that goal.  But, I'm also going to fight the globalists who I see executing a plan to flood us with people who have no desire to live under the kind of principles that we were founded upon.  Because whether we have a federal government or not, I believe in those principles.


If we really pay attention there is quite a bit of in-fighting going on among the elites. And it's spread out. Which changes the terms of controversy a bit. It changes the way one can view things that are going on.

I'm just throwing that in there. I know that you were talking to Occams.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If we really pay attention there is quite a bit of in-fighting going on among the elites. And it's spread out. Which changes the terms of controversy a bit. It changes the way one can view things that are going on.
> 
> I'm just throwing that in there. I know that you were talking to Occams.


That's cool.  And that is one of the reasons why I am supporting who I am.  Because I think it might give us more time to get things in place.  If he turns out to be a complete turkey, oh well.  I know for sure that the other one is.  One of them is going to win.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> So since you take what I say out of context [...]


That's pretty rich, coming from a guy who presumes to tell others what they would do or think regardless of what they've actually said, and who needs to have others repeat what they've already clearly and plainly said because he's too obstinately thick-witted to figure it out the first one or two (or three or four) times it was said to him.




> [...] and are reaching the limits of your brain power [...]


_*yawn*_ Now you're just doing Pee-wee Herman's "I know you are, but what am I?" bit. Boring.




> [...] I see no reason to waste any time with you.


Really? Do you promise?

What's the matter? Did I hit a little too close to home that time?




> Vox is right about gammas.


Is this "Vox" of yours another FedGov-loving globalist progressive?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> That's cool.  And that is one of the reasons why I am supporting who I am.  Because I think it might give us more time to get things in place.  If he turns out to be a complete turkey, oh well.  I know for sure that the other one is.  One of them is going to win.


Who knows, he might give them Helicopter rides.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> That's pretty rich, coming from a guy who presumes to tell others what they would do or think regardless of what they've actually said, and who needs to have others repeat what they've already clearly and plainly said because he's too obstinately thick-witted to figure it out the first one or two (or three or four) times it was said to him.
> 
> 
> 
> _*yawn*_ Now you're just doing Pee-wee Herman's "I know you are, but what am I?" bit. Boring.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Do you promise?
> ...


Vox day....The Supreme Dark Lord.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Really?
> 
> I tend to think wars(foreign and domestic) and other mundane things like outsourcing, welfare,education,healthcare and pollution rank a bit higher on the list of importance..


Those are all important issues, but I rate immigration up top because it cant be reversed unlike what you mentioned above.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Brexit is clearly an alt right thing.


That's very true.

...and let's see how it turns out.

My prediction is that the end result is: 

(a) higher tariffs against trade with the EU, 

(b) immigration restrictions,

and (c) more beatings of completely innocent Polacks.

Net Result = Poorer Brits

...Scotland will also secede, and rejoin the EU, and be more socialistic than even England (which is something).

----------


## presence

> Is this "Vox" of yours another FedGov-loving globalist progressive?


Theodore Beale 

https://twitter.com/voxday

----------


## Dr.3D

> Who knows, he might give them Helicopter rides.


Yeah, he should get together with Bernanke.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

"Vox" is a two-bit white nationalist type organization.

...the kind of organization that would be inclined to call Ron Paul a "cuck."

...i.e. pop culture garbage

....goes bankrupt next year after Trumptardation is ended.

...no one remembers it.

...because it's not worth remembering.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> That's very true.
> 
> ...and let's see how it turns out.
> 
> My prediction is that the end result is: 
> 
> (a) higher tariffs against trade with the EU, 
> 
> (b) immigration restrictions,
> ...


So, in your world, they should have continued to be ruled by an EU Parliament who they had no voice in choosing.   Does this also mean that you would support such a government for our own country; such as a North American Union?  Or would a world government be even better?




> Net Result = Poorer Brits


Don't know in the long run, but they are going to have a tough road for awhile for sure.  But, some things are more important than how many electronic gadgets you can buy.



================
Gary Johnson supports the Trans Pacific Partnership.  That makes him a traitor.

----------


## Danke

> Theodore Beale 
> 
> https://twitter.com/voxday


You are right, Vox.com is very different from Voxday. Or is it https://voxday.blogspot.com

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> So, in your world, they should have continued to be ruled by an EU Parliament who they had no voice in choosing..


If "they" means rational people, then "they" are getting outvoted and outnumbered no matter what, whether in London or Brussels.

And "they" in England are just as socialistic and retarded as "they" across the channel. 




> Don't know in the long run, but they are going to have a tough road for awhile for sure.  But, some things are more important than how many electronic gadgets you can buy.


I motion that we repeal the 19th amendment. 

Now...

...go make me a sammich.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Gary Johnson supports the Trans Pacific Partnership.  That makes him a traitor.


Yep. And nobody can make a legitimate argument otherwise. If anyone thinks they can, I welcome the debate. TPP is an illegal transfer of power. Period.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> ...go make me a sammich.


You're really becoming obnoxious to people these days. Seems like you're becoming very comfortable in being so, too. Be careful. No good will come from it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If "they" means rational people, then "they" are getting outvoted and outnumbered no matter what, whether in London or Brussels.
> 
> And "they" in England are just as socialistic and retarded as "they" across the channel.


Again, does this mean that you would be for the U.S. being placed into something similar to the EU?  How about world government; would that be a good thing in your mind?




> I motion that we repeal the 19th amendment.


If that means you are a woman, I can see why you'd say that.




> Now...
> 
> ...go make me a sammich.


I'd be happy to.  I have a special recipe just for you.


================
Gary Johnson supports the Trans Pacific Partnership.  That makes him a traitor.

----------


## presence

> Or is it https://voxday.blogspot.com


they link to each other

----------


## Danke

> "Vox" is a two-bit white nationalist type organization.
> 
> ...the kind of organization that would be inclined to call Ron Paul a "cuck."
> 
> ...i.e. pop culture garbage
> 
> ....goes bankrupt next year after Trumptardation is ended.
> 
> ...no one remembers it.
> ...


Vox Day writes commentary for WND.  I doubt he will disappear.  He has been at it before the 2008 RP campaign. His father , ( a successful businessman in the computer field) spent 7 years in Fed Hotel for his fight against the IRS.   Peter Schiff's father died in jail too, but his son is still around in the media.

These guys see first hand what the government does to their family, yet still persevere, albeit though a less overtly confrontational avenue.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Again, does this mean that you would be for the U.S. being placed into something similar to the EU?  How about world government; would that be a good thing in your mind?


Possibly, it depends on the form of this hypothetical world goverment. 

The less democratic, the more likely I would be to endorse it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Possibly, it depends on the form of this hypothetical world goverment. 
> 
> The less democratic, the more likely I would be to endorse it.


Why does this not surprise me.


================
Gary Johnson supports the Trans Pacific Partnership.  That makes him a traitor.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> ITs focused on because immigration is probably one of the most important issues.


It is, those who live here effect and determine the future of our nation, culture, elections, etc. America is America because of the people that settled, and founded it just as the same was the 3rd world is how $#@!ed up is because of those who live there.

More over, short of "other things happening" its next to impossible to fix damages caused by immigration.

Peter Brimlow makes the case very clearly, 'why risk it"?





> How so? Many people of the alt-right are libertarians who want to shrink the gov. Do you have any facts or examples?



Immigration is the Viagra of the state.




> This is much more interesting and thought-provoking when we can have a discussion.  No gotchas, no lies; just people discussing and trying to hear the other.  It works better in real life too.


Sadly some people cant because they are not able to or the facts prove them wrong.





> Really?
> 
> I tend to think wars(foreign and domestic) and other mundane things like outsourcing, welfare,education,healthcare and pollution rank a bit higher on the list of importance.. 
> 
> 
> Lip service doesn't count when there are constant calls for fed-gov to "do more"...
> 
> "Doing more" requires more money, manpower and authority, always, every $#@!ing time, without exception...


And what effects all of those issues and the means of their outcome? Immigration. Had we not opened the floodgates in 1965 we might have anywhere from 60 Million-100 few people in this nation, which would be greatly better for education, healthcare, pollution, cost of living, tensions, welfare, and it would surely stave the left of voters...

What matter has it made less worse?

There is no problem our country has now which is helped by having a soaring population of 320 million, with an expected increase to half a billion (450 million) by 2050.








> A few points:
> - If you see someone breaking the guidelines (which includes promoting agendas counter to our Mission) please flag it.
> - If you think the guidelines are too lax, please explain.
> - We have received very few complaints on this issue, we'll certainly allow for some discussion on these issues for educational purposes of the members and lurkers. It is healthy to allow some of this since it prevents an echo chamber and shows everyone we are right on the issues. Our goal is to always be correct on the issues.
> 
> Thank you.


Is an agenda that in the end saves Liberty and Freedom for those who values them counter to the mission?

Not trolling, honest question.




> Those are all important issues, but I rate immigration up top because it cant be reversed unlike what you mentioned above.


You can but the that is a road that once you go down is an all or nothing battle.




> Yeah, he should get together with Bernanke.



I mean a Pinochet Helicopter Ride.







> "Vox" is a two-bit white nationalist type organization.
> 
> ...the kind of organization that would be inclined to call Ron Paul a "cuck."
> 
> ...i.e. pop culture garbage
> 
> ....goes bankrupt next year after Trumptardation is ended.
> 
> ...no one remembers it.
> ...



If he is "pop culture garbage" then why does he have a world class blog, 2 million readers, and 2 best sellers?








> Again, does this mean that you would be for the U.S. being placed into something similar to the EU?  How about world government; would that be a good thing in your mind?
> 
> 
> If that means you are a woman, I can see why you'd say that.
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to.  I have a special recipe just for you.
> 
> 
> ...


Along with open borders, denying freedom to associate, supporting gun grabbing, and his moronic sense of universalism he is out of touch and a traitor to boot.

----------


## Bryan

> Is an agenda that in the end saves Liberty and Freedom for those who values them counter to the mission?
> 
> Not trolling, honest question.


FYI, our Mission is here (top "Mission" button):
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1957 

Our Community Guidelines are here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content...s-and-Policies


The answer to your question would be, "it depends" - it depends upon the tactics used. Per the guidelines, we do not promote violence or promote negativity in collectivist mindsets that view humans as members of groups rather than individuals, such as with racism. 

In short, the ends do not justify the means -- but of course the agenda of saving liberty and freedom is 100% in line with our Mission.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> In short, the ends do not justify the means -- but of course the agenda of saving liberty and freedom is 100% in line with our Mission.


Agreed. There is much to be said about this, too. It's topic worthy. Particularly why it is true that the ends do not justify the means in matters where Liberty is at hand.

I like the way you said that. Coercion, of course, is also aggression.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> FYI, our Mission is here (top "Mission" button):
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1957 
> 
> Our Community Guidelines are here:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content...s-and-Policies
> 
> 
> The answer to your question would be, "it depends" - it depends upon the tactics used. Per the guidelines, we do not promote violence or promote negativity in collectivist mindsets that view humans as members of groups rather than individuals, such as with racism. 
> 
> *In short, the ends do not justify the means -- but of course the agenda of saving liberty and freedom is 100% in line with our Mission.*


*
*
Define "racism"? What if their are facts backing up an opinion?

So in short you would in theory loss Liberty if it meant crossing some moral line and allowing the forces of evil to win? Honest question.

----------


## tod evans

> [/B][/U]
> Define "racism"? What if their are facts backing up an opinion?
> 
> So in short you would in theory loss Liberty if it meant crossing some moral line and allowing the forces of evil to win? Honest question.


Semantics are liable to get your young ass the boot before you learn anything.

Probably doesn't matter though seeing as how you've managed to completely ignore countless other pieces of sound advice up to this point.

----------


## tod evans

> All of mine are rainbow scented, of course ...

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Theodore Beale 
> 
> https://twitter.com/voxday


Yeah, I know who he meant.

I was just tweaking him, since he's pretty much oblivious to anything else ...

----------


## Bryan

> [/B][/U]
> Define "racism"?


racism = Collectivist negativity along racial lines.

collectivist - viewing humans as members of groups rather than as individuals.
collectivist negativity - a means to attack a group of people by lumping them into a group and assigning some negative attribute to all the people in that group, regardless of the truth. At best, this is lazy and anti-intellectual. At worse, it is hateful.
racial collectivist negativity - racism. At best, this is lazy and anti-intellectual. At worse, it is hateful.





> What if their are facts backing up an opinion?


Please give me some examples of this so we can analyze.





> So in short you would in theory loss Liberty if it meant crossing some moral line and allowing the forces of evil to win? Honest question.


If one becomes evil in their efforts to eradicate evil they will have to eradicate themselves.

Feel free to provide some examples of what you see as acceptable that may be in conflict here. Note, one of the core mission principles is "You have the right to defend your life, freedom and property." - so self-defense isn't an issue.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1957

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> racism = Collectivist negativity along racial lines.
> 
> collectivist - viewing humans as members of groups rather than as individuals.
> collectivist negativity - a means to attack a group of people by lumping them into a group and assigning some negative attribute to all the people in that group, regardless of the truth. At best, this is lazy and anti-intellectual. At worse, it is hateful.
> racial collectivist negativity - racism. At best, this is lazy and anti-intellectual. At worse, it is hateful.
> 
> 
> 
> Please give me some examples of this so we can analyze.
> ...



Some groups have different cultures/values which leads them to support ideals that is antithetical to Liberty.

Race and IQ are linked.

Some groups commit some crimes in a far larger rate then others.


Lets just say you are placed in a position to make this choice. If you do not kill a leftist, he will kill you, no maybe, no what ifs, he will come back and murder you and everything you love. Knowing that is the ultimate outcome of your inaction, would you not kill that leftist knowing full well he would and will kill you, your culture, your nation, your liberty, your future?

----------


## tod evans



----------


## Bryan

> Some groups have different cultures/values which leads them to support ideals that is antithetical to Liberty.


If some group on the other side of the Earth self-imposed ideas that were antithetical to liberty, what would you do?
If some group supported ideas that were antithetical to liberty that had no effect on you, would you care?
If some group tried to take away your liberties would it not be self-defense to defend your liberty?
Does it matter what the source of these antithetical liberty ideas is, be it culture or anything else?





> Race and IQ are linked.


Proof? 
Can you demonstrated how the IQ test doesn't have a bias?
For the sake of argument, assuming this was true - so what? Then what?






> Some groups commit some crimes in a far larger rate then others.


For the sake of argument, assuming this was true - so what? Then what?





> Lets just say you are placed in a position to make this choice. If you do not kill a leftist, he will kill you, no maybe, no what ifs, he will come back and murder you and everything you love. Knowing that is the ultimate outcome of your inaction, would you not kill that leftist knowing full well he would and will kill you, your culture, your nation, your liberty, your future?


You're basically describing a "ticking time bomb scenario":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tickin..._bomb_scenario

This is a classic hypothetical situation used by people to justify pre-crime aggression and paint other people as pacifist since the setup drives to one line of thinking.

To address your point still, this is a false choice. The following are preferred solutions:
- use proper self-defense.
- use stealth to prevent a known thread from finding a target.
- use diplomacy to try to find and address grievances.

Do you support pre-crime punishments?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Lets just say you are placed in a position to make this choice. If you do not kill a leftist, he will kill you, no maybe, no what ifs, he will come back and murder you and everything you love. Knowing that is the ultimate outcome of your inaction, would you not kill that leftist knowing full well he would and will kill you, your culture, your nation, your liberty, your future?


What about my dog? Would he kill my dog?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> If some group on the other side of the Earth self-imposed ideas that were antithetical to liberty, what would you do?


Ensure they do not come to America and reduce my Liberty.




> If some group supported ideas that were antithetical to liberty that had no effect on you, would you care?


Truly no effect? No, but nothing exists in and of itself.





> If some group tried to take away your liberties would it not be self-defense to defend your liberty?


Yes, would it be self defense to totally keep those groups out?





> Does it matter what the source of these antithetical liberty ideas is, be it culture or anything else?


Yes, if we know the source we can avoid where they went wrong. 

Facts show it has a great deal to do with culture, genes, and IQ, do you accept those facts.





> Proof?




Nearly every reliably measured psychological trait, especially IQ, is significantly influenced by genetic factors. Source:http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/13/4/148

Immigration will reduce the average IQ of countries and lead to the collapse of Western civilization. Source:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886911001073

IQ scores predict life outcomes equally well for different races. Source: http://www.vdare.com/articles/indians-arent-that-intelligent-on-averageMuslim counties have an average IQ of just 81, 7.5 points lower than non-Muslim countries. Source:http://mankindquarterly.org/archive/paper.php?p=647Arab countries have an average IQ of just 84. Source:http://mankindquarterly.org/archive/paper.php?p=647Skin color is the best biological predictor of IQ. Source:http://mankindquarterly.org/archive/paper.php?p=647The average criminal has an IQ of 85. Source:https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/21st-century-criminology-a-reference-handbook/book232189


Colder climates selected for higher IQ populations by imposing more complex survival requirements. Source:http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8492613&fileId=S1832427400010045Higher IQ is linked to more democracy. Source:http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8492613&fileId=S1832427400010045IQ is the best known predictor of job performance for all studied occupations. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijsa.12069/abstract


The Black-White IQ gap is mostly heritable. Source:http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOPSYJ/TOPSYJ-3-9.pdfHigher IQ is linked to lower time preference. Source:http://www.yale.edu/scan/Shamosh_inpress_Intelligence.pdfThe IQ of a country’s rulers largely determines productivity and wealth. Source: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/57563/Intelligent people are more likely to be physically active outside of work and to eat fruits and vegetables. Source:http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v20/n1/full/mp2014105a.htmlEveryday life is an IQ test. Source:http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf

Heritability of IQ increases throughout life (except for very old age). Source:http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v20/n1/full/mp2014105a.html
IQ scores are the best predictor of success in Western society. Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rus...PL1.pdf#page=2
IQ is 75% heritable among Whites. Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rus...PL1.pdf#page=2




Genes for large brains, linked to high IQ, are common everywhere except Africa. Source:http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115040765329081636Intelligence has a 40-50% genetic basis. Source:http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/10/news/la-heb-genetic-study-intelligence-20110809







> Can you demonstrated how the IQ test doesn't have a bias?



Human intelligence is highly heritable. Source:http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/abs/mp201185a.htmlThe scientific consensus is that IQ tests are not racially biased. Source:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000305






> For the sake of argument, assuming this was true - so what? Then what?


We apply this knowledge in making decisions and laws.

We can not change the biological make up of people, so their is no point in wasting trillions to "make people equal" who by nature of the exists are different because of their genetic make up.

More over, stop importing people with low IQ, it has no propose, it reduces that of our own IQ, creating massive dysfunction that is totally avoidable. 

Case in point thanks to the Immigration Act of 1965, Average National IQ has dropped by 4-5 IQ points because took in largely 3rd world people by the millions many of them with a lower average IQ. Their is no benefit to this in the least.








> For the sake of argument, assuming this was true - so what? Then what?




Non-citizen Hispanics are 29% of the federal prison population, despite only being 5% of the population. Source:http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrime
25-50% of gang members are illegal aliens. Source:http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrimeImmigrants are four times more likely than native-born Americans to fail to graduate high school. Source:http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrimeHispanic illegal aliens are only 5% of America’s population but 25% of drug offenders. Source: http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrimeHispanic immigration has displaced African Americans and raised the Black crime rate. Source:http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/88/3/1393.abstractHispanics are 19 times more likely than Whites to be a gang member. Source: http://www.colorofcrime.com/2005/10/the-color-of-crime-2005/Hispanics are three times more likely to be in prison than Whites. Source: http://www.colorofcrime.com/2005/10/the-color-of-crime-2005/Hispanics are three times as likely as Whites to commit violent crime. Source: http://www.colorofcrime.com/2005/10/the-color-of-crime-2005/
1 in four inmates in American federal prison is a non-citizen. Source: http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrimeIn America, non-citizen Hispanics are overrepresented among white collar crimes. Source: http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrime


Stop making laws that target everyone based on their actions?

Maybe understand we do not have  "gun problem" but a problem with the groups that are causing most of the shootings.

Stop importing groups most likely to commit said crimes/acts of terror.







> You're basically describing a "ticking time bomb scenario":
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tickin..._bomb_scenario
> 
> This is a classic hypothetical situation used by people to justify pre-crime aggression and paint other people as pacifist since the setup drives to one line of thinking.
> 
> To address your point still, this is a false choice. The following are preferred solutions:
> - use proper self-defense.
> - use stealth to prevent a known thread from finding a target.
> - use diplomacy to try to find and address grievances.


The left does not play by any rules, why should we? We both know if they win they will not be anywhere near as humane as we are, nor will they show any mercy.




> Do you support pre-crime punishments?



No, because that is not logical. It is logical to understand Leftist never stop until their either 1. Have total power and ruin everything, or they are stopped, seeing the out come of both, 1. being USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuelans, California, New Jersey, etc. or 2  being Chile, Texas, etc the outcomes are very clear, Chris Cantwell sums it up very well "if anyone is going to weld power and if preferences are going to pushed, why not have that power and why not push ours"? The left will not stop, they can not stop, so because they refuse to stop by their on accord it just means we have to stop them ourselves.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> racism = Collectivist negativity along racial lines.
> 
> collectivist - viewing humans as members of groups rather than as individuals.


What if someone like me looks at people as individuals but also considers the group? 

I think its crazy to say that racists don't look at people as individuals. We look at both. 




> If some group on the other side of the Earth self-imposed ideas that were antithetical to liberty, what would you do?


Learn from them. But leave them alone. 




> If some group supported ideas that were antithetical to liberty that had no effect on you, would you care?


No.




> Does it matter what the source of these antithetical liberty ideas is, be it culture or anything else?


Yes. 




> For the sake of argument, assuming this was true - so what? Then what?


We should limit immigrants to the best, high IQ people is what I think he is trying to say.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Race and IQ are linked.


You made a good post, with a lot of interesting supporting evidence/links, but personally I don't really care if race is linked to IQ. TO me its about survival and nationalism. As a nationalist, I just think cultures, religions and races are better separated and every group should survive and exist. ITs also about culture and civilization.

----------


## Athan

> The alt-right attacks libertarians as "losertarians" and asks "what has the liberty movement accomplished?"  The liberty movement has elected officials and has raised awareness for many governmental abuses.
> 
> What has the alt-right accomplished?


They now have the mic and our issues. We may be more seasoned, but that only matters if we are so determined that we make a difference regardless of the winds of the world. Laugh all you want at Bernie supporters, but they raised righteous hell at the DNC even though we were robbed TWICE through cheating.

The Alt-right are starting to run while we are starting to huff and puff and wander around aimlessly. They are not the enemy. But they are not going to help us pick up steam again either. The powers that be are also helping Gary Johnson get more attention. A bit of a red flag. He also didn't help us and throw his chips in when we had Ron Paul running.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> If he is "pop culture garbage" then why does he have a world class blog, 2 million readers, and 2 best sellers?


...it's as if you don't know what the "pop" in "pop culture" means.

----------


## RandallFan

> That's very true.
> 
> 
> and (c) more beatings of completely innocent Polacks.


They're rapists!(Serious). Polacks are stabbing & raping British citizens tenfold the other way round.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> They now have the mic and our issues. We may be more seasoned, but that only matters if we are so determined that we make a difference regardless of the winds of the world. Laugh all you want at Bernie supporters, but they raised righteous hell at the DNC even though we were robbed TWICE through cheating.
> 
> The Alt-right are starting to run while we are starting to huff and puff and wander around aimlessly. They are not the enemy. But they are not going to help us pick up steam again either. The powers that be are also helping Gary Johnson get more attention. A bit of a red flag. He also didn't help us and throw his chips in when we had Ron Paul running.


We are taki

ng over the GOP and with it, we will ensure Ron Pauls will have a place and funding, Hell just look what we did and look who we now have as the Candidate.




> You made a good post, with a lot of interesting supporting evidence/links, but personally I don't really care if race is linked to IQ. TO me its about survival and nationalism. As a nationalist, I just think cultures, religions and races are better separated and every group should survive and exist. ITs also about culture and civilization.


True but the IQ of a nation is a major help or hindrance.

----------


## Athan

> We are taki
> 
> ng over the GOP and with it, we will ensure Ron Pauls will have a place and funding, Hell just look what we did and look who we now have as the Candidate.


Going forward is where we have a problem. It isn't a central candidate to rally around is our problem (well in a way that's one). Our ideology is simply being drowned out in the swell of voters who mostly identify with us, but have their own focuses and are ready to raise hell somehow. Some are downright getting feral in some areas.

I mean have you TALKED to other people? They are agitated. They will listen, they will agree, but then they want to know when we are going to march armed to the capital because while it all makes some sense to them, it isn't an emotional vent and release. Leftist in some areas if they keep pushing are going to be having to deal with being on the wrong end of a mob. The democrat party, or the media, people are $#@!ing mad at them. Republican's ONLY benefit is that the media attacks them so much the left has the ability to vent a bit more.

Mostly because while we do offer solutions, many are not "base" enough or have a lower common denominator because we aren't interested in literally cracking heads. Put it frankly, think of a lot of people like the tea party _without being co-opted by neo-cons_, but by people that are just $#@!ing angry. No gadsen flags, no sons of liberty flags, no Revolutionary flags. Just ass mad. So in comes Trump, very bold and while has only some solutions we can get behind, is simple enough that everyone can get behind. Everyone is $#@!ing raging at the political correctness we are paralyzed with, they are livid that common sense solutions to things like corruption and criminal elements are illegal, and we are not speaking at their level.

So when he says build a wall, they want it 20 feet higher. 

When he says stop all illegal immigration, they are saying he should deport them too.

If he says stop the lobbyist and crooked politicians, they want to know hang em or tar and feather them.

We are not the tip of the spear anymore. We are surfing on a swell of which the strength we can't gauge.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Going forward is where we have a problem. It isn't a central candidate to rally around is our problem (well in a way that's one). Our ideology is simply being drowned out in the swell of voters who mostly identify with us, but have their own focuses and are ready to raise hell somehow. Some are downright getting feral in some areas.
> 
> I mean have you TALKED to other people? They are agitated. They will listen, they will agree, but then they want to know when we are going to march armed to the capital because while it all makes some sense to them, it isn't an emotional vent and release. Leftist in some areas if they keep pushing are going to be having to deal with being on the wrong end of a mob. The democrat party, or the media, people are $#@!ing mad at them. Republican's ONLY benefit is that the media attacks them so much the left has the ability to vent a bit more.
> 
> Mostly because while we do offer solutions, many are not "base" enough or have a lower common denominator because we aren't interested in literally cracking heads. Put it frankly, think of a lot of people like the tea party _without being co-opted by neo-cons_, but by people that are just $#@!ing angry. No gadsen flags, no sons of liberty flags, no Revolutionary flags. Just ass mad. So in comes Trump, very bold and while has only some solutions we can get behind, is simple enough that everyone can get behind. Everyone is $#@!ing raging at the political correctness we are paralyzed with, they are livid that common sense solutions to things like corruption and criminal elements are illegal, and we are not speaking at their level.
> 
> So when he says build a wall, they want it 20 feet higher. 
> 
> When he says stop all illegal immigration, they are saying he should deport them too.
> ...


True, this is only the stress cracks around a volcano that is primed to blow and god willing will bury the left.

As for the Neo Cons, they are finished, 50 years of failure can not be overlooked, overcome, and the "never trump" lunacy was their Custer`s Last Stand. They are finished, thank God.

More people understand that mass immigration, open borders, "free" trade, compromise, etc are total crap and can no longer afford to believe such lies.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> We are taking over the GOP and with it, we will ensure Ron Pauls will have a place and funding, Hell just look what we did and look who we now have as the Candidate.


It looks like we defeated the Repubican neocons for good. The GOP is basically educated now about them. I remember my parents voted for Ronald Reagan and would generally just vote "Republican" without even knowing anything about the candidate and trusted that they were good if there was an R next to their name. After the treason of GWB republicans do more thinking and research so we wont get screwed by the neocons again. If we keep putting up good nationalist candidates the kosher conservatives will never win again. That is my bet. 




> True but the IQ of a nation is a major help or hindrance.


Sure. And it should be considered in our immigrant policies.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> It looks like we defeated the Repubican neocons for good. The GOP is basically educated now about them. I remember my parents voted for Ronald Reagan and would generally just vote "Republican" without even knowing anything about the candidate and trusted that they were good if there was an R next to their name. After the treason of GWB republicans do more thinking and research so we wont get screwed by the neocons again. If we keep putting up good nationalist candidates the kosher conservatives will never win again. That is my bet. 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And it should be considered in our immigrant policies.


After 50 years of name calling, "compromise", cucking, sabotage, and selling out the nation because "muh GDP" or "family values do not stop at the Rio Grande"   

Reagan was at best a RINO. The Neo Cons are finished for many reasons, I just hope this is the last election they have any say in, if they do not like it I really hope they move to Israel since the love it so much.

I do not see any reason why a person under an IQ of 115-120 should be let in. Why take less then the best?

----------


## adissa

> True but the IQ of a nation is a major help or hindrance.


what is your IQ threshold (minimum) and what should be done with those who don't achieve that score?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> what is your IQ threshold (minimum) and what should be done with those who don't achieve that score?


Maybe 110, and barring political views that are non compatible.

They are not allowed in. You are a poor 3rd world person with an 85, believe in Marxism, think that some how being born into a poor, corrupt, hellish nation that your people created and vote to make even worse some how makes you "oppressed" and some how its the fault of Americans and Whites? I do not care what happens because it is not my problem.

America is not a charity ward, welfare office, refugee camp, or flop house.

----------


## adissa

> Maybe 110, and barring political views that are non compatible.
> 
> *They are not allowed in.* You are a poor 3rd world person with an 85, believe in Marxism, think that some how being born into a poor, corrupt, hellish nation that your people created and vote to make even worse some how makes you "oppressed" and some how its the fault of Americans and Whites? I do not care what happens because it is not my problem.
> 
> America is not a charity ward, welfare office, refugee camp, or flop house.


No, I meant if they're already here. We have citizens with IQs below that threshold, and some hold the political beliefs you mentioned.  If the idea is to raise the standard, should those citizens have to leave? If so, how?

----------


## pcosmar

> allowing the forces of evil to win?


Define "forces of evil".?
Honest question.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Define "forces of evil".?
> Honest question.


Marxists
Islam
Zionists
Globalists
Gun Grabbers
Open Border zealots
Anti Whites
Radical environmentalists (earth first, voluntary human extinction movement)

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> No, I meant if they're already here. We have citizens with IQs below that threshold, and some hold the political beliefs you mentioned.  If the idea is to raise the standard, should those citizens have to leave? If so, how?


Encourage them to not vote?

Mandate Voter ID laws.

We have our fair share of sub 90 IQed people, why import more of them in by choice?

The ones we have via native born, well they get a pass as they are ours....

----------


## Athan

> No, I meant if they're already here. We have citizens with IQs below that threshold, and some hold the political beliefs you mentioned.  If the idea is to raise the standard, should those citizens have to leave? If so, how?


Deport them. See how quickly they start conforming to the bill of rights and regurgitating our liberties, lol

----------


## adissa

> Deport them. See how quickly they start conforming to the bill of rights and regurgitating our liberties, lol


How do you go about deporting citizens though, just because they don't have an adequate IQ?  If we're talking about "conforming to the bill of rights" etc. Is that constitutional, or does that matter?  Serious question.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Deport them. See how quickly they start conforming to the bill of rights and regurgitating our liberties, lol





> How do you go about deporting citizens though, just because they don't have an adequate IQ?  If we're talking about "conforming to the bill of rights" etc. Is that constitutional, or does that matter?  Serious question.


We can not deport native born citizen knock off the asshatery.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Some groups have different cultures/values which leads them to support ideals that is antithetical to Liberty.
> 
> Race and IQ are *correlated*.
> 
> Some groups commit some crimes in a far larger rate then others.
> 
> 
> Lets just say you are placed in a position to make this choice. If you do not kill a leftist, he will kill you, no maybe, no what ifs, he will come back and murder you and everything you love. Knowing that is the ultimate outcome of your inaction, would you not kill that leftist knowing full well he would and will kill you, your culture, your nation, your liberty, your future?


FIFY. There's plenty of studies demonstrating IQ tends to quite strongly correlate with race/ethnicity, but it's by no means perfect. It's a really complicated mix of nature/nurture that's still being studied for better understanding. Pretty interesting subject, though veeery un-PC.

----------


## tod evans

> FIFY. There's plenty of studies demonstrating IQ tends to quite strongly correlate with race/ethnicity, but it's by no means perfect. It's a really complicated mix of nature/nurture that's still being studied for better understanding. Pretty interesting subject, though veeery un-PC.


I've heard that the inability to differentiate between there, their and they're points directly to a sub 100 IQ..........

----------


## adissa

> We can not deport native born citizen knock off the asshatery.


I didn't address that question to you. You weren't the person who suggested it.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Marxists
> Islam
> Zionists
> Globalists
> Gun Grabbers
> Open Border zealots
> Anti Whites
> Radical environmentalists (earth first, voluntary human extinction movement)


At first, I thought this was a joke at the expense of Trump supporters.

...then I realized it was real.

And then I cried a single manly tear...

And then I laughed....

...at you

...hysterically.

----------


## TheCount

People who choose not to have children are evil and must be stopped lest the forces of evil be allowed to win.

Forced insemination will begin immediately.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> People who choose not to have children are evil and must be stopped lest the forces of evil be allowed to win.
> 
> Forced insemination will begin immediately.


I wonder if that was used in some legal defense some where in America, some where in time...

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> FIFY. There's plenty of studies demonstrating IQ tends to quite strongly correlate with race/ethnicity, but it's by no means perfect. It's a really complicated mix of nature/nurture that's still being studied for better understanding. Pretty interesting subject, though veeery un-PC.



2+2=4 Is veeery un-PC.

----------


## Athan

> We can not deport native born citizen knock off the asshatery.


lol ok. I still think the idea is hilarious. Like the way religious people joke about atheist finding God in a foxhole during bombardment. 
Statist finding their desire and passion for liberty when receiving a deportation order lulz.

----------


## adissa

> lol ok. I still think the idea is hilarious. Like the way religious people joke about atheist finding God in a foxhole during bombardment. 
> Statist finding their desire and passion for liberty when receiving a deportation order lulz.


LOL. ok, I see. Yeah, that would be amusing.

----------


## tod evans

> Forced insemination will begin immediately.


Does that mean put males and females, 1000's of 'em, in a 6 block area and provide 'em with food, housing, medical and dental + enough disposable income to get pretty buzzed during ovulation? 

Or were you talkin' about another kind of "forced insemination"?

----------


## Bryan

> Truly no effect? No, but nothing exists in and of itself.


Sure, the point is it leads to no change in your liberty.





> Yes, would it be self defense to totally keep those groups out?


Right, no issue.





> Yes, if we know the source we can avoid where they went wrong.


So possibly of interest for some academician, but nothing for policy.





> Facts show it has a great deal to do with culture, genes, and IQ, do you accept those facts.


None of what you posted provides a proof. An IQ test is a man made construct that has been developed with certain biases on how to weigh / value certain things. I see it as very flawed as it does not gauge what I see as important: an understanding of liberty. I know many people who have high IQ's but support tyranny. Why should pro-liberty people support the standard of an IQ test when lots of people can score high on it and be completely opposed to liberty? To me, that shows the test is seriously flawed. Side note- we need to develop a "Liberty IQ" test.





> We apply this knowledge in making decisions and laws.


What do you propose?






> We can not change the biological make up of people, so their is no point in wasting trillions to "make people equal" who by nature of the exists are different because of their genetic make up.


Is it OK to spend trillions to make people equal if they have good genetic make up?
Could we agree that the government should not be taking other people's money for socialism, for any reason regardless of genetic make up?






> More over, stop importing people with low IQ, it has no propose, it reduces that of our own IQ, creating massive dysfunction that is totally avoidable.


Setting immigration laws based on an IQ criteria (even if it is flawed) is certainly an acceptable position, IMO. Basing it on race however is completely problematic however. 





> Case in point thanks to the Immigration Act of 1965, Average National IQ has dropped by 4-5 IQ points because took in largely 3rd world people by the millions many of them with a lower average IQ. Their is no benefit to this in the least.


There is no benefit for whom? 





> Non-citizen Hispanics are 29% of the federal prison population, despite only being 5% of the population. Source:http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrime
> 25-50% of gang members are illegal aliens. Source:http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrimeImmigrants are four times more likely than native-born Americans to fail to graduate high school. Source:http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrimeHispanic illegal aliens are only 5% of America’s population but 25% of drug offenders. Source: http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrimeHispanic immigration has displaced African Americans and raised the Black crime rate. Source:http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/88/3/1393.abstractHispanics are 19 times more likely than Whites to be a gang member. Source: http://www.colorofcrime.com/2005/10/the-color-of-crime-2005/Hispanics are three times more likely to be in prison than Whites. Source: http://www.colorofcrime.com/2005/10/the-color-of-crime-2005/Hispanics are three times as likely as Whites to commit violent crime. Source: http://www.colorofcrime.com/2005/10/the-color-of-crime-2005/
> 1 in four inmates in American federal prison is a non-citizen. Source: http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrimeIn America, non-citizen Hispanics are overrepresented among white collar crimes. Source: http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrime
> 
> 
> Stop making laws that target everyone based on their actions?


Is it OK to make laws that target everyone based on actions of groups of people that don't have to do with race?
Of course pro-liberty people don't want any such laws, regardless of the source - why make this a race issue?





> Maybe understand we do not have  "gun problem" but a problem with the groups that are causing most of the shootings.


I'm not sure anyone pro-liberty would disagree with this.





> Stop importing groups most likely to commit said crimes/acts of terror.


Which groups would these be?






> The left does not play by any rules, why should we?


Is this a fact or are you being collectivist? 
Many people play by rules because of their character, they may not want to create victims.





> We both know if they win they will not be anywhere near as humane as we are, nor will they show any mercy.


Could you explain your point here some more, please?





> No, because that is not logical. It is logical to understand Leftist never stop until their either 1. Have total power and ruin everything, or they are stopped, seeing the out come of both, 1. being USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuelans, California, New Jersey, etc. or 2  being Chile, Texas, etc the outcomes are very clear, Chris Cantwell sums it up very well "if anyone is going to weld power and if preferences are going to pushed, why not have that power and why not push ours"? The left will not stop, they can not stop, so because they refuse to stop by their on accord it just means we have to stop them ourselves.


I agree in so much that we should work to wield power, that's the Mission of this site. We want to wield it so it doesn't get abused, and disband the power that should not exist. Some people on the left however can be educated to liberty once they get the correct viewpoints.


Thanks.

----------


## TheCount

> Does that mean put males and females, 1000's of 'em, in a 6 block area and provide 'em with food, housing, medical and dental + enough disposable income to get pretty buzzed during ovulation?



Of course not!  This is Restoration of Liberty's idea; _those_ people will be sterilized and/or deported.

----------


## Bryan

> What if someone like me looks at people as individuals but also considers the group? 
> 
> I think its crazy to say that racists don't look at people as individuals. We look at both.


I see the issue as casting negative characterizations of the groups, hence the "negative collectivism". As said, it can range from anti-intellectual to hateful. Collectivism on its own, such as for study of tends, etc, isn't inherently a problem.

----------


## pcosmar

> The ones we have via native born, well they get a pass as they are ours....


Even non white ones?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> we should work to weld power, that's the Mission of this site. We want to weld it so it doesn't get abused


Speaking of,

I did some welding yesterday.  Had to fix a drafting table.  Was that furthering the Mission of the site?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> work to weld power


In fairness and all honesty, though, it was fairly low-power welding.

----------


## TheCount

> I see the issue as casting negative characterizations of the groups, hence the "negative collectivism".


There's a reason why some advocate the prohibition of immigration of "unwanted races" based on negative characteristics _of the group_ without consideration to the individual attempting to immigrate.  Note also that the assumption is made that members of a "good" race are automatically desired by the country based entirely on their genetics.  That is a policy seeking a collectivist outcome; group against group.  If the goal were actually to ensure the quality of immigrants, then they would advocate consideration of the individual - regardless of race - to accept those who meet the standard and reject those who do not, regardless of their ethnicity.

"You can not immigrate because other people who look like you scored poorly on an IQ test"

"You can not immigrate because other people who look like you committed crimes"

and

"You can immigrate despite the fact that you are an idiot because other people who look like you are not idiots"

"You can immigrate - despite the fact that you may be a criminal - because other people who look like you are not criminals"


The anti-immigration policies which are quite vocally supported on this forum are fundamentally based on collectivist ideology.

----------


## Bryan

> Speaking of,
> 
> I did some welding yesterday.  Had to fix a drafting table.  Was that furthering the Mission of the site?


lol. It depends, what type of welder are we taking about?

----------


## Bryan

> There's a reason why some advocate the prohibition of immigration of "unwanted races" based on negative characteristics _of the group_ without consideration to the individual attempting to immigrate.  Note also that the assumption is made that members of a "good" race are automatically desired by the country based entirely on their genetics.  That is a policy seeking a collectivist outcome; group against group.  If the goal were actually to ensure the quality of immigrants, then they would advocate consideration of the individual - regardless of race - to accept those who meet the standard and reject those who do not, regardless of their ethnicity.
> 
> "You can not immigrate because other people who look like you scored poorly on an IQ test"
> 
> "You can not immigrate because other people who look like you committed crimes"
> 
> and
> 
> "You can immigrate despite the fact that you are an idiot because other people who look like you are not idiots"
> ...


Exactly, 100% spot on. +rep





> The anti-immigration policies which are quite vocally supported on this forum are fundamentally based on collectivist ideology.


We'll allow some latitude in "Political Philosophy" discussions as here, but otherwise please flag such cases using the triangle with the "!" on it, these positions are against our Mission and should not be generally promoted.

Thanks.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> I see the issue as casting negative characterizations of the groups, hence the "negative collectivism". As said, it can range from anti-intellectual to hateful. Collectivism on its own, such as for study of tends, etc, isn't inherently a problem.


I can't respond to this because ronpaulhawaii says I cant discuss white nationalism or else he will ban me.

----------


## Bryan

> I can't respond to this because ronpaulhawaii says I cant discuss white nationalism or else he will ban me.


As I told you via rep, you can certainly discuss the issues, just drop the name calling.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> As I told you via rep, you can certainly discuss the issues, just drop the name calling.


Alright, cool. 

Sorry about using the word cuck. I will be sure to respect the forum rules. 

But just to be safe I don't want to get banned, but I want to clear up some misconceptions with your permission and then I wont discuss racial issues again. 




> I see the issue as casting negative characterizations of the groups, hence the "negative collectivism". As said, it can range from anti-intellectual to hateful. Collectivism on its own, such as for study of tends, etc, isn't inherently a problem.


Do you know that many white nationalists actually respect and praise other groups such as Asians? Do you consider that to be "positive collectivism?" If so, what is wrong with it? 

It seems to be the problem is that when you come to an overall negative conclusion about a group it ticks people off as being unfair. 




> There's a reason why some advocate the prohibition of immigration of "unwanted races" based on negative characteristics of the group without consideration to the individual attempting to immigrate.


I don't think that is correct. For instance, do you know that white nationalists look at Asians favorably? 

The second thing is white nationalists do consider the individual, but want to keep considerations within the white race to prevent race problems like Black Lives Matter and other conflict. Do you believe diversity works and is superior to homogeneity?




> Note also that the assumption is made that members of a "good" race are automatically desired by the country based entirely on their genetics. That is a policy seeking a collectivist outcome; group against group. If the goal were actually to ensure the quality of immigrants, then they would advocate consideration of the individual - regardless of race


How can you say that we don't consider the individual as they have their history looked at with in person interviews? 



> There's a reason why some advocate the prohibition of immigration of "unwanted races" based on negative characteristics _of the group_ without consideration to the individual attempting to immigrate.  Note also that the assumption is made that members of a "good" race are automatically desired by the country based entirely on their genetics.  That is a policy seeking a collectivist outcome; group against group.  If the goal were actually to ensure the quality of immigrants, then they would advocate consideration of the individual - regardless of race - to accept those who meet the standard and reject those who do not, regardless of their ethnicity.
> 
> "You can not immigrate because other people who look like you scored poorly on an IQ test"
> 
> "You can not immigrate because other people who look like you committed crimes"
> 
> and
> 
> "You can immigrate despite the fact that you are an idiot because other people who look like you are not idiots"
> ...


All of this is a silly straw man.

----------


## undergroundrr

I think you'd find that the IQ's of the Frankfurt School theorists was quite high.  Shall we adopt their agenda?

Seriously, a correlation between liberty lovers and IQ is absurd.  The correlation between IQ and intelligence isn't even that strong.

A correlation between whites and the erection of huge, oppressive warfare/welfare surveillance states?  Irrefutable.

Now, for trump and his supporters to establish their brand of "liberty"... perhaps an IQ *ceiling* will need to be mandated.

----------


## Bryan

> Alright, cool. 
> 
> Sorry about using the word cuck. I will be sure to respect the forum rules. 
> 
> But just to be safe I don't want to get banned, but I want to clear up some misconceptions with your permission and then I wont discuss racial issues again.


Thanks. I've never seen it as a problem to discuss issue in an intelligent and civil manner, so this is all fine. We don't ban people on a whim, either.





> Do you know that many white nationalists actually respect and praise other groups such as Asians? Do you consider that to be "positive collectivism?" If so, what is wrong with it?


Yes, I would consider it to be "positive collectivism". 

As I said, "negative collectivism" is "At best, this is lazy and anti-intellectual. At worse, it is hateful."
So I would consider "positive collectivism" to be lazy and anti-intellectual if you are trying to make a functional point.  I understand it can be a harmless way to offer praise or admiration, but saying something like "<some race> people tend to be very honorable" - doesn't mean anything from a tangible perspective.





> It seems to be the problem is that when you come to an overall negative conclusion about a group it ticks people off as being unfair.


The biggest problem is drawing false conclusions, ex: "This group tends to have this positive attribute, therefore, this person in this group has that positive attribute".

What conclusions do you see that are not being taken properly?


Thanks.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Yes, I would consider it to be "positive collectivism". 
> 
> As I said, "negative collectivism" is "At best, this is lazy and anti-intellectual. At worse, it is hateful."


Why do you think so? 

To me its simply considering additional facts. I don't consider any type of knowledge to be bad. 




> So I would consider "positive collectivism" to be lazy and anti-intellectual if you are trying to make a functional point.  I understand it can be a harmless way to offer praise or admiration, but saying something like "<some race> people tend to be very honorable" - doesn't mean anything from a tangible perspective.


I see what you mean. 




> The biggest problem is drawing false conclusions, ex: "This group tends to have this positive attribute, therefore, this person in this group has that positive attribute".


But what is the problem with it if the conclusions are true? i.e.  "65 percent of men of this group spend time in jail." ?




> What conclusions do you see that are not being taken properly?


I have to think about that. Good question. 

Also I do agree with you that my ideology is a little collectivist, but I don't see why its wrong. I think the word collectivist has a very negative connotation with its ties to communism but in reality even the most evil of ideologies or principles usually have a few truths to it.

----------


## Bryan

> Why do you think so?


The range would be based on intent, which isn't always known. Some people do use negative collectivism as a form of hate, others use it to draw conclusions about someone that may or may not be true.





> To me its simply considering additional facts. I don't consider any type of knowledge to be bad.


I agree that knowledge is never bad, but what one has to be careful of is false knowledge - this is something that the mainstream pushes hard and why people think they understand liberty (and can celebrate it) while they have very little liberty.






> But what is the problem with it if the conclusions are true? i.e.  "65 percent of men of this group spend time in jail." ?


That's a statistic, and what can be concluded from it? Really, the only true conclusion is that 65 percent of men in that group spend time in jail - any other conclusion would need its own study / analysis. You can't otherwise extract information where there is none.

Of course part of this comes down to policy - if this is true, then what? What would you suggest be done with such a statistic? 




> Also I do agree with you that my ideology is a little collectivist, but I don't see why its wrong.


How so? Is it your ideology or your personal life choices?





> I think the word collectivist has a very negative connotation with its ties to communism but in reality even the most evil of ideologies or principles usually have a few truths to it.


The word is over-loaded a bit in that it can mean different things in different contexts. You'll have to cite some examples of what you mean here.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I think you'd find that the IQ's of the Frankfurt School theorists was quite high.  Shall we adopt their agenda?
> 
> Seriously, a correlation between liberty lovers and IQ is absurd.  The correlation between IQ and intelligence isn't even that strong.
> 
> A correlation between whites and the erection of huge, oppressive warfare/welfare surveillance states?  Irrefutable.


^^^
But, this kind of collectivism is fine, Bryan???  It's not ok to post statistics of criminal behavior by race, but it's ok to post this crap?  Really?




> Now, for trump and his supporters to establish their brand of "liberty"... perhaps an IQ *ceiling* will need to be mandated.


Well, I suppose you could ask the government to mandate that we all live in mud huts.  Would that make it better?

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> The range would be based on intent, which isn't always known. Some people do use negative collectivism as a form of hate, others use it to draw conclusions about someone that may or may not be true.


I think its best to consider and especially for discussion that the intent is good. I think the majority of people don't want to deceive themselves and believe in lies. 

But what if they use collectivism to draw conclusions that are factual and use it as part of their conclusion? 





> I agree that knowledge is never bad, but what one has to be careful of is false knowledge - this is something that the mainstream pushes hard and why people think they understand liberty (and can celebrate it) while they have very little liberty.


I think you mean misinformation. 





> That's a statistic, and what can be concluded from it? Really, the only true conclusion is that 65 percent of men in that group spend time in jail - any other conclusion would need its own study / analysis. You can't otherwise extract information where there is none.


For me personally, what I would draw from it is that if 65 percent of Martians commit armed robbery, while 0 percent of blue men do, I will be more wary walking down the street in a martian neighborhood than I would if I were walking in a blue man neighborhood. But of course, this doesn't mean every martian will rob me as 35 percent could be the most law abiding good hearted citizens. But it is something that I will consider for my safety. 




> Of course part of this comes down to policy - if this is true, then what? What would you suggest be done with such a statistic?


Exactly. I think statistics should be considered and at least part of the discourse. I don't agree with people who say "this fact is evil" and we shouldn't consider it or in other words political correctness. 




> How so? Is it your ideology or your personal life choices?


What do you mean? 




> The word is over-loaded a bit in that it can mean different things in different contexts. You'll have to cite some examples of what you mean here.


What I learned is that nearly every popular ideology usually has some truths to it and is unlikely to ever be 100 percent wrong or evil. Some people usually want you to think that for political reasons, such as "Nazism is 100 percent evil" while I found Nazism may not be 100 percent right/correct/true, but it definitely has some irrefutable proof like its use of forensic anthropology to identify groups. LIbertarians have lots of truth to their ideology about small government, while even communism has some truths about social inequalities. I think its best if you listen to all ideas with an open mind and extract truths where you find it and combine them to form your own opinion or beliefs.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> That's a statistic, and what can be concluded from it? Really, the only true conclusion is that 65 percent of men in that group spend time in jail - any other conclusion would need its own study / analysis. You can't otherwise extract information where there is none.
> 
> Of course part of this comes down to policy - if this is true, then what? What would you suggest be done with such a statistic?


I'll play.  Let's say that those statistics are the result of a certain race that our government has brought into our country; say a State Dept. deposit.  If 65% of the men ended up in jail, I'd say that was relevant.  And since our country has no requirement to allow anyone at all to immigrate here and so many from all over still want to, I'd say move along to the next and pass this one up.  Sounds like basic common sense to me.

----------


## undergroundrr

> I'll play.  Let's say that those statistics are the result of a certain race that our government has brought into our country; say a State Dept. deposit.  If 65% of the men ended up in jail, I'd say that was relevant.  And since our country has no requirement to allow anyone at all to immigrate here and so many from all over still want to, I'd say move along to the next and pass this one up.  Sounds like basic common sense to me.


Thanks for making my point about white-erected warfare/welfare surveillance states. Perhaps white people should not be allowed to take leadership positions over large economies and populations. Move along to the next and pass this one up.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Thanks for making my point about *white*-erected warfare/welfare surveillance states. Perhaps white people should not be allowed to take leadership positions over large economies and populations. Move along to the next and pass *this one* up.


Please define "this one".

----------


## undergroundrr

> Please define "this one".


Same as yours - "a certain race."

----------


## LibertyEagle

Are you attempting to make a comment about colonialism?

----------


## undergroundrr

> Are you attempting to make a comment about colonialism?


No.

You keep missing the point. However, all is not lost. You probably have a local psychologist who can administer a Stanford-Binet or Wechsler assessment to determine whether:
a) there may be cognitive issues.
b) you will be eligible for citizenship after the alt-right takeover.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Same as yours - "a certain race."


No, actually you meant "this nation," that is, the United States of America (or other white-erected societies / economies).  And that is indeed the same thing LE meant by "this one".

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> lol. It depends, what type of welder are we taking about?


Just a little sputter-pot.

----------


## undergroundrr

> No, actually you meant "this nation," that is, the United States of America (or other white-erected societies / economies).  And that is indeed the same thing LE meant by "this one".


Hmmmm... I've read it a few times and it could go either way.  It read to me like she was saying we should move on to the next race.  I'll take your word for it though.

I'll have to change my formulation but it makes the point even more strongly - Perhaps the next time a white person tries to be president of the US, we should tell them to move along to the next and pass this one up.  However, black presidents use a lot of drones.  Maybe we could try an Arab Muslim.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Hmmmm... I've read it a few times and it could go either way.


Your statement made no sense (to me!) if you substitute "a certain race" for "this one".  Behold:

*Perhaps white people should not be allowed to take leadership positions over large economies and populations. Move along to the next and pass a certain race up.*

Huh?

What you were clearly writing was (with clarifying helps):

*Perhaps white people should not be allowed to take leadership positions over large economies and populations. [White people should instead] move along to the next [ large economy or population] and pass this [large economy or population] up.*

Right?

Whereas LE was saying that would-be immigrants who want to come to the US, well, the US is under no obligation to let them in.  The US ought to be run for the benefit of US Citizens.  US politicians ought to do what's best for the 300 million people living in the US, not for the 7 billion people in elsewhere in the world.  They should consider the interests of _Americans_, in other words (imagine that!).  So, the would-be immigrant can simply pass up the US and find some other country to immigrate to instead.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Perhaps the next time a white person tries to be president of the US, we should tell them to move along to* the next* and pass this one up.


Exactly!  The next what?  The next _country!_  Go be their President!  Right?  Not the next race or the next "a certain race".  That would be incoherent.

I'm just trying to help your conversation stay coherent.

----------


## undergroundrr

> I'm just trying to help your conversation stay coherent.


You did great, many thanks.

----------


## TheCount

> To me its simply considering additional facts. I don't consider any type of knowledge to be bad.


Most racists do not use it as a fact because they try to infer the characteristics of the individual from what they know of the group, which is fallacious.


As I've mentioned in other threads, the mostly likely source of violence against white men is other white men.  If racists were fact-based and rational as you propose, they would take that into account.  Instead, they choose to selectively use a fact - that rates of violence crime vary based between races - to justify a pre-existing fear of people who are not like them.

In other words, their reaction to threats is not proportional to the likelihood of the threat.  They choose to overemphasize certain threats for whatever personal reasons they may have.






> But what is the problem with it if the conclusions are true? i.e.  "65 percent of men of this group spend time in jail."


You are assuming that the high rate of incarceration is due to the fault of the group and not the fault of the judicial system.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> lol ok. I still think the idea is hilarious. Like the way religious people joke about atheist finding God in a foxhole during bombardment. 
> Statist finding their desire and passion for liberty when receiving a deportation order lulz.


LOL. The idea of a open border/immigratonist/cultural revivalist demanding to be let back into America after seeing the Hell on Earth of the slums of India, Or Mexico, or Brazil or Gun Grab running for a horde of machete wielding criminals does sound fun. 




> Sure, the point is it leads to no change in your liberty.


Then they can wallow in their lies so long they do not burden us.








> So possibly of interest for some academician, but nothing for policy.


We can know where policy will lead and with that if its a good idea to put ideas to law.







> None of what you posted provides a proof. An IQ test is a man made construct that has been developed with certain biases on how to weigh / value certain things. I see it as very flawed as it does not gauge what I see as important: an understanding of liberty. I know many people who have high IQ's but support tyranny. Why should pro-liberty people support the standard of an IQ test when lots of people can score high on it and be completely opposed to liberty? To me, that shows the test is seriously flawed. Side note- we need to develop a "Liberty IQ" test.


Would you like to see how those group vote?

Low IQ people are more likely to require assists and because of this are less likely to vote for lower taxes, less government, less regulations, etc

Why would people from non WASP culture have any overlap, or value it or the foundations its build on? Their voting habits show this.


More over the high IQ people who support tyranny do so because of conditioning, desire for control, self hate, cultural, national, or racial self hatred, relativism, etc

The ideas of Liberty like a program, cultural is software and IQ is hardware. You need both and some groups are better set to understand it, some are not, and some members of the groups that are will not or just reject it. No idea is so good everyone will support it. 






> What do you propose?


Along what issue?





> Is it OK to spend trillions to make people equal if they have good genetic make up?


No, its never ok because people will never be equal as their difference exist because they are not the same.





> Could we agree that the government should not be taking other people's money for socialism, for any reason regardless of genetic make up?


Sure, but those that get the "free" stuff will always support it, and they are on pace to outnumber us, so why not stop importing them so we can put the rabid beast of Marxism down?





> Setting immigration laws based on an IQ criteria (even if it is flawed) is certainly an acceptable position, IMO. Basing it on race however is completely problematic however.


So if it based on IQ would favor some groups others would you be O.K with it?

Why? is basing it on race wrong?

If people are not equal then why is this wrong?

Do you believe that people have a "right" to immigrate? Yes or No

Do you believe that minority have a "right" to become a majority? Yes or No

Is it wrong for a majority to protect itself statues? Yes or No?






> There is no benefit for whom?


Everyone. The nation, its culture, the tax payer (the most abused group) schools, students, companies, those who have to suffer the slew of regulations and taxes to make up for this "inequality".





> Is it OK to make laws that target everyone based on actions of groups of people that don't have to do with race?


Well by default dont all laws apply to everyone? If not how would that work?





> Of course pro-liberty people don't want any such laws, regardless of the source - why make this a race issue?


Well if we had a secure border, and limited immigration we would not have as many laws, if we did not have the 1965 Immigration Act we would not have Muslims in this nation in any real number nor have any immigration/visas from/to the Middle East, without that the 9/11 Hijackers would not have been here, they would not have attacked us and without 9/11 do you think we would have the Patriot Act? Or Gone into Iraq? Or the Refugee issues?

Do you think if we let in Mateens Family his son would have been born here? Do you think if he was born in Pakistan he would have been able to go postal in the Pulse Nightclub?

Do you think if that did not happen we would not have cries of and a desire to throw due process out the window?

Some groups cause trouble and statist just love to seize on it as an excuse to take away freedom, why not stop importing such groups and limit the damage (cultural, economical, political,) they can do to us?

Because some groups break some laws more then others.

Hispanics break immigration, and drug laws more then other groups and that is a fact. Mostly do to our rigged immigration, open border and those who benefit from them "cheap labor" and leftist who need voters.





> I'm not sure anyone pro-liberty would disagree with this.


If it means that some groups commit crime at higher rates, that would mean people are not all the same, fungible, interchangeable, etc and because it proves their "Blank Slate" view of humanity, they might and do disagree.




> Which groups would these be?


Islam, Marxisms,Narco groups. 






> Is this a fact or are you being collectivist?


It is, what do leftist value? Its not freedom, its not values, its not protecting anything, its winning as to use the power of government to enough their ideas, wants, goals, which are largely marxist in origin and it is evil..






> Many people play by rules because of their character, they may not want to create victims.


Well by default their are going to be victims, and the left has no care who or how many they create or what they kill to make their vision of heaven on Earth a reality.

When you play by a set of rules your enemy sets for you, its little wonder how things will work out, you will lose as that is the intent of the rules..






> Could you explain your point here some more, please?


When leftists have enough power, they do not respect the views and rights of their opposition, they just shut them down, jail them, or "disappear them"

Because of this we can not allow them to come to power, and if doing so means we have to throw out any sense of morals or rules so be it.




> I agree in so much that we should work to wield power, that's the Mission of this site. We want to wield it so it doesn't get abused, and disband the power that should not exist. Some people on the left however can be educated to liberty once they get the correct viewpoints.



So how about you stop importing of large numbers of leftists as to stop making the enemy stronger...





> I see the issue as casting negative characterizations of the groups, hence the "negative collectivism". As said, it can range from anti-intellectual to hateful. Collectivism on its own, such as for study of tends, etc, isn't inherently a problem.


And if those characterizations of groups is true, why is "anti-intellectual"? How is it "hateful"?





> Even non white ones?


Yes....Sadly.




> I think you'd find that the IQ's of the Frankfurt School theorists was quite high.  Shall we adopt their agenda?
> 
> Seriously, a correlation between liberty lovers and IQ is absurd.  The correlation between IQ and intelligence isn't even that strong.
> 
> A correlation between whites and the erection of huge, oppressive warfare/welfare surveillance states?  Irrefutable.
> 
> Now, for trump and his supporters to establish their brand of "liberty"... perhaps an IQ *ceiling* will need to be mandated.


Just because their IQ is higher does not mean their idea is a good. 

Yes it is because low IQ groups of people largely vote for largely governments, welfare, gun control, open borders, etc.

Maybe because of the actions of "some groups" in those nations. Notice how we did not have any need for a Spy/Police state because we had large numbers of Muslims in the nation...Odd isnt?






> There's a reason why some advocate the prohibition of immigration of "unwanted races" based on negative characteristics _of the group_ without consideration to the individual attempting to immigrate.


Well we are not wasting time sorting through millions of people when trends can do it for it for us.








> Note also that the assumption is made that members of a "good" race are automatically desired by the country based entirely on their genetics.  That is a policy seeking a collectivist outcome; group against group.  If the goal were actually to ensure the quality of immigrants, then they would advocate consideration of the individual - regardless of race - to accept those who meet the standard and reject those who do not, regardless of their ethnicity.


Well some genetic traits are clearly more desirable then others, funny when the free market wants some product you do not have any issue with it.

We do, we set requirements, and if some whole groups of people are banned so be it.

Such as a health requirement, no persons who are majorly disabled, or infected with incurable diseases will be allowed in. Now since that effects and or creates an entire group, is it immoral or wrong?

No it is not.

More over native persons of Western European and the Anglo Sphere are more likely to have an understanding of the culture and will blend in more and faster then say a bunch of Pakistan or Somalis.




> "You can not immigrate because other people who look like you scored poorly on an IQ test"


Are you aware of the Regression to the genetic mean?




> "You can not immigrate because other people who look like you committed crimes"


Well sorry but some people spoil it for others, and we value or rights more then hurting the feels of Muslims.





> "You can immigrate despite the fact that you are an idiot because other people who look like you are not idiots"
> 
> "You can immigrate - despite the fact that you may be a criminal - because other people who look like you are not criminals"
> 
> 
> The anti-immigration policies which are quite vocally supported on this forum are fundamentally based on collectivist ideology.



Well if their an idiot they will be turned away because they fail the IQ test.

If they are a criminal they will be deported/turned away while applying, unlike now where we have know war criminals using the refugee system to immigrant.

All laws and policies are collectivist because they effect all people in a nation...Are you that dense?

More over we have the right to keep out groups that are going to be a burden/threat and if they do not like it or some people feel some how we are in the wrong for wanting to protect ourselves then they need to look to the nations these people come from and think why their nations are so dysfunctional to begin with..

----------


## TheCount

Restoration, I've done you the courtesy of bolding all of your spelling and grammar mistakes to enable you to improve yourself and increase your chances of being allowed to remain a citizen after your policies are enacted.




> Would you like to see how *those group* vote?


What evidence do you have as to why "those group" vote the way that they do?  None?


Is it not a possibility that being made the boogieman of the conservative party for the last four decades has has an impact on the views of "those group" towards the concept of conservatism as a whole?





> Low IQ people are more likely to require *assists*


Evidence or assumption?





> Why would people from non WASP *culture* have any overlap, or value it or the foundations *its build* on?


Oh, so only WASP culture now?  Not even white is good enough for you?





> *More over* the high IQ people who support tyranny do so because of conditioning, desire for control, self hate, cultural, national, or racial self hatred, relativism, etc


I really admire your ability to wholesale make $#@! up to support your conclusions based on absolutely nothing.


So, let me get this straight: When "high IQ" (white) people make poor decisions it's because of environmental/developmental problems, but when "low IQ" (nonwhite) people make poor decisions it's genetics.






> So if it based on IQ *would favor some groups others* would you be O.K with it?
> 
> Why? is basing it on race wrong?
> 
> If people are not equal then why is this wrong?


You really, really do not understand what collectivism is.





> Is it wrong for a majority to protect* itself statues*? Yes or No?


A person has the right to protect their statues, regardless of what those statues are of.  Simple property rights here.








> Well we are not wasting time sorting through millions of people when trends can do it for it for us.


Trends absolutely cannot judge the individual.





> Well some genetic traits are clearly more desirable *then* others


Clearly?  Clear to whom?

Are you sure that the things that you desire are genetic traits?

Have scientists found the magical WASP culture genes?





> Such as a health requirement, no persons who are majorly disabled, or infected with incurable diseases will be allowed in. Now since that *effects* and or creates an entire group, is it immoral or wrong?


You really, really, _really_ do not understand.

A health requirement is not collectivist because it considers the individual.  One would not say 'blacks have a higher rate of sports injuries, therefore we should not let them immigrate because they may have a sports injury.'  Clearly that is ridiculous.  Instead, the health of _that particular person_ who wishes to immigrate is considered, and a decision is made _for that person_ as to whether or not they should be accepted.

That is the difference.  It is just that simple.






> *More over* native *persons* of Western *European* and the Anglo Sphere are more likely to have an understanding of the culture and will blend in more and faster *then* say a bunch of *Pakistan* or Somalis.


Why is it assumed that understanding and blending is desirable?






> Are you aware of the *Regression* to the genetic mean?


Are you aware that the individual does not revert to the mean?

The group reverts to the mean.

Again.  Collectivist.






> Well sorry but some people spoil it for others


Collectivist.





> Well if *their* an idiot they will be turned away because they fail the IQ test.


And if they are pass they should be accepted?

Would your proposed immigration policy turn away a ~90 IQ white male and accept a ~105 IQ arab male?





> If they are a criminal they will be deported/turned away while applying, unlike now where we have *know* war criminals using the refugee system to *immigrant*.


The refugee system screens for criminals, unlike your proposed 'if its white then it's aight' system.





> All laws and policies are collectivist because they *effect* all people in a nation...Are you that dense?


That's not even what collectivist means.  The dense one here is you.






> look to the nations these people come from and think why their nations are so dysfunctional to begin with..


Anyone who comes to the conclusion that nations fail because of the (assumed) genetic makeup of their inhabitants is an idiot.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Most racists do not use it as a fact because they try to infer the characteristics of the individual from what they know of the group, which is fallacious.


#1 – Yes, you are right. Doing that is fallacious, but I am telling you in my years involved in white nationalism I have never seen a WN do this. Our ideology wouldn’t make sense. 
#2 you seem to be guilty of what you are arguing against. You basically say that you are not a racist/white nationalist because most WNs disregard facts and you are judging individual racists as being all the same. That is basically your reason from what you are writing. You are therefore saying “All racism and white nationalists are bad and I reject it wholeheartedly because of what a minority of racists do.” 
#3  Your argument is irrelevant to mine. I am discussing the white nationalists who do not have fallacious thinking and discussing the ones who use the right facts and do not infer incorrect characteristics to all members of a group because some members of that group have such a characteristic. If we do not do this and use correct facts, why is it wrong? 




> As I've mentioned in other threads, the mostly likely source of violence against white men is other white men.


I didn’t read your other threads. I don’t see what this has to do with me or any white nationalist. 




> If racists were fact-based and rational as you propose, they would take that into account.


If you want to discuss it, sure. I never heard this fact but I have a feeling its because whites are the largest population in the country while blacks are a minority at like 13 percent. Obviously whites are going to be assaulted more by fellow whites than blacks…




> Instead, *they* choose to selectively use a fact –


Again, you are grouping racists into a whole, which is collectivism. Your conclusion and thinking about racists here is exactly the same as mine and exactly what I am arguing for. 




> that rates of violence crime vary based between races


Of course. I don’t see why any WN will reject this truth and disagree with you. 

Your argument is essentially that we reject facts.




> - to justify a pre-existing fear of people who are not like them.


To me it has nothing to do with fear but having a right that everybody else has, which is the right to separate and live freely and reject mulitculturalism and diversity. 




> In other words, their reaction to threats is not proportional to the likelihood of the threat. They choose to overemphasize certain threats for whatever personal reasons they may have.


This is sort of irrelevant and white nationalists in my experience are the most unbiased people. 




> You are assuming that the high rate of incarceration is due to the fault of the group and not the fault of the judicial system.


Now you are attacking the facts, but what I am saying just suppose the facts are right/true. I am merely saying we should consider and discuss them. Of course, if a fact may be wrong or incorrect we should definitely consider that too and discuss it.




> Would your proposed immigration policy turn away a ~90 IQ white male and accept a ~105 IQ arab male?


No.

Also, why are you so gung ho on minorities like Arabs coming here? I am not accusing you, its just my impression.

----------


## Smitty

I wouldn't worry about the alt-right. It won't be around for long.

In a few years they'll simply be called Republicans.

----------


## TheCount

> #1 – Yes, you are right. Doing that is fallacious, but I am telling you in my years involved in white nationalism I have never seen a WN do this. Our ideology wouldn’t make sense.


You are correct; your ideology does not make sense.

Also, No True Scotsman argument, in the form of No True White Nationalist.  This begins a trend which will carry though the rest of your post, wherein you simultaneously reject any attempt to define WN logic or policy while also using 'we' to refer to your desires as the desires of the group.





> #2 you seem to be guilty of what you are arguing against.


First incidence of the above.





> You basically say that you are not a racist/white nationalist because most WNs disregard facts and you are judging individual racists as being all the same.


Can you point out where I said that?





> You are therefore saying “All racism and white nationalists are bad and I reject it wholeheartedly because of what a minority of racists do.”


Can you point out where I said that?





> #3  Your argument is irrelevant to mine. I am discussing the white nationalists who do not have fallacious thinking and discussing the ones who use the right facts and do not infer incorrect characteristics to all members of a group because some members of that group have such a characteristic.


I'd love to hear your entirely fact-based rationale for restricting immigration of entire races based solely upon characteristics of the individual.





> If you want to discuss it, sure. I never heard this fact but I have a feeling its because whites are the largest population in the country while blacks are a minority at like 13 percent. Obviously whites are going to be assaulted more by fellow whites than blacks…


You are incorrect.  It is because most violence is committed between people who know each other and not by strangers.  This is why, statistically speaking, the most dangerous person in a white woman's life is her significant other, not a boogity boogity immigrant jumping out of the bushes.

And that takes me back to slightly earlier in your post...





> I don’t see what this has to do with me or any white nationalist.


Easy; you have yourself posted on this forum that you believe that races get along best when separated from each other and yet each race does the most violence to members of their own race.





> Your argument is essentially that we reject facts.


Can you point out to me where I said that?

My posts in this thread argue the exact opposite position.





> To me it has nothing to do with fear but having a right that everybody else has, which is the right to separate and live freely and reject mulitculturalism and diversity.


The right to separate and live freely, which I support, is independent of the "right" to enact a government for the purpose of infringing upon the rights on others.  I have never heard a white nationalist propose a social system based entirely upon the first right with none of the second.  You're welcome to be the first.





> Now you are attacking the facts


I am not.





> what I am saying just suppose the facts are right/true.  I am merely saying we should consider and discuss them. Of course, if a fact may be wrong or incorrect we should definitely consider that too and discuss it.


I think that you need to entirely relook my posts and read what I actually said and not what you assume that a person arguing with you would say.

Nowhere in my posts did I say that the facts were incorrect.  In fact, I said the opposite.






> Also, why are you so gung ho on minorities like Arabs coming here? I am not accusing you, its just my impression.


I am not.  You are making assumptions based on your black and white (hah white nationalist joke) worldview.

----------


## Smitty

I think it would be a good idea for America to mimic Israel and declare than anyone of a certain ethnicity automatically has citizenship in America.

In America it would be for those of Western European ancestry.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Restoration, I've done you the courtesy of bolding all of your spelling and grammar mistakes to enable you to improve yourself and increase your chances of being allowed to remain a citizen after your policies are enacted.


Hey I am driving and having my posts dictate via the voice to text feature on my phone, more over if you think spelling and grammar matters more then facts or overall context of the message, then you are clearly seeing the dirt, not even the trees, and clearly missing the forest.

More over, the native born kids of citizens would be safe.






> What evidence do you have as to why "those group" vote the way that they do?  None?










On social issues, if anything, Hispanics get more liberal as the longer theyve been in the US.
In evaluating their social values, first-generation Latinos are more likely to express views generally considered more conservative than second-generation Latinos. When asked whether they thought divorce was unacceptable, nearly half (46%) of first-generation Latinos reported they believe it is unacceptable, compared to three in ten (30%) second-generation Latinos. When asked about abortion, more than eight in ten (83%) first-generation Latinos said it is unacceptable, compared to about two-thirds (64%) of second-generation Latinos.  Pew (2004)In fact, according to a 2014 study by Pew, 62% of foreign born Hispanics and 63% of native born Hispanics identity as democrat or lean democrat.






> Is it not a possibility that being made the boogieman of the conservative party for the last four decades has has an impact on the views of "those group" towards the concept of conservatism as a whole?


No, we are not "boogiemen" are partiots protecting or nation from an invasion.

It has nothing to do with them supporting marxism everywhere south of the border as proof their political views and their culture, right? No, of course not.






> Evidence or assumption?


https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/02/11...een-iq-income/

https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress....gh-iq-society/

https://books.google.com/books?id=s4...elfare&f=false






> Oh, so only WASP culture now?  Not even white is good enough for you?


Every wave of immigration has led our culture/government further away from the Founders vision of the Constitution, and adding tens of millions of people who are at best have no idea what the intent and goals of the Constitution are has surely not helped.

Irish, Italian, Poles, etc are still to this day after being here for generations lock, stock, and barrel, big government supporters, so the idea that they really changed to our nation is not true so much as they changed the nation to their own need, which such a change was clearly not for the better.





> I really admire your ability to wholesale make $#@! up to support your conclusions based on absolutely nothing.
> 
> 
> So, let me get this straight: When "high IQ" (white) people make poor decisions it's because of environmental/developmental problems, but when "low IQ" (nonwhite) people make poor decisions it's genetics.


Also stupidity, "smart" people are still human and make tons of mistakes.

You also left out that leftism attaches people more mentally ill people, so that is also part of it.










> You really, really do not understand what collectivism is.


Using a word a great deal is a tale tale sign of people not understanding its true meaning.








> A person has the right to protect their statues, regardless of what those statues are of.  Simple property rights here.


Great, we are protecting our Majority statue and we have proof that giving it away will result in the collapse of our nation, culture, and the end of our rights.









> Trends absolutely cannot judge the individual.


We are still looking at the applications, and those denied are denied.






> Clearly?  Clear to whom?


Those who value them.

Those who want blonde hair, good health, etc will seek them out.




> Are you sure that the things that you desire are genetic traits?


High IQ, Blonde Hair, Blue Eyes,  Fair Skin, Height, etc are largely Genetic Traits, but thanks to 
*CRISPR we can not select, edit, and replace some genes, even in people already born...






Have scientists found the magical WASP culture genes?


*We have found a set of genes that make such a culture possible, it sill require the cultural hallmarks and traditions as well.










> Why is it assumed that understanding and blending is desirable?


Because we do not want little Pakistanis, or Somalia in America. Those places exist in Pakistan and Somalia and the people that create them are a burden and what they create is a blight.

We do not want or need people who might take decades, generations, or never understand and value Liberty, and vote or act against it.

Why is it assumed that not understanding and division is desirable when it the world over and across time has produced nothing but war and misery?







> Are you aware that the individual does not revert to the mean?


https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...on+to+the+mean 




> The group reverts to the mean.
> 
> Again.  Collectivist.


Why would you want to reduce the IQ of the nation?




> Collectivist.


 
Tell that to Islam or the 9/11 Hijackers, or even better to Congress when they vote away more of your rights to "fight terrorism" while importing more welfare voters and terrorists.






> And if they are pass they should be accepted?
>  Would your proposed immigration policy turn away a ~90 IQ white male and accept a ~105 IQ arab male?


If they fail the other test no.

IQ Test
Health Test
Assets/Financial requirements* 
Political screenings*

Min requirement of 50,000$ would be a great screening, I could be waved in some cases.

Hook them up to a lie detector and ask them their opinions on issues, if they give the right answers great, if not? Well they fail. We have no need for marxists, commies, gun grabbers, Islamists, etc.







> The refugee system screens for criminals, unlike your proposed 'if its white then it's aight' system.


No, its not. Beatrice Munyenyezi was exposed as an enthusiastic participant in the genocide that left 70 percent of Rwandas Tutsis dead. Contrary to her claim that she had been a victim of the genocide, she was a perpetrator, identifying Tutsis to be raped and murdered by the Hutu militia. She was convicted in federal court of procuring her naturalization unlawfully, and sentenced to ten years in prison, but Munyenyezi remains a lawful permanent resident. Only an immigration court can order her deportation, and first she must serve her criminal sentence. She may not be able to be sent home because conditions in the receiving country can change, for better or worse. (Except in Africa, which is only for the worse.) She will need a valid passport and some other country that will agree to take her, otherwise we cant put her on a plane. Why would any other country take her? Consequently, as soon as shes released from prison, the Rwandan murderess could end up living next to you, reader.

More over most refugees go on welfare, vote leftist and never mind terrorism, so that program is going to be shut down.











> Anyone who comes to the conclusion that nations fail because of the (assumed) genetic makeup of their inhabitants is an idiot.


[/QUOTE]

So calling people who have valid idea idiots is your come back...interesting.

Its not like Low IQ people can not build an advance civilization because they lack the genetic capital yet that seems to be the case..

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I think it would be a good idea for America to mimic Israel and declare than anyone of a certain ethnicity automatically has citizenship in America.
> 
> In America it would be for those of Western European ancestry.


This...

----------


## TheCount

> More over, the native born kids of citizens would be safe.


Why?  That doesn't seem to make any sense.

If most of your children are morons or criminals, then likely your genetics are reverting to their mean, and your entire genetic line should be culled.





> On social issues, if anything, Hispanics get more liberal as the longer they’ve been in the US.“In evaluating their social values, first-generation Latinos are more likely to express views generally considered more conservative than second-generation Latinos. When asked whether they thought divorce was unacceptable, nearly half (46%) of first-generation Latinos reported they believe it is unacceptable, compared to three in ten (30%) second-generation Latinos. When asked about abortion, more than eight in ten (83%) first-generation Latinos said it is unacceptable, compared to about two-thirds (64%) of second-generation Latinos.” – Pew (2004)
> 
> In fact, according to a 2014 study by Pew, 62% of foreign born Hispanics and 63% of native born Hispanics identity as democrat or lean democrat.


You've missed the point.  The question is not "*what* are the political leanings of immigrants?" it is "*why* do immigrants lean that way politically?"


You say that it is because they are genetically liberal, but the quote that you yourself posted states that Hispanics become more liberal *after* moving to America.  Based upon that, which of these is more likely:

1) Exposure to America changes the genetic code of Hispanics causing increased liberalism

2) Literally any other conclusion






> No, we are not "boogiemen" are partiots protecting or nation from an invasion.


The boogiemen are the immigrants not you.





> It has nothing to do with them supporting marxism everywhere south of the border as proof their political views and their culture, right? No, of course not.


Do you suppose that their support of marxism has anything to do with the fact that the United States has been overtly and covertly $#@!ing with their governments and economic markets for a century?

None of this is occurring in a vacuum.


Oh.. and who invented Marxism again?  Hispanics?  Where are the majority of socialist countries?  Africa?  South America?





> https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/02/11...een-iq-income/
> 
> https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress....gh-iq-society/
> 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=s4...elfare&f=false



Holy $#@!, let's wade through the bull$#@! shall we:

First link: 


> It’s common knowledge in psychometric circles that reading comprehension tests are statistically equivalent to IQ tests


Total bull$#@!, opinion discarded.  Literacy is not a measure of intelligence.  Literacy requires education.  Attempting to compare literacy scores across groups requires making assumptions about the education that those groups received.


Second link:  


> It is conceivable that the stress low IQ people experience in a high IQ society may be in part the cause of this greater incidence of mental illness.


Attempts to say that low IQ causes mental illness while providing no explanation of why it can't be the other way around.  Again, discarded.


Third link:  


> ... low socioeconomic background is a more powerful predictor [of who receives welfare] than low IQ...


This supports my point, not yours, and this quote is right there on the very page that you linked.  Can't you even bother to read your own material?






> Every wave of immigration has led our culture/government further away from the Founders vision of the Constitution


Impossible to prove.





> Great, we are protecting our Majority statue and we have proof that giving it away will result in the collapse of our nation, culture, and the end of our rights.


This statue of yours must be super important if its it is the only thing that is holding the nation together.

Is it the Lincoln Memorial?  I'm not sure where you're going with this.





> Those who value them.


Things are valued by people who value them.  Great... we're making progress here.





> Those who want blonde hair, good health, etc will seek them out.


Cool; they're welcome to seek them out on an individual basis.

Why should the government seek out blonde hair?





> We have found a set of genes that make such a culture possible, it sill require the cultural hallmarks and traditions as well.


... are you suggesting that the same genes responsible for causing the physical features of whiteness are also your 'good culture' genes?





> Because we do not want little Pakistanis, or Somalia in America.


Mouse in your pocket?





> Why is it assumed that not understanding and division is desirable when it the world over and across time has produced nothing but war and misery?


You know who is producing nothing but war and misery lately?  The $#@!ing United States.


Also... did we have less war and misery in the days when races were largely confined to countries comprised of only their own race?  In order for your point to make any sense at all, that should have been a very peaceful time.  Was it?






> Why would you want to reduce the IQ of the nation?


Why do you keep beating your wife?






> IQ Test
> Health Test
> Assets/Financial requirements
> Political screenings



So... nothing race-based?

I'm glad that you are coming around to my way of thinking.






> No, its not. Beatrice Munyenyezi was exposed as an enthusiastic participant in the genocide that left 70 percent of Rwanda’s Tutsis dead. Contrary to her claim that she had been a victim of the genocide, she was a perpetrator, identifying Tutsis to be raped and murdered by the Hutu militia. *She was convicted in federal court of procuring her naturalization unlawfully*, and sentenced to ten years in prison, but Munyenyezi remains a lawful permanent resident. Only an immigration court can order her deportation, and first she must serve her criminal sentence.


This story that you posted does not support your point.  In fact, it supports mine.

The only reason that she was allowed to immigrate is because she did so fraudulently.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Why?  That doesn't seem to make any sense.
> 
> If most of your children are morons or criminals, then likely your genetics are reverting to their mean, and your entire genetic line should be culled.


You have not proposed anything and just whining at this point.





> You've missed the point.  The question is not "*what* are the political leanings of immigrants?" it is "*why* do immigrants lean that way politically?"


http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/imm...ok-6-12-14.pdf 

More or less their culture and desire to vote the same failed Ideas they had back home..





> You say that it is because they are genetically liberal, but the quote that you yourself posted states that Hispanics become more liberal *after* moving to America.  Based upon that, which of these is more likely:
> 
> 1) Exposure to America changes the genetic code of Hispanics causing increased liberalism
> 
> 2) Literally any other conclusion



"Free stuff" and "blame whitey" helps a great deal..





> The boogiemen are the immigrants not you.


No, they are a real threat unlike the B-man who has never caused any problems.





> Do you suppose that their support of marxism has anything to do with the fact that the United States has been overtly and covertly $#@!ing with their governments and economic markets for a century?
> 
> None of this is occurring in a vacuum.
> 
> 
> Oh.. and who invented Marxism again?  Hispanics?  Where are the majority of socialist countries?  Africa?  South America?


Really? We have? Because I have done nothing to anyone, maybe the government has but I am blameless.

No, it was a degenerate named Karl Marx.






> Holy $#@!, let's wade through the bull$#@! shall we:
> 
> First link: 
> 
> Total bull$#@!, opinion discarded.  Literacy is not a measure of intelligence.  Literacy requires education.  Attempting to compare literacy scores across groups requires making assumptions about the education that those groups received.
> 
> 
> Second link:  
> 
> ...


So talking around the issues at hand are we?





> Impossible to prove.


No, very possible to prove, look at the North East alone before and after the major waves of immigration.





> This statue of yours must be super important if its it is the only thing that is holding the nation together.
> 
> Is it the Lincoln Memorial?  I'm not sure where you're going with this.


Status, damn software. What ever H1B worker that wrote it should be sent back.

No, that tyrant needs to be dethroned.









> Things are valued by people who value them.  Great... we're making progress here.


And not everyone values the same things, so lets keep those out who value non compatible things.



> Cool; they're welcome to seek them out on an individual basis.
> 
> Why should the government seek out blonde hair?


Why shouldnt the government keep out seek people?






> ... are you suggesting that the same genes responsible for causing the physical features of whiteness are also your 'good culture' genes?


Are you saying that genes play no part in shaping culture? Yes or no?





> Mouse in your pocket?


No, I am sure others agree. Ok honest question to all reading this. 

Do you want America to turn into Pakistan/Somalia, yes or no?






> You know who is producing nothing but war and misery lately?  The $#@!ing United States.


No, multiculturalism and forced diversity.




> Also... did we have less war and misery in the days when races were largely confined to countries comprised of only their own race?  In order for your point to make any sense at all, that should have been a very peaceful time.  Was it?


Yes, largely better but you will never have world peace. When the nations IE different ethic groups invade you will have a response.






> Why do you keep beating your wife?


Because she is a naughty girl and must be spanked.





> So... nothing race-based?
> 
> I'm glad that you are coming around to my way of thinking.


...What do you think the IQ test would do? 




> This story that you posted does not support your point.  In fact, it supports mine.
> 
> The only reason that she was allowed to immigrate is because she did so fraudulently.


You claimed they are "well vetted"...You are very clearly wrong..

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> You are correct; your ideology does not make sense.


Why?
Does multiculturalism make sense to you?

Our sole premise is separation. Why is that wrong?



> Also, No True Scotsman argument, in the form of No True White Nationalist. This begins a trend which will carry though the rest of your post, wherein you simultaneously reject any attempt to define WN logic or policy


Actually its you who are not explaining what is wrong with white nationalist logic by explaining what is wrong with the white nationalists who are innocent of your assertion. Its like you are talking about the WNs who are wrong and who i disagree with to prove your point. You are not answering my question.




> No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., *those who perform that action are not part of our group* and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).[2]


Your logic is a little flawed and I don’t think this “no true scotsman” applies to me because 
#1 – I never said that WNs with faulty logic are not part of my group. I just said it doesn’t relate to me or my argument. #2 - You have the right to criticize white nationalists for doing something wrong. I am simply saying that you are not answering my question about white nationalists who do not use faulty logic. What faulty logic have I used? 




> while also using 'we' to refer to your desires as the desires of the group.


Just because some WNs use false logic it doesn’t mean I cant explain what “we” all want. White nationalism is literally defined as separation and our primary goal. No white nationalist will object to me telling you that. A white nationalists personal shortcoming has nothing to do with his desire. Two separate things. Its irrelevant to




> Can you point out where I said that?


Its inferred from your argument. Why else would you bring this up? 


> There's a reason why some advocate the prohibition of immigration of "unwanted races" based on negative characteristics of the group without consideration to the individual attempting to immigrate.


Apparently, you are claiming that some white nationalists don’t consider the individual which is not totally true. 
And then you say this 


> Most racists do not use it as a fact because they try to infer the characteristics of the individual from what they know of the group, which is fallacious.


You posted this as a justification as to why you disagree with the white nationalists. 



> Can you point out where I said that?


again the above quotes. 



> I'd love to hear your entirely fact-based rationale for restricting immigration of entire races based solely upon characteristics of the individual.


Irrelevant. That is not what I said. I believe we should judge the individual in immigration. For instance, in a theoretically white nationalist nation we will not let someone immigrate just because he is the same race as us. We have to consider the individual and individual character, intelligence, political beliefs etc. and only let the best in. I can assure you that I dislike some white liberals more than I do non-whites and want to keep them out. 
I considered allowing other races have the right to immigrate to a WN country but I am against it because of racial conflict and disharmony. Multiracial countries do not work as evidence by the endless racial problems we have with BLM, Ferguson, civil unrest and numerous race riots. Why is this wrong? 



> You are incorrect. It is because most violence is committed between people who know each other and not by strangers. This is why, statistically speaking, the most dangerous person in a white woman's life is her significant other, * a boogity boogity immigrant jumping out of the bushes.*


Where did I claim that? 
I don’t disagree with what you said. 
I also don’t like your use of your language referring to the immigrants as boogity boogity as if I demonize them. I never demonized immigrants and I just prefer to be separate. In fact, I have nothing against most immigrants. 



> Easy; you have yourself posted on this forum that you believe that races get along best when separated from each other and yet each race does the most violence to members of their own race.


Yeah, so? 
It seems to me you are ignoring interracial crime and the terrible race relations we have in America. 



> My posts in this thread argue the exact opposite position.


Good. 



> The right to separate and live freely, which I support, is independent of the "right" to enact a government for the purpose of infringing upon the rights on others. I have never heard a white nationalist propose a social system based entirely upon the first right with none of the second. You're welcome to be the first.


Can you give me an example of how a white nationalist country would violate the rights of other people?




> I am not.


You are basically saying that the facts I wrote may be wrong because I am not considering that the criminal justice system is flawed. 
If I misinterpreted or misrepresented you, my apologies. 



> I think that you need to entirely relook my posts and read what I actually said and not what you assume that a person arguing with you would say.


No, I followed your logic. I am not sure that you understand mine. 




> Nowhere in my posts did I say that the facts were incorrect. In fact, I said the opposite.


Okay. 




> I am not. You are making assumptions based on your black and white (hah white nationalist joke) worldview.


Then what are you arguing for? What wrong assumptions have I made?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Our sole premise is separation. Why is that wrong?


Well. If you're merely talking about different colored American citizens, It's wrong because Individual Liberty is an Indivisible whole. What that means is that Individuals and groups of Individuals are free from interference or coercion by other Individuals or other groups of Individuals. It means they're free to enjoy their unalienable rights. It means that you can't function beyond the limits of your rights in order to infringe upon theirs.

More clearly, Individuals or groups of Individuals are free to make rules for themselves provided that the rules that they make for themselves don't prohibit other Individuals or other groups of Individuals from equally doing the same.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> It's wrong because Individual Liberty is an Indivisible whole.


I don't see how a law for the voluntary immigration of non-Europeans violates someones liberty. 




> What that means is that Individuals and groups of Individuals are free from interference or coercion by other Individuals or other groups of Individuals.


Again, I am against forcing or coercing someone to leave. It has to be their choice. What do you mean by interference? 




> It means they're free to enjoy their unalienable rights.


I am not taking any right away from them. They can stay here if they don't want to leave. Its freedom of choice. 




> It means that you can't function beyond the limits of your rights in order to infringe upon theirs.


How am I infringing on someone elses rights? 




> More clearly, Individuals or groups of Individuals are free to make rules for themselves provided that the rules that they make for themselves don't prohipibit other Individuals or other groups of Individuals from equally doing the same.


Non-European Americans may pass the same laws for Euro-Americans to leave. I don't care. In fact I support their right to do that.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I don't see how a law for the voluntary immigration of non-Europeans violates someones liberty.


Are you talking about American citizens who are non-European here or no?

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Are you talking about American citizens who are non-European here or no?


Yes.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Yes.


Okay. So, let us define Liberty in its most fundamental way as it pertains to our system of governance. Liberty means freedom from Government-over-Man. That's it's definition in a nut shell.

So, then, you're proposing a law that is patently contrary of the fundamental principle of equal Justice under equal laws. Equality in Justice means equal rights and equal treatment under equal laws. Laws that are expressive of Just Powers.  This is how we keep and secure our rights as an Indivisible whole. Meaning it's the means of remaining free from Government-over-Man scenario.

Your proposal invites a Government-over-Man philosophy. It is patently contrary to Liberty itself.

As I'd mentioned earlier, though, Individuals or groups of Individuals are free to make rules for themselves provided that the rules that they make for themselves don't prohibit other Individuals or other groups of Individuals from equally doing the same.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> So, then, you're proposing a law that is patently contrary of the fundamental principle of equal Justice under equal laws.


How so?




> Equality in Justice means equal rights and equal treatment under equal laws.


I am not changing that. 




> Yiur proposal invites a Government-over-Man philosophy. It is patently contrary to Liberty itself.


I don't see how you supported this conclusion with evidence or facts. I'm interested to hear you if you can though. Please explain a little bit better.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I don't see how you supported this conclusion with evidence or facts.


I know you don't. It's okay. I did, however, support my conclusion in a most relevant way. I think that you truly just don't understand the most critical and fundamental supporting principles of Individual Liberty. Which I say to you respectfully. A proper Government-to-Man relationship is dependent upon a proper Man-to-Man relationship. I touched on Natural Law with you elsewhere on the board and you had said that you didn't understand it. I think this is the fundamental shortcoming that you're presented with. 

Anyway. I have stuff to do today so I need to get off of here. Perhaps someone can/will follow up with you in terms of what I'd mentioned here. I'll be back on later, though.

----------


## presence

> Can you give me an example of how a white nationalist country would violate the rights of other people?


nationalists and libertarians would get along much better if nationalists sought segregation through restrictive covenants, repeal of Title II and VII, and elimination of welfare benefits and state educations.

you lose points with free market / ancaps on controlling who can be on your land when you attempt to control who is on our land

there is no reason a "white nationalist" enclave cannot exist within an ancap utopia; 
but it becomes difficult for ancap enclave to exist within a white nationalist utopia.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Low IQ people are more likely to require assists and because of this are less likely to vote for lower taxes, less government, less regulations, etc


As you seem to understand, socialism and the architecture of the welfare state were devised by very, very intelligent people.  Intellect has no definite bearing on morality and has been used effectively to destroy it.  

Mises: "The outstanding fact of the intellectual history of the last
hundred years is the struggle against economics. The advocates
of government omnipotence did not enter into a discussion
of the problems involved. They called the economists
names, they cast suspicion upon their motives, they
ridiculed them and called down curses upon them"
Bureaucracy p. 82




> More over the high IQ people who support tyranny do so because of conditioning, desire for control, self hate, cultural, national, or racial self hatred, relativism, etc


So high IQ doesn't correlate with liberty.  I agree.




> The ideas of Liberty like a program, cultural is software and IQ is hardware.


Yeah, you're just very comfortable with collectivism. I get that. But this is probably the wrong forum.

Ron Paul: "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."

In other words, your intellectual foundation is really the same as that of the race-based lobbyists you claim to hate.




> No, its never ok because people will never be equal as their difference exist because they are not the same.


That's just sigworthy. "Difference [sic] exist because they are not the same." - RestorationOfLiberty




> So if it based on IQ would favor some groups others would you be O.K with it?


I'm not (and I know you weren't asking me). IQ tests are designed for a particular cultural profile - in particular the one that invented the intellectual abominations that haunt us today such as Marxism.

If I were to construct a test for inclusion into a free society, it would assess the degree to which one is compelled to forcefully impose one's ideal of order upon other individuals or groups.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> nationalists and libertarians would get along much better if nationalists sought segregation through restrictive covenants,


What do you mean?


Btw, I don't want segregation within a country. We tried that and it didn't work. We need to live in different countries. 




> repeal of Title II and VII,


Of? 




> and elimination of welfare benefits


That is one of our goals. 




> and state educations.


Can you explain why you are against public education? 




> you lose points with free market / ancaps on controlling who can be on your land when you attempt to control who is on our land


I have yet to hear someone respond to me why this is wrong. 





> there is no reason a "white nationalist" enclave cannot exist within an ancap utopia;


#1- It is they our opponents who want a multicultural utopia. How is an all white state a utopia? I doubt virtually all white Wyoming will consider itself to be a utopia. But a white state is sure as hell better than a multicultural state like California. 

#2 - We don't want to live side by side with hostile non-whites and our political opponents. We need total separation. A permanent solution. 




> but it becomes difficult for ancap enclave to exist within a white nationalist utopia.


How come? 

Reminder is that we are following the constitution and working with in the law. We will still be a libertarian country, or at least that is the goal. 





> I think that you truly just don't understand the most critical and fundamental supporting principles of Individual Liberty.


Like what?




> Which I say to you respectfully.


Sure. 




> A proper Government-to-Man relationship is dependent upon a proper Man-to-Man relationship. I touched on Natural Law with you elsewhere on the board and you had said that you didn't understand it.


I'm starting to. I think I would understand it if people answered some of my questions. 




> I think this is the fundamental shortcoming that you're presented with.


I think you are very precise which isn't a bad thing. Its good to help someone understand but I use common sense and my feelings to know what is right and wrong. 




> Anyway. I have stuff to do today so I need to get off of here. Perhaps someone can/will follow up with you in terms of what I'd mentioned here. I'll be back on later, though.


Okay.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> nationalists and libertarians would get along much better if nationalists sought segregation through restrictive covenants, repeal of Title II and VII, and elimination of welfare benefits and state educations.
> 
> you lose points with free market / ancaps on controlling who can be on your land when you attempt to control who is on our land
> 
> there is no reason a "white nationalist" enclave cannot exist within an ancap utopia; 
> but it becomes difficult for ancap enclave to exist within a white nationalist utopia.


Or since ancaps deny national borders and so many don't seem to give a $#@! whether our nation exists at all, ancaps could move outside of our national boundaries in pursuit of their Never Never Land.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Or since ancaps deny national borders and so many don't seem to give a $#@! whether our nation exists at all, ancaps could move outside of our national boundaries in pursuit of their Never Never Land.


Exactly. I don't understand why they deny us our national sovereignty. I don't think they are realistic because the world is run by having different countries. Its run this way for a reason.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> IQ tests are designed for a particular cultural profile -


You mean like constructing buildings of more complexity than mud huts?  Or listening to the many, many missionaries and others who have traveled to Africa to try to get people to understand not to defecate in the water they drink, or hey, figuring it out on their own?

What should the IQ test look like to measure that?

----------


## presence

> Its run this way for a reason.


or you could just be institutionalized to the notion

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> or you could just be institutionalized to the notion


What do you mean?

----------


## undergroundrr

> You mean like constructing buildings of more complexity than mud huts?  Or listening to the many, many missionaries and others who have traveled to Africa to try to get people to understand not to defecate in the water they drink, or hey, figuring it out on their own?
> 
> What should the IQ test look like to measure that?


What are the IQ profiles for people who build mud huts?  What are the IQ profiles of people who defecate in the water they drink?  What are the IQ profiles for the world's most violent despots? Serial killers? Marxists? Church missionaries? Jazz musicians? Cuckservatives? What's your criterion? 110? 120? 132 (Mensa)? 

Actually, I found a really insightful discussion of IQ here. You'll find it helpful in designing your criteria - http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=74473

----------


## presence

> What do you mean?


like most things uncle does to us... after a while it induces a bit of stockholm syndrome

----------


## osan

> A proper Government-to-Man relationship is dependent upon a proper Man-to-Man relationship.


Well stated.  Assuming "governMENT" has any validity, your statement holds true.  The principles of Proper Human Relations defines our freedoms where two or more people in a given area of mutual human influence are involved.  The lone man has no need for such principles because he is alone.  His actions affect nobody but possibly himself.  Therefore, he is as God in the sense that he is truly free to act as he chooses within the limitations of his human form.  

The moment another person comes into the frame of the initial man's influence, things change at a fundamental level, assuming we speak of men with mental faculties developed beyond the level and timbre of mere brutes.

Perhaps this will help the lad: The Canon of Proper Human Relations

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> nationalists and libertarians would get along much better if nationalists sought segregation through restrictive covenants, repeal of Title II and VII, and elimination of welfare benefits and state educations.
> 
> you lose points with free market / ancaps on controlling who can be on your land when you attempt to control who is on our land
> 
> there is no reason a "white nationalist" enclave cannot exist within an ancap utopia; 
> but it becomes difficult for ancap enclave to exist within a white nationalist utopia.


They along with leftist can not allow it to exist, because it will prove that "diversity" and multiculturalism the tools they use to maintain power are lies.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> You mean like constructing buildings of more complexity than mud huts?  Or listening to the many, many missionaries and others who have traveled to Africa to try to get people to understand not to defecate in the water they drink, or hey, figuring it out on their own?
> 
> What should the IQ test look like to measure that?


Remember, proving some people are different then others is a sin to them.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

So when Trump takes the White House and has Congress, what should we do first?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-36974352




> *South Africa's governing African National Congress (ANC) looks to be facing its biggest electoral setback since the end of apartheid, after the partial results of municipal elections.*With 85% of the votes in, the ANC trails its main rival, the Democratic Alliance, in the cities of Port Elizabeth and Cape Town.
> The two parties are in a close fight in Johannesburg and Pretoria...
> 
> The municipal election result is probably the biggest wake-up call the governing African National Congress has received since it ushered in democracy in South Africa in 1994.
> Clearly the ANC still commands huge support across the country but that support is waning. It can no longer take it for granted that the black majority will blindly follow it.
> Its power and influence is in decline...
> 
> The best example is in the Nelson Mandela Bay municipality where the ANC is lagging behind in a city (Port Elizabeth) which has a rich history of anti-apartheid struggle. The man poised to be the new mayor is the Democratic Alliance's Athol Trollip, who is white.
> Twenty-two years after the end of apartheid, black people are now voting on issues and not on race. Mr Trollip, who speaks fluent Xhosa, would not be where he is if the vast majority of black people had not voted for him...


It looks like black people aren't a monolithic, genetically programmed to support socialism.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-36974352
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like black people aren't a monolithic, genetically programmed to support socialism.


And yet they will still elect some marxist moron. But then again after they ruined South Africa and Rhodesia we tend to see a trend.

----------


## undergroundrr

> So when Trump takes the White House and has Congress, what should we do first?


That's for you to decide. All trump supporters get everything they want.

----------


## presence

> What do you mean?


A restrictive covenant might say something like:

 I promise not to let any black people on my land if you promise the same white brother, then you both agree and sign a contract and the contract becomes binding to anyone you sell the property to; perhaps with exit clause.  In this way white nationalist enclaves might form in the free market.




> Btw, I don't want segregation within a country. We tried that and it didn't work. We need to live in different countries.


Actually we tried segregation within the context of a state where men of any stripe could still travel uncle's roads; where restaurants were mandated to have black and white water fountains.   I don't believe in uncle's roads or his mandates.  So I ask you to imagine an enclave unencumbered by uncle's roadways, where you and your clannish buddies all live together in harmony with your restrictive covenants to keep out the black folks.    All that can happen with simple contract law and repeal of title 2&7







> Of?


 the civil rights act of 1964; they are the titles which apply to business; business cannot discriminate against customers and employees.  libertarians and nationalists can generally find common ground here.







> That is one of our goals.


see we can get along 





> Can you explain why you are against public education?


1) it requires funding, state funding prerequisites violence.
2) it is used as a tool of indoctrination and historically I'm not impressed with the socialist propaganda or climate. 
3) education should be funded by the consumer

for more I'd invite you to read Rothbard mises.org/document/2689/Education-Free-and-Compulsory





> I have yet to hear someone respond to me why this is wrong.


I have a right to my body and from this extends a right to peaceful enjoyment of my property. 
 If I wish to invite guests to enjoy my property with me in peace, that should be of no affront to you.
Unless of course they must travel through your property or roads, which brings us back to private "nationalist" enclaves. 




> #1- It is they our opponents who want a multicultural utopia. How is an all white state a utopia? I doubt virtually all white Wyoming will consider itself to be a utopia. But a white state is sure as hell better than a multicultural state like California.


we'll use telos instead of utopia if it suits you better




> #2 - We don't want to live side by side with hostile non-whites and our political opponents. We need total separation. A permanent solution.


I see the solution to the nationalist dilemma in liberty.    End the welfare state.   Respect property rights.   Allow business discrimination, and discriminative covenants.   Don't make me pay to educate other people's stupid kids.

I'd think the white nationalist could find his telos in such a libertarian environment.




> How come?


because if I want to hire black workers I suspect its going to ruffle feathers in your white nationalist state

----------


## TheCount

> You have not proposed anything and just whining at this point.


Actually, I'm not whining, I'm mocking.





> http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/imm...ok-6-12-14.pdf 
> 
> More or less their culture and desire to vote the same failed Ideas they had back home..


So... not their genetics?

I'm glad that we agree.





> "Free stuff" and "blame whitey" helps a great deal..


Source?





> No, they are a real threat unlike the B-man who has never caused any problems.


Hispanics (their food in particular) are only a threat to my plumbing.





> Really? We have? Because I have done nothing to anyone, maybe the government has but I am blameless


Oh look, the collectivist doesn't want to be collectivized.





> No, it was a degenerate named Karl Marx.


Not Jose Marx?





> So talking around the issues at hand are we?


I'm demolishing the terrible supports for your terrible logic.





> No, very possible to prove


Sweet.  So... do it, or post it.

Oh, and "immigration has happened and also growth of government has happened and therefore immigration did it" is not proof.





> And not everyone values the same things, so lets keep those out who value non compatible things.


You value things that are not compatible with my values.

Which of us have to go?





> Why shouldnt the government keep out seek people?


.... what?





> Are you saying that genes play no part in shaping culture? Yes or no?


I'm saying that there is no proof that genes shape culture.

Also, I'm going to go ahead and say that the genes that are responsible for hair and eye pigment are definitely not involved in cultural behavior.





> Do you want America to turn into Pakistan/Somalia, yes or no?




Have our previous immigrants turned America into Ireland, or China, or any other such place?  If no, then there's no evidence to suggest that allowing Pakistani or Somali immigrants will transform America into either of those countries.





> No


The United States is not a producer of war and misery?

I would argue that we're the world's largest exporter of both.





> Yes, largely better


I think that you are glorifying a period of time that was actually extremely violent.  There's quite a lot of writing on this, some by Steven Pinker.  Unfortunately, I can't find a free version of the journal articles and books that I'd like to link, so here's a web page instead.

http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1...83203589408180






> ...What do you think the IQ test would do?


It would accept people based on qualifications and not based on their ethnicity.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Actually, I'm not whining, I'm mocking.


So you have no point? Good to see you can admit that.





> So... not their genetics?
> 
> I'm glad that we agree.


Genes do effect political views, this a prove fact...Google genes and politics.





> Source?


Their voting habits, party loyalty, etc.





> Hispanics (their food in particular) are only a threat to my plumbing.


Tell that to the victims of their crime, suppress wages, and skewed elections, but great to see you using poop humor, must be reaching the bottom of your barrel.









> Not Jose Marx?


Does not change the fact marxism is very popular to those south of the border..








> I'm demolishing the terrible supports for your terrible logic.


Jose and poop jokes are nothing of the kind..





> Sweet.  So... do it, or post it.
> 
> Oh, and "immigration has happened and also growth of government has happened and therefore immigration did it" is not proof.


http://www.vdare.com/articles/immigr...st-immigration





> You value things that are not compatible with my values.
> 
> Which of us have to go?


You, not me. You want a border less utopia, go find or found on, good luck too because all land on this planet is more or less spoken for, so unless you can make Gold from water or have nukes you are going to do dick.

On the other hand I want national sovereignty, borders, limited immigration, mono culture, unity, stability , Liberty while you want open borders and the anarchy that ensues.






> I'm saying that there is no proof that genes shape culture.
> 
> Also, I'm going to go ahead and say that the genes that are responsible for hair and eye pigment are definitely not involved in cultural behavior.



https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...+shape+culture 

Your google fu is weak.




> Have our previous immigrants turned America into Ireland, or China, or any other such place?  If no, then there's no evidence to suggest that allowing Pakistani or Somali immigrants will transform America into either of those countries.


Yes, entire areas of it, and once immigration was ended from those areas it stopped.

Now we have entire states that look nothing like America but Mexico, filled with poverty, crime, and devoid of any of the culture or rights America is founded on.

Go to Minneapolis , or Derbone MI and make that claim.

You are so blinded by your lies and nonsense it almost funny.





> The United States is not a producer of war and misery?
> 
> I would argue that we're the world's largest exporter of both.


Yeah because we go around and behead people for playing Xbox, We burn people alive with WP.





> I think that you are glorifying a period of time that was actually extremely violent.  There's quite a lot of writing on this, some by Steven Pinker.  Unfortunately, I can't find a free version of the journal articles and books that I'd like to link, so here's a web page instead.


Everything was great until 1917 and the monsters of Marx were allowed to run wild....





> It would accept people based on qualifications and not based on their ethnicity.


We tried that, most of the people were White and leftists did not like that, so they got rid of the qualifications and now let anyone in who is most likely to vote left...

----------


## TheCount

> Why?
> Does multiculturalism make sense to you?


It doesn't have to make sense to me.

Twitter doesn't make sense to me.  That doesn't mean that I want to ban twitter.





> Our sole premise is separation. Why is that wrong?


It's not wrong, it's just that you and others like you are unable to factually support your reasoning for why separation should be valued or enforced.





> Actually its you who are not explaining what is wrong with white nationalist logic by explaining what is wrong with the white nationalists who are innocent of your assertion. Its like you are talking about the WNs who are wrong and who i disagree with to prove your point. You are not answering my question.


First, you are the one who brought up white nationalists.  If you look up to my original posts, you will see that I never used that term.  Gradually you have bent the conversation into a specific discussion of white nationalists.


The problem is when racists take facts and use them to come to conclusions and develop policies which are not supported by those facts.  This can happen at many levels, but as the entire concept of racism is based on collectivist logic, eventually racists must relate a known fact about the group to the individual without knowing if what is true for the group is true for the individual.

It's no different than any other fallacious comparison between two disparate populations.  If I say 'blacks are 13% of the population of America, therefore they are 13% of the population of Detroit,' it's quite obvious that I've made a mistake.





> Its inferred


You are inferring things that do not exist anywhere in any of my posts.





> Multiracial countries do not work as evidence by the endless racial problems we have with BLM, Ferguson, civil unrest and numerous race riots. Why is this wrong?


It is wrong because you cannot compare the problems that we have today to a time in which America was not multiracial.  No such time exists.

There is no evidence besides assumption that America would have fewer problems if it were racially pure.


Also, speaking of poor logic, your sweeping generalization that it is impossible for a multiracial country to work is unsupportable.





> Where did I claim that?


I inferred it from your argument.





> I also don’t like your use of your language referring to the immigrants as boogity boogity as if I demonize them.


If you search my post history you will see that it is a term that I use frequently.  Immigrants are and have been boogity boogity in America for many years.  Get over it.





> It seems to me you are ignoring interracial crime and the terrible race relations we have in America.


It seems to me that you are ignoring the fact that intraracial crime is a larger problem than interracial crime.

Also, I dispute the notion that interracial crime is a problem so severe that I should give up liberty and expand government in order to solve it.





> Can you give me an example of how a white nationalist country would violate the rights of other people?


I'm not doing your work for you.  You can meet the challenge that I proposed, or else I'll just assume that you cannot.  Propose a social system in which a white nation can exist without infringing upon the rights of its people.

If your white nation does not infringe upon liberty, it cannot possibly remain white.



It seems to me that you're just hurling out as many questions as you can wedge into each post with as little effort as possible in order to create work for those who are responding to your posts.  I'm not going to respond to an endless merry-go-round of unsupported argument.

----------


## TheCount

> Genes do effect political views, this a prove fact...Google genes and politics.


Your definition of fact leaves much to be desired.






> Tell that to the victims of their crime, suppress wages, and skewed elections


What should I say to the (more) victims of white crime, (more) victims of the economic policies of white government, and (more) victims of the leaders that white people have elected?

If you want to play the 'who has harmed whom more' game, whites are going to lose.






> Does not change the fact marxism is very popular to those south of the border.


And east of the Atlantic...

And west of the Pacific...





> http://www.vdare.com/articles/immigration-is-the-viagra-of-the-state-a-libertarian-case-against-immigration


This article says exactly nothing in quite a lot of words.  Most of it doesn't even relate to what you're trying to support.  I'm just going to pick out the one fact that he includes and compare it to your argument.




> For almost 50 years in the middle of the twentieth century, from the early 1920s to about 1970, there was pause during which there was almost no immigration into the US at all.


If what you say is true, then this pause in immigration should have created a matching pause in the growth of the state.

Did it?  How much liberty was gained for the American people between 1920 and 1970?






> You, not me.


You can try.








> https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...+shape+culture 
> 
> Your google fu is weak.



Perhaps you didn't notice that all those links say that culture changed genes, and not the other way around.  Again, do you even read the material that you post?





> Now we have entire states that look nothing like America but Mexico


You really need to get off of the internet and actually go to the places that you post about.  And I'm not talking just driving past, either.





> Go to Minneapolis , or Derbone MI and make that claim.


I've been to both.  I'm from Michigan.

I presume you mean Dearborn, MI... which has a lower crime rate than all but one of its neighboring cities.  The city where violent crime dropped 80% in 10 years.  The city with an unemployment rate 1.5% less than the Michigan average.  Ooooh, but some businesses' signs have squiggly words on them boogity boogity...





> Yeah because we go around and behead people for playing Xbox, We burn people alive with WP.


At the rate that ISIS is beheading people in the middle east it would take them a hundred years to catch up to the number of people we killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.







> Everything was great until 1917 and the monsters of Marx were allowed to run wild...


Fascinating.  And... what were the racial characteristics of America at that time?  Really, really multicultural?  It must have been, those Marx-supporting Hispanics are to blame, I'm sure of it.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Your definition of fact leaves much to be desired.


What facts have you given to the this debate?



> What should I say to the (more) victims of white crime, (more) victims of the economic policies of white government, and (more) victims of the leaders that white people have elected?
> 
> If you want to play the 'who has harmed whom more' game, whites are going to lose.


Why make things harder to change? Adding a underclass of people does nothing to help anyone.

Careful your anti white hate is showing.




> And east of the Atlantic...
> 
> And west of the Pacific...


So it seems to be the lowest common denominators love a system that rewards them for supporting a system of theft?




> [URL="http://www.vdare.com/articles/immigration-is-the-viagra-of-the-state-a-libertarian-case-against-immigration"]
> 
> 
> 
> This article says exactly nothing in quite a lot of words.  Most of it doesn't even relate to what you're trying to support.  I'm just going to pick out the one fact that he includes and compare it to your argument.


Bring in poverty, crime, terrorism, etc in short creates a demand that that state has to fill and in turn grows the state, you would understand that if you read the damn article.






> If what you say is true, then this pause in immigration should have created a matching pause in the growth of the state.
> 
> Did it?  How much liberty was gained for the American people between 1920 and 1970?


I never said immigration was the sole cause of increase in the state, importing poverty, crime, disease, terrorism and leftist voters does not help anyone.
How much did poverty, 3rd world disease, and government grow after since 1970?








> You can try.


 

Well since you most likely believe in the NAP it will be not debate who will win.






> Perhaps you didn't notice that all those links say that culture changed genes, and not the other way around.  Again, do you even read the material that you post?


And genes effect culture. Do you think Western culture would be anything close to what it is if we had and average IQ of 70? No.





> You really need to get off of the internet and actually go to the places that you post about.  And I'm not talking just driving past, either.


Facts disprove your post. The classic "You need to travel" meme is just a cliche for people who do not have any facts to back up their talking point. 





> I've been to both.  I'm from Michigan.
> 
> I presume you mean Dearborn, MI... which has a lower crime rate than all but one of its neighboring cities.  The city where violent crime dropped 80% in 10 years.  The city with an unemployment rate 1.5% less than the Michigan average.  Ooooh, but some businesses' signs have squiggly words on them boogity boogity...


So never mind the rampant welfare useage, or the all the ISIS terrorist we have imported from Somalia, or never mind the way the vote, right?

Great to see you love having your rights voted away by the morons they send to Congress.








> At the rate that ISIS is beheading people in the middle east it would take them a hundred years to catch up to the number of people we killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.




And? I never wanted to go into the Middle East, thank the Israeli firsters for that.




> Fascinating.  And... what were the racial characteristics of America at that time?  Really, really multicultural?  It must have been, those Marx-supporting Hispanics are to blame, I'm sure of it.



And your point? We like fools trusted those in power to obey the Constitution, we were wrong and will not make that mistake again, adding people who vote for the left in large numbers does not help that and if not stopped will make those goals impossible. 

Your non ability  to understand that does not change that and many other facts...

Not sorry you cant understand some people are able to understand some concepts, some ideals, and value them more then others, but your stupidity or nativity is not a suicide pact.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

I don't even know why you guys bother, Hillary most likely will be elected, after that put the plate on the table, the US is cooked and served. Seriously, I do not at all believe any shred of the US will be here in 20 years. The name will exist that's it. She's going to back the supreme court with libtards. Game over forever. Seriously why are you guys even arguing. Hillary gets elected she's gonna open the flood gates to immigrants. She's not going to get rid of welfare either. All the online pontification doesn't mean $#@! $#@! all.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by TheCount
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by RestorationOfLiberty
> ...


I have no idea whether TheCount accepts the NAP or not - but if you think the NAP would in any way forbid him from blowing your sorry ass away if you tried to make him go, then you really are just a raging ignoramus who hasn't got the vaguest clue about what the smack you're talking actually means ...

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I don't even know why you guys bother, Hillary most likely will be elected, after that put the plate on the table, the US is cooked and served. Seriously, I do not at all believe any shred of the US will be here in 20 years. The name will exist that's it. She's going to back the supreme court with libtards. Game over forever. Seriously why are you guys even arguing. Hillary gets elected she's gonna open the flood gates to immigrants. She's not going to get rid of welfare either. All the online pontification doesn't mean $#@! $#@! all.


Then we hope a Pinochet comes to power and hits the reset button.

Democracy is a not a suicide pact.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> And your point?


His point is that you are as foolish as the people you complain about.




> We like fools trusted those in power to obey the Constitution, [...]


See? You even admit it ...




> [...] we were wrong and will not make that mistake again, [...]


Then why are you making it again?

And what are you going to do when you finally figure that out?

Are you going to vote harder some more?

_"But ... but ... it will be different this time ..."_

----------


## tod evans

You silly goose Occam...

Don't you realize that the "we" of whom he speaks are a special lot?

With their superior brain power they'll be able to avoid the failings of those who have been there before.

History isn't doomed to repeat itself when 'special' people sell the snake oil.

All you need to do is accept this simple fact and you too can be a part of his "we" and "our"....

----------


## Suzanimal

> You silly goose Occam...
> 
> Don't you realize that the "we" of whom he speaks are a special lot?
> 
> With their superior brain power they'll be able to avoid the failings of those who have been there before.
> 
> History isn't doomed to repeat itself when 'special' people sell the snake oil.
> 
> *All you need to do is accept this simple fact and you too can be a part of his "we" and "our"*....


You'll also need to pass an IQ test, lol.

----------


## tod evans

> You'll also need to pass an IQ test, lol.


One that disregards spellin', grammar and punctuation.......

----------


## Natural Citizen

> One that disregards spellin', grammar and punctuation.......


Hm. I oughtta be able to pass that one with flying colors. Because mine sucks. Bigtime. To my credit, I have it in my head. Just not muh keyboard.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

Ever notice those who do not have a point to make or are getting their asses handed to them always resort to nit picking over small things like grammar ?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> You really need to get off of the internet and actually go to the places that you post about.  And I'm not talking just driving past, either.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Ever notice those who do not have a point to make or are getting their asses handed to them always resort to nit picking over small things like grammar ?


Ever notice those who do not have a point to make or are getting their asses handed to them always resort to whining about nit picking?

----------


## CCTelander

> His point is that you are as foolish as the people you complain about.
> 
> 
> 
> See? You even admit it ...
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are you making it again?
> ...



"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again."

----------


## tod evans

> Ever notice those who do not have a point to make or are getting their asses handed to them always resort to nit picking over small things like grammar ?


Youngster you haven't handed anyone their ass especially me.

You're a $#@!ing disgrace to upstanding white men and women across the land what with the idiocy you insist on spouting in semi-coherent sentences laced with invective, opinions and outright lies. 

There are points buried in your verbal diarrhea, some of them salient, it's too bad most folks don't have the desire or patience to try and find the wheat amongst the chaff..

----------


## Suzanimal

Has anyone been called a cuck yet? I'm worried I might lose some IQ points if I read the whole thread and I may need them to pass that IQ test.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> "Well, Have You Ever Been There?"


Well, in fairness, actually traveling abroad can have a powerful and paradigm-shifting effect on a person.  And certainly (obviously) it does give a much fuller picture of what a country is like to actually spend a month there.

World travel has certainly affected me.  It has been one of the big factors (I think) that softened me up and eventually allowed me to open my eyes to the truth that: *the type of people in a country fundamentally shape the country.*  The people _are_ the country.  A country _is_ its people.

I was not inclined to believe this at all.  As a hard-core libertarian, I wanted to believe that it's all about policy.  Everything is all about government policy.  Change the policy, and the quality of life in the country follows, like an obedient pet rock dragging behind on its leash.  Not so.  I'm still a hard-core libertarian, and I now realize I had the causation largely reversed.  Yes, look around the world and the best places to live are the freest.  But those best places also have the best people.  The people come first.  The government did not mold them into good, high-level, civic-minded, civilized people.  Can't.

The people are the horse.  The government is the cart.

So I was wrong.  If one were to come in and stage a one-man libertarian take-over of Papua New Guinea, you would not suddenly get a top-level country.  It wouldn't turn into the USA.  Even letting it percolate for decades it wouldn't, unless you brought in new people which supplanted the old, ala nearby Australia.  Australia is not populated by the aborigines.  The aborigines are a tiny group on the fringes of society.  If they were still the dominant population, Australia would be nothing like it is today.  It would be more like Ethiopia with kangaroos.  So no, a libertarian Papua New Guinea would become a better version of itself, it would reach new heights, but it would be drastically hamstrung by the extremely low civilization level of its people, until or unless a whole bunch of ex-pats moved in, invested, and started running things and building things.  Then the natives start to be supplanted, becoming more and more irrelevant, as the new society isn't theirs.  They dwindle, the ex-pats thrive.  The native's way of life is dead, their country is dead, a fading shadow; a new one has arisen that just happens to share the same land.

Sum up:

Government policy cannot dictate human nature.

Human natures vary.

The people _are_ the country.  

A country _is_ its people.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Ever notice those who do not have a point to make or are getting their asses handed to them always resort to whining about nit picking?


You guys have lost, you post no facts, links, data, and then whine. I have an idea,about you guys try and win an election.

----------


## Suzanimal

> You guys have lost, you post no facts, links, data, and then whine. I have an idea,about you guys try and win an election.


I'm running for an uncontested city council seat and I think I'm gonna win.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Well, in fairness, actually traveling abroad can have a powerful and paradigm-shifting effect on a person.  And certainly (obviously) it does give a much fuller picture of what a country is like to actually spend a month there.
> 
> World travel has certainly affected me.  It has been one of the big factors (I think) that softened me up and eventually allowed me to open my eyes to the truth that: *the type of people in a country fundamentally shape the country.*  The people _are_ the country.  A country _is_ its people.
> 
> I was not inclined to believe this at all.  As a hard-core libertarian, I wanted to believe that it's all about policy.  Everything is all about government policy.  Change the policy, and the quality of life in the country follows, like an obedient pet rock dragging behind on its leash.  Not so.  I'm still a hard-core libertarian, and I now realize I had the causation largely reversed.  Yes, look around the world and the best places to live are the freest.  But those best places also have the best people.  The people come first.  The government did not mold them into good, high-level, civic-minded, civilized people.  Can't.
> 
> The people are the horse.  The government is the cart.
> 
> So I was wrong.  If one were to come in and stage a one-man libertarian take-over of Papua New Guinea, you would not suddenly get a top-level country.  It wouldn't turn into the USA.  Even letting it percolate for decades it wouldn't, unless you brought in new people which supplanted the old, ala nearby Australia.  Australia is not populated by the aborigines.  The aborigines are a tiny group on the fringes of society.  If they were still the dominant population, Australia would be nothing like it is today.  It would be more like Ethiopia with kangaroos.  So no, a libertarian Papua New Guinea would become a better version of itself, it would reach new heights, but it would be drastically hamstrung by the extremely low civilization level of its people, until or unless a whole bunch of ex-pats moved in, invested, and started running things and building things.  Then the natives start to be supplanted, becoming more and more irrelevant, as the new society isn't theirs.  They dwindle, the ex-pats thrive.  The native's way of life is dead, their country is dead, a fading shadow; a new one has arisen that just happens to share the same land.
> ...


So people make the nation?

Do you accept the fact genes play a part in this?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> So people make the nation?


Yes.  Sounds so obvious once you say it like that, eh?  But so true, and a very important concept!




> Do you accept the fact genes play a part in this?


Accept?  Do I accept?  Come on, ROL, pay attention.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> His point is that you are as foolish as the people you complain about.
> 
> See? You even admit it ...
> 
> Then why are you making it again?
> 
> And what are you going to do when you finally figure that out?
> 
> Are you going to vote harder some more?
> ...


Occam with all due respect, someone who wants to put the government back in its Constitutional corral, beats the holy hell out of those who are foolishly helping or even agreeing with those who are trying to slam us into world government.  

And no, nothing will last unless there is an educated and vigilant populace keeping active watch.  Not anarchy; not a constitutional republic....

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by Occam's Banana
> 
> 
> Ever notice those who do not have a point to make or are getting their asses handed to them always resort to *whining* about nit picking?
> 
> 
> You guys have lost, you post no facts, links, data, and then *whine*.


Geez, can't you even come up with your own words?
(At least my sarcastic mimicry of you was obviously deliberate.)

What's next? Chants of "I know you are, but what am I?"

Maybe you should change your username to "RestorationOfPeeweeHerman."




> I have an idea,about you guys try and win an election.


And there's that grammar and punctuation thing again.

You should probably take and pass some classes before you yap at other people about things like "IQ."

Really. I'm embarrassed for you ...

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You silly goose Occam...
> 
> Don't you realize that the "we" of whom he speaks are a special lot?
> 
> With their superior brain power they'll be able to avoid the failings of those who have been there before.
> 
> History isn't doomed to repeat itself when 'special' people sell the snake oil.
> 
> All you need to do is accept this simple fact and you too can be a part of his "we" and "our"....


So what's the solution, Tod?   Get globalist Johnson elected?  Sit on our asses and wait for us to be ushered into global government, including a global currency?   

As much as some people seem to hate it, the Constitution is one hell of a lot better than what is coming.  What the hell is wrong with you guys?

----------


## undergroundrr

> Well, in fairness, actually traveling abroad can have a powerful and paradigm-shifting effect on a person.  And certainly (obviously) it does give a much fuller picture of what a country is like to actually spend a month there.
> 
> World travel has certainly affected me.  It has been one of the big factors (I think) that softened me up and eventually allowed me to open my eyes to the truth that: *the type of people in a country fundamentally shape the country.*  The people _are_ the country.  A country _is_ its people.
> 
> I was not inclined to believe this at all.  As a hard-core libertarian, I wanted to believe that it's all about policy.  Everything is all about government policy.  Change the policy, and the quality of life in the country follows, like an obedient pet rock dragging behind on its leash.  Not so.  I'm still a hard-core libertarian, and I now realize I had the causation largely reversed.  Yes, look around the world and the best places to live are the freest.  But those best places also have the best people.  The people come first.  The government did not mold them into good, high-level, civic-minded, civilized people.  Can't.
> 
> The people are the horse.  The government is the cart.
> 
> So I was wrong.  If one were to come in and stage a one-man libertarian take-over of Papua New Guinea, you would not suddenly get a top-level country.  It wouldn't turn into the USA.  Even letting it percolate for decades it wouldn't, unless you brought in new people which supplanted the old, ala nearby Australia.  Australia is not populated by the aborigines.  The aborigines are a tiny group on the fringes of society.  If they were still the dominant population, Australia would be nothing like it is today.  It would be more like Ethiopia with kangaroos.  So no, a libertarian Papua New Guinea would become a better version of itself, it would reach new heights, but it would be drastically hamstrung by the extremely low civilization level of its people, until or unless a whole bunch of ex-pats moved in, invested, and started running things and building things.  Then the natives start to be supplanted, becoming more and more irrelevant, as the new society isn't theirs.  They dwindle, the ex-pats thrive.  The native's way of life is dead, their country is dead, a fading shadow; a new one has arisen that just happens to share the same land.
> ...


Great post!  But I'd say it goes both ways.  Bad policy and other environmental factors can discourage an individual to abandon virtue.  At the extreme, in the name of survival.  cf Les Miserables and a lot of Dickens.  It tends to be miraculous if human goodness survives in fascist/Marxist civic structures.

Also, regarding "low" or "high" levels of civilization - Marxism was the product of one of the most highly-developed, high-culture intellectual environments ever in the history of mankind.

----------


## tod evans

> *So what's the solution, Tod?*   Get globalist Johnson elected?  Sit on our asses and wait for us to be ushered into global government, including a global currency?   
> 
> As much as some people seem to hate it, *the Constitution is one hell of a lot better than what is coming*.  What the hell is wrong with you guys?


The 'solution' if you will is to elect whichever talking head is going to bring this mess crashing down the soonest with the parts you want left alone intact.

It's coming down, crumbling, dissolving, breaking apart, etc.......

So you and all of us need to weigh which joker is most likely to leave what's important to our families intact......

To me that's land and infrastructure, both of which would be severely affected by war on this soil..

At this point I'm not convinced either of the two main jokers will keep from bringing war to these lands so I look at which one is most likely to cause some sort of a civil war with their election, again it's a wash....

I can't get with any camp, not Johnsons either.........

Leaving me with my 'solution' and that's to prepare for both civil and international conflict on these lands.....Best part is I probably don't have much to worry about as far removed as I am.

A 'solution' for you or anybody else may not be the same as mine....

Funny you should mention the constitution...........None of those running for office even gives it a cursory nod....

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I'm running for an uncontested city council seat and I think I'm gonna win.



Well not a real race but an election, good luck....

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> So what's the solution, Tod?   Get globalist Johnson elected?  Sit on our asses and wait for us to be ushered into global government, including a global currency?   
> 
> As much as some people seem to hate it, the Constitution is one hell of a lot better than what is coming.  What the hell is wrong with you guys?


Johnson is proof that some LIBS are just insane or Libs because they are insane. Open Borders, pro TTP, pro mass immigration, pro BLM, pro Gun Grabber, Pro bake the cake or else....

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Yes.  Sounds so obvious once you say it like that, eh?  But so true, and a very important concept!
> 
> 
> 
> Accept?  Do I accept?  Come on, ROL, pay attention.



I know you do, I am trying to lead the blank slaters to an answer..

----------


## tod evans

> Johnson is proof that some LIBS are just insane or Libs because they are insane. Open Borders, pro TTP, pro mass immigration, pro BLM, pro Gun Grabber, Pro bake the cake or else....


Look Twinkletoes, it's not the 'lefts' or the 'libs' causing problems, it's not the 'right' or the 'alt-right' either.

It's every $#@!ing moron that thinks government can or will fix the mess government made on purpose.

Do you think I'm lying? 

Or repeating myself over and over just to hear myself talk?

Government isn't the solution to the problem of government no matter how you try and portray it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The 'solution' if you will is to elect whichever talking head is going to bring this mess crashing down the soonest with the parts you want left alone intact.
> 
> It's coming down, crumbling, dissolving, breaking apart, etc.......
> 
> So you and all of us need to weigh which joker is most likely to leave what's important to our families intact......
> 
> To me that's land and infrastructure, both of which would be severely affected by war on this soil..
> 
> At this point I'm not convinced either of the two main jokers will keep from bringing war to these lands so I look at which one is most likely to cause some sort of a civil war with their election, again it's a wash....
> ...


I hear ya, Tod.  I just want to be left alone too.  Unfortunately though, they're coming for us and they have a full court press on right now.  This global government deal scares the crap out of me.  They have been talking about it for a long time; that and a global currency.  Now they are talking about it out in the open.  Sad thing is, some have been so dumbed down they even seem to welcome it.  One even on this forum is all in for global currency, because he thinks he might make a buck from it.     In my opinion, the whole game is going to be over soon, so if I see a way to stick a fork in their tire, I'm going to do my best to do it.  It won't completely stop anything no, but it just might give us more time at the local level to get our act together better than we have it now.  




> Funny you should mention the constitution...........None of those running for office even gives it a cursory nod....


Yeah, sadly you're right about that.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Look Twinkletoes, it's not the 'lefts' or the 'libs' causing problems, it's not the 'right' or the 'alt-right' either.
> 
> It's every $#@!ing moron that thinks government can or will fix the mess government made on purpose.
> 
> Do you think I'm lying? 
> 
> Or repeating myself over and over just to hear myself talk?
> 
> Government isn't the solution to the problem of government no matter how you try and portray it.


If a person will stop some of the evilness, it is a positive.  Beyond that, I agree with you.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Occam with all due respect, someone who wants to put the government back in its Constitutional corral, beats the holy hell out of those who are foolishly helping or even agreeing with those who are trying to slam us into world government.


I agree. But wanting something and voting for it (on the one hand) and wanting something and getting it (on the other hand) are entirely different things.

The former has never achieved any significant or durable successes for anyone except those who have sought to expand the power and authority of government beyond Constitutional (or any other) limits. And exemplars of the WASP-y genotype ROL lionizes have been the chief culprits in creating this abominable state of affairs in the first place. (That was the original point that had been made, which eventually led to my remarks.)

ROL's "plan to fix things" amounts to no more than "vote hard" - and, if that doesn't work, then hope for a latter-day Pinochet to make the scene.

IOW: His "plan" is to hope for someone else to come along and "save" him - and that is just the sort of attitude that got us where we are now.




> And no, nothing will last unless there is an educated and vigilant populace keeping active watch.  Not anarchy; not a constitutional republic....


Again, I agree. I agree completely. But unfortunately, we have a populace that is neither educated nor vigilant - and sadly, doing more and more of the same thing over and over again isn't going to change that. The FedGov is not going to save us. Neither is the ghost of Augusto.

It's not that I disagree with you about anything you've said here. It's just that I am a thoroughgoing pessimist when it comes to the idea that the system as it currently exists - _especially_ on the federal level - can be reformed or rehabilitated. As much as neither of us may like it (I certainly don't), we live in what is at least nominally a democracy. But on the scale at which it currently exists, there are just far too many people, too many factions, and too many divergent and stridently competing interests for that democracy to ever be anything but deeply dysfunctional and even outright malignant. (This is precisely why the executive branch has accreted such wide authority and unaccountable power over the years.) In this regard, I see no reason to think that "the point of no return" isn't already far behind us.

Unless and until enough people realize this and actively begin to reject federal authority altogether (instead of trying to seize it and use it for their own ends), nothing is really going to change ...

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Great post! But I'd say it goes both ways. Bad policy and other environmental factors can discourage an individual to abandon virtue.


 Thanks, Underground.  And no "but" about it: you're definitely correct.  Being surrounded by bad incentives, bad actors, and bad pheromones day in and day out will take a toll.




> Also, regarding "low" or "high" levels of civilization - Marxism was the product of one of the most highly-developed, high-culture intellectual environments ever in the history of mankind.


Yes, and so was Beethoven.  So was Mises, for that matter.  Not all ideas are right.  Every civilization has some winners and some duds, idea-wise.

You've got to admit that Marxism clearly was a good idea in some sense, in the sense that it was and still is demonstrably attractive and highly powerful to millions of people.

Anyway, no scare quotes needed on "low" and "high."  Civilization is a word with a meaning.  It actually exists.  A society can have more or less of it.  This means, yes, we can talk about low or high levels of civilization.  It's not all just a subjective muddle.  "Well, cannibalism, sure, if that's what works for you.  I'm no cultural elitist.  All cultures are equal and beautiful."  Sorry, no sale!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> It's coming down, crumbling, dissolving, breaking apart, etc.......
> 
> At this point I'm not convinced either of the two main jokers will keep from bringing war to these lands


Good news, Tod!  It's true, everything is breaking apart and collapsing, our civilization is in decline, but:

*Good news #1: No time soon.* It will almost certainly take a few generations.  Civilizations have inertia.  Everything won't evaporate overnight.  So relax, you'll be OK.  Kid will be OK.  Grandkids, great-grandkids, that's where things will be really downhill.  Unless we can stop it somehow.

*Good News #2: No war.* Large scale war is unlikely right now.  The same low V levels that make kids today cry at splinters, too scared to climb trees, and too easily traumatized to listen to un-PC opinions also make us unwilling to risk our lives in war.  Low V means low aggressiveness, low discipline, low martiality, low toughness.  So, we're wimps!  Wimps are peaceful.  There will be no WWIII any time soon.  Of course at some point V gets so low that outside invasion becomes a risk.  But the US is geographically insulated enough that that's not any risk any time soon.  The only civ with enough V to want to invade is Islam and they're not prosperous enough to launch such a cross-globe invasion.  Nor to have any hope of winning, because we're still too rich (for now).

----------


## TheCount

> ...


Allow me to summarize your reply:

"I already know everything that I need to know because I read about it on the internet!"

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Allow me to summarize your reply:
> 
> "I already know everything that I need to know because I read about it on the internet!"

----------


## jllundqu



----------


## adissa

> Genes do effect political views, this a prove fact...Google genes and politics.


It's an interesting theory, but how do you explain members of the same family -- immediate family, even -- having opposing political views?

----------


## TheCount

> What facts have you given to the this debate?


I have posted sources when necessary, none of which you have argued.

Beyond that, I'm not the one who is arguing in support of something.  You make a claim, you support the claim.  I'm not going to try to prove a negative here.





> Careful your anti white hate is showing.


Mysteriously, pointing out things that minorities have done is just telling the facts but pointing out things that whites have done is anti white hate.

If you want to make the claim that a certain race is more of a threat to me than other races, then obviously I am going to have to compare them to other races. Whites have done more to harm me than any other race.  It's just that simple.  Promoting greater white government when white government caused the current problems in the first place is nonsensical.





> So it seems to be the lowest common denominators love a system that rewards them for supporting a system of theft?


Sure, if the lowest common denominator is Europe, the birthplace and home of socialism.

Can you not accept that socialist ideas are a political fad which appeals to every race?






> Bring in poverty, crime, terrorism, etc in short creates a demand that that state has to fill and in turn grows the state, you would understand that if you read the damn article.


The article is just a bunch of opinions supported by a thousand links to other people's opinions.

Saying things doesn't make them true, even if they're said by a white guy on a white website.






> How much did poverty, 3rd world disease, and government grow after since 1970?


Poverty rate flat:




3rd world disease?  Oh, you don't want to talk about all diseases because it's obvious where that'll go.




Government?  You want to blame immigrants for government?  Oh yeah, they're really $#@!ing this all up for the rest of this with their massive representation.










> Facts disprove your post.


What facts?  The fact that Dearborn is an objectively better place than all of the cities surrounding it?





> And? I never wanted to go into the Middle East, thank the Israeli firsters for that.


Oh look, the collectivist doesn't want to be collectivized.  Again.

----------


## TheCount

Oh, forgot to mention... do you know when government *really* grew?

During your glorious white period of 1920-1970.



In:
1920, government spending was 7.60% of GDP.
1970, government spending was 18.18% of GDP.

From 1920-1970, government spending increased at a rate of *0.2116%* per year as a percentage of GDP.

2015:  21.74% of GDP.

From 1970-2015, government spending increased at a rate of *0.0791%* per year as a percentage of GDP.


That's 2.7 times faster for glorious white race time vs. boogity boogity immigrant time.  You're really lucking out with the time periods there too, spending was still abnormally high in 1920.  If we started out in 1926, it would be twice as bad.

----------


## Smitty

> Whites have done more to harm me than any other race.


Such as?

----------


## TheCount

> Such as?

----------


## Smitty

So make aliyah.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> So what's the solution, Tod?   Get globalist Johnson elected?  Sit on our asses and wait for us to be ushered into global government, including a global currency?   
> 
> As much as some people seem to hate it, the Constitution is one hell of a lot better than what is coming.  What the hell is wrong with you guys?


They have no solutions, only spreging out well past 9000...

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> It's an interesting theory, but how do you explain members of the same family -- immediate family, even -- having opposing political views?


Nature vs nurture, personal experience goes a long way as well. 




> I have posted sources when necessary, none of which you have argued.
> 
> Beyond that, I'm not the one who is arguing in support of something.  You make a claim, you support the claim.  I'm not going to try to prove a negative here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mysteriously, pointing out things that minorities have done is just telling the facts but pointing out things that whites have done is anti white hate.
> 
> ...


So more poverty since 1965, after we let in 61 Million plus 3rd world people, how odd.

https://www.google.com/search?q=auti...ss+immigration



Yes we have Whites that support marxism, why the Hell import anymore marxists voters?

"sure their is water in the ship, but lets not stop anymore water from flooding the ship because autism " said no one ever.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> 


Yeah but no thank you for antibiotics, electricity, airplanes, the Internet, etc, right?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Well stated.  Assuming "governMENT" has any validity, your statement holds true.  The principles of Proper Human Relations defines our freedoms where two or more people in a given area of mutual human influence are involved.  The lone man has no need for such principles because he is alone.  His actions affect nobody but possibly himself.  Therefore, he is as God in the sense that he is truly free to act as he chooses within the limitations of his human form.  
> 
> The moment another person comes into the frame of the initial man's influence, things change at a fundamental level, assuming we speak of men with mental faculties developed beyond the level and timbre of mere brutes.
> 
> Perhaps this will help the lad: The Canon of Proper Human Relations


That's a well written blog. Perhaps it could expand on equality as it relates to legal justice but a good piece none the less. I bookmarked it.

----------


## TheCount

> Yeah but no thank you for antibiotics, electricity, airplanes, the Internet, etc, right?


Which of those did Congress invent?

----------


## osan

> That's a well written blog. Perhaps it could expand on equality as it relates to legal justice but a good piece none the less. I bookmarked it.


Could you expand on your precise meaning?  I could view what you have written in any of a number of ways.

I would add that I might call it "justice under law" because I distinguish that which is "legal" from that which is lawful.  There is much that is legal that is not lawful, just as there is that which is illegal, yet fully lawful.

IMO, legality should be eliminated in favor of lawfulness.  When a bill accords with the fundamental principles of Proper Human Relations, its enactment always results in law.  When it fails to accord, it becomes statute - a legality.  This is very bad juju.

Statutes are by their very nature prone to arbitrariness, whether through honest error, corruption, or malice.  The very definition of the term strongly implies it.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Could you expand on your precise meaning?  I could view what you have written in any of a number of ways.


Sure. I'm not going to do it here, though. I've been meaning to start  thread on it anyway, so I'll do that. Likely this evening. I'm just kind of popping in here for the moment. We likely disagree on what surmises an acceptable philosophy of governance. That said, I define equality as equal under the sight of God and Law. Nothing more, nothing less. We likely agree more than we disagree anyway. And that's okay.

I don't want to do it in this thread just because it'd be lost. And it's a critical topic. 




> I would add that I might call it "justice under law" because I distinguish that which is "legal" from that which is lawful.  There is much that is legal that is not lawful, just as there is that which is illegal, yet fully lawful.


Right. I agree. But I don't reject governMENT. And I don't want to sacrifice the Constitution/Bill of Rights. And I'll touch on that when I start the thread. Legal Justice, to me, simply means equal treatment of Individuals under equal and just laws that are expressive of "just powers." I suppose you could look at it from a perspective of entitlement but not in the liberal sense of the term. By Man's natural right, he is entitled to equal legal justice. This is how (at least in theory) he keeps and secures them. If we get into private courts and private police, equal treatment under equal laws simply can't and won't exist. It'd sacrifice the fundamental relevance of Natural Law in terms of proper human relations. As I'd mentioned, though, I do want to touch on that in a more precise way and in a broader context. And I think it's best served in a dedicated thread. Plus, that way I can put it out there on the table for a proper and thorough discussion/debate. I think it's easier to discuss when we know exactly what the terms of controversy are from all points of view. 




> IMO, legality should be eliminated in favor of lawfulness.  When a bill accords with the fundamental principles of Proper Human Relations, its enactment always results in law.  When it fails to accord, it becomes statute - a legality.  This is very bad juju.
> 
> Statutes are by their very nature prone to arbitrariness, whether through honest error, corruption, or malice.  The very definition of the term strongly implies it.


Yeah, I agree that this does happen. Is it really the way that it's supposed to work under the traditional philosoph of governance in our Republic, though? Not really.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Irrelevant of that, it's still a very good piece. That one fundamental quirk that I have with it is a pretty major deal if you think about it, though. It's eesentially a disagreement on what Natural Law means in terms of proper Man-to-Government/Government-to-Man relations.

----------


## osan

> Sure. I'm not going to do it here, though. I've been meaning to start  thread on it anyway, so I'll do that. Likely this evening. I'm just kind of popping in here for the moment. We likely disagree on what surmises an acceptable philosophy of governance. That said, I define equality as equal under the sight of God and Law. We likely agree more than we disagree anyway. And that's okay.
> 
> I don't want to do it in this thread just because it'd be lost. And it's a critical topic. 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. I agree. But I don't reject governMENT. And I'll touch on that when I start the thread. Legal Justice, to me, simply means equal treatment of Individuals under equal and just laws that are expressive of "just powers." I suppose you could look at it from a perspective of entitlement but not in the liberal sense of the term. By Man's natural right, he is entitled to equal legal justice. This is how (at least in theory) he keeps and secures them. If we get into private courts and private police, equal treatment under equal laws simply can't and won't exist. It'd sacrifice the fundamental relevance of Natural Law in terms of proper human relations. As I'd mentioned, though, I do want to touch on that in a more precise way and in a broader context. And I think it's best served in a dedicated thread. Plus, that way I can put it out there on the table for a proper and thorough discussion/debate. I think it's easier to discuss when we know exactly what the terms of controversy are from all points of view. 
> 
> 
> ...


That all said, my ideal is no governMENT, but rather the presence of governANCE, the former being an institution and the latter a function.  It is perhaps a false dichotomy to pose the only choices as being government or anarchy.  What of the middle road?  What I mean is this: division of labor is a beautiful thing in many ways, but taken too far, it appears to almost necessarily lead to the place we now occupy due to our nature as human beings.

I fully believe that a far greater proportion of governance ought to devolve back to the people.  We are all police, or should be, given a proper definition of the term.  We are all watchdogs, our obligation to one another pursuant to the protection of all human rights being to enforce the dictates of protocol that bind government officials to specified ethics and other limitations on their official conduct.

Were we, the people, to re-up to those responsibilities and to codify those protocols more appropriately, completely, and correctly, the sorts of chicanery we now experience daily would be far less common, IMO.

Imagine every office holder living in literal terror of the prospect of violating the rights of those whom they ostensibly represent.  Imagine imprisoning such violators or hanging them from their necks until they are very much dead.

The problem we face, and have faced since antiquity in the Empire model of societal structuring, is the distinction between the ruling class and that of the ruled such that the former becomes the superior to the later.  Human societies, nations, whatever you wish to call them, all devolve to this by one means or another.  Until that distinction is eliminated in practical terms, the tyrants shall continue their reigns of what is effectively terror over the rest, and with the quantum advances in technology, this terror becomes more pronounced, more fear-inspiring, and far more destructive.

IOW, we have a choice before us: take responsibility for our own freedoms and the rights that issue therefrom, or abdicate in favor of letting someone else do our jobs for us because we are too damned lazy and self-absorbed.

It seems to me that a practical middle-path solution places government employees at significant risk in the discharge of their official duties.  We keep them around because they become specialists adept in carrying out work for which the average man may not have sufficient competence, but hold over their heads the sword of Damocles such that they dare not  act in violation of man's rights.  Imagine the legislature under such threat.  We would  get next to zero sausage production from that quarter every year because in my world to pass a bill that contains violations of fundamental human rights would be a very long and tortured sentence.

Unless we do our parts as partners in governance, rather than just as obedient voters, nothing will change save that the ship continue to sink and we along with it.

----------


## tod evans

^^^^^^^^ I can get behind this. ^^^^^^^^^

----------


## Natural Citizen

> That all said, my ideal is no governMENT, but rather the presence of governANCE, the former being an institution and the latter a function.  It is perhaps a false dichotomy to pose the only choices as being government or anarchy.  What of the middle road?  What I mean is this: division of labor is a beautiful thing in many ways, but taken too far, it appears to almost necessarily lead to the place we now occupy due to our nature as human beings.
> 
> I fully believe that a far greater proportion of governance ought to devolve back to the people.  We are all police, or should be, given a proper definition of the term.  We are all watchdogs, our obligation to one another pursuant to the protection of all human rights being to enforce the dictates of protocol that bind government officials to specified ethics and other limitations on their official conduct.
> 
> Were we, the people, to re-up to those responsibilities and to codify those protocols more appropriately, completely, and correctly, the sorts of chicanery we now experience daily would be far less common, IMO.
> 
> Imagine every office holder living in literal terror of the prospect of violating the rights of those whom they ostensibly represent.  Imagine imprisoning such violators or hanging them from their necks until they are very much dead.
> 
> The problem we face, and have faced since antiquity in the Empire model of societal structuring, is the distinction between the ruling class and that of the ruled such that the former becomes the superior to the later.  Human societies, nations, whatever you wish to call them, all devolve to this by one means or another.  Until that distinction is eliminated in practical terms, the tyrants shall continue their reigns of what is effectively terror over the rest, and with the quantum advances in technology, this terror becomes more pronounced, more fear-inspiring, and far more destructive.
> ...


I don't disagree with this. For me, it becomes a disagreement of the means that are tossed out there to justify the end. It does change the ending. And I'm not sure if proper human relations will become of it. Mainly because I can't see the means being up to par with proper Natural Law. And that's the foundation for fundamental moral code in terms of proper Man-to-Man/Government-to-Man relations. I understand where your differentiation is placed between government and governance. I do. I just can't place it into context with true equality in terms of equal rights under equal laws. I picture a wild west scenario evolving there. Surely, you must recognize the immediate outcome.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> ^^^^^^^^ I can get behind this. ^^^^^^^^^


There are consequences to it, though. At least as far as I can tell. If you think about it, you'd be sacrificing the Constitution/DoI. Now, I get that some friends actually do want that. And I even understand the shortcomings of those documents and why they do. But, man. It'd get jiggy in a hot fukin minute. Morals would become officially subjective in terms of how one equates justice and proper human relations there. Justice would likely become the product of ones personal view of the way that he wants to defend his Individual pride. And that's dangerous given that any notion of just powers in the rule of law are _officially_ out the door. I might even be charged with an arbitrarily punishable crime just for offending someone if it was considered to be unlawful under his idea of proper human relations. Maybe even get ordered to have a duel.

Now, place that into perspective with the fact that we have 320,000,000 or so people living here. We'd have guns blazing like a mofo.

I'm not even saying that it won't work. Heh. It likely would. Thems some extreme means, though, to justify an ending.

----------


## osan

> I don't disagree with this. For me, it becomes a disagreement of the means that are tossed out there to justify the end. It does change the ending. And I'm not sure if proper human relations will become of it. Mainly because I can't see the means being up to par with proper Natural Law. And that's the foundation for fundamental moral code in terms of proper Man-to-Man/Government-to-Man relations. I understand where your differentiation is placed between government and governance. I do. I just can't place it into context with true equality in terms of equal rights under equal laws. I picture a wild west scenario evolving there. Surely, you must recognize the immediate outcome.


Not sure what you are seeing here.  Perhaps a new thread will  provide the venue for clarification.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Which of those did Congress invent?


Oh I thought you were blame Whites...

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> 


So what is your take on Zika outbreak?

Notice how when you have mass immigration you are unable to screen and keep out the sick?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Notice how when you have mass immigration you are unable to screen and keep out the sick?


Not true

It would be perfectly possible to have free immigration and screening for infectious disease. 

i.e. "anyone who wants to come can do so, provided they pass a health screening"

...not rocket science.

Few if any free immigration libertarians are opposed in principle to screening for health/terrorism/etc.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Of course, Rev is for world government, so he doesn't really care.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Of course, Rev is for world government, so he doesn't really care.


I'm not necessarily for world government, but I'm open to the idea. There's a reasonable debate to be had (though not with you obviously) over how the advantages (no more war) compare to the disadvantages (knowledge problems due to scale, lack of inter-state economic competition). Anyway, free trade agreements are not about world government, and even if they mostly promote cronyism rather than free trade, could not possibly do 1% the damage that Trump and his ilk have been doing, from our _national_ capital, with your enthusiastic support.

----------


## TheCount

> So what is your take on Zika outbreak?
> 
> Notice how when you have mass immigration you are unable to screen and keep out the sick?


Do you have any facts to back up the suggestion that Zika is being spread by immigration rather than other types of travel?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Do you have any facts to back up the suggestion that Zika is being spread by immigration rather than other types of travel?


Mosquitos have been illegally crossing the border, putting natives wasps out of business. 

And I heard Obama wants to give them free college!

#EndWhiteInsecticide

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Not true
> 
> It would be perfectly possible to have free immigration and screening for infectious disease. 
> 
> i.e. "anyone who wants to come can do so, provided they pass a health screening"
> 
> ...not rocket science.
> 
> Few if any free immigration libertarians are opposed in principle to screening for health/terrorism/etc.


It isn't rocket science to say it... but how about actually doing it in a fashion that protects more liberties than it harms?  And realistically how effective would it really be?  When individuals can come in by boat, plane, train, and vehicle, there would be many entrance places and many people, both foreign and domestic, moving about.  The need for 'bodies' to carry this inspection process out would be huge, and these bodies obviously need to be fed and entertained, costing 'the people' money.  By requiring the inspection of *all cargo and persons entering the country* (it _really_ doesn't make sense to do it if you're not going to do it right) you would consume a great deal of 'the peoples'' time, which may be a consummation of money or pleasure.  And then, how effective is screening foreign individuals and not domestic individuals?  Obviously domestic individuals can become 'terrorist' (although, in a libertarian society I don't know what they'd be trying to politically change?  Invasion and conquest attempts from abroad is a more reasonable assumption, and it is much easier to see coming than a single terrorist.) and they can contract and spread disease just the same as a foreigner.

And I think the same point about TSA could be made here.  That, in the absence of government doing the inspections of people, companies would carry it out because it makes dollars and sense.  People aren't going to use their transportation if they feel their life is in danger by doing so.  They will need a greater abundance of employees if their employees keep getting killed by the people they are serving.  And they suffer a loss of the use of their property.  With regards to transporting terrorists and individual's with communicable disease these same principles hold true.  A freighter, air-lines, etc, isn't going to go to some place stricken with ebola to pick up a bunch of people because it puts their company in jeopardy in the ways described above.

Probably not the right place for this convo but I'm just curious as to why it should be expected that the state will carry out these functions.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Not true
> 
> It would be perfectly possible to have free immigration and screening for infectious disease. 
> 
> i.e. "anyone who wants to come can do so, provided they pass a health screening"
> 
> ...not rocket science.
> 
> Few if any free immigration libertarians are opposed in principle to screening for health/terrorism/etc.


If you want to play Russian roulette that is fine, but the second you point the revolver at others you are going to be stopped.

The end result is the sick and subversive still get in and rip the nation apart from the outside, we do not need to import any more problems..

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Do you have any facts to back up the suggestion that Zika is being spread by immigration rather than other types of travel?



http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christi...grant-n2172048


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...gration-cente/

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/25...iel-greenfield

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christi...grant-n2172048

http://www.naturalnews.com/052527_il...s_disease.html

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ut-in-the-u-s/

http://www.westernjournalism.com/oba...ysis-children/



http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...al-immigration


http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/zika-viru...t-by-illegals/

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/0...tate-area.html

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/28/ha...florida-video/


http://cis.org/Obama-Opens-the-Border-to-More-STDs


Yeah, their is a clear link and it could all be stopped and billions could be saved, just remember that every time you see your tax dollars being stolen to pay for these "huddled masses"

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> It isn't rocket science to say it... but how about actually doing it in a fashion that protects more liberties than it harms?


My point was that libertarians should not be opposed to health screening _in principle_; that it should depend on a cost-benefit analysis. 

Personally, I'm not at all convinced that the benefits would outweigh the costs.

...though it's not something I've looked into closely. 




> And realistically how effective would it really be?  When individuals can come in by boat, plane, train, and vehicle, there would be many entrance places and many people, both foreign and domestic, moving about.  The need for 'bodies' to carry this inspection process out would be huge, and these bodies obviously need to be fed and entertained, costing 'the people' money.  By requiring the inspection of *all cargo and persons entering the country* (it _really_ doesn't make sense to do it if you're not going to do it right) you would consume a great deal of 'the peoples'' time, which may be a consummation of money or pleasure.  And then, how effective is screening foreign individuals and not domestic individuals?  Obviously domestic individuals can become 'terrorist' (although, in a libertarian society I don't know what they'd be trying to politically change?  Invasion and conquest attempts from abroad is a more reasonable assumption, and it is much easier to see coming than a single terrorist.) and they can contract and spread disease just the same as a foreigner.
> 
> And I think the same point about TSA could be made here.  That, in the absence of government doing the inspections of people, companies would carry it out because it makes dollars and sense.  People aren't going to use their transportation if they feel their life is in danger by doing so.  They will need a greater abundance of employees if their employees keep getting killed by the people they are serving.  And they suffer a loss of the use of their property.  With regards to transporting terrorists and individual's with communicable disease these same principles hold true.  A freighter, air-lines, etc, isn't going to go to some place stricken with ebola to pick up a bunch of people because it puts their company in jeopardy in the ways described above.


Yes, those are all factors that would have to be considered. 




> Probably not the right place for this convo but I'm just curious as to why it should be expected that the state will carry out these functions.


If border screening would require violating property rights (which it would), it would have to be a state function.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> It's not wrong, it's just that you and others like you are unable to factually support your reasoning for why separation should be valued or enforced.


Because its natural. I mostly said its because in homogenous countries you do not have racial conflict. In a country that is one ethnicity they have no need to fight other groups if those groups are excluded. 




> The problem is when racists take facts and use them to come to conclusions and develop policies which are not supported by those facts.


Irrelevant as I have not done this. I don't care about racists who do this because it doesn't relate to me. Can you prove to me that I am doing this? 




> This can happen at many levels, but as the entire concept of racism is based on collectivist logic,


So?

This is also incorrect. Everyone judges people as an individual. But we consider the group as well. Nowhere have you explained why such logic is wrong. 




> It is wrong because you cannot compare the problems that we have today to a time in which America was not multiracial.  No such time exists.


America was 90 percent white in the 1950s. 





> There is no evidence besides assumption that America would have fewer problems if it were racially pure.


I said homogenous. How can ethnic minorities burn down one of our cities if there aren't any minorities living here? I am tired of minorities being pissed off all the time and blaming whites for everything. 




> Also, speaking of poor logic, your sweeping generalization that it is impossible for a multiracial country to work is unsupportable.


I didn't say that. I just said they historically have problems and are weak. 




> Immigrants are and have been boogity boogity in America for many years.  Get over it.


You are relating this view to me to discredit me. 




> It seems to me that you are ignoring the fact that intraracial crime is a larger problem than interracial crime.


No, I agreed with you. 




> Also, I dispute the notion that interracial crime is a problem so severe that I should give up liberty and expand government in order to solve it.


That's fallacious. I never said you must give up liberty or expand the government to solve it. It seems you love straw man attacks. 




> Propose a social system in which a white nation can exist without infringing upon the rights of its people.


All I want is to pass a law for voluntary separation and change existing immigrant law to be fairer to whites. I do believe I have a natural right to live in peace and with people I desire. 




> If your white nation does not infringe upon liberty, it cannot possibly remain white.


How so? 




> It seems to me that you're just hurling out as many questions as you can wedge into each post with as little effort as possible in order to create work for those who are responding to your posts.  I'm not going to respond to an endless merry-go-round of unsupported argument.


The reason I ask questions is so you can clearly respond by writing your logic down. It helps to see your logic as opposed to me writing my logic down. It helps me understand you.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Because its natural. I mostly said its because in homogenous countries you do not have racial conflict. In a country that is one ethnicity they have no need to fight other groups if those groups are excluded. 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant as I have not done this. I don't care about racists who do this because it doesn't relate to me. Can you prove to me that I am doing this? 
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> ...


Sending your rep...

----------


## TheCount

> LINKWALL
> 
> Yeah, their is a clear link and it could all be stopped and billions could be saved, just remember that every time you see your tax dollars being stolen to pay for these "huddled masses"


http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2...tor-says.html/

10 of 10 pregnant women in Dallas contracted the virus during travel, not prior to immigration.

----------


## TheCount

> Because its natural. I mostly said its because in homogenous countries you do not have racial conflict. In a country that is one ethnicity they have no need to fight other groups if those groups are excluded.


Humans are able to define 'other groups' into infinity.  See also:  Protestants vs. Catholics.


On that topic...





> America was 90 percent white in the 1950s.


Yes, the 1950s, a time where the entirely white government of the United States began a white-on-white ideological conflict with the Soviet Union.

You were saying?






> I am tired of minorities being pissed off all the time and blaming whites for everything.


I am tired of whites being pissed off all the time and blaming minorities for everything.





> I didn't say that. I just said they historically have problems and are weak.


Fascinating.  Could you list for me a few of these multiracial countries which were historically weak?






> That's fallacious. I never said you must give up liberty or expand the government to solve it. It seems you love straw man attacks. 
> 
> All I want is to *pass a law for voluntary separation* and change existing immigrant law to be fairer to whites. I do believe I have a natural right to live in peace and with people I desire.



You still haven't told us how you are going to make or keep this white utopia white.


Please do elaborate on this very voluntary legislation that you propose.



Side note:




> Everyone judges people as an individual.


Are you some kind of robot?  I honestly can't understand how anyone could actually believe this.

----------


## tod evans

> All I want is to pass a law......


Repealing laws is a much wiser approach.

Take away governments power don't enforce it.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Humans are able to define 'other groups' into infinity.  See also:  Protestants vs. Catholics.



I am talking about ethnicity and race and homogeneity. Not religion. 





> Yes, the 1950s, a time where the entirely white government of the United States began a white-on-white ideological conflict with the Soviet Union.



That is not the point I made. Again, I said a homogenous country will not battle ethnic minorities if those ethnic minorities are excluded. How is this not true? 


What you wrote is a separate topic/issue. 





> I am tired of whites being pissed off all the time and blaming minorities for everything.



What did I blame minorities for? 





> Fascinating.  Could you list for me a few of these multiracial countries which were historically weak?



Ukraine (fighting right now over crimea with its Russian minority) Austrio-Hungary Empire (had to split because of different nationalities), Czechoslovakia (doesn't exist because Slovaks wanted to let go), Serbia fighting with the Muslims etc. etc. Israel (problems with the palisteaneans) I mean how many do I need to write down? 





> You still haven't told us how you are going to make or keep this white utopia white.



Keep immigrants out just like Japan mostly does. We don't need immigrants. 





> Please do elaborate on this very voluntary legislation that you propose.



A resettlement law to pay minorities to leave to a country of their choice. 





> Are you some kind of robot?  I honestly can't understand how anyone could actually believe this.



because its common sense are you are believing a lie/attack by biased people that is meant to demonize people such as I. 


maybe an example is like this. Pitbulls are known to be a violent dog breed. Does that mean every pitbull is likely to attack? No, of course not. There are many sweet pit bulls but the aggressive reputation of the breed should be considered when buying one.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Repealing laws is a much wiser approach.
> 
> Take away governments power don't enforce it.


Sure. I am all for downsizing governments power but I don't see the problem with passing one law.

----------


## tod evans

> Sure. I am all for downsizing governments power but I don't see the problem with passing one law.


I see problems with every law even purposed.

The thought process involved cedes authority to bureaucrats and their enforcers.

Government will never work for a people it is permitted to lord over.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> I see problems with every law even purposed.
> 
> The thought process involved cedes authority to bureaucrats and their enforcers.


I believe the government has very few legitimate functions. 

What am I supposed to do without government help? I cant feasibly round up the illegal immigrants myself nor can I prevent the world from immigrating to this country. 




> Government will never work for a people it is permitted to lord over.


I assume you are an anarchist? 

I sort of disagree because the 1924 immigration law worked wonderfully. Government can be successful at a few things, but just not very often

----------


## tod evans

> I believe the government has very few legitimate functions. 
> 
> What am I supposed to do without government help? I cant feasibly round up the illegal immigrants myself nor can I prevent the world from immigrating to this country. 
> 
> 
> 
> *I assume you are an anarchist?* 
> 
> I sort of disagree because the 1924 immigration law worked wonderfully. Government can be successful at a few things, but just not very often


I don't label myself one, nor a libertarian, republican or any other 'ist' 'an' or 'crat'.

What may have worked almost a century ago really doesn't matter given the world today...

The people profiting from governing and those profiting from being governed are of a different stripe and of much greater numbers than folks back then.

My position calls for upstanding people to behave as our ancestors whereas you have quite clearly stated your position;




> What am I supposed to do without government help?


Our ancestors weren't 'anarchists', doubtful even a handful knew or cared about the term either.....

----------


## presence

> What am I supposed to do without government help?


oxymoron is oxymoron

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2...tor-says.html/
> 
> 10 of 10 pregnant women in Dallas contracted the virus during travel, not prior to immigration.


And you ignore all of the other cases of disease that are spread/brought to America via immigration, classic ignoring the issue.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> And you ignore all of the other cases of disease that are spread/brought to America via immigration


Are there any documented cases of Zika being brought to the US by immigrants?

----------


## TheCount

> I am talking about ethnicity and race and homogeneity. Not religion.


There is no difference; it is all tribal warfare.  The victims of those conflicts are not any less dead as a result of the specific nature of the tribal boundaries that caused the conflict.





> That is not the point I made. Again, I said a homogeneous country will not battle ethnic minorities if those ethnic minorities are excluded. How is this not true?


If the purpose of establishing an ethnically pure country is to reduce conflict, the fact that conflict is not necessarily reduced by doing so renders the whole concept worthless.


What's the track record for lack of conflict between a country of one homogeneous ethnic group and its neighboring countries which are not homogeneous / not of the same ethnic group?  Not so good, I think.


Next you will try to reduce the definition to just ethnic conflict within the country, I'm sure.





> Ukraine (fighting right now over crimea with its Russian minority) Austrio-Hungary Empire (had to split because of different nationalities), Czechoslovakia (doesn't exist because Slovaks wanted to let go), Serbia fighting with the Muslims etc. etc. Israel (problems with the palisteaneans) I mean how many do I need to write down?


All artificial countries resulting from imperialism.  Are you sure ethnicity is the root problem here?





> We don't need immigrants.


Mouse in your pocket?





> A resettlement law to pay minorities to leave to a country of their choice.


In other words, you would like for the government to steal money from some of its residents and give it to other residents.





> because its common sense are you are believing a lie/attack by biased people that is meant to demonize people such as I.


You can see people judging others not as individuals in this very thread.  You are being purposely obtuse.

----------


## TheCount

> And you ignore all of the other cases of disease that are spread/brought to America via immigration, classic ignoring the issue.


You mean like measles and malaria, both of which are also brought to the country via travel?

----------


## presence

> Our ancestors weren't 'anarchists', doubtful even a handful knew or cared about the term either.....





> The Anabaptists of 16th-century Europe are sometimes considered to be religious forerunners of modern anarchism. Bertrand Russell, in his _History of Western Philosophy_,  writes that the Anabaptists "repudiated all law, since they held that  the good man will be guided at every moment by the Holy Spirit...[f]rom  this premiss they arrive at communism...."[32] Prior to Leo Tolstoy, Christian anarchism found one of its most articulate exponents in Gerrard Winstanley, who was part of the Diggers movement in England during the English Civil War. Winstanley published a pamphlet calling for communal ownership  and social and economic organization in small agrarian communities.  Drawing on the Bible, he argued that "the blessings of the earth" should  "be common to all... and none Lord over others."[24] Religious dissenter Roger Williams founded the colony of Providence, Rhode Island, after being run out of the theocratic Puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636. Unlike the Puritans, he scrupulously purchased land from local American Indians for his settlement.[33] While Williams was not explicitly anarchist, another Rhode Islander, Anne Hutchinson, was. Hutchinson and her followers emigrated to Rhode Island in 1638, bought Aquidneck Island from the Native Americans, and founded the town of Pocasset (now Portsmouth.) Another "Rogue Island" libertarian was Samuell Gorton. He and his followers were accused of being anarchists.
>  The coastal area north of Albemarle Sound in what is now northeastern North Carolina was home to a quasi-anarchistic society in the mid-17th century. Described by Murray Rothbard  as "[t]echnically a part of the Virginia colony but in practice  virtually independent," Albemarle was a haven for political and  religious refugees, such as Quakers and dissident Presbyterians.  As Rothbard has said, "This semi-libertarian condition came to an end  in 1663, when the English Crown included Albemarle in the mammoth  Carolina land grant bestowed on a group of eight feudal proprietors.  Little is known of pre-1663 Albemarle, since historians display scant  interest in stateless societies."[34]
>  When William Penn left his Quaker colony in Pennsylvania, the people stopped paying quitrent,  and any semblance of formal government evaporated. The Quakers treated  the Native Americans with respect, bought land from them voluntarily,  and had even representation of natives and European-Americans on juries. According to Voltaire, the Shackamaxon Treaty  was "the only treaty between Indians and Christians that was never  sworn to and that was never broken." The Quakers refused to provide any  assistance to New England's Indian wars. Penn's attempt to impose government by appointing John Blackwell, a non-Quaker military man, as governor, failed miserably.[35]
>  The first to use the term "anarchy" to mean something other than chaos was Louis-Armand, Baron de Lahontan, in his _Nouveaux voyages dans l'Amérique septentrionale,_ (_New voyages in northern America_) (1703) where he described the indigenous American society, which had no state, laws, prisons, priests or private property, as being in anarchy.[36] Also William Blake has been said to espouse an anarchistic political position.[37]
> *Development of Anarchism*
>  Modern anarchism sprang from the secular or religious thought of the Enlightenment, particularly Jean-Jacques Rousseau's arguments for the moral centrality of freedom.[19]
>  As part of the political turmoil of the 1790s in the wake of the French Revolution, William Godwin developed the first expression of modern anarchist thought.[38][39] Godwin was, according to Peter Kropotkin,  "the first to formulate the political and economical conceptions of  anarchism, even though he did not give that name to the ideas developed  in his work",[40] while Godwin attached his anarchist ideas to an early Edmund Burke.[41]
>  Godwin is generally regarded as the founder of the school of thought known as 'philosophical anarchism'. He argued in _Political Justice_ (1793)[39][42]  that government has an inherently malevolent influence on society, and  that it perpetuates dependency and ignorance. He thought that the spread  of the use of reason to the masses would eventually cause government to  wither away as an unnecessary force. Although he did not accord the  state with moral legitimacy, he was against the use of revolutionary  tactics for removing the government from power. Rather, he advocated for  its replacement through a process of peaceful evolution.[39][43]
>  His aversion to the imposition of a rules-based society led him to  denounce, as a manifestation of the people’s ‘mental enslavement’, the  foundations of law, property rights,  and even the institution of marriage. He considered the basic  foundations of society as constraining the natural development of  individuals to use their powers of reasoning to arrive at a mutually  beneficial method of social organization. In each case, government and  its institutions are shown to constrain the development of our capacity  to live wholly in accordance with the full and free exercise of private  judgment.
>  In France, various anarchist currents were present during the Revolutionary period, with some revolutionaries using the term "_anarchiste_" in a positive light as early as September 1793.[44] The _enragés_ opposed revolutionary government as a contradiction in terms. Denouncing the Jacobin dictatorship, Jean Varlet  wrote in 1794 that "government and revolution are incompatible, unless  the people wishes to set its constituted authorities in permanent  insurrection against itself."[24] In his "Manifesto of the Equals," Sylvain Maréchal  looked forward to the disappearance, once and for all, of "the  revolting distinction between rich and poor, of great and small, of  masters and valets, of governors and governed."[24]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...#Early_history

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> I don't label myself one, nor a libertarian, republican or any other 'ist' 'an' or 'crat'.
> 
> What may have worked almost a century ago really doesn't matter given the world today...
> 
> The people profiting from governing and those profiting from being governed are of a different stripe and of much greater numbers than folks back then.
> 
> My position calls for upstanding people to behave as our ancestors whereas you have quite clearly stated your position;
> 
> 
> Our ancestors weren't 'anarchists', doubtful even a handful knew or cared about the term either.....


I used the word because I wanted to know if you want to abolish the government completely.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> If the purpose of establishing an ethnically pure country is to reduce conflict,


Its a reason. 




> the fact that conflict is not necessarily reduced by doing so renders the whole concept worthless.


I think it is reduced, a lot. America has a long history of race riots by blacks that wouldn't have happened if America was only white. 




> What's the track record for lack of conflict between a country of one homogeneous ethnic group and its neighboring countries which are not homogeneous / not of the same ethnic group?  Not so good, I think.


I am talking about internal, day to day conflict. OF course having an all white country wont stop us from having wars. But our internal race problems will be no more. 




> All artificial countries resulting from imperialism.  Are you sure ethnicity is the root problem here?


If your argument was true imperialism wouldn't matter. They would get along and not need to separate. 




> Mouse in your pocket?


Huh?




> In other words, you would like for the government to steal money from some of its residents and give it to other residents.


No. I have no problem making a voluntary fund. 




> You can see people judging others not as individuals in this very thread.  You are being purposely obtuse.


The only person I see in this thread is restorationofliberty and he has the same position that I do.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> oxymoron is oxymoron


DO you support me rounding up immigrants at gunpoint by myself? 

We need the authorities to do this.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> DO you support me rounding up immigrants at gunpoint by myself? 
> 
> We need the authorities to do this.


We don't need anyone to do it at all. 

Even supposing that racial heterogeneity significantly increases the risk of civil unrest/crime/whatever, those are relatively trivial problems.

....and far outweighed by the costs (in monetary and human terms) of homogenizing the population. 

Want to see _real_ race riots? Try deporting 10+ million Hispanics at gunpoint.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> We don't need immigrants.





> Mouse in your pocket?





> Huh?


...




> We need the authorities to do this.


There's that mouse again! (Pesky little varmint, ain't he?)

----------


## presence

> DO you support me rounding up immigrants at gunpoint by myself? 
> 
> We need the authorities to do this.


If they're trespassing on your personal property, sure.
If they're trespassing on your employer's property, sure.
If they're trespassing on your friend or family's property, sure.

otherwise no.

----------


## tod evans

> I used the word because I wanted to know if you want to abolish the government completely.


"This" government, hell yes!

"A" government, hell no!

Which of course leads to an endless discussion of government forms and functions ad-nauseam...

I firmly believe the folks who set up this form of government over 200 years ago would bristle at what we've let it become.

Trying to tweek or adjust broken government only prolongs the inevitable...

----------


## tod evans

> DO you support me rounding up immigrants at gunpoint by myself?


Absolutely! Everywhere you have legal or even moral authority to do so. 




> We need the authorities to do this.


The hell you say!

Do NOT include me in your we.

----------


## osan

> My point was that libertarians should not be opposed to health screening _in principle_; that it should depend on a cost-benefit analysis.


If it is forced, a libertarian should indeed be opposed.

Whose cost?  Whose benefit?

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> We don't need anyone to do it at all.


Immigration control is one of the limited legit functions of government. 




> Even supposing that racial heterogeneity significantly increases the risk of civil unrest/crime/whatever, those are relatively trivial problems.


I don't consider it trivial that blacks burned down L.A. in the LA race riots in 1992 or Ferguson Missouri. Interracial crime is huge and the money we spend on welfare for minorities has been more than a trillion dollars since the 60s. If we didn't have this huge underclass dragging down the economy and causing civil, government and social problems we'll be a lot better off. For me personally I am willing to pay taxes to get rid of the liberal minorities. It will also make it easier to have a more libertarian government if we didn't have millions of liberal, poor, uneducated welfare moochers Leroy and Lashonda and their eight welfare babies bleeding us dry and voting for our enemies. 





> ....and far outweighed by the costs (in monetary and human terms) of homogenizing the population.


It will be done slowly over time. Its just a principle we need to follow as opposed to diversity and multiculturalism. 




> Want to see _real_ race riots? Try deporting 10+ million Hispanics at gunpoint.


No need to do that. Just enforce the laws on the books and they will self deport. And if the government is serious about doing it the Hispanics will be dumb to riot. We will just round them up and shoot any rioters. In fact it will probably be better if they do riot. Also, here is some historical evidence of what I am talking about**:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> There's that mouse again! (Pesky little varmint, ain't he?)


We or I need the government to stop getting in the way. Groups like the minute men cant do it by themselves because the government wont let us or even state governments get the illegals out.

----------


## tod evans

> Just enforce the laws on the books.....


You keep on typing as if this government that has brought you welfare and immigrants is going to miraculously change it's face by electing a talking head...

Are you under the impression that you're being lied to?

Do you honestly believe more laws or more kops is going to change the behaviors and policies of hundreds of thousands of tax-ticks?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> If it is forced, a libertarian should indeed be opposed.


Libertarians should pragmatically support minor aggressions when they're necessary to prevent major aggressions. Minarchists already do this, insofar as we accept minimal taxation as a means of preventing worse problems: like the anarchic civil war into which society would inevitably descend in the absence of the state, which is both terrible in itself and merely ushers in the reemergence of the state (and probably not as nice a state as the minarchic one that was left behind). 

Many anarcho-capitalists, I understand, will object to all such pragmatism. 




> Whose cost?  Whose benefit?


Utils being imaginary, there can't be a strict quantification; we have to use our judgement. 

Hassle millions of people at the expense of billions of dollars to taxpayers to prevent 3 Zika cases?

...absurd. 

Hassle millions of people at the expense of billions of dollars to taxpayers to prevent 300,000 Zika cases?

...debatable.

----------


## osan

> In his "Manifesto of the Equals," Sylvain Maréchal looked forward to the disappearance, once and for all, of "the revolting distinction between rich and poor, of great and small, of masters and valets, of governors and governed."


Hooboy... if you read the "manifesto", you will find it is long on yak and short on precision.

----------


## Dr.3D

> ...
> 
> 
> 
> There's that mouse again! (Pesky little varmint, ain't he?)


Looks like a Hamster to me.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Immigration control is one of the limited legit functions of government.


Securing property rights is the only legitimate function of government.

You've suggested that restricting non-white immigration might reduce crime, thus preventing some property rights violations.

On the other side of the equation, however, restricting immigration requires massive property rights violations. 

On balance, restricting immigration causes more violations than it prevents: hence, not justified. 




> I don't consider it trivial that blacks burned down L.A. in the LA race riots in 1992 or Ferguson Missouri.


Neither do I. 

But nor do I consider it trivial for police to kidnap 10 million people and transport them to another country. 

To do that on the basis of little more than speculation that it might prevent some crimes in the future is absurd.

...especially considering how much massive civil unrest the deportations would themselves cause. 




> the money we spend on welfare for minorities has been more than a trillion dollars since the 60s


So eliminate welfare. 




> If we didn't have this huge underclass dragging down the economy and causing civil, government and social problems we'll be a lot better off.


A large majority of the country is still white, as are the recipients of most welfare dollars.

...again, the solution is to eliminate welfare, not deport whole segments of the population because they're statistically more likely to use welfare. 




> For me personally I am willing to pay taxes to get rid of the liberal minorities. It will also make it easier to have a more libertarian government if we didn't have millions of liberal, poor, uneducated welfare moochers Leroy and Lashonda and their eight welfare babies bleeding us dry and voting for our enemies.


Virtually all whites vote for the socialists.

In 2012, the LP and CP got a combined ~1% of the vote. Everyone else voted for socialism: white, black, brown, yellow, red. 




> We will just round them up and shoot any rioters.


Whoa boy, that sounds like the ticket for a peaceful and harmonious society, lemme tell ya...

----------


## tod evans

> We or I need the government to stop getting in the way. Groups like the minute men cant do it by themselves because the government wont let us or even state governments get the illegals out.


State government has the absolute authority to tell the feds to $#@! off and use their national guard to defend their borders.

Every state government is terrified of losing federal dollars, this is why they won't act.

Hell just try to get the whistle dicks in your county to stand up to the state..........Won't happen.






Yet.

----------


## TheCount

> I think it is reduced, a lot. America has a long history of race riots by blacks that wouldn't have happened if America was only white.


First off, a 'long history of race riots' is greatly exaggerating the situation.  America is more affected by earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, forest fires, or (fill in the blank) than by race riots.

Second, the problem here is yet again the logic involved.  The only way ethnic nationalism makes sense is if the violence between the ethnicities is inherent to the races.  You could say those riots wouldn't have happened if America was only white, or you could say that they wouldn't have happened if Americans hadn't tyrannized their fellow man to the point of provoking violence against the oppressive system.  So can one say that the cause of the race riots is, in fact, race?  I do not think so.





> I am talking about internal, day to day conflict. OF course having an all white country wont stop us from having wars. But our internal race problems will be no more.


Let's turn our internal squabbles into wars between nations.  That will make everyone's lives better!






> If your argument was true imperialism wouldn't matter. They would get along and not need to separate.


Imperialism matters to the imperialized.  Remember what I mentioned before about the source of race riots?  It's just as applicable to all of the situations which you have proposed.  It's not an inherent issue of a vast racial divide between Ukrainians and Russians (), but rather historical animosities and long-standing grudges.





> No. I have no problem making a voluntary fund.


So why haven't you?  You can already do that.

Why do you need a law to voluntarily gather money to voluntarily pay it to people for them voluntarily leave?






> The only person I see in this thread is restorationofliberty and he has the same position that I do.


That some races are comprised of individuals who are genetically incapable of liberty?

----------


## osan

> Libertarians *should...*


Based on what universally valid standard of assessment?  This is the sort of "common sense" argument that has resulted in the butchering of countless millions of people.  It is so very interesting to witness first hand the emotional force of such arguments.  Their logic seems so compelling, yet when exposed to the withering light of even the most cursory but competently executed analysis, they implode in the style of the formation of a black hole.




> pragmatically support *minor aggressions*


Once again, based upon what standard of assessment?  Who gets to decide what is "minor"?  Once the premise is accepted, the door to tyranny has been flung open wide.  It may take a day or 2000 years, but the tyrant will inevitably arise precisely because that once bright and sharp line in the sand was allowed to be broadened and dulled, even if only imperceptibly.  The salient issue is that the alteration was acceptable based upon some _compelling need_.  One man's compelling need is another man's noose.  All manner of compelling needs can and indeed have been contrived by men in order to expropriate greater power over their fellows, and the results have been universally deleterious.  The underlying reasons for the usurpations have been wholly irrelevant, given the detrimental results, which were the only things that mattered in point of material fact... especially to those trodden under roughshod hoof to become sword fodder.

It is astonishing how people refuse to recognize the phenomenon of slippery slopes, as well as the propensity of some men to covet power over their fellows.




> when they're necessary to prevent major aggressions.


One again, very weak argumentation.  Necessary for whom?  By what virtue does a man hold a superior claim to the properties of another where that other has committed no transgression?  Necessity?  You will have to do far better to prove your case.




> Minarchists already do this,


Do you speak for all of them?




> insofar as we accept minimal taxation as a means of preventing worse problems:


I do not accept taxation in any form or to any degree, for any purpose whatsoever, regardless of purport.




> like the anarchic civil war into which society would inevitably descend in the absence of the state,


Now you've stepped into a very big and steaming pile with this.  You would have to demonstrate this in order to be credible.  Good luck with that.




> which is both terrible in itself and merely ushers in the reemergence of the state (and probably not as nice a state as the minarchic one that was left behind).


Once again, a big assertion with nothing in terms of proof to back it up.

Any violence perpetrated upon one who has committed no criminal act is itself criminal at its core regardless of who the perpetrator might be or his purport of authority to do so.  The proof of this assertion lies in the complete absence of a valid and truthful contradicting proof.  There are, for certain, scads of non-cogent and false "proofs", but thus far every one I have encountered I have been able to demolish with the terrible violence of reason.  When the valid and truthful proof is presented to me, I will immediately concede.

----------


## presence

> Hooboy... if you read the "manifesto", you will find it is long on yak and short on precision.


I have not, but a cursory glance says yikes!  sounds more like a call for state communism than anarchism.

was just a copypasta

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Looks like a Hamster to me.


You got me. I confess.

I selected that pic on the criterion of cuteness, rather than taxonomic precision.

----------


## osan

> I have not, but a cursory glance says yikes!  sounds more like a call for state communism than anarchism.


That is exactly what it is.  What is amazing is to find how some really good notions are either pulled together in truly and dangerously lacking ways or mixed up with bad ones to the same result.

"Liberty has been destroyed by the aristos... therefore, I must destroy liberty..."  What the hell?  That is basically what those popinjays did.




> was just a copypasta


Understand that.  I was just noting that particular work... there are some valid notions contained therein, which Marechal takes and screws into the ground in such a way that a monstrous and poisoned vine grows therefrom.  I don't know if it is simply a lack of intellectual capacity or true evil that leads to these nearly inconceivable, yet endlessly dangerous non sequiturs.  Many of these sorts of people actually manage at some level to identify legitimate problems and then manage to trod a tortured path of hopelessly inept "logic" to "solutions" orders of magnitude worse than the troubles they purport to address.  I marvel at the consistency with which so many people have make the same general errors in their attempts to fix the world.

----------


## Dr.3D

> You got me. I confess.
> 
> I selected that pic on the criterion of cuteness, rather than taxonomic precision.


Well, we can just say, "Got a hamster in your pocket?"

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> You keep on typing as if this government that has brought you welfare and immigrants is going to miraculously change it's face by electing a talking head...


I see your point. 

Thomas Jefferson once said that our republic/democracy depends on two things such as education and morality. I believe if we educate people to be white nationalists we can have a better government. For instance, in the 1920s there was a movement of people like me to get the government to stop immigrants from coming here and it worked. Of course, changing/reforming the government will take a massive movement, but I don't think its impossible. Consider that in 2007 when I was campaigning for Dr. Ron Paul, I don't think any one of us believed that our "liberty movement" would have directly enabled Rand Paul to get a Senate seat. There are cases of success although you are right that I might be a little naïve. 




> Are you under the impression that you're being lied to?


Of course. I don't trust anything the government says, especially Obama. The guy never tells the truth. He doesn't even care if he gets caught. 




> Do you honestly believe more laws or more kops is going to change the behaviors and policies of hundreds of thousands of tax-ticks?


Yes and no. The minorities are never going to stop mooching off government. That is why we need to pass a WN law to get them out and living in another country and prevent more immigrants of the same type.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> First off, a 'long history of race riots' is greatly exaggerating the situation.


Okay. 




> Second, the problem here is yet again the logic involved.  The only way ethnic nationalism makes sense is if the violence between the ethnicities is inherent to the races.


I wouldn't use the word violence. I just think people tend to want to be with their own group. That is natural. I mean in the examples I listed before of the countries that parted many of them were able to part peacefully. 




> You could say those riots wouldn't have happened if America was only white, or you could say that they wouldn't have happened if Americans hadn't tyrannized their fellow man to the point of provoking violence against the oppressive system.


That is just making excuses. I doubt that people have the right to go and kill police officers or destroy some innocent third parties property because you feel wronged by the government. 

There are intelligent ways and unintelligent civil ways to express yourself and your grievences. 

Do you support Black lives matter or the liberal viewpoint on the Trayvon martin and mike brown cases?




> So can one say that the cause of the race riots is, in fact, race?  I do not think so.


A lot of races were caused because of race like Rodney King or Ferguson. 




> Let's turn our internal squabbles into wars between nations.  That will make everyone's lives better!


That wont happen. For instance, we stopped immigration of Chinese in the 1880s and China didn't declare war. Heck, even Japan worked with us with the Gentlemens agreement. 




> Imperialism matters to the imperialized.  Remember what I mentioned before about the source of race riots?  It's just as applicable to all of the situations which you have proposed.  It's not an inherent issue of ai vast racial divide between Ukrainians and Russians (), but rather historical animosities and long-standing grudges.


its both in that case. But Crimea is 90 percent Russian and the Russian minorities don't want to assimilate to Ukraine and want to be part of Russia. That is certainly a racial and cultural issue. 




> So why haven't you?  You can already do that.


Because my efforts will be in vain if we don't shut the water off. 




> Why do you need a law to voluntarily gather money to voluntarily pay it to people for them voluntarily leave?


We need the government to stop immigration.




> That some races are comprised of individuals who are genetically incapable of liberty?


I don't think he said that but he does say that intelligence is hereditary and that will influence the way someone is.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> State government has the absolute authority to tell the feds to $#@! off and use their national guard to defend their borders.


Yep. and I vote only for people who do that. 




> Every state government is terrified of losing federal dollars, this is why they won't act.
> 
> Hell just try to get the whistle dicks in your county to stand up to the state..........Won't happen.


Because most people are retards and vote for cucks.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Securing property rights is the only legitimate function of government.


The American constitution lists immigration as one. 



> On the other side of the equation, however, restricting immigration requires massive property rights violations.


How so? They just wont come here. 




> Neither do I.







> But nor do I consider it trivial for police to kidnap 10 million people and transport them to another country.


We only need to enforce the law on businesses that hire illegals. 






> So eliminate welfare.


I am trying. 




> A large majority of the country is still white, as are the recipients of most welfare dollars.


Source?





> ...again, the solution is to eliminate welfare, not deport whole segments of the population because they're statistically more likely to use welfare.


But they are not going to vote for you to eliminate welfare as long as they are here. 




> Virtually all whites vote for the socialists.


And so are libertarians. 




> In 2012, the LP and CP got a combined ~1% of the vote. Everyone else voted for socialism: white, black, brown, yellow, red.


COnservatives are all white. Democrats are mostly diverse. 




> Whoa boy, that sounds like the ticket for a peaceful and harmonious society, lemme tell ya...


Shooting rioters will restore order or peace. Letting them riot and just burn down everything is far from being peaceful, or moral. 

In Ferguson the only people who weren't jacked were the property owners who had guns and stood by and defended their property.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> 
> Securing property rights is the only legitimate function of government.
> 
> 
> The American constitution lists immigration as one.


No, it doesn't. Neither the word "immigration" nor the concept it denotes appears _anywhere_ in the Constitution.

Before the federal government illegitimately usurped authority over immigration (almost a century after the Constitution was ratified and enacted), each state determined and enforced its own immigration laws, if any.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The American constitution lists immigration as one.


As Occam noted, it actually doesn't (it only mentions naturalization).

But it's moot anyway, as I'm making a libertarian argument, not a Constitutional one. 




> How so? They just wont come here.


The use of force is justified only in defense of property rights.

Immigration per se does not violate anyone's property rights.

Thus, the use of force against immigrants (qua immigrants) is unjustified. 




> We only need to enforce the law on businesses that hire illegals.


That's a less overtly heinous form of aggression, but it's aggression nonetheless. 

A businessman has the right to hire whomever he likes.




> Source?


I could find a source for you, but this is  self-evident if you think about it for a moment. 

Think about Social Security and Medicare (combined $1.5 trillion/year).

Think of the average age of Hispanic immigrants (eligibility for SS is 62, Medicare 65). 

Realize that whites are 70% of the population.

Per capita welfare consumption is debatable, but in absolute terms it's not even close. 




> But they are not going to vote for you to eliminate welfare as long as they are here.


Is there any reason to think natives are more likely to vote to eliminate welfare?




> And so are libertarians.


Huh? 




> COnservatives are all white. Democrats are mostly diverse.


And ~99% of all of them vote for socialists. 




> Shooting rioters will restore order or peace. Letting them riot and just burn down everything is far from being peaceful, or moral.


A better solution might be to not start the riot in the first place, by trying to deport millions of people for no good reason. 




> In Ferguson the only people who weren't jacked were the property owners who had guns and stood by and defended their property.


And good for them, but let's not test that theory by needlessly provoking more riots.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> This is the sort of "common sense" argument that has  resulted in the butchering of countless millions of people.


In reality, there are situations in which all possible courses of action will have bad consequences.

In such situations, how should one decide which action to take?

I say one should pursue the action which one judges to have the least bad consequences.

Evidently you disagree.

So, what is your proposed alternative method of decision-making?

Flip a coin? 




> Who gets to decide what is "minor"?


Whoever's making the decision, of course. 

There is no possible ethical system which doesn't rely, to some extent, on human judgement. 

You cannot write out principles and rules of behavior so clear and objective that they can be applied without human judgement. 




> Necessary for whom?


For anyone who prefers a liberal social order to bloody civil war.




> Do you speak for all of them?


All minarchists accept minimal taxation to finance a minimal state; that is what the word "minarchist" _means_. 




> I do not accept taxation in any form or to any degree, for any purpose whatsoever, regardless of purport.


So I gather...

Suffice it to say, we have different values. 

I prefer to pay low taxes to a liberal state than to be killed  in a war, or to pay high taxes to the illiberal state that  emerges from the war.

Along the same lines, I prefer being robbed of a pack of gum to being hacked to death with an axe.

...I'm funny that way. 




> Now you've stepped into a very big and steaming pile with this.   You would have to demonstrate this in order to be credible.  Good luck  with that.


I'll wait till we settle the issues above before getting further into the impossibility of anarcho-capitalism.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Well. There's something to be said about the anti-moral judgment of men when their actions are judged morally. You cannot logically separate immoral means from the end when those means are judged morally.

----------


## osan

> In reality, there are situations in which all possible courses of action will have bad consequences.


True as a general statement, but not relevant to the discussion at hand.




> In such situations, how should one decide which action to take?


That is for each individual to decide for himself.  Irrelevancy aside, no man holds authority to steal from another.  The only thing he may hold is the brute physical force, which is not the same as authority.




> I say one should pursue the action which one judges to have the least bad consequences.


A few problems there.  Firstly, your assessment of a situation may be different from that of another.  Secondly, your goals may not coincide with those of another.  What if another welcomes the result you abhor?




> Evidently you disagree.


I disagree with crimes committed against people, _especially_ when committed by "government".  I might agree completely with a given situational assessment.  I might volunteer my services or resources.  But if I don't, keep your cotton picking fingers out of my business, out of my pockets, and off my property.




> So, what is your proposed alternative method of decision-making?
> 
> Flip a coin?


Perhaps we are talking of different things.  I'm not speaking of process, but of the criminal expropriation of another's property or some other violation of their inherent rights based on the lie of "compelling need".  The two are largely unrelated in this context.






> Whoever's making the decision, of course.


Is this disingenuous?  It is as if I were conversing with a senator.




> There is no possible ethical system which doesn't rely, to some extent, on human judgement.


Ince again your point is irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is not whether judgment it required, but who does the judging.  You judge for you.  I judge for me.





> For anyone who prefers a liberal social order to bloody civil war.


False dichotomy.




> All minarchists accept minimal taxation to finance a minimal state; that is what the word "minarchist" _means_.


No, they do not.  There is nothing that says a minarchist state could not be funded voluntarily.




> I prefer to pay low taxes to a liberal state than to be killed  in a war, or to pay high taxes to the illiberal state that  emerges from the war.


False dichotomy, part deux.




> Along the same lines, I prefer being robbed of a pack of gum to being hacked to death with an axe.


And I might prefer to shoot the ghost from the robber, regardless of what it is he is attempting to take from me without authority.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Securing property rights is the only legitimate function of government.
> 
> You've suggested that restricting non-white immigration might reduce crime, thus preventing some property rights violations.
> 
> On the other side of the equation, however, restricting immigration requires massive property rights violations. 
> 
> On balance, restricting immigration causes more violations than it prevents: hence, not justified. 
> 
> 
> ...


How do we elimitnat welfare?

How can we do that want those on welfare are so many in number they prevent us from getting elected?

----------


## adissa

What has the alt-right accomplished?

Redefining libertarianism so that it's a workable solution, rather than pie in the sky idealism.

----------


## tod evans

> What has the alt-right accomplished?
> 
> Redefining libertarianism so that it's a workable solution, rather than pie in the sky idealism.


Don't forget trying to coin new terminology.

That's right up there.

----------


## adissa

> Don't forget trying to coin new terminology.
> 
> That's right up there.


I think every successful political movement has new terminology. It's a new way of looking at things, therefore, a new way of communicating.

----------


## tod evans

> *I think* every successful political movement has new terminology. It's a new way of looking at things, therefore, a new way of communicating.


And this is where you seem to be failing...

----------


## adissa

> And this is where you seem to be failing...


That's funny right there. You should try thinking more often.

----------


## tod evans

Just for a few in this thread...

Courtesy of drudge;

*Panama agrees to help migrants head on for US*

http://www.france24.com/en/20160810-...grants-head-us

PANAMA CITY (AFP) - 
Panama promised to help hundreds of migrants who have crossed its jungle border from Colombia to carry on toward the United States.

President Juan Carlos Varela on Tuesday said Panama would make an exception to its immigration restrictions for migrants who have recently crossed into Panama's Darien jungle.

"The border will remain closed to irregular migrants, but those that are using these points to cross and have already reached our territory will be given humanitarian assistance so they can continue on their way," he said.

"Panama will not allow anyone who has crossed into our country to die on our territory," he added, in a public speech.

Around 800 US-bound migrants, most of them from Haiti, Africa, Asia and Cuba, are in dense jungle on the Panama-Colombia border, Varela said Friday.

He described it as "another migration crisis."

A further 2,500 are stranded in Panama's northern neighbor, Costa Rica, since the next country on the trail, Nicaragua, has tightened immigration controls.

Colombian authorities say they have deported thousands of migrants trying to reach Panama from its northern territory.

Varela said last week that many of the migrants were Haitians who had gone to Brazil after a 2010 earthquake devastated their country.

Brazil's current deep recession has driven them to try to get to the United States through Central America.

----------


## TheCount

> I wouldn't use the word violence. I just think people tend to want to be with their own group.


Then it would have just happened already.  Instead we see a trend over time of the opposite.





> That is just making excuses. I doubt that people have the right to go and kill police officers or destroy some innocent third parties property because you feel wronged by the government. 
> 
> There are intelligent ways and unintelligent civil ways to express yourself and your grievences. 
> 
> Do you support Black lives matter or the liberal viewpoint on the Trayvon martin and mike brown cases?


This is a perfect example of how limited your worldview is.  You repeatedly revert to the 'default' two-sided 'cultural' argument which has been presented to you by the media.  Did I indicate anywhere in my post as to whether or not I thought race riots were a right, intelligent or unintelligent, or acceptable?  If so, please point it out to me.

The issue, which I will not divert from, is cause.  Is the cause the race of those involved, or is the cause something else?  I posit that it is _not_ race, and I take by your total lack of argument that you agree with me.

If the cause is race, then it is inherent and ethnonationalism makes sense.

If the cause is tyranny, then implementing more tyranny quite obviously will not solve the problem.





> A lot of races were caused because of race like Rodney King or Ferguson.


Race caused those?  There was no provoking event and they just spontaneously occurred because of the race of the people involved? 





> That wont happen. For instance, we stopped immigration of Chinese in the 1880s and China didn't declare war. Heck, even Japan worked with us with the Gentlemens agreement.


You're not getting it.  In the alternate universe in which your worldview is actually reality and the races cannot coexist, a shift to ethnically pure nations would simply generate conflict between ethnicities at the national level rather than the interpersonal level. 





> its both in that case. But Crimea is 90 percent Russian and the Russian minorities don't want to assimilate to Ukraine and want to be part of Russia. That is certainly a racial and cultural issue.


Race did not cause Russia to have a material interest in keeping its Black Sea assets and access.  Race did not cause Russian Army units to materialize in Ukraine.





> Because my efforts will be in vain if we don't shut the water off.


Oh, so you need more than just your voluntary payments?  That's the opposite of what you said before. 





> We need the government to stop immigration.


Then why didn't you mention that before?





> I don't think he said that but he does say that intelligence is hereditary and that will influence the way someone is.


Let's follow the logic:

People with low intelligence cannot understand liberty
Some races have low intelligence
Intelligence is hereditary  (He doesn't really believe this;  He believes that the descendants of high IQ members of low IQ minorities will not acquire their parents' IQ.) 


Therefore, he says that some races cannot understand liberty.



Edit:  Left out a 'not'

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I think every successful political movement has new terminology. It's a new way of looking at things, therefore, a new way of communicating.


Mm. Yeah. I see that some friends around here are organizing to help Johnson communicate and re-define the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty, too. Now all of a sudden Liberty means send men with guns from the government to force a feller to relinquish his stuff to someone else against his will. His polls seem to be rising so I suppose they're succeeding in promoting these new and improved communist principles of Individual Liberty to others. The right to property used to be the principal support for Individual Liberty and Life itself. Now it seems like it's just a catch phrase among this new breed of culturally Marxist libertines who are re-defining the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty to suit their anti-moral indulgences from within the movement. Seems to be gaining popularity.

Of course, the founders would have hung them (mainly because they're not worth the good workmanship and common dignity of a slug) like a common horse thief but, hey, who's counting...

I haven't really paid much attention to the alt-right. I imagine that it's likely just another stalking horse functioning from within the gradually self-eroding liberty movement to further assist in its demise. That's the beauty of the digital age, I suppose. 


Anyway. Generally speaking, I think that one thing is certain, and that is that the so called Liberty movement is gradually becoming Individual Liberty's own most unrecognized and most organized aggressor. Many are so busy pridefully counting ther names that they've forgotten what it's about.

Of course there are still some good people here who haven't assisted in this organized aggression toward the fundamental principles. So, I suppose that should be recognized. And good on them for not participating in the coercion. But my days hanging around here on this board are sure as sht numbered, though. In fact, I've already joined another mainstream forum. It's disturbing to continue watching the inevitable happen in the organized manner that it is around here. I'd rather spend my time and energy debating and disussing the issues with liberals some place else. At least they don't actually know that they're pissing all over the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty. So, with them, it isn't really knowingly and wilfully aggressive toward the fundamental principles and foundation formoral code for Individual Liberty like it is gradually becoming round here.

----------


## presence

I think the thing the alt-right has accomplished moreso than anything else is shifting the conversation in libertarian, ancap, voluntarist, free market, and other such circles away from catallaxy; spontaneous free market order and towards nationalist populism.   They're socialists just like the rest of them; in a truly just world they'd give themselves helicopter rides.

----------


## adissa

@Natural Citizen Johnson sucks. I don't think there's anyone in the alt-right  who supports him.  I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> In reality, there are situations in which all possible courses of action will have bad consequences.
> 
> In such situations, how should one decide which action to take?
> 
> 
> That is for each individual to decide for himself.


I'm asking how _you_ would decide. 

If not by choosing the least bad option, then how?

P.S. Don't think I'm ignoring your other responses, I'll get to them, but let's focus on one issue at a time.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> How do we elimitnat welfare?


Good question, for which I don't have a satisfying answer. 

...fighting the welfare state is a Sisyphean task in a democracy. 

What I do know, however, is that deporting millions of immigrants, who are no more likely to support welfare than natives, won't help. 




> How can we do that want those on welfare are so many in number they prevent us from getting elected?


The first thing that _you_ might do is not vote for candidates like Trump, who are even more pro-welfare than the typical GOPer.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> @Natural Citizen Johnson sucks. I don't think there's anyone in the alt-right  who supports him.  I could be wrong, but I doubt it.


The national socialists aren't endorsing the Libertarian candidate?! 

O noes!

----------


## osan

> I think every successful political movement has new terminology. It's a new way of looking at things, therefore, a new way of communicating.


There are no new ways of looking at things in this context.  There is only the churning out of mental sausage for the sake of fooling people into thinking otherwise, all for whatever the political end that may be at hand.

----------


## osan

> I'm asking how _you_ would decide. 
> 
> If not by choosing the least bad option, then how?
> 
> P.S. Don't think I'm ignoring your other responses, I'll get to them, but let's focus on one issue at a time.


You're still missing the point.  How I would respond in a given situation does not speak for _you_.  Your solution might be fundamentally different from mine with differing goals.  Short of circumstances of utter chaos, I can claim no right to impose my solution upon you.  I make that as a general statement of principle.  There may be circumstances under which I say "oh screw it" wherein I violate your rights in the process of addressing the problem at hand.  In that case, assuming you survive the outcome, I might thereafter be called upon to account for my actions, which you may choose to accept as justified under the circumstances.   Or, you may demand recompense, or that I be held criminally accountable for my deeds.

The principles of proper human relations hold, regardless of circumstance.  The wiggle room resides in the hearts and minds of men - those who have been violated and those who sit on juries.  There is room for adjustment in individual cases, but so long as those adjustments do not become universal precedents to be applied to all cases, the principles retain their fundamental validity.  Our courts, as well as those of English Common Law, have erred in grave fashion in that these adjustments become precedents that are thereafter expected to automatically apply in all subsequent cases.  IMO, all deviations from the principles must be judged on their own merits by plaintiffs, defendants, and jury members.  This neurotically obsessive drive for perfect justice in every case is not spawned of sanity.  

And, of course, we must always bear in mind that tis' better to let every guilty man go free than to punish a single innocent man.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> You're still missing the point.  How I would respond in a given situation does not speak for _you_.


I already told you how I would respond: namely, by choosing the least of the evils. 

You criticized this method of decision-making, saying it was the sort which "resulted in the butchering of countless millions of people."

So, what's your alternative?

----------


## misterx

> There are no new ways of looking at things in this context.  There is only the churning out of mental sausage for the sake of fooling people into thinking otherwise, all for whatever the political end that may be at hand.


I don't have time to read 17 pages. I read page 1, and page 17. Is this really 17 pages of arguing about the term cuckservatism? 

You're exactly right, osan. However, that's not a bad thing. Existing words go in and out of fashion, and they carry certain baggage. Coining a new term allows you to define and control the context and connotation. For example, the term cuckservatism seems to be used as a replacement for neoconservatism. Neoconservatism was not coined as a pejorative, and despite much success in making it so, it is not as derisive as cuckservatism.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Then it would have just happened already.  Instead we see a trend over time of the opposite.


Actually no. Most countries of the world are homogenous by choice. Asian countries. Mexico. African countries. Middle Eastern etc. Its only in some European countries where diversity is taking hold and in public opinion polls Americans are mostly against immigration. That is why England had Brexit. Even non-whites are against immigrants coming to the US. Also in Eastern European countries like Hungary and Poland people are being forced by the European union to accept immigrants and refugees and the majority of people are against it. Why does your side need to force these countries to accept diversity by threats and economic intimidation? In fact I will say the majority of countries of the world are for separation more often than being against it. 

Also the only reason America is diverse is because Congress lied about the 1965 immigration act and promised that it wouldn't change the race of America which was a total lie. If your side were honest that bill would have never passed and America would still be homogenous today. 




> This is a perfect example of how limited your worldview is.  You repeatedly revert to the 'default' two-sided 'cultural' argument which has been presented to you by the media.


Can you expand on that a little bit?





> Did I indicate anywhere in my post as to whether or not I thought race riots were a right, intelligent or unintelligent, or acceptable?  If so, please point it out to me.


No. My bad. 





> The issue, which I will not divert from, is cause.  Is the cause the race of those involved, or is the cause something else?  I posit that it is _not_ race, and I take by your total lack of argument that you agree with me.


Lets say it is  because of race or racism. There is no racism to minority groups within a country if those groups are excluded and therefore nobody will feel oppressed or tyrannized. 

Btw i think you are making excuses for blacks. But I don't want to get into this argument with you because its turning into the whole Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown argument which will go nowhere and is a separate discussion. People have their beliefs on that and I am not going to convince you. But I do see your point, I just disagree with it. 





> If the cause is race, then it is inherent and ethnonationalism makes sense.


Yes. 




> If the cause is tyranny, then implementing more tyranny quite obviously will not solve the problem.


Why don't whites/Asians behave the same way as the blacks and burn down cities when they don't get what they want or "experience tyranny?" 




> Race caused those?  There was no provoking event and they just spontaneously occurred because of the race of the people involved?


Even the liberal media agrees with my view. They were rioting about race or racial injustice or racism.  Again, how can someone be racist against their own race?




> You're not getting it.  In the alternate universe in which your worldview is actually reality and the races cannot coexist,


No offense, I say this with respect, but you frequently misidentify my arguments or maybe are just using straw man attacks. You need to stop with using these attacks or you need to improve your reading comprehension. 

Where did I say races cant coexist? I was taking about internal conflict/multicuturaism/diversity within a country. If you are taking about internationally, I do believe races can coexist. Two different things. 

We have no other choice but to co exist internationally but its better if we are separated and not divided internally.  





> a shift to ethnically pure nations would simply generate conflict between ethnicities at the national level rather than the interpersonal level.


I assume you mean by "national level" that our country will still fight with other countries. That is true. But not my argument. You didn't explain to me or prove that.




> Race did not cause Russia to have a material interest in keeping its Black Sea assets and access.  Race did not cause Russian Army units to materialize in Ukraine.


That is only one reason they invaded. They want to annex crimea because of the Russian people living their who want to be part of Russia. Again, if your argument that diversity is good and works is true the Russians would love being a minority in Ukraine and not want to separate. 




> Oh, so you need more than just your voluntary payments?  That's the opposite of what you said before.


Because I was only discussing the voluntary payment issue, but of course we need to change immigrant law. Every white nationalist says this and is the basis of our ideology. 





> Then why didn't you mention that before?


Because you never asked me. We weren't discussing it. 





> Let's follow the logic:
> 
> People with low intelligence cannot understand liberty
> Some races have low intelligence
> Intelligence is hereditary  (He doesn't really believe this;  He believes that the descendants of high IQ members of low IQ minorities will not acquire their parents' IQ.) 
> 
> 
> Therefore, he says that some races cannot understand liberty.


You should argue this with restoration of liberty. But even I know that is not the correct argument. it seems to be another misjudgment on your part of straw man attack and it doesn't even make sense. 


You can have low intelligence but still understand things. That is stupid to say that you cant. 

Only the third line is true. He does believe intelligence is hereditary, I will give you that. 

If you want to get anywhere with me listen to my arguments and answer them precisely. 


if anything I will say people who aren't intelligent are poor and poor people tend to vote for democrats. I think that is what he meant.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> ......................


Why aren't you part of the alt right?

----------


## adissa

> I don't have time to read 17 pages. I read page 1, and page 17. Is this really 17 pages of arguing about the term cuckservatism?


No.

----------


## osan

> I already told you how I would respond: namely, by choosing the least of the evils. 
> 
> You criticized this method of decision-making, saying it was the sort which "resulted in the butchering of countless millions of people."
> 
> So, what's your alternative?



What the _HELL?_  Are you being serious or are you just wasting my time?  I'm not talking about METHOD.  I am speaking of AUTHORITY to make decisions for those who have not solicited me to do so.  I'm not sure what else I can write to direct your understanding, so I'm going to bow out of this because it's going nowhere.

Cheers.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> What the _HELL?_  Are you being serious or are you just wasting my time?  I'm not talking about METHOD.  I am speaking of AUTHORITY to make decisions for those who have not solicited me to do so.  I'm not sure what else I can write to direct your understanding, so I'm going to bow out of this because it's going nowhere.
> 
> Cheers.


I'm going to take this to mean that you too make decisions per the "least of the evils" principle, but don't want to admit it for some reason.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> As Occam noted, it actually doesn't (it only mentions naturalization).


Yes. 




> Immigration per se does not violate anyone's property rights.


We own public property and I don't want any foreigners on it. 





> Thus, the use of force against immigrants (qua immigrants) is unjustified.


They are invading our land. 




> A businessman has the right to hire whomever he likes.


I don't believe he has a natural right to this. Its unnatural to hire a foreigner who speaks a different language over someone native. 





> Realize that whites are 70% of the population.


That is a government lie. The US Census counts millions of middle eastern and North African people as white and even some mesitizos which totally $#@!s up the numbers. Where did you get this 70 percent figure because according to census of 2000 America was 65 percent white. 





> Is there any reason to think natives are more likely to vote to eliminate welfare?


Yes. they use it less:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6771938.html

Keep in mind 

#1- the government lies about who is white so this number of white people is inflated. 
#2 - Whites ae the largest population group so they obviously use more, but its about tied with minorities who are a smaller part of the population. 






> And ~99% of all of them vote for socialists.


That's wrong. Donaldl Trump is not a socialist. 
Secondly libertarians are white. Very few minorities are libertarians. 




> A better solution might be to not start the riot in the first place, by trying to deport millions of people for no good reason.


I think our safety, economic wealth, political control and peace are wonderful reasons. 




> And good for them, but let's not test that theory by needlessly provoking more riots.


People don't have the right to riot.

----------


## TheCount

> Why don't whites/Asians behave the same way as the blacks and burn down cities when they don't get what they want or "experience tyranny?"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots




> The military did not reach the city until after the first day of rioting, when mobs had already ransacked or destroyed numerous public buildings, two Protestant churches, the homes of various abolitionists or sympathizers, many black homes, and the Colored Orphan Asylum at 44th Street and Fifth Avenue, which was burned to the ground.
> 
> The official death toll was listed at 119.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_St._Louis_riots




> The East St. Louis riots (also known as the East St. Louis massacres) of May and July 1917 were an outbreak of labor- and race-related violence that caused between 40 and 200 deaths and extensive property damage. The events took place in East St. Louis, Illinois, an industrial city on the east bank of the Mississippi River across from St. Louis, Missouri. They have been described as the worst case of labor-related violence in 20th-century American history, and among the worst race riots in U.S. history.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot




> Over the course of 16 hours, more than 800 people were admitted to local white hospitals with injuries, the two black hospitals were burned down, and police arrested and detained more than 6,000 black Greenwood residents at three local facilities. An estimated 10,000 blacks were left homeless, and 35 city blocks composed of 1,256 residences were destroyed by fire, resulting in over $26 million in damages. The official count of the dead by the Oklahoma Bureau of Vital Statistics was 39, but other estimates of black fatalities vary from 55 to about 300.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaumo...e_riot_of_1943




> Breaking into small groups, white mobs attacked and terrorized black neighborhoods near the jail in the central and north parts of the city, and destroyed 100 homes.



Perhaps you should ask yourself why the history of the United States that you were taught did not include these events or the dozens of others like them.





> Actually no.


If government force is required to keep races from mixing, then the natural trend is to mix.





> They were rioting about race or racial injustice or racism.


They were not rioting _about_ race, whatever that means.  They were rioting because they believed that they were being tyrannized.  Race has been suggested as the cause of the _tyranny_.





> Btw i think you are making excuses for blacks. But I don't want to get into this argument with you because its turning into the whole Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown argument which will go nowhere and is a separate discussion.


Above you agreed that I did not say this and apologized.  I don't see how you can say that I am making this argument when I am not.

This is clearly a shock to your worldview, but there are more than two possible lines of reasoning regarding this issue.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> We own public property and I don't want any foreigners on it.


The very existence of public property is anathema to libertarianism, for the most part. 

...but I don't see how arbitrarily banning a certain category of people from using it solves the problem. 




> They are invading our land.


It's not "our" land. 

It's your land, and my land, and your neighbor's land, and my neighbor's land, etc, which for convenience we refer to by a single name.

As long as the immigrant in question is not violating any individual's property rights, there's no problem.

In short, you don't have a right to tell me who I can have as a guest at my house. 




> I don't believe he has a natural right to this. Its unnatural to hire a foreigner who speaks a different language over someone native


Well, we have different principles. 

I believe in property rights, which includes the right to contract (or not) with whomever one pleases. 




> That is a government lie. The US Census counts millions of middle eastern and North African people as white and even some mesitizos which totally $#@!s up the numbers. Where did you get this 70 percent figure because according to census of 2000 America was 65 percent white. 
> 
> Yes. they use it less:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6771938.html
> 
> Keep in mind 
> 
> #1- the government lies about who is white so this number of white people is inflated. 
> #2 - Whites ae the largest population group so they obviously use more, but its about tied with minorities who are a smaller part of the population.


Meh, I'm not going to bother arguing about this.

If you want to believe that non-whites are consuming most of the welfare, feel free. 




> That's wrong. Donaldl Trump is not a socialist.


He's as much of a socialist as Hillary, Romney, Obama, etc. 

None of them are socialists in the strict sense; they're all social democrats. 

...i.e. not calling for outright socialism but calling that reforms that move us ever closer to socialism. 




> I think our safety, economic wealth, political control and peace are wonderful reasons.


None of those benefits would flow from restricting immigration.




> People don't have the right to riot.


Who said they did?

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_St._Louis_riots
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaumo...e_riot_of_1943


Good links. 




> Perhaps you should ask yourself why the history of the United States that you were taught did not include these events or the dozens of others like them.


They did, but I forgot about them. 





> If government force is required to keep races from mixing, then the natural trend is to mix.


That is not my position. Athough some white nationalists support laws prohibiting interracial marriage. 





> They were not rioting _about_ race, whatever that means.  They were rioting because they believed that they were being tyrannized.


I will say not tyranny but racism. They think they are oppressed by racists. They believe that racist cops beat Rodney King or that Zimmerman killed Trayvon out of racism. but either way there is no racism to ethnic minorities or tyranny/oppression of them in a country that is homogenous. You seem to have avoided answering my claim 3 times. 

Again, multicultural countries can and do work, but they are inferior to homogeonous ones and have problems. I would rather live in a homogeonous country that is like Japan. 




> Race has been suggested as the cause of the _tyranny_.


What do you mean?





> This is clearly a shock to your worldview, but there are more than two possible lines of reasoning regarding this issue.


What worldview? I guess that can be true.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> The very existence of public property is anathema to libertarianism, for the most part.


What do you mean?




> ...but I don't see how arbitrarily banning a certain category of people from using it solves the problem.


What problem?

Its only a preference. 





> It's not "our" land.


It is. 




> It's your land, and my land, and your neighbor's land, and my neighbor's land, etc, which for convenience we refer to by a single name.


Yes. Exactly my point. And we have the right to decide who goes on our land. 




> As long as the immigrant in question is not violating any individual's property rights, there's no problem.


I don't have a problem with immigrants. I just prefer white ones. 




> In short, you don't have a right to tell me who I can have as a guest at my house.


I don't understand this. Why don't you believe that you have to respect immigration laws of the country?  You can invite anyone on your property, just as long as its legal. I support the laws of the government about immigration. 




> Well, we have different principles.


Yes. 

It seems to me you don't believe in having a country with borders that follows the rule of law. 





> I believe in property rights, which includes the right to contract (or not) with whomever one pleases.


Me too. I believe you have to follow the laws of the country though. if they are reasonable and passed by the majority. 





> If you want to believe that non-whites are consuming most of the welfare, feel free.


Where did I say that? I said minorities take welfare disproproportionately. They take a lot. 



> He's as much of a socialist as Hillary, Romney, Obama, etc.



None of them are socialists in the strict sense; they're all social democrats. 

...i.e. not calling for outright socialism but calling that reforms that move us ever closer to socialism. [/quote]

Okay. 





> None of those benefits would flow from restricting immigration.


Restricting immigration of non-whites will lead to all of these things. Do you really need me to provide links to prove it? It seems self evident. 




> Who said they did?


it seemed to me that you said they will riot and implied that there is nothing we can do about it and the threat of their rioting means we shouldn't pass our immigrant laws. You used it as a reason to not enforce laws on employeers.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> What do you mean?


Libertarians are generally opposed to state ownership of property. Minarchists make exceptions for property which the state needs to fulfill its security responsibilities. Anyway, I assumed that the public property which you didn't want immigrants accessing was transportation infrastructure, which libertarians think should be privatized. So, for us, the response to "immigrants have no right to use public roads" is "eliminate public roads," rather than restrict immigration. 




> What problem?


See above. 




> Yes. Exactly my point. And we have the right to decide who goes on our land.


No, I have a right to decide who goes on my land, you have a right to decide who goes on your land, etc.

That is what private ownership of land means. 

What you're proposing, that Americans collectively (by voting, I suppose) decide who can enter the US is communal ownership of land. 




> I don't understand this. Why don't you believe that you have to respect immigration laws of the country?


Because those laws are unjust; they violate the rights of both natives and immigrants. 




> It seems to me you don't believe in having a country with borders that follows the rule of law.


Borders define legal jurisdiction; on this side of the line, the US government has jurisdiction: on that side, the Mexican government. 

Immigration is a separate issue. 

In no way does free immigration eliminate the borders or end national sovereignty.




> Me too. I believe you have to follow the laws of the country though. if they are reasonable and passed by the majority.


That's called democratic socialism and is inconsistent with private property rights. 




> Where did I say that? I said minorities take welfare disproproportionately. They take a lot.


Oh, I thought you meant that they took more in absolute terms.




> it seemed to me that you said they will riot and implied that there is nothing we can do about it and the threat of their rioting means we shouldn't pass our immigrant laws. You used it as a reason to not enforce laws on employeers.


Any attempt at mass deportation will cause riots, and that is indeed a reason to oppose that policy. 

...that's just a factual statement, it in no way implies that anyone has a right to riot (which of course they don't)

But the civil unrest it would generate is not the only reason to oppose immigration restrictions. 

It violates the rights of both immigrants and natives, and won't lead to the benefit you envision.

----------


## presence

> What do you mean?


http://austrianeconomics.org/sites/d...s/lp-3-1_3.pdf

----------


## misterx

There's just no arguing with someone who believes illegal aliens have rights. They didn't create our government, and they weren't invited into it, therefore they have no right to its protections. Without its protections their only "right" is that single right of nature -might is right.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> There's just no arguing with someone who believes illegal aliens have rights. They didn't create our government, and they weren't invited into it, therefore they have no right to its protections. Without its protections their only "right" is that single right of nature -might is right.


Only American citizens have rights?

So, for instance, it would be fine if the US randomly nuked, say, Bulgaria, because they're not American citizens and have no rights?

----------


## misterx

> Only native-born American citizens have rights?
> 
> So, for instance, it would be fine if the US randomly nuked, say, Bulgaria, because they're not American and have no rights?


That is what we call war.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> That is what we call war.


When I said "randomly nuke" I meant unprovoked, not for any kind of defensive purpose, just for kicks.

...which, if they have no rights, would be okay?

...same as stepping on a bug, which has no rights?

----------


## misterx

> When I said "randomly nuked" I meant unprovoked, not for any kind of defensive purpose, just for kicks.


Because we're going to provoke other countries to attack us just for kicks?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Because we're going to provoke other countries to attack us just for kicks?


...way to avoid answering the question.

I'll ask it again...

It would be immoral for the US government to wantonly slaughter foreigners for no reason - Agree or Disagree?

----------


## misterx

> ...way to avoid answering the question.
> 
> I'll ask it again...
> 
> It would be immoral for the US government to wantonly slaughter foreigners for no reason - Agree or Disagree?


It's not immoral to protect your property from other tribes.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> It's not immoral to protect your property from other tribes.


We're not talking about defense. 

We're talking about unprovoked aggression, for entertainment purposes. 

President Trump wakes up one day and thinks it would be fun to see a mushroom cloud on TV, so he nukes Bulgaria. 

Is this immoral - Yes or No?

----------


## misterx

> We're not talking about defense. 
> 
> We're talking about unprovoked aggression, for entertainment purposes. 
> 
> President Trump wakes up one day and thinks it would be fun to see a mushroom cloud on TV, so he nukes Bulgaria. 
> 
> Is this immoral - Yes or No?


I fail to see how this relates to immigration, unless you are going to make the parallel that we have a moral obligation to take care of immigrants. 

How about you answer this: Is it immoral to feed your children three square meals a day while children in Africa are starving?

Yes or no?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I fail to see how this relates to immigration, unless you are going to make the parallel that we have a moral obligation to take care of immigrants.


My point is to determine whether you really believe that non-Americans have no rights, as your earlier post implied. 




> How about you answer this: Is it immoral to feed your children three square meals a day while children in Africa are starving?
> 
> Yes or no?


No, not in the slightest

I have no moral obligation to feed them.

I do, however, have a moral obligation to not slaughter them for my own entertainment, because they have the same right to live as I do. 

Agreed?

----------


## misterx

> My point is to determine whether you really believe that non-Americans have no rights, as your earlier post implied. 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not in the slightest
> 
> I have no moral obligation to feed them.
> 
> I do, however, have a moral obligation to not slaughter them for my own entertainment, because they have the same right to live as I do. 
> ...


Yes, non-Americans have no rights under our government. That doesn't mean we should slaughter them for fun. We don't refrain from slaughtering people for no reason because we are restrained by their rights. We refrain because our morality and human nature prevents us from harming others for no good reason. It wouldn't be in our interest to do so. It's in our best interest to have peaceful trade with them, not to blow them up for kicks. 

I'm glad you agree that we have no moral obligation to support foreigners. Given that understanding, it stands that if their immigration does not benefit us then we are justified in not permitting it.

----------


## TheCount

> I will say not tyranny but racism. They think they are oppressed by racists. They believe that racist cops beat Rodney King or that Zimmerman killed Trayvon out of racism. but either way there is no racism to ethnic minorities or tyranny/oppression of them in a country that is homogenous.


Oppression by a racist government would be a form of tyranny.





> You seem to have avoided answering my claim 3 times.


The issue isn't whether or not race-based tyranny would continue in a ethnonationalist society, but as with other points, whether the cause of the societal problems is an issue inherent to race or not.  If the cause is not race, then trying to solve the problem with a race-based solution will not be productive.





> Again, multicultural countries can and do work, but they are inferior to homogeonous ones and have problems.


As opposed to superior, problem-free homogeneous ones?





> I would rather live in a homogeonous country that is like Japan.


Speaking of countries with problems.






> What do you mean?


As above, the claim is that they are selectively tyrannized for racial reasons.  The tyranny is the cause of the riots, and race is supposedly the cause of the tyranny.





> What worldview? I guess that can be true.


You've tried to frame my argument in a stereotypical liberal position wherein if I'm not supporting your side then I must present the opposing line of thought.  Multiculturalism good vs. multiculturalism bad.

----------


## TheCount

> Yes, non-Americans have no rights under our government.


*EDIT:*
It's apparent to me by a rep and this quote that I did a poor job of communicating here, so I'm going to rephrase:

The idea that the rights of non-Americans come from an American piece of paper is patently ridiculous.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Yes, non-Americans have no rights under our government.


So then it would not be a violation of anyone's rights if the US government randomly killed non-Americans?




> I'm glad you agree that we have no moral obligation to support foreigners. Given that understanding, it stands that if their immigration does not benefit us then we are justified in not permitting it.


My neighbor painting his house green does not benefit me, and I don't like it, therefore I am justified in forcing him to paint it white - Agreed?

...or, is it within his rights to paint his house, and it makes no difference what I think about it?

----------


## tod evans

> Yes, non-Americans have no rights under our government. That doesn't mean we should slaughter them for fun. We don't refrain from slaughtering people for no reason because we are restrained by their rights. We refrain because our morality and human nature prevents us from harming others for no good reason. It wouldn't be in our interest to do so. It's in our best interest to have peaceful trade with them, not to blow them up for kicks. 
> 
> I'm glad you agree that we have no moral obligation to support foreigners. Given that understanding, *it stands that if their immigration does not benefit us then we are justified in not permitting it.*


This is where the sticky wicket of government comes in.......

A common theme argued is that it's governments responsibility to keep illegal foreigners out... Obviously this isn't working and hasn't worked, reasons be damned.

A more logical argument could be presented that government has no right or authority to prevent states/counties or even individuals from dealing with illegal foreign citizens as they see fit when they are found within that states/counties or individuals borders. 

Permitting the federal government to oversee or have authority over how states/counties or individuals deal with these people is the issue, the federal governments authority should begin and end with granting or denying citizenship and even that authority should be subject to revocation..

----------


## misterx

> So then it would not be a violation of anyone's rights if the US government randomly killed non-Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> My neighbor painting his house green does not benefit me, and I don't like it, therefore I am justified in forcing him to paint it white - Agreed?
> 
> ...or, is it within his rights to paint his house, and it makes no difference what I think about it?


Sigh. Your interrogations are tiresome and tedious. I don't have time to run around in circles with you. We have the right to do anything to anyone who is not within our government if we are prepared to invite the consequences of it. This is how things work in the real world. Think about how life was before borders, and why we created governments and borders in the first place. They reduce conflict, they don't increase it. Before governments and borders were instituted there was constant clashing of tribes that had no respect for the philosophical rights of others. You really need to go back to the basics, because you don't seem to understand the very concept of the nation-state.

----------


## misterx

> This is where the sticky wicket of government comes in.......
> 
> A common theme argued is that it's governments responsibility to keep illegal foreigners out... Obviously this isn't working and hasn't worked, reasons be damned.
> 
> A more logical argument could be presented that government has no right or authority to prevent states/counties or even individuals from dealing with illegal foreign citizens as they see fit when they are found within that states/counties or individuals borders. 
> 
> Permitting the federal government to oversee or have authority over how states/counties or individuals deal with these people is the issue, the federal governments authority should begin and end with granting or denying citizenship and even that authority should be subject to revocation..


It hasn't worked because our government is run by people who don't want it to work. It works just fine for countries like Japan and Korea. 

If an individual wants the protections afforded by government, then he has to respect the rules of that government. If he believes the government has no legal authority over him he must abdicate its protection, and live elsewhere by the law of the jungle.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> We have the right to do anything to anyone who is not within our government if we are prepared to invite the consequences of it.


Well, thank you for finally answering my question. 

I can't agree with your monstrous, homicidal nationalism, but I do appreciate your honesty.

----------


## tod evans

> It hasn't worked because our government is run by people who don't want it to work. It works just fine for countries like Japan and Korea. 
> 
> If an individual wants the protections afforded by government, then he has to respect the rules of that government. *If he believes the government has no legal authority over him he must abdicate its protection, and live elsewhere by the law of the jungle.*


Or he fights to regain the freedom his forefathers won with their blood, on the land they fought for. 

The government we suffer under is not what my forefathers fought for, this land I live on however is.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Good question, for which I don't have a satisfying answer. 
> 
> ...fighting the welfare state is a Sisyphean task in a democracy. 
> 
> What I do know, however, is that deporting millions of immigrants, who are no more likely to support welfare than natives, won't help. 
> 
> 
> 
> The first thing that _you_ might do is not vote for candidates like Trump, who are even more pro-welfare than the typical GOPer.


We have already prove they will vote/do vote left in greater number, and use welfare at a great rate, it will help to send the back.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> The concept that Americans must grant non-Americans rights is patently ridiculous.




Any idea how was can shut down this mistake of a belief?

----------


## TheCount

> Any idea how was can shut down this mistake of a belief?


It's apparent to me by a rep and this quote that I did a poor job of communicating here, so I'm going to rephrase:

The idea that the rights of non-Americans come from an American piece of paper is patently ridiculous.


As to how we can shut down the mistaken belief, anyone who genuinely believes that people derive their rights from their government is a raging statist and isn't worth arguing with.  Others who don't actually believe this but see it as politically expedient for their (statist) goals just need to realize that 1) letting government decide who has rights and who does not means that everyone is only one piece of paper away from tyranny, and 2) there is a long history of the frightened giving their government a power to use against "those" people (for various kids of "those") only to later find that power used against them.  See also: PATRIOT act, etc.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Anyway, I assumed that the public property which you didn't want immigrants accessing was transportation infrastructure, which libertarians think should be privatized.


Yes but also anything public like public lands like state parks, public schools etc. etc. 




> So, for us, the response to "immigrants have no right to use public roads" is "eliminate public roads," rather than restrict immigration.


I assume you are an anarchist? 



> No, I have a right to decide who goes on my land, you have a right to decide who goes on your land, etc.


Yes. That is my point. 




> What you're proposing, that Americans collectively (by voting, I suppose) decide who can enter the US is communal ownership of land.


Yes. 





> Because those laws are unjust; they violate the rights of both natives and immigrants.


Why?

How so?

What rights are you talking about for natives and immigrants? 






> Borders define legal jurisdiction; on this side of the line, the US government has jurisdiction: on that side, the Mexican government.


What is wrong with this?




> Immigration is a separate issue.


How so?




> In no way does free immigration eliminate the borders or end national sovereignty.


It undermines it. Its a threat. 





> That's called democratic socialism and is inconsistent with private property rights.


Whats wrong with democratic socialism if they respect private property rights? You know Hitler respected private property. 




> Any attempt at mass deportation will cause riots, and that is indeed a reason to oppose that policy.


They will riot if you let them. There will be no riots if the police/people wont tolerate it. Historically, with operation wetback, there were no riots when the government decided to enforce immigrant law. 

I don't like your moral reasoning. If something is right, true, moral and correct you need to do it. IT doesn't matter if someone threatens violence of ill doing.  




> But the civil unrest it would generate is not the only reason to oppose immigration restrictions.


The entire world will come to America if the government let people come. I think its crazy and out of touch to argue that private individuals can keep hordes of people off their land. I am not a military man and I am not even trained to deal with that. 




> It violates the rights of both immigrants and natives, and won't lead to the benefit you envision.


Id like it if youd explain this to me.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> This is where the sticky wicket of government comes in.......
> 
> A common theme argued is that it's governments responsibility to keep illegal foreigners out... Obviously this isn't working and hasn't worked, reasons be damned.


That is only partially true. Most countries of the world have reasonable immigrant laws and enforce them. Mexico enforces their laws strictly. The insanity is really only limited to whites. Also, as I pointed out before the government was reasonable in the past until they cleansed the racists out of government and decided to have a NWO by killing my race. 





> A more logical argument could be presented that government has no right or authority to prevent states/counties or even individuals from dealing with illegal foreign citizens as they see fit when they are found within that states/counties or individuals borders.


That's correct. 

We can do that. I support both views.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Oppression by a racist government would be a form of tyranny.


That is not what I argued, again.  



> The issue isn't whether or not race-based tyranny would continue in a ethnonationalist society, but as with other points, whether the cause of the societal problems is an issue inherent to race or not.  If the cause is not race, then trying to solve the problem with a race-based solution will not be productive.


Everyone agrees the problem is racism. There is no need to repeat this, but for the last time how can a single race be racist against their own race? Its only racial diversity that causes racism. Racism cant exist within a country that is 100 percent homogenous. 




> As opposed to superior, problem-free homogeneous ones?


Again, not my argument. 

What racial problems or racism do minorities suffer in a homogenous country if they are excluded? IT doesn't even make sense what you are arguing. Its impossible. 





> Speaking of countries with problems.


What is wrong with Japan? Its a first world country and they accomplished that with limited resources. 




> As above, the claim is that they are selectively tyrannized for racial reasons.  The tyranny is the cause of the riots, and race is supposedly the cause of the tyranny.


IF racism is the cause of the riots then we have to remove ethnic diversity from society. You should agree with me. The leftists have no solution except to persecute whites and expand government power to do it which only creates racism from whites to minorities. 




> You've tried to frame my argument in a stereotypical liberal position wherein if I'm not supporting your side then I must present the opposing line of thought.  Multiculturalism good vs. multiculturalism bad.


Yes. I am doing that because I don't see how you cant have the opposing liberal position. To me, its a two sided issue. 

If you don't mind tell me where do you stand on the issue?

----------


## tod evans

> That is only partially true. Most countries of the world have reasonable immigrant laws and enforce them. Mexico enforces their laws strictly. The insanity is really only limited to whites. Also, as I pointed out before the government was reasonable in the past until they cleansed the racists out of government and decided to have a NWO by killing my race. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct. 
> 
> *We can do that*. I support both views.


Oh really?

Who is this "we"?

And how do you propose wrenching control from the feds?

I'm all ears.........

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> http://austrianeconomics.org/sites/d...s/lp-3-1_3.pdf
> 
> Attachment 5136


I bookmarked this and I will read and think about the privatization of public property. But I admit that its hard for me to imagine doing this as I have never thought about it.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I assume you are an anarchist?


Minarchist




> Yes. That is my point. 
> 
> Yes.


Either each property owner decides who can use his property, or Americans collectively decide who gets to use all their property. 

Private property or democratic socialism.

It can't be both. 




> What rights are you talking about for natives and immigrants?


To reiterate:

The landlord has a right to rent to whomever he likes; you would deny him this right.
The business owner has a right to employ whomever he likes; you would deny him this right.
ICE agents do _not_ have a right to assault, cage, or kidnap Jose for the non-crime of being in the country without their permission.




> It undermines it. Its a threat.


How?




> Whats wrong with democratic socialism if they respect private property rights?


Democratic socialism by definition does not respect private rights. 

To own property means to have the right to decide who can use it. 

If a democratic majority gets to decide who can use your property, you don't get to decide.

....don't know how to put it any more clearly. 




> You know Hitler respected private property.


LOL, no, he didn't. The NAZI economy was highly interventionist, just short of outright socialism. 

...not to mention the millions of innocent people he slaughtered and robbed. 




> I think its crazy and out of touch to argue that private individuals can keep hordes of people off their land.


Are there hordes of Mexicans _trying_ to use your land? Trying to move into your house?

Or are they just walking around town, working for businesses, renting apartments, shopping, etc, like everyone else?

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Oh really?
> 
> Who is this "we"?


People. 




> And how do you propose wrenching control from the feds?


By educating people to be racist and only to vote for racist people like in the past and by attacking political correctness. Do you think that a government of racists will allow immigrants to invade their land and sully their daughters bloodlines? I think not. Of course, if we elect a bunch of anti-racist cucks who only pay lip service to securing the borders the problem will never be solved. They are traitors.

----------


## tod evans

> People. 
> 
> 
> 
> By educating people to be racist and only to vote for racist people like in the past and by attacking political correctness. Do you think that a government of racists will allow immigrants to invade their land and sully their daughters bloodlines? I think not. Of course, if we elect a bunch of anti-racist cucks who only pay lip service to securing the borders the problem will never be solved. They are traitors.


The fed has already protected itself from such behavior with both law and policy..

In fact they claim those laws and policies extend to the states and even some private businesses.

And you're here trumpeting voting........

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> The fed has already protected itself from such behavior with both law and policy..
> 
> In fact they claim those laws and policies extend to the states and even some private businesses.


What do you mean? Please be specific. 




> And you're here trumpeting voting........


Well, voting is also a way to mobilize people and group people and get them together. I do agree with Thomas Jefferson that voting works if people are educated. There are examples of people voting and having success. I don't think voting is hopeless or futile.

----------


## Spikender

> Well, voting is also a way to mobilize people and group people and get them together. I do agree with Thomas Jefferson that voting works if people are educated. There are examples of people voting and having success. I don't think voting is hopeless or futile.


Perhaps. But voting can only be helpful if the system itself isn't stacked against any meaningful results from it. This is why there is a huge disdain for being loyal to the voting process, especially among the libertarian right. When the media and schools constantly brainwash people and there are countless examples of vote-rigging or behind-the-scenes mischief by the two major parties, it does tend to make one pessimistic toward the entire concept of voting.

Granted, the problem is much worse at the national level of voting than the local level, but my point still stands.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Minarchist


Okay I will study that. 




> Either each property owner decides who can use his property, or Americans collectively decide who gets to use all their property.


Agreed. 




> Private property or democratic socialism.
> 
> It can't be both.


I have to disagree. I am going to have to leave it at that. 




> To reiterate:
> 
> The landlord has a right to rent to whomever he likes; you would deny him this right.


If the person is illegal and doesn't belong here. 




> The business owner has a right to employ whomever he likes; you would deny him this right.


Same as above. 




> ICE agents do _not_ have a right to assault, cage, or kidnap Jose for the non-crime of being in the country without their permission.


What right does he have to be here? They are only enforcing the law and our legal rights to choose who uses our public property. 

How?




> To own property means to have the right to decide who can use it.


Yep.




> If a democratic majority gets to decide who can use your property, you don't get to decide.
> 
> ....don't know how to put it any more clearly.


I am taking about public property. 





> LOL, no, he didn't. The NAZI economy was highly interventionist, just short of outright socialism.


I am not talking about the economy. My grandfather lived under Hitler and Hitler never took his house or possessions. But Hitler did rob from the jews though. 




> ...not to mention the millions of innocent people he slaughtered and robbed.


I am not saying that you are doing this, but most people who point that out are politically correct and think we need to foreit our race to foreigners because of what Hitler did which is insane. 




> Are there hordes of Mexicans _trying_ to use your land? Trying to move into your house?


Public yes. Go to a public park and public school. ITs swarming with them. 




> Or are they just walking around town, working for businesses, renting apartments, shopping, etc, like everyone else?


Yes. 

I believe in the principle of nationalism. We ought to stick together and not believe in ideologies such as diversity and multiculturalism.

----------


## misterx

> *EDIT:*
> It's apparent to me by a rep and this quote that I did a poor job of communicating here, so I'm going to rephrase:
> 
> The idea that the rights of non-Americans come from an American piece of paper is patently ridiculous.


Then where do they come from? There are no rights in nature except that who is stronger will get his way.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Perhaps. But voting can only be helpful if the system itself isn't stacked against any meaningful results from it. This is why there is a huge disdain for being loyal to the voting process, especially among the libertarian right.


How did Ron Paul and Rand get elected?




> When the media and schools constantly brainwash people and there are countless examples of vote-rigging or behind-the-scenes mischief by the two major parties,


Do you have any examples?




> it does tend to make one pessimistic toward the entire concept of voting.


I have an open mind to voting because Donald Trump was elected to be the Republican nominee along with other media/government enemies such as Ron Paul, Rand Paul and tea party members. If the voting was rigged why did these people get elected?   




> Granted, the problem is much worse at the national level of voting than the local level, but my point still stands.


yeah.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I am taking about public property.


No, you're also talking about private property.

....about businesses being forced not to employ immigrants, landlords being forced not to rent to them, etc. 

As for public property, to reiterate, most of it should be privatized, which would make the issue moot. 

But with regard to whatever public property remains, why would natives have a right to use it and not foreigners?




> I am not talking about the economy. My grandfather lived under Hitler and Hitler never took his house or possessions.


That's swell, and anecdotal and irrelevant. 

Hitler's regime centrally planned the German economy from the start, getting worse during the war. 

It was a national _socialist_ party, remember; they utterly rejected free market capitalism. 

And, again, they murdered, robbed, and enslaved millions of people.

To say that Hitler respected property rights is truly on of the most ridiculous claims I've ever heard. 




> I am not saying that you are doing this, but most people who point that out are politically correct and think we need to foreit our race to foreigners because of what Hitler did which is insane.


Any sane human being would be appalled by the mass slaughter of millions and millions of innocent men, women, and children. 




> I believe in the principle of nationalism. We ought to stick together and not believe in ideologies such as diversity and multiculturalism.


And I believe in the principle of private property.

I'm not interested in socialism, whether of the nationalistic or proletarian variety.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Then where do they come from? There are no rights in nature except that who is stronger will get his way.


The world is the way it is at any given moment because that's the way the people with the might want it to be. 

The world is not the way you want it to be because you and like-minded persons don't have the might to make it that way. 

If might is right, then the status quo is always right. Is that your position?

...which is another way of saying that "might is right" is an asinine moral principle, amounting to "whatever happens is good."

----------


## Spikender

> How did Ron Paul and Rand get elected?


Local level elections with plenty of support. Notice that Ron and Rand are two of the very few principled liberty candidates that somehow got into Congress, in the House of Reps and the Senate respectively. Just because the system is rigged and corrupt doesn't mean that principled candidates can't get into office, it just becomes insanely hard to do so.

Notice, however, that members of the House Freedom Caucus have come under fire, such as Tim Huelskamp losing his primary. The establishment has realized that letting these people attain office has backfired and is now coming after them.




> Do you have any examples?


The DNC'S behind the scenes plotting against Bernie Sanders as well as the RNC changing the delegate rules in 2012 are easy examples of both parties doing everything they can to prevent change. Even if you're not a Donald Trump supporter, you can see how both parties are doing everything to destroy Trump with assistance from the media.

As for the schools, they are infested by Marxist professors who are brainwashing youths with regressive ideas about white privilege and about socialism and special privileges for minorities is the way to go. All of the issues in our K-12 schools and Universities are easy to research; look at the website "campusreform.org" for more stories on this social infection in our education system.




> I have an open mind to voting because Donald Trump was elected to be the Republican nominee along with other media/government enemies such as Ron Paul, Rand Paul and tea party members. If the voting was rigged why did these people get elected?


As I said before, it is more often than not that corrupt politicians get elected than anyone with actual principles. Just because the system is corrupt and constantly rigged in favor of the establishment does not mean that people who are in favor of liberty or have principles cannot get elected, especially when they have massive public support. They are not above it; Ron Paul lost the nomination in 2012 due to the media blacking him out openly, leaving his name out of polls that he either won or did well in, and constantly pushing the meme that he was "unelectable" and "running for the wrong party". The Republican Party obviously had it out for him considering they misreported polling numbers in several districts and changed the rules just to keep him away from the nomination. There are several Youtube videos and articles discussing this you can look up.

----------


## tod evans

> What do you mean? Please be specific.


EEO and minority quotas are two easy ones to research.

The F2D - F3D federal registers are also rife with both case law and theory that depending on the issue litigated will provide you with specifics.

If you're serious about learning how government protects itself a subscription to Lexis-Nexis is a little cheaper than enrolling in law school but not much....

----------


## misterx

> The world is the way it is at any given moment because that's the way the people with the might want it to be. 
> 
> The world is not the way you want it to be because you and like-minded persons don't have the might to make it that way. 
> 
> If might is right, then the status quo is always right. Is that your position?
> 
> ...which is another way of saying that "might is right" is an asinine moral principle, amounting to "whatever happens is good."


I think you're misunderstanding. My point is that our rights are not derived from God, they are derived from the desire for peace, security, and happiness. There are no rights without like-minded people coming together to create law and order to protect the "rights" that they think they should have. In nature there are no rights because whomever is more powerful can do whatever they want.

----------


## TheCount

> Then where do they come from? There are no rights in nature except that who is stronger will get his way.


There are also no pants in nature and yet I have pants.

----------


## misterx

> There are also no pants in nature and yet I have pants.


So you have a right to have pants? I guess we need to buy pants for all 7 billion people in the world since their natural rights demand it.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> There are no rights without like-minded people coming together to create law and order to protect the "rights" that they think they should have.


 Sounds pretty accurate to me!




> There are also no pants in nature and yet I have pants.


 Exactly!  Look, smartypants, that was Mr. X's whole point.  Try importing millions of highly fertile people who don't believe in pants into your country and, lo and behold!: your grandchildren will not wear pants!  Surprise!  This is really elementary population dynamics, really elementary biology, really elementary logic.

In the words of Mr. X, without like-minded people coming together to design pants, build and staff plants to manufacture pants, demand pants in all social situations, bring overwhelming pressure to bear on non-pants-wearers, etc., etc., the institution of pants will simply not survive.

----------


## presence

> There are no rights without 
> like-minded people 
> coming together to create law and order 
> to protect the "rights" 
> that they think they should have.


holy hell you misunderstand liberty
rights don't come from "law and order"





_"The Tahitian savage_ therefore _knows as well as Locke"_


the rights of men are self evident truths

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Rights don't come from "law and order"


 Rights, Law, and Order -- three peas in the same pod.  Three words for the same concept: humans respecting each others' prerogatives, forming a society.




> the rights of men are self evident truths


 Well, rights may or may not be self-existent or self-evident, but with a lack of persons who believe in, espouse, respect, and defend each others' rights, those rights are not going to be in any sense of reality _actually_ evident.  They will not.... _evince_.  We will see precious little evidence of their actually existing and playing a powerful role in our actual lives here in reality.

Rights are an idea.  A particularly abstract, high-level idea.  And like all ideas, they have no power whatsoever of their own.  They are only given power by actors who choose to let those ideas take up root and residence in their own minds, and then have the courage and commitment to choose their physical actions based upon them.  *Otherwise, they have no presence, no place, and no effect in physical reality.*

Now Locke was a man who took up these ideas.  Locke gave these ideas a huge place in reality, through his enormously heroic actions.  The random "Tahitian savage" did not.  Which is the hero for Liberty?  Locke.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I think you're misunderstanding. My point is that our rights are not derived from God, they are derived from the desire for peace, security, and happiness.


I agree




> There are no rights without like-minded people coming together to create law and order to protect the "rights" that they think they should have. In nature there are no rights because whomever is more powerful can do whatever they want.


In this thread, you've been not only _describing_ the state of nature, but _advocating_ for it.

i.e. you've been saying not only that a group can violate the rights of outsiders (of course they _can_), you've been saying they _should_

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Originally Posted by *misterx* 
>      our rights are not derived from God, they are derived from the desire for peace, security, and happiness.
> 			
> 		
> 
> I agree


I completely disagree with you two. As did the framers.

Your thoughts on this, I think, are indicative of the gradual erosion of virtue within the cause. Which, by the way, is the most unrecognized threat to Liberty today. Without public virtue, there cannot and will not be Liberty. Not if its foundation for moral code is rejected. As was mentioned elsewhere, that foundation contemplates that The Individual's moral duty as being created by God's Law. The Natural Law. The Individual's duty requires obedience to this Higher Law. The "the desire for peace, security, and happiness" (proper human relations) is the product of the spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God. God's Law. Again, the Natural Law.

----------


## pcosmar

> Rights, Law, and Order -- three peas in the same pod.


Nope.
Rights- God Given. or a natural state.. Natural Law.
 Rights are,,and exist.. They are neither given nor taken.

Law- is another thing. the dividing of right and wrong.
Without law there is no crime.

Order-? WTF?
What is that,, order? Who's order,, Top to bottom..  or other way around?
Alphabetical or numerical ?

----------


## undergroundrr

I live for this stuff.

----------


## euphemia

> I think you're misunderstanding. My point is that our rights are not derived from God, they are derived from the desire for peace, security, and happiness. There are no rights without like-minded people coming together to create law and order to protect the "rights" that they think they should have. In nature there are no rights because whomever is more powerful can do whatever they want.


This is completely wrong.  Rights have nothing to do with a desire for anything.  Rights are God-given.  People who want peace, security, and happiness understand that.  Oppressors think rights are given by government.  That's why they seek power and wealth for themselves.  It helps them oppress others.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Nope.
> Rights- God Given. or a natural state.. Natural Law.
>  Rights are,,and exist.. They are neither given nor taken.
> 
> Law- is another thing. the dividing of right and wrong.
> Without law there is no crime.
> 
> Order-? WTF?
> What is that,, order? Who's order,, Top to bottom..  or other way around?
> Alphabetical or numerical ?


You don't actually disagree with me. This is just semantics. Terminology. A product of the fact that all three of the words in question have many (many!) current and perfectly legitimate definitions extant and in-the-wild.

In other words: You're right, Pete!  Just cross out that first word ("Nope"), which was the only part of your post which expressed any disagreement with me, and we are in total agreement. 

Euphemia and Mister X, you guys don't actually disagree with each other either (you've run into the same linguistical ambiguity), at least not necessarily.

----------


## pcosmar

> You don't actually disagree with me. This is just semantics. Terminology. A product of the fact that all three of the words in question have many (many!) current and perfectly legitimate definitions extant and in-the-wild.
> 
> In other words: You're right, Pete!  Just cross out that first word ("Nope"), which was the only part of your post which expressed any disagreement with me, and we are in total agreement. 
> 
> Euphemia and Mister X, you guys don't actually disagree with each other either (you've run into the same linguistical ambiguity), at least not necessarily.


Nope.. it is that "order" stuff.

as in new world *order*,, 

More Authoritarian bull$#@!. I prefer a Natural order.. which is caotic.
I also have a pretty good understanding of entropy

Which is what you are seeing.

"Order"?  again I ask,, who's order?

----------


## euphemia

Natural order is not chaotic.  It is natural order.  When people forget their Creator or try to get outside the created order, chaos happens.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Nope.. it is that "order" stuff.


How about**: *Spontaneous order*?  A fan of that one?

Yep.  Thought so.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Or how about the term you used: *Natural order*?

_That_ is the kind of order _I_ like.  I'm no fan of fiat, arbitrary "order" as defined by fiat, arbitrary decrees from incompetent, two-bit, authority-less bureau-rats and tyrants (That nonsense actually causes _dis_-order.).

I'd venture to say you aren't either.  We are in agreement.

----------


## jmdrake

> I think you're misunderstanding. My point is that our rights are not derived from God, they are derived from the desire for peace, security, and happiness. There are no rights without like-minded people coming together to create law and order to protect the "rights" that they think they should have. In nature there are no rights because whomever is more powerful can do whatever they want.


And where did a desire for peace, security and happiness come from?  Nature?  Yes those ants, honeybees and termites sure love being at peace and happy.  We could survive just fine as a species without pesky things like love of art and beauty or the desire for self determination or the drive to question what is beyond the expanse of our own planet.  Who needs love and compassion in survival of the fittest?  The greatest and best aspects of our humanity seem to derive from something far greater than mere nature.  I call that something (or rather someone), God.  The founding fathers felt the same.

----------


## RandallFan

They forced NPR to get rid of comment sections, thus losing some of their audience & traffic.

----------


## RandallFan

Clinton is going to try to link Trump to alt right & to banning or demonizing the gawkers/ buzzfeeds/SJW sites of the right.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> So you have a right to have pants? I guess we need to buy pants for all 7 billion people in the world since their natural rights demand it.


*Your Freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you.*

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

All of you hyper atomized people are like a guy in a zombie apocalypse who refuses to cooperate with other humans because you don't think you have anything in common with them beyond mere humanity. Don't say we didn't warn you when the zombies eat you.






If you have not interest in fighting the zombies, then by default you  you're interested in being eaten. 

You have common interests in that you're a TARGET of identity politics by other groups. Zombies don't give a $#@! about your opinion on tax policy or the deficit. They don't even give a $#@! about your opinion on zombies, they just want to rip your face off.




Just like how other groups do not care about your rights, or our culture, values, or Liberty..

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> My point is to determine whether you really believe that non-Americans have no rights, as your earlier post implied. 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not in the slightest
> 
> I have no moral obligation to feed them.
> 
> I do, however, have a moral obligation to not slaughter them for my own entertainment, because they have the same right to live as I do. 
> ...


They have no right to come here

They have no right to limit or degenerate our rights, liberties, or futures

They have not right to impose upon us their flawed and failed ideals, cultures, values, and political views.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Oppression by a racist government would be a form of tyranny.


Is it racist to keep out groups who will vote way your rights?

Is it racist to stop immigration as to maintain a majority in the nation that was founded for is founding stock?





> The issue isn't whether or not race-based tyranny would continue in a ethnonationalist society, but as with other points, whether the cause of the societal problems is an issue inherent to race or not.  If the cause is not race, then trying to solve the problem with a race-based solution will not be productive.


It is an issue inherent to race.


Incompatible visions of society are an inevitable consequence of multiculturalism. Antagonistic cultures guarantee warfare, political or real, as cultural factions seek to compel their visions of law and behavior, and use society to redistribute wealth and power from others to their faction members. Multiculturalism is thus an observable failure and a hopelessly naive goal. Peace and prosperity are promoted in homogeneous polities.

[I know, I know, too verbose. I just like to pound home the point that we have problems with BLM, Aztlan, arguments about open borders, even the egregious violations of equality before the law of Affirmative Action, because factions in the USA use political power to enrich their members while bullying and robbing their competitors. No such BS would exist in a place where people all share a much closer notion of social standards and where the spectrum of personal abilities has nothing to do with the excuse of physical appearance.]





> As opposed to superior, problem-free homogeneous ones?


Yes, how many race based issues do you find in Switzerland, South Korea, or Japan.







> You've tried to frame my argument in a stereotypical liberal position wherein if I'm not supporting your side then I must present the opposing line of thought.  Multiculturalism good vs. multiculturalism bad.


The facts prove that multiculturalism is a bad thing.




> *EDIT:*
> It's apparent to me by a rep and this quote that I did a poor job of communicating here, so I'm going to rephrase:
> 
> The idea that the rights of non-Americans come from an American piece of paper is patently ridiculous.


https://neociceroniantimes.wordpress...s-and-liberty/ 




> As to how we can shut down the mistaken belief, anyone who genuinely believes that people derive their rights from their government is a raging statist and isn't worth arguing with.  Others who don't actually believe this but see it as politically expedient for their (statist) goals just need to realize that 1) letting government decide who has rights and who does not means that everyone is only one piece of paper away from tyranny, and 2) there is a long history of the frightened giving their government a power to use against "those" people (for various kids of "those") only to later find that power used against them.  See also: PATRIOT act, etc.


Once again, maybe we should learn from this lesson and stop import groups who are most likely to commit acts of terrorism as so the state does not have some excuse.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Allow me to summarize your reply:
> 
> "I already know everything that I need to know because I read about it on the internet!"


So you have no come back, shocking when facts are brought up your cliches fall apart.

----------


## Smitty

The Alt-Right's most recent accomplishment was to cause Hillary to stumble up to a podium and babble some Alzheimer tainted nonsense about how Putin, Trump, and Farage are all in cahoots about something or another. It was all fairly incoherent, but she didn't start floppin' her head around and bark like a dog this time.

For Democrats, that in itself was a moral victory.

----------


## AuH20

bump.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> The Alt-Right's most recent accomplishment was to cause Hillary to stumble up to a podium and babble some Alzheimer tainted nonsense about how Putin, Trump, and Farage are all in cahoots about something or another. It was all fairly incoherent, but she didn't start floppin' her head around and bark like a dog this time.
> 
> For Democrats, that in itself was a moral victory.





We were the finishing blow..

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

The alt-right didn't accomplish this.  Most Trump voters want nothing to do with the alt-right.

----------


## TheCount

> The alt-right didn't accomplish this.  Most Trump voters want nothing to do with the alt-right.


Best evidence of this is that the alt-right is primarily a young movement, and it's breathtakingly obvious from the election demographics that young people were in no way involved with Trump's victory.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Best evidence of this is that the alt-right is primarily a young movement, and it's breathtakingly obvious from the election demographics that young people were in no way involved with Trump's victory.


But... but... he got exactly the same amount of young voters as Romney!

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Best evidence of this is that the alt-right is primarily a young movement, and it's breathtakingly obvious from the election demographics that young people were in no way involved with Trump's victory.


Too broad. Who won the millennial white vote?

----------


## TheCount

> Too broad. Who won the millennial white vote?


Nobody. They didn't vote.

----------


## AuH20

> The alt-right didn't accomplish this.  Most Trump voters want nothing to do with the alt-right.


The Alt Right were the shock troops on the ground and social media.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> The alt-right didn't accomplish this. Most Trump voters want nothing to do with the alt-right.


It's true that the alt-right didn't accomplish this in the sense that they're a large part of Trump's voter base. There probably isn't much more than 50-100,000 legit alt-righters in the country. What they did do is push the memetics that lead to Trump's victory. 

The alt-right will always have more influence than their numbers suggest because they understand something that the left has understood for decades; politics is memetic warfare. The left has controlled the narrative for so long because of that. The right hasn't been this memetically savvy since the McCarthy Era.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Nobody. They didn't vote.


Nobody won a higher percentage of the white millennial vote... 

You're an idiot. Proven once again.

----------


## wizardwatson

> It's true that the alt-right didn't accomplish this in the sense that they're a large part of Trump's voter base. There probably isn't much more than 50-100,000 legit alt-righters in the country. What they did do is push the memetics that lead to Trump's victory. 
> 
> The alt-right will always have more influence than their numbers suggest because they understand something that the left has understood for decades; politics is memetic warfare. The left has controlled the narrative for so long because of that. The right hasn't been this memetically savvy since the McCarthy Era.


Maybe God is alt-right.  
Lots of names/memes.
Preference for specific race, highly family oriented.
Monarchist.

Not amoral, but pretty close otherwise.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Maybe God is alt-right. 
> Lots of names/memes.
> Preference for specific race, highly family oriented.
> Monarchist.
> 
> Not amoral, but pretty close otherwise.


Most alt-righters aren't monarchists, unfortunately. There's a reason I don't consider myself one of them.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Most alt-righters aren't monarchists, unfortunately. There's a reason I don't consider myself one of them.


I know what you are.  Another weirdo on RPF.  

I still don't know what role what you would consider alt-right really played in the Trump base.  The people I know at work that were early supporters are everyday folks, attracted to him because he felt that he spoke THEIR truth, as THEY speak it.  I feel Ron Paul kind of spoke the truth as it is.

I feel people responded to Trump because he played the willing martyr.  Paul really did project power, and composure and courage.  He was Tom Cruise in The Samurai after he learned the art.  Trump is the drunkard version before he learns that keeps getting up after every punch.  Unrefined.  Of course in physical stature perhaps the opposite was true.

The alt-right, a term I still think is rather nebulous by the way, may have been attracted to trump and squirted their pheremones at each other and others on behalf of Trump, but not really convinced they played any real role other than marching in his wake.

----------


## otherone

> The alt-right, a term I still think is rather nebulous by the way, may have been attracted to trump and squirted their pheremones at each other and others on behalf of Trump, but not really convinced they played any real role other than marching in his wake.


The alt-right is primarily millennials who live in their own internet echo chamber.  Like SJWs.

----------


## RandallFan

They turned "serious" Neocon policy tweets into absoluted $#@!posting & trolling.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> It's true that the alt-right didn't accomplish this in the sense that they're a large part of Trump's voter base. There probably isn't much more than 50-100,000 legit alt-righters in the country. What they did do is push the memetics that lead to Trump's victory. 
> 
> The alt-right will always have more influence than their numbers suggest because they understand something that the left has understood for decades; politics is memetic warfare. The left has controlled the narrative for so long because of that. The right hasn't been this memetically savvy since the McCarthy Era.


Did anyone decide to support Trump because they saw an internet meme?

----------


## TheCount

> Nobody won a higher percentage of the white millennial vote... 
> 
> You're an idiot. Proven once again.


It's ironic that you call others idiots when you appear to be completely incapable of critical thought.  Yes, Trump got more of the white millennial vote than Clinton, 48% to 43%.  Your problem, though, is taking this single fact and then molding it to fit your preconceptions.  White millennial support for Trump was 3 percentage points lower than it was for Romney.  Oh, and also, total youth turnout was the fourth lowest for any Republican since 1972.  Does that sound like a group that is 'for' Donald Trump, or at all a factor in winning the election for him?  Here's a pretty picture for you to look at in case this idiot's words are too confusing for you:

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> It's ironic that you call others idiots when you appear to be completely incapable of critical thought.


This coming from the guy who thought my complaints about Rotherham was equivalent to claiming that whites don't traffick people. Okay.




> Yes, Trump got more of the white millennial vote than Clinton, 48% to 43%.


So you saying "no one" won the white millennial vote is fatuous. Thank you.




> Your problem, though, is taking this single fact and then molding it to fit your preconceptions. White millennial support for Trump was 3 percentage points lower than it was for Romney. Oh, and also, total youth turnout was the fourth lowest for any Republican since 1972.


Except I didn't have any preconceptions, didn't mention Romney or any other election or candidate. I asked one question which has one answer. 




> Does that sound like a group that is 'for' Donald Trump, or at all a factor in winning the election for him? Here's a pretty picture for you to look at in case this idiot's words are too confusing for you:


I've already looked at the data. Nothing you say is remotely confusing, just idiotic. What would the election have looked like minus that 43% of white voters? He probably still would have won, but Trump is popular among politically active, voting white millennials.

Now -- and follow along with me -- Romney was_ also_ popular among politically active, voting white millennials. Just have to make that clear so you don't have another retard freakout where you assume things I haven't said and show me data I've already seen. Whites reject leftism to a far greater extent than all other races. Every piece of data that looks into this demonstrates that.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Did anyone decide to support Trump because they saw an internet meme?


It's a shame that the term "meme" has been associated with pictures of frogs and cats with funny captions. On the other hand, that is the purest representation of a meme, in a sense. Regardless, I'm not just talking about pictures on 4Chan. I'm talking about memetics as a whole. The aura of Trump as a saviour is something that came largely from the alt-right. The Trump support on Twitter and Facebook was heavily alt-right too. The alt-right is populist right wingers finally applying Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals in the internet age, whether they realize it or not.

----------


## TheCount

> So you saying "no one" won the white millennial vote is fatuous. Thank you.


Can you find data on any Republican presidential candidate ever who did worse with young whites than Trump?






> I've already looked at the data. Nothing you say is remotely confusing, just idiotic. What would the election have looked like minus that 43% of white voters? *He probably still would have won*, but Trump is popular among politically active, voting white millennials.


Popular with politically active young white voting millennials.

A subset of a subset of a subset of a subset.


You're trying, quite poorly, to reframe the issue.  The whole point of the thread is whether the alt right has accomplished anything.  The answer is no.  It's right there in the numbers, and in bold from your own post.

----------


## Danke

I forgot to add my race to my ballot. I wonder if they counted it.

----------


## oyarde

> I forgot to add my race to my ballot. I wonder if they counted it.


you can write it in under the President part .

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> It's a shame that the term "meme" has been associated with pictures of frogs and cats with funny captions. On the other hand, that is the purest representation of a meme, in a sense. Regardless, I'm not just talking about pictures on 4Chan. I'm talking about memetics as a whole. The aura of Trump as a saviour is something that came largely from the alt-right. The Trump support on Twitter and Facebook was heavily alt-right too. The alt-right is populist right wingers finally applying Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals in the internet age, whether they realize it or not.


Okay, I see your point.  I still think that Trump's victory had much more to do with hatred of Hillary than actually liking Trump.  Trump just happened to be the less hated candidate.

----------


## TheCount

> Nobody won a higher percentage of the white millennial vote...


Revisiting this:

24 million people under the age of 29 voted this year

There were 42.77 million people between the ages of 20 and 29 per 2012 census survey numbers.

Of course, that's 2 years shy of the actual voting population.  If we oversimplify and  assume that there's the same number of people for each year across that span, that's 4.2 million people per year of age.  18-29, 12 years, that's 51.324 million people.

Therefore, literally no one won the millennial vote because the majority did not vote.

----------

